Forums Links
Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.
This page has been translated for your convenience with an automatic translation service. This is not an official translation and may contain errors and inaccurate translations. Autodesk does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information translated by the machine translation service and will not be liable for damages or losses caused by the trust placed in the translation service.
Translate
Hi everybody
After a couple of very good conversations with Margaret Luppino from Autodesk I have been encouraged to post here with some suggestions and thoughts on the current licensing and pricing policy.
For background, I've been a 3D artist for 25 years and continue to use a number of different applications for my work. 3 years ago I finally got round to learning Maya which I have enjoyed very much. Sadly, after a downturn in business (largely relating to Brexit turmoil) it has been necessary to take stock of my costs and outgoings and due to the licensing structure which Maya sits within I have decided not to renew my annual subscription.
The current system locks people out of access to their tools when times are tough. I understand that for large businesses the predictability of subscriptions is welcome and affords flexibility when workforce numbers change. But for freelancers, small businesses and ex students just leaving college, the cost for access to the software is too high. 3 years ago my first Maya subscription was £800 +VAT. This year it would have been £1400 + VAT. My mainstay in 3D applications (especially for modeling work) Modo, costs £1499 + VAT for a permanent license with 1 year's worth of updates included in the price. A further year of maintenance updates is £339 + VAT.
Currently, Maya is the go-to application for animation and for good reason. However my belief is the subscription model, coupled with the inability to own a permanent license will ultimately lead to a squandering of that advantage. Elsewhere in the subscription only eco-system, Adobe is feeling the heat from a number of rival developers who are offering comparable and in some cases better alternatives to their software at prices which are competitive with 1 year's CC subscriptions. Black Magic Design has rightfully garnered high praise for the work done with Davinci Resolve and Fusion, which is now an arguably better alternative to Premiere. The Affinity suite of applications does a very good job in many cases of replacing Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign. All of the above mentioned alternatives offer permanent licenses (a significant part of the marketing strategy) and there is even a free version of Resolve which many will be content with.
In the 3D world, the Blender Foundation has reorganized it's funding and development process to great effect. We are now seeing triple A features such as Eevee and Cycles renderer being developed and the new version of Blender which is currently in beta is turning heads, being touted as a serious contender for professional 3D artists.
Blender is free and open source.
Elsewhere, Houdini offers an "Indie" license for $399 for 2 years. To qualify, studios have to earn below a certain threshold (I believe it's $100,000 per year). Substance painter and Designer offer Indie licenses for smaller studios and if you bought ZBrush in the late 90's, you can be using the latest version of it today having not paid for a single upgrade in 20 years. All of these examples show that not only can Indie & fair pricing models work, they actually drive the elevation of software to levels of being the definitive application in their field.
Whilst big studios are important to Autodesk, my contention is that smaller studios and artists are equally important but in a different way. A lot of the innovation in my industry comes from this sector of the community, along with original new ideas and concepts. Autodesk risks alienating itself from that source of creativity.
But it doesn't have to be that way. A few years ago there was a change in licensing policy which gave free access to Autodesk products for students and educators. It was a bold move which many applauded. I sincerely request that the current licensing model is looked at again and that Indie licenses are made available at significant reductions in cost to smaller studios and freelancers. A limit can be applied to the number of such licenses available to each studio to stop it being abused. I think it should be priced aggressively....Matching Houdini's offering of $399 for 2 years.
I also suggest Autodesk rethink the policy of no longer offering permanent licenses. For those of us who consider our work and the art we create to be an integral extension of ourselves, it is a deeply emotive issue that we cannot own our tools. I cannot stress this point enough and I know I'm not alone. By all means continue to offer subscriptions to those who prefer them, that's fine. But give us the option to own the software we use to make our art.
I remain largely skeptical this post will make that much difference but the encouragement I received from Margaret Luppino to post here has been acted upon in good faith. I have the utmost respect for the developers at Autodesk and I know there are people within the organization who genuinely care about their customers. For those who are more concerned about shareholders, I'd like to add a final word of caution as to where I believe the current licensing model will lead. Without a change in direction, ultimately Autodesk will lose market share to those who do offer permanent licenses for their software, by which time it will be too late to act.
Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.