Autodesk - Please Provide Some Guidance

#1

Dear Autodesk,

Could you please indicate something…anything…about Mudbox and its future?

It is widely believed that you intend to phase out Mudbox. I don’t know why you would want to do this. You have a great product with a significant following that would love to continue. There are many more that would use Mudbox if they knew development were to continue. Additionally, if you were to incorporate the geo creation technology that was previewed during this last year, Mudbox would become a powerhouse sculpting app that would attract a dominant share of the market. You must know this.

Your silence regarding these “kill” rumors is leading most to believe they must be true. This is causing many to either stay away from Mudbox or to leave Mudbox for a competing product. In an effort to protect your business, you maintain the position that you do not discuss future development. In this case, however, your silence is hurting your business. Furthermore, many are beginning to doubt if they should continue using Autodesk products at all, given the lack of concern for the customer base. I have seen many discussions to this effect on the other Autodesk forums. If growing your business is important, than your silence is not helping your cause.

I have been a staunch defender of Autodesk. However, I am beginning to lose faith. When you reach the point of losing me, you will have definitely reached the point of losing most.

I appeal to your better business sense. Please say something.

Sincerely,

An Autodesk Advocate

Please note that I have also posted this appeal on the Area forums. I am posting in both forums to improve the chances that it will be seen by someone at Autodesk.

#2

I’ve seen it mentioned on other forums that Mudbox is going to be integrated into Maya. I haven’t seen any confirmation from Autodesk in regard to this rumor, so I don’t know if it’s true or not, but that really sucks for Mudbox users because that means you will have to purchase Maya in order to keep using Mudbox.

#3

Maya would be super, super, duper expensive if you were only interested in sculpting and/or texturing.

Autodesk should keep Mudbox separate from Maya. The integration is very good currently. I don’t understand the desire to roll Mudbox into Maya. It makes Maya unnecessarily heavy. Keeping it separate would facilitate all interested parties.

Another thing…Mudbox, coupled with the technology that was previewed in this last year, would be a very attractive stand-alone sculpting package. I believe Autodesk would make some serious money on such a package. If they roll it into Maya, they lose that revenue opportunity. I doubt they would be successful raising the Maya price enough to outperform both Maya and Mudbox as separate products.

#4

Yeah, I agree completely, but this wouldn’t be the first time Autodesk has killed off a program in order to boost their other programs. Remember Softimage?

My thinking is that Mudbox may be underperforming in terms of sales. Merging it with Maya will make Maya more powerful and therefore more expensive. Whatever revenue they lose by having Mudbox users jump over to ZBrush or 3DCoat will probably be offset by the increased cost of Maya, which I believe is one of their more popular programs.

Just my thoughts anyway.

#5

I received a reply from Autodesk on the Area forum. Here is the link:

Autodesk Response

#6

Hmmmmm, kind of a vague answer. He didn’t really say yes or no to continuing Mudbox. He just said they would continue to invest in 3D paint and sculpting tools. Not sure if that means in Maya or Mudbox? Oh well, I guess time will tell.

#7

There has been further discussion on this issue in the Area forum. Autodesk has provided additional commentary. The link follows:

Autodesk Further Response