3D-Pangel

Well...given the current state of C4D today, unless there is some relief for perpetual license owners, I wish I had never learned C4D at all and chosen Blender back in 2005. Now early Blender was a bit of a hot mess but I would be a much better position than I am now when I think of all the money I have spent on C4D over the last 16 years (easily over $15,000 in maintenance and license fees), plus X-Particles, tutorials, etc. Now, relative to C4D, I have stayed away from Bodypaint and UV mapping simply because at the time I was ready to take that on, the general "perception" was that there would be a new version of Bodypaint released. Ultimately, that was a false perception I kept holding on to...year...after year....after year. With that said, the "Ministry of Flats" does make UV much more enjoyable today than it would have been back then. Finally, nodal materials. The big barrier to nodal materials is that they are render engine dependent. The work flows are the same (metalness, specular, linear) but there are always subtle differences on blending, setting gamma values, etc..etc...etc.. between each. So I am probably way behind in working with nodal materials. Every time, I need to pull out a tutorial of past example to overcome some memory stumbling block. I wish for the day when I can work nodal materials where it is second nature and just comes out of my "stream of conscience" thinking whereby I am creating as I am thinking about what I want to do. Dave

So I think it is safe to say that hyperbole is lost upon you and you definitely went out of bounds with your conclusions. Hopefully that rant made you feel better and work out some of your frustrations. But if not, may I suggest you take a breath and calm down while I try to explain EXACTLY what I meant. And to do that, I will start with some of the background motivation behind that post. To me C4D is a place of joy and has been that way for me for 16 years. I love the interface, the stability and the ease of use. I also admire the craft, brilliance and dedication of those who develop it. I do not love renting it. I want to own it. I think we are all wired to prefer ownership rather than renting. Owning puts you in control of how and when you use the software. When you think long term, I want that control to use the software without the burden of paying a subscription. I want that control because I also believe that the locked in revenue provided by subscriptions reduce the pressure to compete on features. We are also wired to think that "subscriptions" mean "maintenance" and under that belief is the assumption that bugs get fixed and feature requests get fulfilled. Well, that is not always the case (just look at Adobe and Autodesk). It won't be until you have a couple of lack-luster releases in a row that you realize "Hey....subscriptions really mean "renting" because I have been paying over and over again but getting no real improvements to the software that are meaningful to me. It is just the same old thing year after year!". Well, it is when that inevitable day arrives that I also want a perpetual license so I have the freedom to say goodbye but not lose access to my work. History has shown that these are not incorrect conclusions or invalid concerns. Subscriptions are the product of management teams that are under pressure from their parent corporations to grow revenue and profit year over year and subscriptions have shown that they can do that. They were not created with the user in mind but rather the corporation. They just sacrifice the individual user and hobbyist in the process. Hey, everyone is doing it so we are stuck. We have no voice to change anything. So forgive me if I just don't enjoy listening to someone telling me that subscriptions are for my own good. I would much rather spend my time in the company of people who care more about the software and the needs of the user than the revenue it can create....and that would be Blender. Now, I am studying and using Blender. While not C4D, I now realize why it is growing in popularity. It has some seriously powerful tools and capabilities. I mean, there are whole Netflix series made using Blender. Not sure I have seen more than a TV station ID, short film or a FUI done with C4D in the popular media. I have never seen a whole series. C4D is one tool in an arsenal but it appears Blender wants to be the whole arsenal. Blender is working its way into production pipelines. It is proving itself in the marketplace and the users are loving it for good reason. If Blender was just a tool for users to "virtue signal" (how you came to that conclusion is a bit of a stretch but we will go with it), then why is Maxon porting Redshift to Blender? They are doing that because it is a growing market that they need to address. It is good business. Now, if you still want to rant at me please do it via private PM and let's spare the forum your vitriol. Now, I will not respond if you do as this post is all the effort your type of response deserves but please feel free to PM me if there is still some more frustration you wish to work out. Who knows, I may (or may not) actually read it but I do believe you need the therapeutic benefits that type of rant provides. Have a nice day, Dave

That would follow. My suspicions are that we will be getting another gut punch similar to what happened with R21. In short, no more perpetual licenses will be offered starting with R25. This is purely based on the following: The surprise email that Redshift is now subscription only. The warning that all licenses will be consolidated under the MyMaxon account system with that email The statement in that email that Maxon is moving to subscriptions because it is better for us. The move to 3 months of support only for C4D perpetual licenses. Maxon has been moving to get everyone on subscription relentlessly since R21 and have been growing their account server capability to support that goal. Honestly, I think server development is probably a higher priority to Maxon than C4D development simply because there is more revenue tied to their server capability to control all licenses. I also find it interesting that they announced Redshift subscription only in an email and not via their monthly Motion Show format (well...maybe they did as I don't attend them). Why did they do it before the R25 announcement? Why did they then offer at the same time the ability to re-up your perpetual licenses while still under maintenance? Well, to test user adoption and reaction from those who have perpetual licenses. They also wanted to try out their sales pitch that Redshift subscriptions are actually better for us: the poor dumb perpetual license user who can't figure out if we need the latest and greatest version or not. That whole reasoning was probably part of their plan to cut perpetual license support for C4D to 3 months as well. Well, if you are only going to support bug fixes for 3 months then, yeah...you are right - subscriptions are better for me. This is all groundwork for the big announcement that perpetual license model will be discontinued --- and remember everyone: Maxon is doing this for our own good so you best shut-up and OBEY! The server is ready. The trial balloon with Redshift moving to subscription only has been released. The time is now. Finally, McGavran is probably the worst presenter of C4D features I have ever seen. He shows more passion for product licenses than he does for the product features. Whenever he gets up to announce a new release, I flip to this site. What a pleasure it is to see people who actually have real passion for what they are developing. Dave

If I may.....please note that in my post, I discussed the general impact of subscriptions to software developers and their users in general. I did not specifically mention Cinema 4D nor Maxon and its practices. But, considering that you are discussing Maxon and subscriptions, then I will also focus my comments on Maxon. You state that subscriptions "leveled out the field even more, increasing competitive pressure". Now I find this a "curious statement" simply because if that was the case, why is Maxon doing everything in its power to discourage perpetual license holders and promote subscriptions? Why are services like Cineversity and access to modeling libraries no longer offered to perpetual license holders and only subscription license holders? Why is the cost of staying current with C4D 32% higher for perpetual license holders than subscription holders? If business is tougher in a subscription world, Maxon would not be selling it so hard. Why are perpetual licenses for Redshift being completely phased out? Sorry, but while your arguments that subscriptions give your corporate customers more flexibility are true, the fact remains that subscriptions are in-fact a "re-occurring revenue model" (an industry term...not mine) for Maxon and that means a higher percentage of "guaranteed" revenue as well. Stock prices go up for companies with "re-occurring revenue models". They go down if there is increased competition --- so your arguments do not hold up. Case in point is Cisco (the company I work for). They used to sell the IOS software with the hardware and our stock barely got above $30/share. 4 or 5 years ago, we switched to a subscription model and our software revenues are now a huge part of our quarterly earnings and our stock just broke $60/share. Also, our software revenue makes us one of the largest software companies in the world. We are right up there with Adobe! Go figure. The point I am making is that all companies in all industries love re-occurring revenue models. Maxon does to. And this brings me back to my original argument. All the "guaranteed" cash means less pressure on capturing revenue by growing market share through innovation. You just don't need to compete as hard if a certain amount of your annual revenue is a lock. Trust me, in a few years the next phase will be that revenue (though higher than before) will be flat year-over-year. Everyone is locked into a subscription, inertia sets-in, and there is less market growth. What happens next is that in the face of flat revenue, there will be a move to start cutting expenses because there will always be a constant drive to increase earnings back to Nemetshek. That's what CEO's get judged on and how they earn their bonus. And in the software world people are the biggest expense. Might as well cut headcount if your are not competing on new features as much as you did in the past. Why do you think Adobe products are not improving that fast? When that point hits and there is downsizing going on (hey...after all those acquisitions, there will be some downsizing) or fewer pay raises or both, please feel free to tell me just how much you love subscriptions. Dave

Regardless of what action developers do or do not take to improve their software, the point that really needs to be made here is that subscriptions reduce the competitive pressure to improve the software. This is my biggest concern over subscriptions because before "maintenance" meant "improved" whereas "subscriptions" now just mean "rent". And with all rentals, you can have good landlords and bad landlords. Adobe and Autodesk have shown that for some of their subscription products, they are not the best landlords. The updates are light, bugs remain unfixed and long standing user requests are ignored. So in this discussion, we also need to rethink the term "mature". Here the software is definitely NOT mature.....but the user base is very mature. Mature user bases have grown comfortable with the software. The software is embedded in their pipelines. There has been a lot of investment of both time and money in that software. The customer base can be mature with the software but the software itself could be very far from being fully matured. Mature customer bases are inclined to stay with a software that is not improving as fast as they desire simply because of the effort required to move to something else. With perpetual licenses, you just decide not to upgrade....but that meant no revenue to the developer. Subscriptions simply remove the financial penalty for not improving the software. Prior to subscriptions, developers worked to earn your upgrade dollars. Now they don't have to because if you stop paying the rent you get locked out. The user now get's penalized -- not the developer. Plus, in those early perpetual licensed years, new and innovative features grew the customer base. But at some point in a product's lifecycle, the market share will stop growing or the cost to generate new features far outweighs the additional sales they generate. It is at that point that a company switches to subscriptions because it is the best way to preserve revenue without additional development expenses. Innovation is no longer a priority in a subscription world. Honestly, where I want to see innovation is in the seamless import of scenes from one software to another. Imagine if a competitor developed a program that converted all ALL of your C4D assets to their platform without error or any lost information (sorry but there are always errors or lost data with the file transfer formats currently being used). Shader trees are perfect. All geometry comes in exactly how it was modeled -- no triangulation and all quads intact. All rigs, UV's, weight maps, bones, and animations come in perfect and ready for continued editing -- just as you left them in C4D. And it could do it in batch mode. Just point it to a directory and off it goes. Break down that barrier to move your assets and you re-introduce the need for the host application to stay competitive on features regardless of their licensing model. In this world, when you stop paying the rent, you don't get locked out from using your work. You just take it with you. Dave

I believe you are right and I was wrong:

But all purchases for maintenance extensions need to be made by August 30th, 2021 (eg. next Monday). What bothers me is that the GPU "recommended" requirements for Redshift keep rising. The "minimum" CUDA compute requirement for pre-R3.04 was 3.0 but is now 5.0 for R3.04. Likewise, the "recommended" compute capability is now 7 and the recommended GPU memory is now 10Gb. This puts you squarely in the RTX family of products only (and maybe a Titan V) with 12Gb of memory which start around $2K. I am sure there are a few exceptions but this is where the majority of GPU's land pricewise that meet those requirements. We all may squawk over the cost of Redshift, but if you need cutting edge GPU's to get acceptable performance with each new release, then you have to ask yourself: Do I really want my maintenance agreements to last that long because Redshift pushes hardware obsolescence faster than I can afford. The max CUDA compute capability available from Nvidia is 8.6 and Redshift recommends 7.....the difference between 8.6 and 7 does not provide a lot of headroom between what Redshift needs and the very best (and most expensive) that nVidia has to offer. This is not a good trend...especially if you want to keep all your hardware for as long as possible. Dave

While it is pretty evident to wonder if AMD GPU's will work with Redshift or not, I have always wondered why the Ryzen family of CPU processors are not part of the recommended hardware at the Redshift site? Per my understanding, the two biggest things to worry about with your PC/workstation hardware outside of the GPU is the clock speed of the CPU and the number of PCIe lanes running to the GPU (with....I think...16 being the max). Well, the Ryzen processors are a very affordable way to got to 4 GHz clock speeds. Is there something about their architecture the impacts or limits the PCIe lanes to the GPU? Just not sure why the Redshift recommended hardware list only contains Intel based chips. Dave

So when R25 gets announced in September, I have one question: Will it be a good day for Maxon or a good day for Blender? Maybe we should set-up a poll? Dave

Oh...I never assumed it would be easy or be done quickly. Just the whole concept of multi-threading physical based simulations blows my mind. How do you parse a physical simulation to a number of different calculation threads simultaneously when each event has to be based on each previous event (or deterministic)? It took a Stanford PhD in level set theory and computational physics, Rod Fedkiw, to figure that one out for ILM when they were making Poseidon. But with that said, what we don't know is when Insydium started on this effort. The technical papers have been out for some time (as I said it was cracked in 2006) so Insydium could have been working on it all this time. Yeah...straight particle simulations are probably the easiest to convert to GPU (they are driven by straight algorithms) with the hardest being fluid simulations for the reasons I outlined above. I am just (navier-) stoked that they are working on it (geeky fluid math pun intended). Dave

I got an email today from Insydium that contained an interview with Hayden Martin. Hayden made this startling statement in the article: Well, we all knew it was necessary for Insydium to do make XP GPU enabled, but this is the first time I have seen a statement about it in print. Is this something commonly known in Insydium forums or Discord channel? If so, have they posted anything about recommended GPU's for XP? I would assume it is nVidia branded so is there a minimum recommended GPU CUDA compute score (found here)? Rather startled to see this just casually mentioned in an email. Maybe I need to get out more? Dave

So a 14 year old kid made that Take-Out video in Blender? I am pretty sure that while Eevee helped, that kid has raw talent and could make anything look good in any software. When I was 14, the closest I got to animation was stop motion animation and had to build wire armatures if I wanted anything animated that was more exciting than Hot Wheels cars moving on their own. Kids are soooooo lucky these days. Dave

Just one other observation.....for a thread on R25 expectations, we are spending an unusual amount of time talking about Blender. In marketing, there is a concept called the "tipping point" - when one event creates a huge change in the market's perception of, interest in, and demand for a product. The tipping point for Blender was R2.8. The fact that this thread is talking just as much about Blender than a new release of C4D is further evidence of that chain reaction created by the release of R2.8. And Blender has only improved since R2.8 with grease pencil, improved mesh editing and further viewport and render improvements with Cycles X and Eevee. Can anyone else honestly tell me how Maxon can compete with Blender? The market momentum is already on Blender's side and the posts from those professionals in the industry talking about how their pipelines/projects need to be Blender compatible show that as well. C4D had some market momentum the year they released R20. R20 was just an awesome release, C4D won a technical Oscar that year and Maxon purchased Redshift. That all went into the crapper the next year when they introduced subscriptions - which, interestingly enough, was right after Blender released R2.8. So that year, late in 2018, was a rather critical nexus point for both companies. Blender's momentum started to increase while C4D's momentum started to decrease. Honestly, lost momentum is a tough thing to get back in the market place and Maxon should really pay attention to what is going on in the market and proceed with extreme caution. The focus now should be on how to hold on to customers rather than how to increase revenue. Yes...they may need to take a loss for a few years if they hope to survive this inflection point towards Blender. Redshift moving to subscription only was NOT a good move. Should Maxon announce that R25 is now subscription only (no more perpetual), then it will only be a matter of time. Dave

Perfectly said. This should be printed out in big bold type, framed and then placed in every Maxon conference room as one big %$&*#@ WAKE UP CALL! Dave

Nothing lasts forever so Insydium really should NOT tie themselves permanently to Maxon. Look at a difference 10 years can make in this industry. Look at Lightwave. Look at 3D Studio Max. They were once the software to own and envied by everyone. Now everyone just groans at the mere mention of their name ("Is Max still loading?" Groooooan!!! Will we ever get a Lightwave update? Groooann!!!) , You also now have Blender disrupting every market. Hobbyist's are looking at it as an alternative to every subscription plan out there. Professionals are also looking at it because the program's developers are still innovating and there is very little that Blender can't do. So no market is 100% safe when you have a very capable, rapidly developing and rapidly improving piece of software out there that is completely free....and Redshift is being ported over to it so even Maxon feels the heat Blender creates. Free is great after all and something people think about should they start questioning why are they renting software that no longer is keeping up with their needs. That is why I really hope Insydium has 4 things pinned to their development board for X-Particles: Tighter integration with Redshift (on par with the level of integration they had with Cycles 4D) GPU Acceleration Port over to Blender (though they are a bit too high priced for the average Blender user) Stand alone version Dave

What is buried in the Insydium fused announcement is that ONLY XP will be remaining perpetual in the new Fused plan. New plugins, like Meshform and Terraform, and Cycles 4D will go to subscription. Cycles 4D perpetual licenses are no longer being sold. If you have Cycles 4D now under maintenance then you can still get perpetual updates through the end of your original Cycles maintenance agreement. Redshift is also no longer perpetual.... So this is what would be a HUGE surprise for me with R25: Maxon offers indie licensing. R25 perpetual upgrades are still being offered. Yes...I would be more surprised if C4D stayed perpetual with R25. Sorry...but for me it is only a matter of time. If they can make that announcement for Redshift, then C4D cannot be far behind. Now, here is the big question: Will Maxon drop the price of its Redshift/C4D subscription bundle to soothe the crowd of removing C4D perpetual licensing? Would you jump on the C4D subscription if you knew it came with Redshift at the same price? I bring this up because I just find it funny that in June Maxon offers a 30% sale for a Redshift and C4D bundle. 30% off that bundled price drops the price to only $2 less each month than just a C4D subscription. Hmmm....where they possibly testing the market demand on now including Redshift with the C4D subscription at the same cost of 59.91/month? Just a thought. In any case, I find myself more interested in Blender 3.0 than C4D R25 given my fears that perpetual licensing is coming to end. Kind of sad statement of affairs on where my head is at with Cinema 4D after 16 years of using the program. Dave

Is it just me or has any company mastered the art of clean and clear communication when they make the shift to subscription licenses? There are always questions over what is NOT said in the announcement. But with that said, I do have to say that Insydium did a poorer job than most. In fact, some could argue that it was deceptive. I would like to give Insydium the positive benefit of the doubt as they have been very customer focused in the past (and I believe will continue to be that way in the future), but something just did not sit right with me in how they announced "Fused". Here are some points to think about: They never used the word "subscription" in their front page announcements. In fact, you have to infer what Fused really is by what is NOT said. Note that on the purchase page, you only see the word "perpetual" used against XP but not against all the other plugins. This raises questions. Their product page drop-down list box lists both "Fused Maintenance" and "Fused Subscriptions" -- so you think they are two different products but they are not. Everything is now under "Fused". So up until this point, you still think you have access to ALL that Fused has to offer but in a maintenance plan. In fact, the wording on the "Fused Maintenance" page is also rather confusing: Doesn't the highlighted section below lead you to believe EVERY plugin is perpetual...especially when this is under a "Maintenance Agreement" page? What is a "perpetual Fused license" then? The first time the word "subscription" is clearly called out for a Fused license is when you click the "What's this" icon next to the "Convert This License" icon on your account page. But you have to be an existing customer and you have to log in to get to that page. The marketing of Fused is really geared for first time buyers. There is nothing that is directed to existing customers. You would expect a well displayed FAQ page that addresses existing customers questions or concerns, but while I did eventually find one, I honestly can not remember where. I think it was on my account page - but honestly, I have not been able to find it again. As confusing as figuring out what Fused really is, the fate of Cycles is even more confusing -- no point in going into that again as previous posts on this thread have already discussed it in detail So it seems to me that the Insydium folks are trying to sell a subscription based product in the most distracting way possible so as to hide that it is a subscription. Their distraction is "look at all the plugins and training you now get in addition to XP and Cycles". While in the very small print they say "....oh and we are taking away perpetual Cycles from you." Honestly, I think Maxon was more upfront with what they were doing and they were not that upfront as they provided NO details on perpetual licensing. Look, if subscriptions were universally praised by their customers as a great program, companies would not be gaslighting their customers with each announcement. But we all know that subscriptions ONLY benefit the company so they are never explained clearly. Look...it is one thing to move to subscriptions. I get it. It is a good business move for you. But please treat us with respect and be honest about it. Don't treat us as morons and think you can hide what you are doing. That is condescending and we should NOT stand for it. I expected more from Insydium. Sorry to say, I am very disappointed. Dave

So are you buying or leasing via their bundle (Octane, Embergen and World Creator)? Not sure what your plans are, but I did look into the cost difference between buying and leasing in this post The cost to buy is much higher in your first year over leasing (obviously), but owning all three plugins only costs $8 more a year to stay in maintenance than their subscription program. To me, that is a no brainer - go perpetual. Dave

I honestly believe that Insydium is trying to do the right thing by their customers. Remember, everything you are reading here about Cycles no longer being updated is PURE SPECULATION! Nothing official has been said. I agree that the simple fact that XP is continued to be sold as perpetual license while Cycles moves to a subscription only license and is being bundled with a bunch of other plugins via Fused does not look good for the long term prospects of Cycles. It is never easy to cancel a product as you will always anger some customers. But, with that said, I do honestly believe that should Insydium announce no further development on Cycles that they are trying to accommodate the customer as much as possible. IMHO, in this age of Adobe crooks and Adobe wannabe's, Insydium is a pretty decent company. Their history shows they make providing outstanding value to the customer a top priority. You really can't ask for more than that. Nevertheless, please remember that this is ALL SPECULATION. The only thing we really know for certain is that Cycles is now subscription only. Dave

The smart thing about Embergen (and correct me if I am wrong) is that it is tied to the render engine more so than the host DCC application. This is plainly evident from their timeline where they plan to implement the ability to import animated meshes in Q3. Nevertheless, having the software linked to the render engine opens ups its market to more than just one DCC application. So wherever Octane is used, so can't Embergen. So points to JangaFX. XP is tied to C4D only which explains why it can be a multi-physics system. So points to Insydium. But which company do you think has the larger addressable market size? Obviously JangaFX. XP, from their perspective, tied themselves to a Cycles 4D which time has shown was not the best choice for the reasons I mentioned. They really need to get XP fully integrated into Redshift. Also, as they have their own built in physics engine, you then have to ask: well...why do they need to be coupled to C4D? Can their multi-physic capability be agnostic to the host application? If so, then what is needed next to be taken seriously in the broader markets outside of C4D: GPU acceleration. So what is the goal for all? Multi-physics particle and fluid simulations that is GPU accelerated and independent of the DCC application. That opens you up to the largest possible markets. Why wouldn't Insydium be thinking about that? JangaFX is thinking about it based on their timeline. Future Embergen enhancements are "particles as debris (bricks, wood shards)", "granular solving for dirt/sand within explosions)", "support for multiple simulations per scene" and "USD - universal scene description". In essence, overall tighter integration of physical simulations within a scene. Now, I would imagine JangaFX is way ahead in approaching that goal as they have already have the GPU and fluid simulation capability and a tight integration to Octane. I have to imagine implementing particle simulation and hard body physics simulations is not as tough as what they have already achieved. XP on the other hand has a tougher road with getting both tight Redshift integration and GPU acceleration. So points go to JangaFX. Dave

I think that is a very real possibility. Remember that there was a long pause in Cycles 4D development because (unfortunately) the lead developer was out of the picture for a year due to illness. Thankfully, I think she/he is back but that gap may have put Cycles 4D a bit behind that could have impacted its sales and stunted its growth at a time when Maxon is purchasing Redshift, and Octane is working with Embergen. As I think about it...and this is pure speculation but with a positive spin.....I have to imagine that Insydium is focusing on porting XP to be GPU enabled and as the Cycles 4D developer has that experience with writing GPU enabled software (as Cycles is GPU enabled), they decided that is where they are putting the resource. As such, they are evaluating whether or not Cycles 4D is worth the extra investment of hiring another person to continually keep it current. I would imagine...probably not. But a big factor in all of this is (again, pure speculation but something that makes a huge amount of sense to me) is that XP is under threat from Embergen and Embergen is tightly integrated with Octane. Embergen is GPU enabled and super fast. XP is tightly integrated with Cycles 4D and...not so fast. More people use Octane than Cycles 4D. So from an Insydium perspective they had two cap-stone products: XP and Cycles 4D. XP is doing well, Cycles 4D is not. Now, XP is under threat from Embergen. That is not a good position to be in for any company. So Insydium needs more products (thus Meshtools and Terraform) to sell to insure that they have the funds to support XP development to be GPU supported and (hopefully) tighter integration with a more mainstream GPU renderer than Cycles 4D. My guess is Redshift as they have a good relationship with Maxon. Now, as Meshtools and Terraform took shape, I am sure they evaluated how much revenue they would generate if sold as separate plugins and deduced not enough to keep XP development going. But...if bundled with a bunch of other goodies as part of a subscription plan then that could get people over the hump of moving into a re-occurring revenue model, especially for those who let their existing maintenance plans laps (which I imagine is more than you would think given their very generous 24 month allowance for lapsed licenses). So do or die for Insydium is to get XP to be GPU enabled and tightly integrated with Redshift to the same level as they had it integrated with Cycles 4D. Cycles 4D made sense in 2016 when it was the least expensive GPU enabled renderer for C4D at the time...but subscription models have changed all that with monthly purchasing. So Cycles 4D is an "okay" product to have but honestly, brings nothing to the table for Insydium in the face of what C4D users can get from Octane or Redshift. So it is an albatross now and that is why they are no longer selling any more perpetual licenses. I do not think it is because of some subversive plot to push people to subscription but rather an easing of the pain when they discontinue development on it all together...thus the bundling with all the other goodies in Fused. Dave

I think if you are currently under maintenance, then you get Fused now -- no additional cost. But after that maintenance expires, then cost to renew annual maintenance does increase from £180 to £190 (if I did my USD to £ conversions correctly). The only big change for any current Insydium customer currently under maintenance is that you Cycles perpetual license will convert to subscription at some point. XP perpetual licenses will stay as perpetual. Still trying to figure it all out as there are a few scenarios as I outlined previously with Cycles that have yet to be addressed, but I think the above is true. Dave

Well, for reasons I explained earlier in this thread, companies love the subscription model more than they love their customers. So what market forces does this create if EVERY perpetual license we have goes to subscription? We all know that hobbyists hate this model but for professional production houses it is a windfall. They can add/scale back seats at will depending on the needs of their business. They just love the flexibility. They have no sentimentality to past projects nor will they care if a lapsed subscription means that they cannot access them. They will only need to visit that project again if they have a client paying them to do so. On the other hand, hobbyists do care about being able to access past projects. So the only people who really want perpetual license options are the hobbyists. So how big is that market? Does our buying power...in essence our voice to those that only care about profit....have any impact on what a company offers? Given the continuing move to subscription I have to conclude that is does not. Face it --- the hobbyist is no longer a market that anyone cares about..... ...except for Blender. Blender's origins was with the hobbyist. Those CG lovers who desperately wanted to get into 3D back when Lightwave was $5000 per license (how times have changed...glad to know that C4D has lowered its prices since then....err...maybe not). Blender was really quirky then and while a lot less quirky now, still holds onto its unique UI which does get better and more mainstream with each release. Plus...and this is very important...Blender is innovating faster than its rivals. That is something that should not be taken for granted. Even more important than their innovation is that Blender is becoming more production worthy. Why else would Octane, RenderMan and Redshift be porting their render engines to Blender? Not to appease the hobbyists but rather because Blender is proving itself where time and dollars count: mainstream production. Blender is starting to become part of the production pipeline. A big part of production houses decision to hold onto a piece of software is how well it fits into their pipeline. I do believe that at some point as companies get comfortable with the guaranteed revenue streams that subscriptions provide, the incentive to innovate will decrease because the need to compete on cutting edge features goes away. Carry that thought a bit further and the leap to some pin-headed exec cutting expenses by cutting their software development team is not that far off. This leaves users with paying annually just to use the same old software with the same old issues longer than they have patience to endure. The frustration of using a piece of software that is not keeping up with your needs is an issue for the professional as well as the hobbyist. Meanwhile, Blender just keeps getting more established, more capable, more dependable and still free. What keeps pay-to-use software developers up at night is watching Blender become part of a proven production pipeline. Blender would have been foolish not to have that goal always in mind....and they are not foolish. You can see that initiative with the creation of their mini movies they started a few years ago - exercises that show quality long format animations are possible with Blender. Those mini movies were messages that Blender is to be taken seriously. So what would happen if more production houses move to Blender from other "Pay to use" apps? Where would that leave the "pay-to-use" apps who stopped caring about the hobby market when they moved to subscriptions? Would the hobby market now be important to them? By then, it could be too late. Dave

Wow...I must have been having a tough day. Nevertheless - I still cannot download the latest licenses unless I sign up for Fuse. That just doesn't "feel" right for anyone under standard maintenance but I can understand Insydium's reasoning for this - but you have to deep dive into ALL the literature to figure it out. Signing up for Fuse will NOT impact your current maintenance accounts on Cycles and XP. Each new release will still be perpetual while under standard maintenance - so go get Fuse because in their mind you have nothing to lose but only gain. Honestly, they should be applauded for this......but here is still one scenario that they have not clarified and the whole thing appears straightforward but has its complexities. Consider this scenario: Current Situation: I have XP and Cycles under maintenance until 12/2022. I sign up for Fuse today. Now, let's say that by 12/2022 they upgrade XP to Release 1100 (currently at 1030) and Cycles to release 650 (currently at 550). At that time both XP 1100 and Cycles 650 are PERPETUAL per my pre-existing maintenance agreement. Now on 1/2023 I renew my Fuse Maintenance agreement through 12/2023. In that year, they upgrade XP from Release 1100 to Release 1200 and Cycles from Release 650 to Release 700. I then decide to STOP renewing my Fuse Maintenance agreement in 12/2023. XP Release 1200 should still be active per the statements of their FAQ page. Cycles Release 700 should NO longer be active because it now subscription only. BUT...can I still use Cycles Release 650? Is that still a perpetual license or was it replaced by the subscription Cycles with my last Fuse maintenance plan? Dave

Cariyn, I see that now. Thanks for pointing out the Cycles license was in a drop down. So I have maintenance on both Cycles and XP until 12/2022. Therefore, regardless of what Fuse gives you I should be eligible under the maintenance program to get new releases of XP and Cycles. But right now, when I click on the download button I can only get up to Release 895 and NOT 1030. Plus there is NO download capability for Cycles. This is NOT what the FAQ page says: Not true....build 1030 is not even on the list: This is what they say about Cycles: But the Cycles download button is not even available as the whole window is greyed out. Sorry...can't download like you said. So something is not right. Yes...another nail in the coffin. Trust me......C4D R25 is going subscription in September. I just feel it in my bones given what is going on with Redshift and now Insydium Dave