Leaderboard

I wrote their GLTF importer and store content browser plugin for UE4. I like to feel that I contributed to this buy out. 😀

Quite simple....this decision is NOT made with the customer in mind. Rather, the only ones who benefit from this are the business owners as it creates a guaranteed stream of revenue going into their bank accounts. Subscriptions captures the user base more so than ever before. With perpetual licenses, if you were not happy with the upgrades, etc. you just stop paying for the upgrades and continue to use the software. The developer looses future revenue should the user make the decision to hold fast with what they have. Under a subscription plan, that same decision also takes away the ability to use the software. Regardless of what comes next you must keep paying to just use the software -- even if nothing you care about get's fixed or improved. This is the model every company wants to be in -- especially as a product matures and the technology to stand out amongst your competitors becomes more complex and expensive to develop. Re-occurring revenue streams raises the value of every company and that is why they do it. Remember, new features is NOT a mandate of the subscription license. That is an agreement we imprint on the developers based on history -- but there is nothing legally binding should a new release NOT occur while under subscription. I bring up this (hopefully ludicrous) scenario to make the following point: Where is the incentive to compete on new features released each year when the user base is locked into paying regardless of what the next release provides? We have seen this happen with Max, with Adobe Premiere and to some extent Adobe After Effects as well (based on some of the complaints I have heard) and so there is a precedent. Will this happen with C4D? Not sure....but history is on our side when it comes to justifying our concerns. Dave

Seems like maxon has no plans to include Redshift in C4D natively. They gave up on physical render too so I wonder how long they can keep charging the same insane prices without a decent built in render engine.

Okay...the server finally came back up for me. This is what I am NOT hearing: What happens if I convert to a fused license and then decide NOT to renew my annual maintenance? In essence, by buying into the increased services with Fused am I giving up my perpetual licenses for subscription licenses? Dave

It seems Fuse is a hybrid between perpetual and subscription (maintenance). X-Particles is perpetual, whereas Cycles 4D (and everything else you get) is only available as long as you keep your maintenance up to date. For most users, I suppose this will be a no-brainer with X-Particles being the most interesting product, and everything on top is a bonus. But I have a Cycles 4D perpetual license and I wonder what will happen to this one once I convert my X-Particles license to Fuse to get access to the newest build.

Hey guys, I'm new to this platform. I'm an industrial designer with 3D software background in Rhino and Solid works. Currently trying to self taught C4D and is open to any suggestions.

I'm still under maintenance until Nov, so I will check that out. And you're correct, the My Account page is down, so I'll keep an eye on that. Thanks

I don't think you have Volume Builder in R19, so not that ! You could make a few of the segments via really simple box modelling (either use SDS or Iron tool to organi-size it) and then make those into soft bodies which you could collide either inside a render-invisible sphere, or just using an attractor to mash them all together. One thing you probably can't do is use splines, as there a lot of 3 way junctions in this, which they cannot usually replicate. Apart from splines in metaballs possibly, which would allow that. I'd investigate the metaball tag particularly, which has the specific spline modes, and extra hull controls. CBR

Without a doubt in my mind: absolutely. This and previous actions on the part of Maxon seem to come straight out of Adobe's play book (which is probably why ex-Adobe management was hired to assist Maxon in this process): First, introduce the rental model but keep the perpetual license, and make certain both are initially presented as equal alternatives. This is to ensure to avoid a user uprising. Sooth any nay-sayer users, but never allow anyone in your organization to confirm that your end goal is rental only. Present it as "freedom of choice", or along similar lines. Next, with each new release clearly present the rental version as the ever more affordable and attractive alternative. Incrementally reduce exposure of the perpetual license on the website in favour of the rental option(s) and reduce access to it. Keep touting the advantages for the user of rental rather than perpetual. The goal here is to slowly and seamlessly prime and groom the larger user base to accept rental as the preferred option rather than perpetual licenses. Provide extra perks for users who rent your software. Reduce perks and updates for perpetual users. And at no time mention the end goal. Keep users in the dark. "Listen" to your users by providing additional rental options. Cater towards companies and small/medium sized businesses (which generally really like rental options due to fiscal benefits). It is important to continuously stress the attractiveness of rental licenses, while adding more and more to the unattractive qualities of the perpetual license. Convince as many existing perpetual users to make the switch to rental. And very important here is the use of language: instead of "rent" rather use "subscribe", or even better: allow for no distinction: "buy" or "purchase". (The younger generation of users is no longer quite so aware of the distinction between renting software and purchasing software anyway. This is great for software companies.) In the final stages before ending access to new perpetual licenses it is necessary to complicate the process of updating existing perpetual licensed versions as much as is possible. At the same time, it is expected that a segment of older loyal perpetual users will never accept rental licenses. This won't matter, since the less expensive rental model probably already increased revenue by a large margin. It is at this time that the company will release statements about how for the sake of continued development, the benefit of improved features of the software, and the company itself that perpetual licenses be discontinued. "if it's good for you, it's good for the company, and vice versa". Along those lines. The company may opt to keep the peace, allow this user group access to a perpetual license for the time being, but no new perpetual licenses will be available. Drastically increase update pricing, and after a few releases stop perpetual updates entirely. Or be more cold-hearted, and disallow perpetual users to update their licenses. After all, by this time that group of users is probably reduced to a small minority. Happy company! And accepting users (for the most part).