Redshift subscription only now. Is Redshift dead to you?

On April 8th of 2019 Redshift was acquired by Maxon. Since then Maxon forced them to get rid of their perpetual license and is only available through Maxon with a subscription license of $45 per month or $264 per year.

With the release of Blender 3.0 and Cycles X Redshift rendering speed is probably slower than Cycles X for most final renders for anyone using a good Nvidia GPU. For those using an M1M Redshift probably renders faster as Redshift is optimized for M1M and Cycles is not.

Blender also has Octane render with one GPU and Luxcore available for free.

With all the above it begs the question.
Is Redshift dead to you?

Well Octane maybe cheaper, but also some Cycles add ons like K or E Cycles have a yearly price tag. Its not the price, its more the implementation.
Currently Redshift is far from feature complete and a version for 3.0 or macOs is promised since month, meanwhile 3.1 was released.
I would say, wait at least till end of the year, to see if they deliver. Chaos has stopped its Vray build for Blender, so there is always a risk.
Anyway, you can’t compare Redshift to Cyclesx so easily. A pass tracer is fast when ever GI is not so important and very slow, when ever GI is. Redshift may seem slower in some cases, but deliver a clean image, where as denoising can always be a frustrating process with a pass tracer. Been there with Octane and Octane is still faster then Cycles.

Redshift subscription only now. Is Redshift dead to you?


Never really lived, to be honest.
A fast Renderer is nice, but if the end result isn’t as good as that of others, why bother spending money and energy?
Arnold, Renderman, Karma, Clarisse-Angie, Vray…all the big industry renderers have GPU versions available now or are in the process of creating them, some of them are pixel accurate in comparison to their CPU counterparts, some of them are limited, but overall one could say that they all can do what Redshift can do, sometimes stuff that Redshift can’t do, so…
Redshift can’t do anything the others can’t do.
Where is the incentive / unique selling point to use Redshift over others?
Doesn’t make sense, just buy another 30xx GPU instead of a Redshift subscription.
So what is there?
Redshift has become a Renderer for the Mac-OS crowd because Apple has crippled their systems by excluding Nvidia and forcing Metal down the throat of its users. Maxon came to the “rescue” (because large parts of their usersbase are on Mac) and bought Redshift. Since then the devs have wasted a ton of time (imho) making Redshift running on AMD cards while neglecting core competencies of the renderer.
I think many people outside of that bubble simply stopped caring about Redshift since it fell back anyway and others stepped up their game.
Whatever advantage and goodwill Redshift had in the market has evaporated, and now its just another subscription based renderer I wont use.


Well thats a lot words, without sense.
The render engines compare with hundreds of features. And in terms of quality Cycles is far behind. A render result that either takes hours or a denoiser is not really fast. And denosing is what all can, same for path tracing. But a clean rendering with a good GI solution is something only a few can do good enogh.

I don’t really care about render-speed as long as it doesn’t take too long, all I care about is the quality of the image and in that regard Redshift has no advantage at all.

“Hours to render”,
I can do clean 1080p renders in under 15 minutes with Arnold using only the CPU, what are you talking about?
Using a denoiser is not fast?

All modern pathtrace renderers can do clean renders and all of them have good GI solutions…
what exactly is your point?
You’re not making much sense.

Tbh, I’ve always been against the subscription based payments for software tools. We all know that pretty much any 3D software/tools have always been super expensive. It was once something to work towards buying a perpetual license so you can get started with more professional work, if you so chose. However, the subscription model for 3D packages and tools is still rather expensive imo.

So that fact that subscriptions are being forced feels sort of like gatekeeping in a way. It quite literally pushes out newer or intermediate 3D designers from using the software more seriously. It really only makes it viable for designers that do really high end professional work at large studios, or really high profile clients. Those are the people that can actually get the kind of work that allows them to have enough finances to reliably pay that large monthly fee.

I’m so glad that Blender is open source and does not force a subscription. I’m trying to get off as many subscription models as I can tbh. Sadly, there hasn’t been much progress on Affinity Photo/Designer for quite some time, AND there’s still not a single alternative to After Effects that comes remotely close to what it does. Since I still use After Effects heavily, I’m still stuck on the Adobe sub for the time being :sob:

Keep an eye out for Autograph, as it is meant to be released this quarter and is a much more modern take on the AE style layer compositor. There is a demo on Youtube and more info here:

1 Like

Oh wow! Yeah that’s promising so far. The UI is trash, so I hope it’s just because it’s an early build, haha. I’ll absolutely be keeping an eye on that! :eyes:

i just came in to say all these years we see commercial softwares come and go, yet Blender is constantly evolving and advancing, what a time! I can’t help but appreciating that ‘little decision’ Ton made back in the day to turn NaN Blender into an open source project and staying true to it with all he has to offer along with a talented team.

1 Like

Subscription is really a huge problem. Never a company got better through subscription. Indeed the opposite nearly always happened. However, its a matter of fact, that the commercial companies have an advantage in development. Simple more paid developers.
At the moment Nanite and a few other technologies are hitting Redshift and Octane GPU development. There is lot to come and its not clear when Cycles go that. But, still possible.
The cool thing about Blender is, that you can have wide variety of commercial renders available. Support isn’t perfect, especially when it comes to Blender shaders, but its a good start for a growing community.
Its a bit dump to compare Redshift subscription to Arnold. Beside Arnold being the slowest render abailable (after Corona), it has a superbe quality. But its also owned by the most evil company, after Chaos Group.

“All is fair in love and war”
Redshift costs 264$ per year, add 100$ and you have a Indie license for Maya/Max + Arnold.
If you get Maya or Max you’ll get a license for Arnold.
Maxon doesn’t even offer indie licenses.
So which is the expensive one?

Nope, that would be Mantra and even if you ignore that, its not the slowest. Arnold GPU appears feature complete and is pixel accurate compared to the CPU version.
I did some (sloppy) tests recently and it is as fast as Cycles (X).
Also what you seem to ignore is that Arnold scales perfectly while most renderers don’t.
Throw a scene with 100+ million unique (not instanced) polygons at a renderer and see how they go to their knees. Redshift slows down significantly, while Arnold pushes to the top.

Oh please, miss me with your ideology.
You would refuse to buy a car or a house that was designed with Autodesk tools?
I don’t think so. I also think that putting ideology over productivity, ability and commercial success is akin to shooting yourself in the foot.
You seem to completely ignore that Maxon has become as greedy as Autodesk with their subscription politics. The difference between Autodesk and Maxon in my opinion is that i think that Autodesks products are still worth the price tag, while I don’t think Maxons products are worth it.
I stopped being a customer of Maxon not for ideology reasons, but simply because i felt that they don’t give me enough value for my money.

Also don’t get me wrong, I am not hating on Redshift, I think its still a pretty good renderer, I just think it kinda wasted its potential and now it kinda merges with the rest in terms of ability.
It had an advantage in the market a couple of years ago, but it didn’t fulfill its full potential, which i would blame the management for. Now that they are under Maxon I don’t have much hope for a positive change.
A case of “too little, too late” which is the overall problem of all Maxon products.

1 Like

Wow that line shows what a Troll you are. You really seem people are stupid. You pay 1400 for Max/Maya per year and claim Arnold is free? Hey, Blender is free and if I compare that with Redshift, your solution is 1146 more per year!
And Houdini just got a new render… check it out!

Total Deadness! Bruh I’m tellin’ Ya! Its Dead to Me!

Dude, can you read?
I said Indie License. Not free.
And I was wrong, it actually costs 265$.
Yes, there are some limitations with the indie Version, but that doesn’t change the fact that you can get a fully functioning Maya or Max plus Arnold for 265 bucks.

That’s kinda rich coming from you in context with your behavior.

Lots of software companies use a subscription model (“IBM = Income By the Month”), because it gives them a predictable revenue stream. If they sell you a “perpetual” license there will be no more revenue coming in.

Best example I ever saw of this was Angry Birds. For some reason it became an immensely popular video game and millions of people bought it in a very short time – once. Now the company had millions of customers to support, lots of cash ready to burn, but no more money coming in. They had to scramble to (successfully) get away from that. The visuals were iconic enough to let them succeed.