MAYA is too expensive

[Anonymous]

As a student aiming at computer game development degree at a local community college I don't see the incentive to purchase a 3500$ or monthly cost of 160$ a month as a doable, or even reasonable cost/benefit software program.

I am much more likely to try and cope wth much less functional and comprehensive programs as the cost is far beyond the range of a broke college student trying to etch out a living.

I honestly don't find paying the same amount for an excellent A to B car for  single piece of software as even fair market value. Likewise it is also triple the cost of my computer!!

6-months rent where I live in poverty as a student, for a single piece of software? Absurd frankly. Even the monopoly cable companies charge a third of the cost of this single program.

So honestly, what gives? 

This isn't even to mention the the partner programs such as Photoshop etc, are so much cheaper to produce graphic arts. At least their prices are only "robber-baron-esque" 

[Anonymous]

So much whining about Maya... Why not just stop using it if you have so much problems with it?

One thing that must be clear: EVERY COMPLEX PIECE OF SOFWARE HAS BUGS! (as in many).

What counts for "USABILITY" is highly subjective and varies from one person to the next.

Some folks say that Headus UV Layout is intuitive and usable, others think that Lightwave has the best rigging tools...

Come on! Maya is what it has been the last 15 years or so: A complex package with a hell of a lot of possibilities to make complex stuff relatively easy to create.

Stop whining and go make some art.

You're the carpenter, stop blaming your tools for your bad work.

The grass is always greener on the other side you know. But when you start using another 3D package you gonna miss so many things in Maya. I've tried that, so I know from personal experience.

Just different kinds of bugs and different tools for doing many of the same things, ending up with aproximately the same result. That's what 3D packages boils down to.

[Anonymous]

I am glad someone posted this. I actually had been thinking of writing it (or something similar) many days ago with the constant negativity and crying about Maya and the cost, bugs and etc... Too me it was getting just ridiculous and pathetic. It is like nothing is ever good enough or cheap enough. Maybe if Autodesk just gave Maya away for free you all could stop crying? I doubt it, there would still be a crap load of excuses you all would give about something. We all have a choice and if you do not like Maya or think it is too expensive, you have these things called keys on your keyboard. You can just type in another URL and go to another 3D site and get something else. Maya can be buggy I suppose, but if you know Maya at all, you know there are several ways to do the same thing, so you can always get what you need done. You know, I do not even have that many bugs like it seems everyone posts about. When I had an inferior system and tried to run Maya on it I had bugs because the system could not handle the load. Much of that headache went away with a competent system. Many professional productions have been made with Maya, I think it can work just fine for the whinny beginners crying about it. Haters are always going to hate, so lets hear the continued hate and excuses ...

[Anonymous]

Like I said it's not the bugs, it's the bottom line cost.

"Some folks say that Headus UV Layout is intuitive and usable, others think that Lightwave has the best rigging tools...

Come on! Maya is what it has been the last 15 years or so: A complex package with a hell of a lot of possibilities to make complex stuff relatively easy to create."

Yea, I can't really answer this big dog, I can only say that it's far from a convincing argument about accessibility since you seem to be mired in subjectiism.

"Stop whining and go make some art.

You're the carpenter, stop blaming your tools for your bad work."

LOL, where did all this big dad talk come from? Gee dad think I'll just straighten up and wipe my nose like a big boy now.

"The grass is always greener on the other side you know. But when you start using another 3D package you gonna miss so many things in Maya. I've tried that, so I know from personal experience.

Just different kinds of bugs and different tools for doing many of the same things, ending up with aproximately the same result. That's what 3D packages boils down to."

No idea, ok well thanks dad.

Edited by
Discussion_Admin

[Anonymous]

Such wisdom, I think I'll just go back to my corner and rethink life, you both have made it all so clear to me now. It's not the cost or what you get for the cost, it's all just  .. you know .. persective. I shouldn't look at it as $185 dollars a month, I should look at it as a opportunity! Yea that's it.

I love hearing this commonsenseical dribble, it makes me want to sit in the lotus position and just smile my way to the top of some ladder chanting "attitude is everything". *chuckle*

Keep comin on strong with the free advice to pull up my big boy pants and move along.

[Anonymous]

This is getting ridiculous. How old are you anyway?
Sounds like something I heard back in the junior high days... Or was it kindergarden? not sure.
Don't make this personal, but I obviously hit something sore.
When I say: "Maya is what it has been the last 15 years or so" I mean that the basics have stayed the same, but the internals have changed A LOT, making it easier and easier to create stunning content. You can't change the user interaction part of an application that so many people uses for professional projects. Things have to stay on the same places and the UI has to stay relatively the same. At least the core tools must behave as people are used to.

[rimcrazy]

So I've read through this thread and debated if I really wanted to put in my 2cents or not.  (Feed the troll or not)

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, not that I think, given your responses already that you will give much creedence to it but I will try.

First, I'm very perplexed as to what you hope to accomplish by your post?  Ok, you believe that Maya is too expensive.  First that is a very subjective statement in itself.  Too expensive compared to what?  Other 3D programs of equal capability?  What are you comparing Maya too?

Softimage - "He's dead Jim"

3dsMax - basically the same price

Houdini - about $2K

HoudiniFX - aobut $4.5K

Modo - about $1.5K

Lightwave - about $1k

Cinema4D - about $3.7K

Blender - Free.... but you get what you pay for.

Vue - about $1.7K (great for landscapes, not good at all for object modeling)

Rhino3D Bundle - about $1.7K

SketchUP - about $600 (great architecture modeling, not so good otherwise)

I'm sure I misssed something but in general this is the list of the major products out there.  Seems to me the ones that cost less also offer a lot less.  The ones that cost more, (Houdini FX) offer more.  Cinema4D, which is about equal, IMHO, offers less especially when you throw in the animation capabilities of Maya and physical simulation (Cloth, muscle, XGen and Dynamics, etc.)

Back to what you hope to accomplish.  What are you looking for?  Seriously?  Do you honestly believe that:

a) your post is going to unleash a groundswell of support from the user community that has been and is currently using Maya?

b) Autodesk management is going to fall all overthemselves and say, "Gee, someone who is not willing to make the investment required to get into the 3D animation business thinks our prices are too high.  Lets fire all of our R&D staff so we can lower our price and make it more economical!"

To point b.  You peaked my interest so I did a quick look between Adobe and Autodesk looking at R&D as a percentage of revenue as well as marketing and sales.  AD last fiscal quarter did around $617M.  R&D was about 30% of gross revenue (That actually surprised me.  That is quite high comparatively speaking)  Marketing and Sales was just under 40%.  Adobe for their fiscal year ending Nov 2014 did $4147M.  R&D for them was right at 20% (More in line with my personal expectations).  Marketing and Sales for Adobe was just like AD at 40%.  Adobe, for their products, produces software that costs in the hundreds of dollars and they have a customer base that numbers in the millions.  AD, for their products, produces software that costs in the thousands of dollars and they have a customer base that numbers in the thousands.  These are substantially different markets with substantially different products and substantially different customers.  There is a reason you don't see, sans Blender, an equivalent Maya product that costs $299.  The R&D expense along with the M&S expense for the market you are wanting to support will not sustain a viable product that can only bring in $299 a license. The difference in the products can directly be seen in the difference in the cost of the R&D required to develop and sustaing the products.  This is also a major contributor, along with the substantially lower TAM (Total Available Market) that contributes to a much higher price for the product.

I also don't know if you understand things such as market elasticity but this is a measure of if you drop your price by X% in your particular market will you pick up enough customers to justify the price reduction?  If you don't, then as a business, all you are doing is loosing money by reducing your price.  Take that to the limit and it's called a going out of business sale.  I would suspect that all of the viable (that is to say profitable companies) that sell 3D software in this market understand the elasticity of this market very well.  While the list is small, there is competition.  New companies always will start (Luxology) and the old established one's cannot sit back and light cigars with $100 bills and stay viable for long.  The point is, the price is where the market is pushing it to be.  There are new purchasing avenues that are coming about.  Adobe has already switched to a subscription only model.  It's a bold push but in terms of evening their revenue and managing a business I understand it.  I may not like it but I understand it.  AD offers subscriptions and for the moment still offers full out purchases.  My 2cents is that over time, we will probably see more of the subscription model and less of the license model.  Market forces are dictating that.  The animation market is being substantially pushed both off shore and to a outsourced model.  Studios that actually do the work want a flexible tool expense solution that does not strap them with a high overhead when they don't need a lot of seats.  A subscription model fits this need very well.  The big studios are going to push for this an us freelancers are just going to have to saddle up and go for the ride as we don't drive the demand like the big studios.

Lastly, you have been given LOTS of excellent advise by others who have responded.  You apparently don't like the solutions that they have offered as well as you give the impression you really don't like the product.  You have a choice.  Use Blender, Gimp and everything open source.  That is an excellent way to go zero cost and get yourself started.  If you have the talent then the tool should not make a difference.  It may require more work and in some cases, a LOT more work. That is part of the price you are paying in time for 0$ software.  In the end, I don't employ a carpenter because he/she uses Stanley hammers.  I employ them because they have demonstrated they have the knowledge and talent to do the work I require.  In the end, you will get work based on who you know.  You will keep work and get repeat business based upon what you know.  While you may believe that being the most knowledgeable person in Maya is your key to success I would say you are very misguided on that point.  What is most important to studios (I would appreciate some feedback on this from those of you who do work on studios.  Tell me if I'm all wrong on this....) is you knowledge of those things in art that don't change.  Do you know how to draw?  Do you know how to use color?  Do you know how to use type?  Do you know the pricipals of animation well enough to create realistic animations?  Do you know how to properly light a scene?  Do you know how to properly rig a charater?  Do you know how to program?  Did I mention Maya or a specific language in any of those questions?  No.  The reason is that the tool or the language is not the most important thing.  You perhaps believe that being the "Cat's Meow" in Maya is going to give you a specific edge over other candidates on a job.  You need to think about the fact that a studio may very well look at your knowledge this way.  "Gee, this guy knows a lot about Maya but he uses the tool completely wrong with respect to our studio workflow.  More important he appears to be very resistive to change.  We'd be a lot better off hiring someone with less Maya skills and more open to learning how we do things.  I say we pass on this guy."

You've been given a lot of very good advice by others on this thread.  You don't appear to like or agree with anyting that has been said.  I wish you luck, I truly do, but if you continue with your current attitude I believe you are going to find getting work is quite difficult.

Last 2 cents.... $1500 for a workstation sounds light to me.  I'd put more $ in your workstation and go open source on your software.  Get work based on your connections and keep it based on your talent.  As your revenue increases you can look to getting better tools which should allow you to do more work in less time.

[Anonymous]

...noting todo with the subject.... 😞 Poor Softimage.... it is called now Zombiemage and is still alive >D and will be ...

[Anonymous]

Zombies only last so long 🙂

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the great post Rimcrazy, it explains about what I was guessing.

However, despite your market comprehension a dollar is a dollar, and I hardly think calling Photoshop a different market is at all even playing fair. I think it's honestly wishing based on what you see for large business concepts. Photoshop is in fact accessible, more or less manadatory to creating assets, and almost a 20th of the cost.

While I could hope that someone smart enough to see the industry from outside the box works at their marketing firm, I don't in the least think it matters, what matters is stating a duck is in fact a duck, insted of wearing the emporer's new clothes. I don't think having a bunch of Yes men and common rhetoric is going to change any of this.

Not thatit matters but my system is worth quite a bit more, and I was simply making the point that bottom line for a computer (in fact I am certain you can go much cheaper to run Maya successfully) is in fact afforable.

Likewise so is all the other software necessary to create assets, Photoshop is set as the example because of their 30 years of industry commercialism. Also, Photoshop demonstrates the price point for modeling is worth far less the potential average interested consumer.

There is no accounting for this other than to offer a first ones free scheme to stay marketable.

And still this isn't the point is $185 a month is in fact glaringly ludicrous, I have yet to hear a convincing argument otherwise. It's inflated pricing precely like the cable companies ~ no different.

Because despite all the marketing hoopalah, the bottom dollar buy is is not available to the common interest.

Aside from all this I don't honestly care if you don't like my valid input, you are in no way required to respond.

Edited by
Discussion_Admin

[Anonymous]

Interesting thread although it old, still interesting. I have sort of the same thought but in a different sort of way. I purchased Maya back in 2013 for a big lump sum of money at the time. I'm a Mac house which i mention because it's important. 2013 going into 2014 we saw a OS upgrade that Maya no longer supported. Now you would think for amount of money you pay for such a product that some sort of support would follow atlease into the following year but, nope. Now you can say "don't upgrade the OS". Ok, it's now 2015 and my very expensive 2013 version still doesn't work and the only solution I have is to spend even more money to upgrade or take on a car payment each month. I have to agree that Maya is too expensive when you factor in Autodesk's lack of software support. Their snapshot model where their version of software will only work for that given moment in time is too costly. 

This is not a lack of product, it's a lack of support.

[Anonymous]

I find this whole a bit dillusional. If you want to do something in the arts even if it is music or a photographer, you have to understand that you are gonna have to invest in your tools. And to be quite honest 3D software has never been cheaper! When I started doing this 20+ years ago Alias Power Animator was around 15-17k and then required about a 30k workstation to run it on. The animation tools weren't that great which meant you need softimage 3D to animate and render sucked which ment you needed Renderman. So it was all in about a 60-80k investment. He'll even when Maya came out it was still about 17k for the full suite. But you could use a much cheaper windows NT workstation.

So yes use educational software as long as you can but just know that you are gonna need to save to pay for your tools for your craft. And with the lower cost and subscriptions you should be able to get anything you will need for under 300$ a month. Which is nothing once you start working professionally. And if you work for a company they pay it for you.

[Anonymous]

You are right, I recall Alias|Wavefront Maya at School, Computer Tech, the only class I did well in 🙂 And they had the official Maya Box and Manual, the price over $10K.

Yearly to Rent, I think the price is $,1500 yr or $125 / month. I understand it may not be affordable for many, in the past you had to pay $10K+ Yearly Fees, they were expensive.

Consider this; it's not much help, but you can spend easily $150 in a week in food and whatever you use in your daily life at, for those in North America, Wal-Mart.

Instead of paying $4 for a box or Oreos you may want to look for a sale if budgets are an issue, if you are determined, or want to be a programming,artist in one like me, crazy person 🙂 You can do it, regardless of your age, well maybe if your 90 yrs old you won't want to 🙂

[Anonymous]

IMHO there best thing is to save and then Buy the package. then just keep up with the maintenance. it comes out to about $60 a month after the first year. But you just have to put the money away in a savings about for that yearly maintenance bill. But seeing as most of the conversation seem to be from the self funded freelancer perspective. if you are in the US you are gonna need to get in the habit of stashing money away anyone for that once a year bleeding by the IRS. I know it seems like a lot but in the grand schem it really is quite cheap these days. I mean if you were a photoagrapher a canon 5D mk3 is gonna cost more than a license of Maya then you have lenses and software and all kinds stuff on top of that too. All relative I guess. 

[Anonymous]

You can reminisce about the bad old days all you want. Still doesnt change the fact that Autodesk doesn't support their product past a year. I call that greed. People talk as though these new subscrition plans save so much money but in reality it just locks you into a forever payment. In the good old bad days you spent the money on software tools and you used them until the wheels fell off. Now, you constantly pay for 2,4 or more subscription plans for all the tools you need and in some cases if you don't log in, you can't do anything. Now companies don't have to support versions of thier product past a year thanks to the subscription plan which I think is worse.

[Anonymous]

Dude. Don't confuse maintenance with subscription their two differerent things. Maintenance system has been around since forever. All of the big companies do it in one way or another. And you own the software! You are free to stop paying maintenance and stop receiving new versions any time you choose. You can still use the software " till the wheels fall off"


This is the way it has always been for all of the big softwares. this isn't some kinda new program. Subscription is different cause your not paying the big hit upfront.

Don't like it? Don't use it. No one forces you to buy Maya. Or max or Houdini or any of these softwares. But I guarantee you if you go look you find that they all do the exact same thing.

You act like you are some how entitled to professional software at a price you deem affordable and supported for ever for no additional cost. That puts software companies out of business. That is exactly why pixologic isn't gonna be doing that any more it nearly ruined them. And it is why their updates never come out till their about a year late.

Granted there was a rocky period when Autodesk first took over maya development but in the last 2 years I have been very happy with what they have accomplished.

[Anonymous]

and no I don't think that 99% of people would think that paying $750 a year for new versions and support for software that I bought about a decade ago is a bad deal by any stretch of the imagination. Besides there are planets of very affordable ways to get maya in order to teach your self and once you have a job in 3D this would be a moot point. And if your not good enough to land a decent job doing 3D then perhaps you should move on and do something else.

Or just join the rest of this generation and go protest for thing you feel your entitled to that you haven't earned.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I'm entitled to all that and more. No ****, i don't feel entitled nor am I a paid protester. I don't like the lack of support that I've personnally have experienced with AD for the money I continue to shell out. I'm just voicing that on a forum topic titled MAYA is too expensive. I'm so sorry that my opinion hurts your Maya fanboy mentality. Don't worry, nobody is going to take your posters off the walls. 

[rimcrazy]

Well, as mention, there are options.  In addition, how are your paying for your subscription?  I renew my subscription through my VAR (Motion Media) which provides me a substantial discount on my subscription renewals over Autodesks price.  I purchased Maya back in the version 8 days and I've been on subscription ever since.  My personal experience with AD support on every question I've ever had and submitted has been great.  They were quick, courteous and answered my questions in a timely manner.  In my early years of using Maya I had many questions mostly because I had no idea what I was doing.  They were patient and I can't complain.  It is too bad you have obviously not had the same experience.

Relative to subscription and subscription prices I understand completley why AD and everyone else is going that way.  Software development is a very expensive proposition.  The old software model, of getting huge revenue bumps on each new release and starving in between was and is driving companies out of business.  Subscriptions drive a constant and predictable revenue stream that allows companies to profitably grow and sustain their business.  My AD subscription along with my Adobe, Lynda.com, Digital Tutors subscriptions are a cost of doing business.  I'd be dead without them.  Of course, in running a business you want to keep your expenses as low as possible.  All of us are operating on razor thin margins that seem to get less and less every year.  To compete we need to adapt and continue to figure out how to get the most return on our investment and the most $$ for our services. 

I find it interesting that while people vaule the IP that they create as being worth huge amount of $$ while the IP that they use to create that product is somehow worth nothing.  You have Free options.  Blender, Gimp and others.  My personal take is you get what you pay for.  If you are truly fed up with AD and they don't support you in the manner in which you think they should for the expense you pay, then find an alternative.  Companies, in the end, exist to make money.  They don't hire armies of programers and technical people to be nice.  No, no one wants to be ripped off, but I have no problem with anyone, including me, making a profit.  I charge what I need to be profitable.  That means I don't take the BS Craiglist jobs that pay zero and offer me a 2 nanosecond listing on the trailer of a movie no one will ever see.

[Anonymous]

Amen!

[Anonymous]

So what your saying is because software development is so expensive that you shouldn't expect any software support. Ok.