4 ms·

Spine is cool, but I find it ridiculous for more and more tool software for games to force Enterprise licenses, rev share, etc onto developers. >Businesses wit

by ugh123 2y ago

Spine is cool, but I find it ridiculous for more and more tool software for games to force Enterprise licenses, rev share, etc onto developers. >Businesses with more than $500,000 USD annual revenue require a Spine Enterprise license

yellowapple 2y ago
If you're making $500k/year in revenue, Spine's license cost is probably the least of your worries. I tend to be averse to proprietary dependencies more from a maintainability/longevity aspect than a cost aspect. If Esoteric Software goes out of business, who develops future versions of Spine? Are they kind enough to open-source it before turning the lights off? Does it get sold to some other company that runs it into the ground? Does development just cease? Are there licensing servers that the tools and SDKs and such have to ping to be functional, and if so, what happens when those servers shut down?
- a1o 2y ago
  To be honest I am surprised there isn't an open source alternative for this type of animation in 2D - I only know of blender and lottie as somewhat closer to it but nothing that is quite like Spine.
  - npinsker 2y ago
    Blender (via https://github.com/ndee85/coa_tools https://github.com/ndee85/coa_tools) and Godot's Skeleton2D node are both open-source. I'd assume Spine's advanced features far outpace them, but I also suspect the need for such features is rare.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    2D skeletal animation is an order of magnitude easier than 3d, but still a huge task in and of itself, with unique issues working with sprites compared to meshes. So it still requires very skilled understanding of art and physics, but there's a lot less demand as the AA/AAA industry is 99% 3d in the west. It's not open source, but the best competitor to Spine is probably Live2D, which is used by a lot of Eastern studios (and basically dominant in the mobile space). You'd probably find some open source implementations over in Japan.
  - Johanx64 2y ago
    Spine is extremely polished, thought out and well written piece of software. Expecting that somebody will do this kind of highest quality work for free is ludicrous.
    - badsectoracula 2y ago
      You could say the same about Blender, Krita and a bunch of other open source programs.
      - badlogic 2y ago
        We actually come from a strong FOSS background (Kryo, libGDX, and more). For Spine, FOSS didn't make sense to us, as you either end up with open-core, which over time will shift incentives to work on the proprietary parts, or a donation based funding model, which is stressful and unpredictable.
      - Johanx64 2y ago
        I would not say same for Blender. Blender had absolutely god horrid UX for decades (it still has in many places) it is only very recently that they have gotten a bit better and polished some of the rough edges. I don't know about Krita, but most open source software of considerable complexity and scope has god awful UX. It's no accident you named only two, of which Blender was infamous for it's bad UI and unintuitive nature. Gimp is also the type of UX you generally get from foss.
        badsectoracula 2y ago
        > Blender had absolutely god horrid UX for decades Yes, but it doesn't have it anymore: i personally know several 3D artists who switched from other (commercial, proprietary) programs to Blender and absolutely love it. You'll also find a ton of videos on YouTube from 3D artists praising it. How it used to be is irrelevant because my point is that being opensource didn't prevent it to become a tool that is loved by its users for its UI. It is also why... > It's no accident you named only two ...i named Blender and Krita specifically (and intentionally, thus indeed not an accident) and did not brought up GIMP or anything else, because Krita is also loved for its UI (even if i personally am not a big fan of it, there are many artists who use it and like it). My point was, again, that being opensource doesn't prevent having good UX - lacking good UX is not a byproduct of being opensource, it is a byproduct of the developers who wrote the software not caring about good UX.
- ugh123 2y ago
  It just seems like a "money grab" for them to claim a chunk of success for my game/product each year when I probably don't need any more support for the tool than when I was < $500k/year in revenue.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    If you could make 500k/year (and lets say it reduces to a drastic 200k after taxes/platform cuts), I don't see why paying 1.25% (+0.2% per extra seat) is a hard ask for a core tech.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- nox101 2y ago
  This is all true but tons of the industry functions on FMOD, Havok, RadTools, and many other proprietary dependencies.
  - yellowapple 2y ago
    I have the same concern about those proprietary dependencies, too.
taneq 2y ago
The enterprise license here seems pretty reasonable. $2.5k/yr+$370/yr per extra seat with no revenue share, and no cutoff for your existing products at the end of the year.
mmooss 2y ago
> Spine is cool, but I find it ridiculous for more and more tool software for games to force Enterprise licenses, rev share, etc onto developers. Price your software they way you want Spine to price theirs, and you'll fall under the 500K threshold and be all set.
wredue 2y ago
I love the developers are seeing that they deserve to be paid for their work and that corporations do not deserve to make money hand over fist for free. More developers, especially “open source” ones, need to be charging corporations for their work.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
badlogic 2y ago
The Enterprise license doesn't claim any revenue share. It's a subscription model that triggers above a revenue threshold. It cross-finances the non-enterprise, pay once lifetime licenses for individuals, which get updates forever.
thegolyo 2y ago
Spine is used extensively in the gambling industry for 2d slot machines, so it makes sense to have a licensing model to accomodate these users, while still offering a tier for indie devs.
torginus 2y ago
Isn't this trivial to get around? What if you worked with individual art contractors (which is not that uncommon in of itself), then the revenue requirement wouldn't manifest on your side, but theirs.
- badlogic 2y ago
  It's fine if they don't use the Spine Runtimes to playback animations, i.e. via sprite sheets. Most will want to use the Spine Runtimes though, which requires them to have a Spine license.

by ugh123 2y ago

yellowapple 2y ago

If you're making $500k/year in revenue, Spine's license cost is probably the least of your worries. I tend to be averse to proprietary dependencies more from a maintainability/longevity aspect than a cost aspect. If Esoteric Software goes out of business, who develops future versions of Spine? Are they kind enough to open-source it before turning the lights off? Does it get sold to some other company that runs it into the ground? Does development just cease? Are there licensing servers that the tools and SDKs and such have to ping to be functional, and if so, what happens when those servers shut down?

a1o 2y ago
To be honest I am surprised there isn't an open source alternative for this type of animation in 2D - I only know of blender and lottie as somewhat closer to it but nothing that is quite like Spine.
- npinsker 2y ago
  Blender (via https://github.com/ndee85/coa_tools https://github.com/ndee85/coa_tools) and Godot's Skeleton2D node are both open-source. I'd assume Spine's advanced features far outpace them, but I also suspect the need for such features is rare.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  2D skeletal animation is an order of magnitude easier than 3d, but still a huge task in and of itself, with unique issues working with sprites compared to meshes. So it still requires very skilled understanding of art and physics, but there's a lot less demand as the AA/AAA industry is 99% 3d in the west. It's not open source, but the best competitor to Spine is probably Live2D, which is used by a lot of Eastern studios (and basically dominant in the mobile space). You'd probably find some open source implementations over in Japan.
- Johanx64 2y ago
  Spine is extremely polished, thought out and well written piece of software. Expecting that somebody will do this kind of highest quality work for free is ludicrous.
  - badsectoracula 2y ago
    You could say the same about Blender, Krita and a bunch of other open source programs.
    - badlogic 2y ago
      We actually come from a strong FOSS background (Kryo, libGDX, and more). For Spine, FOSS didn't make sense to us, as you either end up with open-core, which over time will shift incentives to work on the proprietary parts, or a donation based funding model, which is stressful and unpredictable.
    - Johanx64 2y ago
      I would not say same for Blender. Blender had absolutely god horrid UX for decades (it still has in many places) it is only very recently that they have gotten a bit better and polished some of the rough edges. I don't know about Krita, but most open source software of considerable complexity and scope has god awful UX. It's no accident you named only two, of which Blender was infamous for it's bad UI and unintuitive nature. Gimp is also the type of UX you generally get from foss.
      - badsectoracula 2y ago
        > Blender had absolutely god horrid UX for decades Yes, but it doesn't have it anymore: i personally know several 3D artists who switched from other (commercial, proprietary) programs to Blender and absolutely love it. You'll also find a ton of videos on YouTube from 3D artists praising it. How it used to be is irrelevant because my point is that being opensource didn't prevent it to become a tool that is loved by its users for its UI. It is also why... > It's no accident you named only two ...i named Blender and Krita specifically (and intentionally, thus indeed not an accident) and did not brought up GIMP or anything else, because Krita is also loved for its UI (even if i personally am not a big fan of it, there are many artists who use it and like it). My point was, again, that being opensource doesn't prevent having good UX - lacking good UX is not a byproduct of being opensource, it is a byproduct of the developers who wrote the software not caring about good UX.
ugh123 2y ago
It just seems like a "money grab" for them to claim a chunk of success for my game/product each year when I probably don't need any more support for the tool than when I was < $500k/year in revenue.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  If you could make 500k/year (and lets say it reduces to a drastic 200k after taxes/platform cuts), I don't see why paying 1.25% (+0.2% per extra seat) is a hard ask for a core tech.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
nox101 2y ago
This is all true but tons of the industry functions on FMOD, Havok, RadTools, and many other proprietary dependencies.
- yellowapple 2y ago
  I have the same concern about those proprietary dependencies, too.

taneq 2y ago

The enterprise license here seems pretty reasonable. $2.5k/yr+$370/yr per extra seat with no revenue share, and no cutoff for your existing products at the end of the year.

mmooss 2y ago

> Spine is cool, but I find it ridiculous for more and more tool software for games to force Enterprise licenses, rev share, etc onto developers. Price your software they way you want Spine to price theirs, and you'll fall under the 500K threshold and be all set.

wredue 2y ago

I love the developers are seeing that they deserve to be paid for their work and that corporations do not deserve to make money hand over fist for free. More developers, especially “open source” ones, need to be charging corporations for their work.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

badlogic 2y ago

The Enterprise license doesn't claim any revenue share. It's a subscription model that triggers above a revenue threshold. It cross-finances the non-enterprise, pay once lifetime licenses for individuals, which get updates forever.

thegolyo 2y ago

Spine is used extensively in the gambling industry for 2d slot machines, so it makes sense to have a licensing model to accomodate these users, while still offering a tier for indie devs.

torginus 2y ago

Isn't this trivial to get around? What if you worked with individual art contractors (which is not that uncommon in of itself), then the revenue requirement wouldn't manifest on your side, but theirs.

badlogic 2y ago
It's fine if they don't use the Spine Runtimes to playback animations, i.e. via sprite sheets. Most will want to use the Spine Runtimes though, which requires them to have a Spine license.