in general, subscription based software can be interesting, as has been pointed out here already. I would be fine with that - as long as there is an option, where I could choose between perpetual and subscription based.
One point is important though, if you stop working and retire, but want to continue to do 3D art - then you need to continue with your monthly payments or switch software.
Other companies also offer subscription based models, but sell perpetual licenses too. Or look at allegorithmic, after a certain amount of subscription, you get a permanent license. That is probably as customer friendly as it can be, apart from free or opensource software.
Hopefully they all will get sued (one should offer options of what they are providing or move from the ‘free’ market)… it’s long gone, the feudalism. After a year of payments previous version should belong to the user. Next thing you’ll know are rental cars only. Communists of the capitalistic world, there’s no more intellectual property (?)… seems Marx & Engels had a vision.
I don’t think pushing the idea of the government to force companies into providing perpetual licenses is going to solve anything.
In fact, I do not agree that everything should be the matter of the state to solve. Otherwise the US will be like Europe and have books of regulations almost to the point of industries being micromanaged by bureaucrats.
Really? Seems the Blender Foundation funding model might disagree with you.
Like it or not, software being protected by copyright means it’s whatever the copyright holders want it to be. If they want to license their copyrighted material as a service - they are free to do so. I don’t think AutoDesk doing that is smart or good for the customers, but they have every right to license the application how they please.
To add to the above, technically users do not own software. They buy/obtain the license to use it, given by who ever owns the software. Its why nearly all software has some form of license agreement (or EULA) attached, its also why you cant take code or modify it legally without the consent of the software owner. Games technically also fall under the same category, as they are software.
There was a case awhile back where some guy bought a bunch of used copies of AutoCAD at a yardsale in which he resold them for a higher profit on ebay… short version of the story was that it ended up in court with autodesk on one end and the guy on the other. Courts ended up ruling that the license doesnt transfer with the disc or to anyone else unless its specifically allowed by the software owner (in this cause autodesk). The software agreement includes clauses which say non transferable, so this part of the agreement (when using software) cannot be ignored.
Anyways… software as a licensed product is never truly owned in the traditional sense, so it leaves the actual software owners to pretty much do what they want with their software as long as it follows the license agreements first agreed upon unless the user agrees to a new one which voids the first.
… … … :p.
Blender cloud is a service provider.
Blender3D is a software that anyone is free to own & change & redistribute. A free & open source product.
Product is a product. Fork is a product. A tool is a product. Diesel engine is a product. Drawing tool is a product. Computer is a product. Program is a product.
Mah, needless to say, you are a product born in debt. Enjoy.
You still buy the licence, And as it is said in art, science and biology. Just because you can do something, Does not mean it is a good idea.
I’m just wondering how long till one has to prove they did not use an autodesk product to make something,
Besides have you ever read their eula’s? Or any for that matter? Its worth doing sometime.
It’s not as clear-cut as that. Companies can write all sorts of things into their EULA, that doesn’t mean it is going to hold up in court. US courts may have decided that EULA clauses regarding license resale are valid (despite the first sale doctrine), but EU courts have decided otherwise. Also, there are laws that explicitly allow modifying code for purposes such as interoperability, and you can legally jailbreak your iPhone (in the US). The reason you cannot just “take code” (by which I assume you mean copying it to use for your own purposes) is copyright law, not EULAs.
Subscription licenses with monthly fees and online checks are real nemesis for long term projects such as animations and videogames. I think Cinema 4d and Houdini FX (but also Blender and Modo) will gain more importance in next years.
I agree somewhat, But the strategist in me keeps two things in mind, First people as a whole tend not to make stupid decisions. And second is somehow autodesk see’s this as a good idea, What do they see that we do not?
What they see is studio owners, want to start a studio the cost of entry has dropped to a couple hundred bucks a month, one C4D seat is 3600+ not including MSA, $4000+ for Houndini unless you plan to make under $100k, Autodesk cares not for the single guy, the one man studio or the freelancer
It looks nice in the short term, but there is more then just the cost of entry. And yes the pay as you go is helpful for start-ups on paper at least. But the useful life expectancy these applications is extending with every generation. So at a point I find myself asking this. How many times will the value of this software be paid for in the course of a studio’s life time?
As an example - What can studio/artist do with all the asset created after stop using certain tools but will want to export for further use in another format? Will this mean that all work done is worthless without holding license for tools the project was created with?
So, a smart workflow will be to create all asset in open formats, cuz one day there’s no license for tools to work with.
Could also mean for XSI users to stop creating using their tools?
Ok, here is a little story for you guys… it’s about my experience with this “company” called Autodesk.
The only AD product I used was Softimage and that was only because AD bought Softimage from Avid some years ago. I had “Gold Subscription”, for 700€/year. In 2012 AD raised the subscription price to approx 800€/year, but offered existing customers to extend their subscription for 3 years in advance instead of only one year at the old price level. I took this offer to (hopefully) save some money in the long run and wanted to send a clear signal to Autodesk, that I am still very much interested in using Softimage and that I want it’s development being pushed to new levels. Well, after me paying approx 2000€ for the 3-year subscription extension I witnessed an overall slowdown of development, all Softimage versions after 2013 were a bad joke, Stephen Blair, the only good Softimage support guy at AD got fired and then the final kick in the balls with the announcent about the end of Softimage.
So, my opinion about AD is not based on some simple “rebel ideology”, it’s based on very bad experience.
This is one of the reasons, why I am learning Blender now and I am glad, that I will never have to go into bed with AD again for the rest of my life. I don’t care anymore what they discontue next and what kind of “license models” they come up with next.
I was actually thinking about trying 3ds max but after reading this it seems I’ll just stick with blender and hope it gets its place in the industry somewhere. I know some people use it in some studios but it seems like they do the less important things. I hope though that we would get a chance in the industry instead of being looked down on as a minority who use open source programs… Autodesk products are just way too over priced and I don’t like how content can be locked away from you.
I used to be squarely in the AD camp, but since the license model change, it had me rethink my tools and why I use them, 3dsmax was becoming a plugin hideout, So Im in the process of replacing it with Houdini, I’ve always had my eye on blender and now Im looking to replace Maya for Character Animation we’ll see but Blender is taking a major role in my pipeline, between Cycles and Renderman, with Houdini, I hope to be AD free by year end Wish me luck
Anytime you can find a way to get by with only FOSS software it is a great thing. I don’t think anyone would disagree with that.
The real problem is that as of this writing the majority of studios and individuals in business cannot get off so easy. It is an extremely cut throat and highly-competitive market.
The domination in the industry is technological first and financial second. And this is a hard fact. It is what drives the marketing. And Blender is a huge factor - in my opinion - driving the cost of software down and the prevalence of “indie versions” up. In fact in the last year alone, the rise of free or inexpensive indie versions of commercial software has been quite alarming.
However, becoming a technological leader comes at a cost. This is another hard fact. And no FOSS without huge financial resources can compete with a commercial software that has the technological/financial edge.
An FOSS app can shape the landscape of the industry. Very much how Blender does. But just offering a free FOSS application is not enough.
Even Blender’s financial model has changed over the years to facilitate more funding sources and a more consistent stream of revenue.
FOSS cost money to make. It does not fall outside of the “software industry bubble”. People still have to get paid. People still need to eat. Commercial plugins for Blender are yet another example of this hard fact. And the fact that people want to get a guarantee of return on their investment of time and effort.
FOSS changes little about the realities of life or and hard inexorable factors attendant to producing a software service/product.
Blender currently sits in a comfortable position to be able to eek out an existence at the “lower end” of the market. And it permeates many levels of the industry as well. But if it were to compete directly with other high end commercial software in a meaningful way this would come at a cost. And that cost could affect how Blender is financed and likely change the way we have access to it.
In the long run, Blender will grow. And in the long run software prices will continue to drop and access to software will change for the better all around.
Wish me luck
