The FAQ states that this is part of Solid Angle’s integration into Autodesk’s business ecosystem.
In light of this (bits and pieces being completely absorbed), I wonder if it’s possible that Solid Angle will eventually cease to exist and Arnold will simply be referred to as an Autodesk product? Another question is whether this will cause a lot of people to avoid Arnold if they are not already using Max and Maya (considering the number of engines still providing a perpetual licensing model and considering the rise of Cycles as a viable Open Source solution). The cost for one thing is significantly higher than that for many other specialized products (600+ a year, both in dollars and euros, with the prospect of losing access if you can no longer afford it).
I also wonder about the fate of their technical papers, will their publishing be ceased altogether?
At least there’s plenty of lower-cost alternatives, but it is clear that they are intending the engine to be one for larger studios (since the price already is not an easy reach for individuals).
I’m not sure about that, as it’s way to important a solution for the industry to just fade out of existence.
Just its use among the big VFX houses may be enough to keep it going (even if all of the individual and small-studio users stay away from it). They can afford to pay subscription prices far higher than what it is now (and why would Autodesk care if only the big studios use it, that is where the money is).
Worth noting that the annual subscription cost is WAYY higher than the current maintenance prices are. Support/Maintenance is currently around $225/node (I forget the exact amount). It only takes 3-4 years for the new sub to be more expensive than buying a permanent seat + annual maintenance.
shrug Autodesk gonna Autodesk. Nobody actually likes them, we just put up with them because nobody has a better solution.
Blender has much better solutions. Cycles for one.
And (completely biased here) but I should point out that Pixar’s RenderMan is free and non-watermarked, and has no time limit for non-commercial use. And it is cheaper than Arnold even before this. And it actually has a Blender addon.
Makes you wonder how much additional sales RenderMan might get out of this.
Everybody and their mother was talking about Arnold a year or so ago but I’ve noticed it’s a lot more subdued lately. RenderMan’s RIS, on the other hand, seems to be pretty hot. Star Wars, Jungle Book, Batman vs. Superman, Finding Dory…
Arnold is nice but Renderman for me remains the King, and in addition is a pathtracer that also supports the caustic. All this ADO about Arnold is misplaced.
Watching Blender-only artists weigh in on the industry is cute…
Look, development and R&D cost money. Without the generosity of entities like a Solid Angle and Pixar and Disney and WETA who have deep pockets to hire world class researchers who then release white papers of their hard work for free, Blender and Cycles wouldn’t be 1/10 of what they are today. And the industry, as a whole, likes the subscription model because it works well with filming schedules of unknown duration and unforeseen production hiccups. When production ends, they can kill the subscription until another production gets to the point where rendering is needed again. Know that you, the hobbyist, are not any CG product’s bread and butter when it comes to revenue.
Maybe it sucks a bit that the individual can’t buy a perpetual license (but let’s be honest here, none of you forked out for an Arnold license), but it’s a sound business decision that will be appreciated by production studios.
And if you’re not seeing movies or shows that use Arnold, then you’re just not seeing movies or shows. If it’s not made by Pixar, Disney, or Blue Sky, it’s pretty much guaranteed to be using Arnold for shots.
Just because I’m a hobbyist doesn’t mean I’m ignorant to the industry.
I admit that I’m partial to Renderman, mostly due to how they’re approaching the hobbyists like myself. Granted their business situation is completely different from Solid Angle’s (someone joked that Renderman’s sales are the equivalent of a rounding error for Disney. I doubt that’s the same for SA).
But that’s my preference, and those are A-Holes just like opinions, cause everybody has one.
That is a lot of money.
One year Arnold subscription is like a one perpetual license of Renderman with Maintenance, or Redshift.
2 years of subscription is like one perpetual license of Clarisse. Or Renderman + Redshift.
The response from the industry veterans at CGTalk is not that much better (and not only do they have the money for software like Maya, they are outside of the ‘Blender bubble’). http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=59&t=1449398
The perspective from those who run large studios might be different though (where 600 USD a year for one node is a drop in the bucket compared to their total income).
Eh, that’s just a handful of people complaining that something that was already too expensive for them is now more expensive. These people are not in the market for Arnold anyway.
Remember (not too long ago) when Solid Angle didn’t even publicly sell their software? They’re just not after the low end of the market, at least for now.
Who the fuck actually uses Renderman? It can’t be the people complaining about Arnold pricing, because Renderman is so complex you practically need an entire studio of experts to get anything done with it.
The fact that Renderman now also is a Path Tracer is owed to Arnold replacing it in major productions, because of the vastly superior workflow. According to Marcos of Solid Angle, these customers aren’t asking for things like path-traced caustics, so they’re not wasting development time on optimizing for that.
That’s assuming an equal-weighted cost structure. With the number of licenses at the large studios they may be paying anywhere from 450 - 500 per. And it’s also assuming a static licensing structure; they could be using an Enterprise or token-based licensing which is charged out at a base cost plus daily use. When things are slow they only pay out the base cost, when things are busy they automatically have as many as they need.
Beerbaron; As far as I have read, Renderman is much easier to use now and no longer requires the user to have an abundance of technical knowledge (it’s in the same ballpark as the other pathtracers). There was an article for instance on how the lighting for Monster’s University was a far easier job than the same in the movies before it.
They do have a new programming API for shaders though, but many other advanced engines like Arnold also has one and they don’t require the artist to learn it before making images and animations.
Yup, PRMan as an engine is amazing. The one thing lacking for an artist (thus for studio) is a ‘common language’ usage. Material creation & lighting shouldn’t be complex as a rocket science mixed with electrical engineering full of jargon & technical mumbo-jumbo.
Too much thinking & learning to understand or at least to settle in mind of what a certain word means (action does) is counter productive. It is what keeps young wannabe artists away.
Why common human thinks it understands the theory of relativity… because it was simple exhibition of what E=mc2 means - KABOOM!!!.
Arnold provided such simplicity.
Believe me, Arnold customer base is complaining, mainly individuals and small studios. Autodesk will stop selling maintenance plans for perpetual licenses as soon as the move is barely disgestible, legally they can do it and that is peanuts compared with what they have done to other software. Marcos no longer controls marketing of Arnold and the subscription model is so much more profitable for AD, and they have the infrastructure to do it.
Yeah there is a lot of truth to what you stated. But I have to agree that I also have some stomach pain with the subscription mode. You do not own the software anymore.
it is quite true that for how much AD as a company is attacked, they how ever also do a lot of research and release data to the public. Something everybody should be thankfull for.
But on the other side in the recent years we lost a lot of quality options - and as much as many favor open source in my view since being with with since 1995 it never really produced a product that is equally good as commercial apps. Blender and Scribus seem to be the two main conptent creation apps that really feel feature complete.
In 3D as well as DTP and graphics many companies and apps are gone. Adobe today somewhat dominates the area.
But fortunately Affinity provides price wise an incredible package for dramatically less money.
In 3D they cost quite a lot of money Maya 3DMax C4D or Modo. Once Modo was cheap recently the price increased deeply.
obviously for companies that only need to rent for a project the software the subscription mode makes a lot of sense.
and you can always use the latest software which is an added bonus.
but for smaller studio, or designers (excluding hobby users) this is a pricy proposition - but they Ithink are also not the main target market.
thankfully there is blender that with all its flaws however produces a pretty strong 3d design environment for most of our needs.
I agree with 99.9% of what you wrote, but I’m curious why they can’t offer both perpetual licenses and rental options. My initial thoughts are that this would give them the highest revenues but maybe I’m missing something.