Arnold goes subscription

#21

Sounds nice, but wholly unrealistic. You and I know that it’s a beauty pageant out there. The prettiest face and the biggest … assets… win the crown. Everybody else is just Miss Congeniality.

Nobody’s expecting your reel to be the next “Up” or your portfolio to contain a treasure trove of undiscovered da Vinci pieces. However, it’s a very competitive jobs market. You can’t afford to put out anything other than your best.

Is it an unrealistic expectation? Sometimes. Yeah. However, you’re often going to be facing some very unrealistic tasks and deadlines. A prospective employer only wants the cream of the crop, the ones who can rise to the challenges ahead.This requires a degree of proof.

That’s why the idea of a subscription only model, one which abandons perpetual licenses, is so damaging.

As I said, if you’re a student, who gives a crap. You’ve got some freebie licenses or are afforded some crazy deep discounts on full versions. If you’re a studio, you don’t care either. The subscription is an investment and your ROI will more than outweigh that cost. However, if you’re in that in-between category, software developers are (more or less) telling you that you don’t count. Not unless your mattress is lined with cash.

You’ve got to put your best foot forward when applying for job. Presentation is everything. Blender is amazing and is capable of astonishing feats in the right hands. However, it’s not what will get you that mainstream job. As I said in another thread, compliance is everything.

If you’ve got to put out a top notch portfolio and have do do so in a manner that ensures you can perform on the job, it’s going to cost you money. If you don’t qualify for an edu license and don’t have access to Tony Stark’s bank card then being able to swing the cost for many ongoing monthly subscriptions is going to hurt. It’s a case of needing money to make money. A perpetual license, while an even pricier outlay, is a one time deal. Subscriptions milk you in perpetuity… and you own nothing.

For a lot of people, it’s much easier to find a one time lump of cash than it is to consistently dig up smaller amounts every month. One subscription is fine. Two might be doable. When you’ve got a half dozen (potentially) or more to look forward to, you might as well just quit before you start.

Here’s the other argument I don’t get. I’ve heard people suggest, “Why don’t you just use an indie version and just earn the money that you need?” Sounds nice as long as you don’t mind breaking the EULA’s non-commercial use terms. Some people might be comfortable with that. Others? Not so much.

That doesn’t even account for the issue of being able to use those indie apps in a manner suitable for commercial work. Indie versions like Modo tie your hands behind your back SO hard. Just look at how many users complain about the 100k poly export limitation, which makes it nigh unusable for certain tasks - especially those that require you to work with 3rd party apps.

OH!!! What happens if you’re a working artist and suddenly find yourself laid off. Studios close all of the time. Here for one glorious project. Shut down after the next one fails to captivate. How are you, as an unemployed CG artist, expected to maintain a current and competitive portfolio for your next employer? Rent. Food. Utilities. Credit card bills. Car payments. Now you’ve got to tack on a gazillion subscriptions for a job you haven’t even gotten yet?

My point (again)? Subscriptions suck. They’re a giant middle finger to the working class artist. At least with a a perpetual license, you’ve still got something to work with when your studio turns off the lights for good. With a subscription? You’ve got bupkis.

Try getting an industry job with an outdated portfolio, using non-standard apps, and/or only doing half a job. Playblast?!?! You’ve gotta be kidding me. That’s barely one step above finger paints and crayons. Not realistic. Like it or not, until the industry decides to level the playing field in a very real manner, it’s a pay to play scenario.

FWIW, I think that this model is going to come back and bite these devs in the ass anyway. Their greed stands to potentially impact the size of their talent pool. Not every working artist comes from a school environment or is a transfer from another studio. The industry depends on wide range of talented individuals. These devs can’t afford to keep on pushing more and more of them away.

At some point, somebody’s going to come along and say, “Yeah. It’s not worth it anymore. We’re paying more into the system and getting less out of it. Time for an alternative. Time to shift away from ‘x’ and ‘y’ apps and create a new set of standards.” This subscription model might ultimately be the death of these mainstays. The devs should tread carefully and think of the big picture. Play that long game smarter or lose.

#22

Yeah. You know what? I’ve been doing CG for longer than some people here have been alive. I don’t ever remember such altruism existing.

Anybody else remember the days where Alias would charge $16k for Maya and nobody would bat an eye? It’s never been about building trust, but filling the coffers.

The big difference now is that devs have figured out a way to make you pay less, but forever. And why wouldn’t they? In an age where piracy is bigger and easier than ever, they’re going to want to find a way to offset those losses. What better way than to screw over those who are dependent on that software?

That’d be like charging a homeless person to eat at a soup kitchen, but at a discounted menu price. They’ve gotta eat. You feed them. However, you charge them and try to come off looking like a nice guy by touting how generous you were to offer them such a discount. D**k move.

To put it more bluntly, a subscription only model is drug dealer mentality. Here’s a user base that’s hooked and hopelessly dependent. It needs you, the dev, and has got no other place to go for that “fix”. Easy money. Hard to hear? Yeah. Hard to say too. It’s a brutal set of circumstances that now surrounds CG art though.

EDIT>>> FTR… I’m not saying that these devs are as evil as drug dealers.Don’t misunderstand. I’m just saying that they understand how software dependency works and have found a way to cash in on it. It’s a justifiable and 100% legal, if sickening, take on capitalism. Supply and demand if demand was also need, relative to profession and industry.

#23

THAT is what I find so harsh considering what you all get from Pixar for that money in addition to what Arnold offers.

#24

Guys… have you ever considered that you are not their intended customers?! It is obvious that Arnold is intended for large scale projects and studios, not for one man shops and hobbyists. And isn’t it great to pay just $65 per month when you need an extra node for a short project, instead of full retail price???

The other thing that is so fucking weird here, is this idea that companies should NOT profit maximize in order to give a couple of half ass artists world-class tools for next to nothing. What is sickening with making a good business? If you don’t like their prices, buy something else. Or if you think you can start a better more successful software company and NOT profit maximize, please do so.

#25

Why put it in there then?

I’m sick of hearing (including from Autodesk rep a while back) It’s not for you.

There’s far too much of it in there that’s ‘not for me’ - about the only thing that’s an obvious bonus for me in 2018 are trajectory handles - an absolute bargain at £700+

I’m happy to give devs money if I can see it being put to good use - it’s a mutual relationship with some - whereas Autodesk treat their customers like dirt and bullshit their way trying to con the users that it’s ‘a good thing’ or ‘simpler’ or some marketing rubbish.

I did buy something else, I bought V-Ray and Redshift aside from Max subscription I wouldn’t give AD another penny, and Max subscription is likely to go bye-bye in 2 years.

I’m not asking for something for nothing, I’d like to not hear bullshit from AD about perpetuals going nowhere and then them being ditched a year later.

I’d like to not swallow a 38% hike or give up my perpetual licence, I’d like not to be sent shitty legal letters about using old versions when a sub is cancelled.

All in all, I’d like to not be treated like shit from AD. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

This is just the latest in a long line of WTF moments from them.

#26

@masterofacid

If Solid Angle wanted to pull a Lytro, and completely remove themselves from the lower echelons of a client base and focus only on larger studios, I wouldn’t have a problem with that.

What I do get frustrated with is when your industry manager (Maurice Patel) says things like this: “The one thing I will stress is that we’re not going to discontinue perpetual licences for rendering. [Arnold] is a very different business model [to our other software, and] through the nature of how it supports other products, it just doesn’t make sense to do that. We know that many of the customers [who use other] 3D products don’t necessarily want to move to subscription. We’re not going to force [other companies’] subscription agendas.”

And then, you do exactly that.

Source:
http://www.cgchannel.com/2017/05/autodesk-to-discontinue-perpetual-licences-of-arnold/

#27

And the second time he’s done similar.

#28

Luke have you ever worked in a company with more than 100 people…?`
everything you say in a company that large could be turned to shit in 12 month…
even if you have good intentions the other will find a way to put you down…
i wont say Maurice has known what will happen…

#29

There is some truth to that: every government leader makes big promises to get your votes, then they hit the wall known as government bureaucracy and nothing gets done. Often times they completely reverse their policies. And yet, we still hold them accountable.

This is even more so if you’re the public face of a company, especially in today’s modern age of social media where a single fiasco can drop your stock prices through the toilet.

#30

Nobody’s against companies trying to maximize their profits. That’s all good and fine. Nobody’s asking for a free ride here either. To suggest that “x” group is not who ADSK is after is equally naive. ADSK should be targeting everybody and anybody with money.Everybody is a potential customer. That’s the issue.

By going subscription only they disturb the balance. There should be a level playing field where, ideally, your product could be in the hands of studios, students, and that big swath of individuals in-between. In promoting a culture where subscriptions are the norm, that broad group in the middle gets penalized. In attempting to maximize their earning potential, they’re nurturing a climate that excludes this widening (potential) customer base.

People would be complaining far less about subscriptions if it weren’t the only option. Taking perpetual licenses off the table is a misguided strategy and treating software as a service accomplishes nothing. If ADSK and its ilk think that it’ll stem the tide of piracy then they’re sorely mistaken. That stuff gets ripped on day one and moving to subscriptions hasn’t done one damn thing. What’s next? Go cloud-based and stop client-side installations? I’m sure that some genius over there will come up with that idea too. Fat lot of good it’ll do.

Imagine if Toyota suddenly decided that they were only interested in leases and said goodbye to outright sales. That’s pure insanity, right? Doing that excludes a whole group of individuals who either want, need, or can only afford to deal with a permanent ownership situation. You don’t just sell your car to one group. Everybody’s a customer. Period. Isn’t it bad enough that ADSK has actively opposed aftermarket sales? Again, that’d be like killing off used car lots. Insanity.

So, with aftermarket sales prohibited and perpetual licenses disappearing, you can surely see how these companies have inspired some neverending ire from current, potential, and former customers.

Level playing field. Words for the day.

#31

I distinctly remember Autodesk telling me that Softimage was not for me either. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

#32

Again. The tone of this thread is very weird. You all seem to ask for equality like it is civil right case we are talking about. Yes, what if Toyota did that. Well, it is a consumer product, which a render engine is not. Apples and oranges. ADSK does of course prefer volume customers, instead of 1000’s of single seats. But no one buys a 1000 cars… But as far as I have read, the private leasing business of cars is booming, so people seem to be happy with car “subscriptions”.
It is always refereed to “people complains about subscription”, but does ADSK best customers (those who buys 100’s or 1000’s or licenses) complains??? I am sure they are very happy with the flexibility that comes with subscriptions otherwise ADSK would never have introduced that option. What if ADSK go bankrupt tomorrow, what will you do then??? No Maya, no Max, no nothing. Be happy that they try to maximize their profits so they will survive.

And, if you don´t like ADSK. Spend your money somewhere else.

#33

You, sir, are completely delusional. Or something else that etiquette prevents me to say…

#34

I just think arnold is an odd choice for Autodesk to include and promote, to then make make it even more unaffordable to use.

#35

I wouldn’t say delusional so much as I would tone deaf. Read the room, Anders.

In opting for a subscription only model, Autodesk stands to alienate former, current, and prospective users. The end user is the life-blood of the industry. It is the very backbone. Autodesk, and those like them, should be doing their very best to grow its user base, not contract it. Without these users, there is no industry. No artists. No work.

As the market leader, it is Autodesk’s responsibility, its duty, to strongly consider this issue from all angles. Subscriptions, as an option, are fine. I’m not complaining. To best serve the most potential end users, subscription just shouldn’t be the only option, edu licenses aside. It’s not a model that best serves all artists, especially those of diminished income like the recently laid off. As I said, studio closure or gaps between projects isn’t all that uncommon, especially for freelancers.

I don’t know how long you’ve been an artist, Anders, or how long you’ve been in the industry. Just take it from those with decades of experience. This path… This attitude… This approach being adopted by Autodesk, and those like them, is as tone deaf as your response. There’s a difference between maximizing profit as a means to growth and long term stability and outright greed for greed’s sake. Autodesk is quite often guilty of taking a idgaf stance against its own customers that is truly of Martin Shkreli proportions.

Once again, I’m not the biggest fan of subscriptions. I deal with them because, frankly, I’ve got no real choice. I get why they exist and why they should exist. I’m just saying that they shouldn’t be the only game in town. That paints customers AND Autodesk into a corner.

And just to add one thing. Instead of, essentially, telling users to f*** off, Autodesk should take a cue from Allegorithmic, maker of Substance Designer and Painter.

Allegorithmic offers a perpetual license indie version that is 100% functional and commercially usable at a substantially reduced cost. The only key limitation is that, given the nature of the license and associated price, you are only only allowed to make “x” number of dollars using it. Make more than that, move up to a pro license. How do they escape the subscription conundrum? Simple. Annual maintenance. Pay “y” amount every 12 months and get your regular upgrades. Stop paying and your version stops receiving upgrades, but continues to work. That is more than reasonable.

Autodesk could be doing that.

Instead, by being stubborn, greedy babies, they’re fostering a climate of piracy. I’m not saying that piracy in the general case is their fault. I’m saying that Autodesk’s myopic view on licensing and customer relations is making an already bad problem worse.

What’s their answer to the problem? How do they try to placate this group of users? They put out an indie version that is A) still subscription only and B) stripped to near uselessness. It’s a token gesture that smacks of pandering. They’re not really serious about anything other than the matriculating or the multi-license studios.

FTR, I get why they abandoned permanent license. I don’t agree, but I get it. Autodesk was faced with the issue of having to offer support to legacy versions that dated back as far as 4 or 5 years. That’s a potential nightmare for support and an even bigger one for developers. It was cutting into everything else that needed to be done. This was Adobe’s complaint too, especially as it related to maintenance of legacy activations.

However, there is a better way to handle the issue than outright abandoning the perpetual licenses. There’s a need for them and a customer base. That’s money being thrown away in favor of nurturing career long dependence with no promise of actual ownership, or at least the illusion thereof.

Tone… deaf.

#36

to me, it’s pretty simple:

  • arnold isn’t for freelancers or small shops,
    but for large facilities, those who don’t seem to complain about sub.

  • ad knew that.

  • they made it rental-only and expensive.

  • big facilities will pay.

#37

You’re right in suggesting that Arnold isn’t for everybody, Steve. I wouldn’t necessarily chalk that up to price though. As someone who subscribes to Adobe CS at the same rate, $600/year in and of itself isn’t a huge deal. Whether or not one needs Arnold all depends on their personal rendering needs. That’s about it. If you’re going to routinely use Arnold and see its value then the $600 is justified even for a freelancer. You’ll make that back pretty easily.

It’s not a price thing, at least not to me. Cumulatively? Yeah. The issue of having multiple subscriptions across the board is potentially damaging. One subscription by itself? No. It’s not a monumentally large number. I’ve spent more than that on garbage that I don’t need. There’s a bigger issue at stake, one that extends well beyond Arnold as a product. It’s the move over to subscription itself that’s really ruffling feathers here more than anything else.

It bothers me a little when you suggest that Arnold isn’t for people who complain about subscriptions. That’s like saying, “You don’t like the food at that restaurant? Stop eating there. It’s not for you.” I get what you’re saying, but maybe… just maybe… the problem IS the food and that should be addressed. Suggesting that this restaurant isn’t for me won’t solve anything. Similarly, suggesting that Arnold isn’t for people who complain about subscriptions doesn’t address the problems inherent in a subscription only model. It just says, “Go away. No room for people who complain. Your complaints will fall on deaf ears.”

I’m not suggesting that you’re being insensitive. Not at all. I just think that it’s okay to complain.

Some people like to bitch and moan for no reason. I agree. 100%. However, there are some of us who complain from a place of legitimate concern. It’s that user who aims to help the developer craft a better experience and even a better product. Feedback is essential. As artists, we know that this is core to our growth. It’s nice to hear when people love our stuff, but far, FAR better when people tell us that it sucks, why, and how to improve. That’s why you ask an impartial 3rd party for constructive input instead of your mom. :slight_smile:

Autodesk is behaving like a lot of newbies and temperamental veterans often do. The feedback could be genuine and sincere, but they don’t want to hear it. They only want the glowing praise. They insist that this negative input is coming from a vocal minority, which isn’t always true. How often have we seen this narrow mentality torpedo game & hardware developers over the years? Know what I’m saying?

Just because somebody disagrees doesn’t automatically make them wrong. It also doesn’t automatically exclude them from the conversation. Just because I gripe about my Adobe subscription every time it’s due for renewal doesn’t mean that will stop using it. It just means that I’m dissatisfied with how Adobe chooses to license its product and how it ultimately impacts its users. My complaint is just as valid, even if I reluctantly buy into the flawed system.

#38

Microsoft does also play with Arnold
https://rendering.azure.com/?linkId=37447507

#39

Or just use Arnold in it’s fully functioning demo mode until you have something that needs to be rendered without the watermark. Then you can either pay by the hour for cloud rendering or rent Arnold for a month. Basically making Arnold free until you render a final.

If Arnold stays on top of its functionality game while cloud render services become more accessible and prices drop, you might just find a lot of freelancers taking that path.

That said, their subscription price-to-practical-usefulness ratio is way off the mark compared to Adobe.

#40

Not everyone can work that way, especially when you have clients who need rendered results of progress made on a daily basis - clients who don’t want to be seeing a giant 3rd party watermark on their images.

One of the benefits of having a small render farm is that I can render out a full animated sequence of a few hundred frames each night to share with the client for review. But @ $65/day/node - it would dramatically crank up costs.

Whereas with VrayforC4D, I have unlimited render nodes when using C4D’s network render at no extra cost, no matter how much I use them throughout the year.