What do you want in light or freelance editions of software?
ngon master
We have a bunch of indie/freelance/hobbyist editions, Modo, Quxiel, Autodesk, Allegorithmic, etc. What do you think the limits should be? What would make them appealing?
My suggestions
Student/hobbyist/limited-commercial
-Removed features like rendering, baking, animation, etc.
-Free to use for contests, Steam Workshop, etc.
-Okay to use for minor commercial uses like asset stores and indie games if you make less than $5k-$10k a year (UE4 is free if you make under $3,000.00 a quarter)
-No weird export or polycount limitations.
-Around $60
Freelance
-Removed features designed for large companies, project management, studio environments.
-Less included resources or example content
-Around $100-250
My suggestions
Student/hobbyist/limited-commercial
-Removed features like rendering, baking, animation, etc.
-Free to use for contests, Steam Workshop, etc.
-Okay to use for minor commercial uses like asset stores and indie games if you make less than $5k-$10k a year (UE4 is free if you make under $3,000.00 a quarter)
-No weird export or polycount limitations.
-Around $60
Freelance
-Removed features designed for large companies, project management, studio environments.
-Less included resources or example content
-Around $100-250
Replies
I also think "renting" software is perverted and people completely disagree with me on that but imagine if Apple and Microsoft started renting their os's for a monthly fee, how many would think that that's a great idea :poly122:
Quixel & Allegorithmic's license options are both fair and sensible and I am glad they offer them as I can afford to buy them both :poly121:
Easy for students to actually afford
Only take away features that students probably would not use anyway
Non-commercial
Quixel has done this very well
I like Quixel software too, while it isn't free, it only costs $25 to grab an Academic license for the new dDo which is a steal.
In terms of freelancing, I think it'd be cool to have cheaper restricted software packages, or even royalty based full versions where you can agree to give a certain percentage of an individual sale in exchange for access to the full edition of a software. I'd imagine it wouldn't be popular for the freelancers who base their entire living off of freelance work, but I think there could be interest for that kind of service for those looking to make a small amount of money on the side.
Student, hobbyist, learning editions (that is to say, no commercial profit whatsoever) : Full feature set, fully free. That's basically what cracked versions have been for since forever. Once the user enters the commercial market, it's time to pay for the product.
Indie, freelancers, Workshop contributors : Full features, but at a cheaper price. The argument of indies needing less polygons is completely unfounded, borderline condescending, and shows a strong misunderstanding of what it takes to make 3D games. Option of either renting, or paying upfront.
Regarding so-called affordable monthly renting plans, like CC or MayaLT : once someone rents the software for so long that the amount being paid ends up being equal or superior to a standalone licence, the permanent license should be automatically granted (because software are not cars or houses). Similarly, if I rent MayaLT for two months, but then decide to move to the one time activation, the amount paid towards the two months of rent should be deducted from the one-time purchase.
And then there are exceptions like Zbrush, for which the price point is affordable to begin with AND grants free upgrades. In that regard I find it admirable that Pixologic still sticks to an oldschool release naming system, even if said names are exotic (like "4r4"). At least they are not using the pretentious year-based naming system to try to artificially make their product more impressive than they really are. (they don't need to use that trick anyways, since their releases and bug fixes are free of charge.) Now whether or not Pixologic is making a sustainable profit out of Zbrush is a big question. But at least with that business model they established themselves as clear leaders of their niche so there's definitely something to think about here. Their business model even allows medium sized and big studio to buy Zbrush licenses for their 2d artists for instance. I would suppose that this helps spreading the program like a wildfire.
Another welcome exception is UDK, with the renting option allowing one to stop renting at any time but still lets the user keep the program in whatever state it is. Now of course this is a bit of a special case since UDK has historically always been free for hobbyists. But it would be great if MayaLT users who paid a full, one-time license could just rent the next version for just one month in order to get all the new features (and bug fixes !) unlocked.
All of the above also depends on the feature set of the program to begin with, so it's hard to make generalizations. And then of course there's also the tricky issue of determining who gets to get a "indie/small studio" license and who has to pay the bigger corporate price.
I don't so much like the autodesk, adobe, and modo licensing approaches.
+1
Student version:
Free: Being an art student is expensive enough. Most art schools that I know of are for profit, so chances are students are going to be reluctant to pay $300 for a student version of something, which can't even be used commercially. A lot of students I know pirate stuff, not because they're bad people that want to cause some company some harm, but because they want to learn the software because it's awesome (cause that's what we students are here to do, learn).
The way I see it, if you have a low barrier to entry to learning something, you'll be more inclined to learn it, and if you're going through school learning specific software, you'll be more comfortable buying a license for that software over another software.
The first is to divide their product into modules, Let the customer build a suite they need and charge them accordingly. Maxon did this with Cinema 4D, though I think they've since moved to a tiered system, which also works. Quixel is another good example. Some companies take the opposite approach, making several standalone apps that can work together. Adobe and Allegorithmic do this and I think it works well for them. (Adobe caters more to the design industry as a whole, not just 3D. Most designers use at least two Adobe apps in tandem when they work, so judging them on Photoshop alone isn't really valid imo.)
The second move is to ensure their software is a wise investment. Mudbox isn't a wise investment because upgrades cost almost as much as the initial application. 3D Coat on the other hand, only charges like $60 for upgrades as long as you stay current. I think that's fair because they aren't reinventing the wheel with every release, but they do add new tools. ZBrush is a wise investment because upgrades are free. If they charged for them, I'd be more inclined to weigh it against 3D Coat because ZB still lacks practical painting capabilities.
Educational versions are tough. The old educational version of Maya used to watermark renders that were made with it, so maybe that's the way to go? They would also have to impose some limitations on exports since game art usually ends up in a third party application. In any case, the professional version should be fully compatible with educational versions so that students can escape those limitations when they get into the industry and can afford the pro licenses.
I think there's actually a third thing software developers can do. Making their product as widely available as possible to get more people using it, it has worked with UDK, UE4, and Unity.
It's no harder than making sure people aren't using a pirated version.
which software are you talking about? adobe software can be used commercially as a student and even after you graduated and autodesk software is completely free for students
When I start the program, it prompts me there's a new version. It shows me the change list, right there, so I can decide if I want to update or not. If I press the download button, it closes the app, downloads it directly, installs, and then re-opens the app to get me right back where I started.
No going to a web browser, finding the download, OK'ing security, etc. (the painful Flash update process).
What's wrong with modo approach? At least they don't force you to upgrade every year, which is a good thing.
I hate having to pay for features I don't need just to be able to upgrade next year.
I personaly think that perfect indie licensing model do exist. Just look at the Epic's UE4.
You upgrade when you wish, and only pay some substantial price if your project has really made money.
I actually hate it, since it pops up when you want to use the program and gets in the way when you just want to quickly get something done.
As far as updates the best i seen, is on linux systems, where it is the OS's job to check for updated pacakges for all installed software, and just do it in the background.