Regarding the scripting, there's no guarantee just yet. They are working towards finding a solution that works for both parties (foundry and the user). Be hopeful but not expectant, just to be safe.
I second that. Rarely a good idea to emulate the business practices of Autodesk; That's generally the stuff that makes people despise them.
What aspect of the Indie licence don't you like? We don't believe that we're copying Autodesk in this respect, but are always open to suggestions about how we can do things better.
What aspect of the Indie licence don't you like? We don't believe that we're copying Autodesk in this respect, but are always open to suggestions about how we can do things better.
It's similar to Autodesk 'indie' licensing in that it has had significant features stripped out.
Look at what Side Effects did with Houdini indie, it's the full Houdini FX package with limitations only on rendering size (can't go above full HD for animation, but unlimited for stills) and you don't get unlimited mantra tokens.
No custom shaders, no python scripting, very low object limit, very limited export options, and limited to 8 bit per channel all work against a decision to purchase Mari Indie. Those limitations do not make for an attractive purchase at any price and do not motivate me to look beyond the affordable painting software I already have.
The only limitation that makes sense imo is the resolution limit, 4k is plenty, if you need more than that you should upgrade to full Mari. Ease up on the UDIM limit as well, 2 seems a little stingy. UDIM is one of those features that sets Mari apart, but others are catching up and are not limiting people to 2 UDIM patches.
If you need to raise the price of Mari Indie to remove the severe restrictions, I can respect that, as it will most likely be a far better value than what is offered today.
At the end of the survey, you ask why I didn't purchase Modo Indie and Marie Indie. One of the answer is ''it lacks one or multiple features''. And then it ends there. Maybe if the survey would ask us exactly what features we think are missing, it could be more helpful.
Hey Tidal Blast,
Very good point man. We are aware of some of the main user concerns over limitations and are working to address them to aid the community further.
Since you already took the survey, would you be so kind as to let me know the limitations that effect your workflow.
Stop doing indie licensing like Autodesk, start doing it like Allegorithmic and Side Effects.
This is a bit misleading.
The Indie License for both Modo and Mari are not doing what Autodesk is doing.
Lets make sure we are being completely honest and transparent about this.
Take Maya LT for example, it has limited animation, no dynamics, no rendering. These are some pretty big components of Maya.
Going over to Modo Indie, you do get all the animation tools, the dynamics, the rendering even (Modo's renderer, even as a stand alone one, is pretty damn good).
The limitations are not severe and I would hardly classify it as missing core functionality. Scripting is a tricky wicket because it can make null those minor limitations that exist (and for a reason). Maya LT also COST more for both perpetual and subscription licenses. So no matter how you look at it, they are not remotely the same thing.
Modo also never really had a strong scripting (plugin reliant) scene to it...it does exist on a small scale but its not as important as say working with Maya. Thus the need for scripting and plugin support is much lower on the Modo front. Good news is that they are looking into finding a way to get that element added to Indie.
Also, unlike Maya LT, Modo Indie has an upgrade path. If you want the full thing, just contact Brandon at the Foundry (brandon.reddick@thefoundry.co.uk) and a reduced price will be given based on your purchase of Indie. There is no penalty for not upgrading Modo, you can skip as many upgrades as you want and then just pay one flat upgrade price to get the current version. We both know Autodesk doesnt do that at all.
Finally, not every studio has the luxury to mimic Allegorithmic's Indie licensing. Theres risk vs reward at play. I think everyone would love to see that licensing become the norm, but its also highly unrealistic if you think about it. Allegorithmic's indie licensing came much later btw, even after they had educational steam versions. Indie is still pretty new for the Foundry, which lets face it is known for some pretty high end pricing schemes which target studios.
With the Modo and Mari indie you are getting a lot of bang for your buck.
Dataday : all solid points, but there is still the rather pointless and arbitrary 100k polys limit - as if indie = "less graphics". It is especially ironic considering that The Foundry is trying to position Modo as a sculpting tool too, as shown in their Dota2 weapon tutorial. Now of course someone would argue that the bake should be made in Modo, but we all know that's never the case.
I still don't understand why there is a need to limit anything at all. If the fear is that some people would "game the system" by using Mari Indie on non-indie qualifying projects, then there's nothing for the Foundry to loose anyways, since such users would put themselves at risk of getting into legal troubles.
Personally after trying both of them, the only thing that MayaLT and Modo Indie managed to do was to drive me away from Maya and Modo for good. It's just such a convoluted system for no real good reason.
I wouldnt say the export limit is pointless. If I remember correctly they picked that starting number due to the import limit for either Unity or UDK/UE4. As for the less graphics, not sure what that is specifically supposed to mean. They probably envisioned the artist using the render engine or baking toolset, which isnt bad. Farfarer and Snefer have been able to work with the baking tools inside of modo with no apparent drop in quality. In fact its quite fast, even setting up a cage is as simple as creating a morph modifier and tagging it as a cage.
Even better once you make use of the smooth edge shader, something substance designer 5 is going to add as well.
As for sculpting...eh I have never really seem them push Modo as the pure sculpting tool, if anything (like blender, which you are now familiar with), its just an added tool which can allow the artist to stay within the application itself. Good for smoothing out or relaxing verts, moving stuff around or adding some quick details for a bake. When working with the multirez, you can easily just send out a displacement map if need be. Its painting toolset is also pretty decent, again all inside of the application. You can pull off the usual blizzard like hand painted texture work with a brush control scheme thats a lot like 3d Coat... It could use some work but for being a part of the application itself its not horribly bad.
Regarding the Dota2 weapon tutorial... that was made for the ModoSE (steam edition) which was entirely focused on making Dota 2 assets with Modo. As such they had to stay entirely in Modo and show it could be done. Indie is the evolution of the Steam Edition, instead of focusing on just one application within the steam platform, it acts as an accessible swiss army knife like tool for the indie artist who likes the commercial viability.
What specifically is a convoluted system? One could argue Mari is extremely convoluted (to which I would agree) but certainly not Modo, even in Indie form. No more so than say Blender, which is extremely convoluted in its design. If you are talking about the restrictions, I dont see how thats convoluted, or why convoluted would even be the right word for it.
There is a good reason for its restrictions.... assuming you consider funding continued development and keeping the shareholders happy a good reason.
They have a flagship product, its used in just about every industry (some more than others naturally) and in the case of Modo its more than half the price of a Maya or Max license. So if you want to make it more accessible for those who cannot or do not want to drop that kind of money, while not encouraging your current full license user base to drop and go to the cheaper version, then some restrictions are logical.
The restrictions are minor for allowing commercial use. Sure it would be nice if there were no restrictions at all, but I think its safe to say they do exist for a GOOD reason. And of course there is the reminder that they do not penalize anyone for not upgrading nor do they force subscription models. If you like the new developments, they earn it with an upgrade purchase, if not hold off as long as you like with no additional cost to the upgrade. This is very pro-consumer.
Just bought a 1 month subscription on steam, looking forward to trying it out, few years since I last used modo.
I understand the restrictions, however personally I would like to see the export limit get adjusted(removed) since I bake my models in substance designer.
Hi there Dataday ! More good points again. I will try to clarify a few of mine.
- I meant convoluted in regards to marketing and product offering. Having to chose between a full package as a one-time purchase or a limited "indie" version on a rental basis just seems like an annoying choice to make for the customer. But to the credit of The Foundry, Modo full is pretty affordable to begin with and at least the rental option allows the user to try the app for any duration of time before deciding to commit to it, so that's not too bad.
- The "indie = less graphics" comment was just a tongue in cheek way to refer to the fact that someone at Autodesk and The Foundry believes that indie development = less polygons, which I think is misguided. It is as if we were all painted with a broad Flappy Bird brush ... Now I understand that this is not coming from bad intentions, as illustrated by the Modo Indie limit being based on the UDK import specs as you said, and the LT limit being basically based on surveys. But what if an indie dev was working on a Mist-like iphone game with pre-rendered environments rendered in an external renderer ? All of a sudden this project wouldn't be "indie enough" and that bothers me. After all, the only thing that "indie" means is "independent from a publisher".
- I agree that the Modo renderer is great ! No doubt about that. But I still have a problem with the assumption that the realtime assets of an indie project should be baked internally, and from there we are back at the polygon limit again. In a way it doesn't really matter how good the internal renderers and bakers of LT and Modo Indie are ; there are many scenarios where one would need something else (Xnormal, Handplane ...) and I don't see how an indie version of an app is being helpful by limiting that as it disrupts any established workflow. In regards to scripting : I have heard and seen that many Modo converts rely a lot on the Seneca scripts, to a point where these user-made tools and the accessibility of the scripting and macro creation systems are a good part of the success of the program to begin with. Limiting this is another thing that strikes me as odd.
Now to be fair, I have absolutely no issue with a software company releasing a limited version of their software at a discounted price. I just have an issue with the claim that such a version is "made for indies", especially when the justification for the limitations often amounts to "hmm, but we do have to limit something don't we ?" But hey, I don't have a dog in this fight anyways - just offering my option after trying both LT and ModoSE/Indie in the past and not being quite convinced by what they have to offer.
Hi there Dataday ! More good points again. I will try to clarify a few of mine.
...snip...
Pior, your position understandable and I appreciate the detailed clarification as well as it helps to understand your POV much better.
There are actually a few other options available to the user regarding how they can obtain a license. In addition to the full version perpetual purchase, Indie does offer a perpetual $299 or rental $9.99/month. So pretty much 3 solid options, one being a rental. Also, its probably worth highlighting the fact that Modo often sells for less than $999 when there is a sale going on, which seems to happen at least once a year. For some that 40% discount might be relevant.
Its true, if they wanted to render a large scene with over 100k polys in an outside renderer, that would pose a challenge. Not impossible mind you, just theres less convenience...which I suppose is one of the points of going for the cheaper version. Sending out individual assets or groups might have to happen in that case, or working based around SubD's in which they can have extra resolution added outside of Modo Indie. Ultimately though I do think they intended for the user to stay inside of Modo for its renderer. Considering that Modo's best quality is its modeling workflow and capability, I don't blame anyone for wanting to grab it for just that...and as such an export limit inside of indie would indeed come across as a problem.
They probably should have just marketed it towards games like LT did rather than sell it as a generalist application for every market. This is probably the fault of marketing...
For example when you mention the "Made for Indies" tag, its obviously a marketing thing. Before (and you can probably still find the naming in some of the files) they were going to with "My" in front of the name. So MyMari or MyModo. I don't know how many of the beta testers mentioned it, but it was fairly cheesy as far as naming goes. So instead the "Indie" label got slapped on and of course they have to come up with some "fun" marketing slogans to go with it (its like tourette syndrome for marketing folk). I would have preferred they went with lite or something else, since now Indie seems to convey different expectations. Anyways I believe the "made for indies" notion is a last minute marketing choice rather than something Indie was designed around from the get go.
Its also true that Senecas scripts are widely used, more often than naught for the booleans since to be quite honest, the default booleans in Modo are just horrible. This is something they agree with though and there should be some plugin support coming for the Indie version, whether its open for all plugins or scripting or limited to specific ones, we shall see. Also the form editor is still there so at the very least one can make use of the custom hotkey, macro and pie menu workflow. Its a big time saver once you have a set of actions you tend to do every time.
Dataday your spin isn't convincing. The Foundry is employing the same cynical outlook to the indie market that Autodesk is. Are they as extreme as Autodesk? no, but the outlook and the approach is the same.
They both place arbitrary limits on the software that will get in the way of getting work done. Why should anyone pay for that?
Dataday your spin isn't convincing. The Foundry is employing the same cynical outlook to the indie market that Autodesk is. Are they as extreme as Autodesk? no, but the outlook and the approach is the same.
Spin? Spin is when you speak from assumption and on an emotional level, one in which to push a confirmation bias. What I respond with is specifics, a bit of logic and objective information. In essence, you writing off my response with vague and emotion based proclamations is the only spin I am seeing here.
They both place arbitrary limits on the software that will get in the way of getting work done. Why should anyone pay for that?
Again, why is it arbitrary? I already shown that it is not. You can call it something, but you need to back it up with specific examples otherwise you are just making pointless noise. You also seem to misunderstand or not acknowledged the difference in value. Its not a "black or white" subject, there are variables involved you MUST consider. Its about value. If you cannot see or find value in a product having a 80% price reduction at the cost of some minor restrictions, then you are obviously not part of the target audience. Just because you pay any amount doesnt require it to not have any restrictions, the retail price is also an important factor. Common sense.
100k poly limit isn't a 'minor' restriction. No scripting/api is far from a 'minor' restriction. Locking the scene file to a steam ID is also far from a 'minor' restriction. Calling these severe and in some cases crippling limitations 'minor' is spin.
They are arbitrary because they are unnecessary restrictions, look at what Side Effects offers in an 'indie' license. The only things I need to consider is what is being offered and at what price everything else is irrelevant.
The Foundry is gathering feedback on their indie licensing, so obviously something isn't working out with it from their point of view. I really don't see why you feel the need to defend the status quo.
Sorry you're not happy with our Indie products. Our target market for these products is people who individually or in small teams (2 or 3) produce assets for Indie games development.
We did research while putting these together and found that the majority of people didn't go over 100k (exported) poly's per game object or 2 4k patches per channel for textures.
The functionality was designed around this target market. We understand it won't fit everyones needs but we are keen to tweak these settings to make it more usable by more people, hence the request for feedback.
Hi JGreasley ! It's always nice to see you show up in these threads.
On this :
We did research while putting these together and found that the majority of people didn't go over 100k (exported) poly's per game object or 2 4k patches per channel for textures.
I think the problem comes from the question being framed too narrowly. Of course if you ask people about the kind of polygon count they use for their individual ingame assets, you would get these kind of numbers (around 100k). But if you were to ask "As an indie developer, what would you see yourself using Modo Indie for ?" you could get very varied answers : "Leveraging the Modo sculpting toolset to bypass the need for Zbrush altogether, while still baking in Xnormal" ; or, "building full level prototypes straight from Modo for the greyboxing stage" - both of which would be severely hindered by any arbitrary export limit.
The problem with limiting features in the hope of tailoring the app to a specific audience lies in the fact that it potentially hinders creative (and unexpected !) uses of the toolset. Then again, I haven't used Modo Indie much, but I am speaking from the painful experience of having given MayaLT a fair try, which put me in the position of having to transition assets out of it because I ended up running into unexpected issues related to the built-in limitations - and that's not something I am wishing on anyone.
As a matter of fact, I am still wasting money on this monthly LT license it as we speak because I am not done yet with transitioning these assets out, and that annoys me to no end. I hope this makes sense !
Sorry you're not happy with our Indie products. Our target market for these products is people who individually or in small teams (2 or 3) produce assets for Indie games development.
We did research while putting these together and found that the majority of people didn't go over 100k (exported) poly's per game object or 2 4k patches per channel for textures.
The functionality was designed around this target market. We understand it won't fit everyones needs but we are keen to tweak these settings to make it more usable by more people, hence the request for feedback.
So why is that limit even there? All it does is throw a wrench in certain workflows. It also hamstrings the entire sculpting toolset, since most people don't bake in Modo.
I check in pretty regularly. We do understand that people have different workflows and requirements and we are listening to all of your feedback. At the end of the day we want people to use and enjoy our software.
We're not going to get this right all of the time for everyone. We are learning about this market and model as we go along. we tried ModoSE, leant from that, iterated and made Indie. We will look at that too and continue iterating. We appreciate every bit of feedback we get. Positive or negative.
100k poly limit isn't a 'minor' restriction. No scripting/api is far from a 'minor' restriction. Locking the scene file to a steam ID is also far from a 'minor' restriction. Calling these severe and in some cases crippling limitations 'minor' is spin.
They are arbitrary because they are unnecessary restrictions, look at what Side Effects offers in an 'indie' license. The only things I need to consider is what is being offered and at what price everything else is irrelevant.
The Foundry is gathering feedback on their indie licensing, so obviously something isn't working out with it from their point of view. I really don't see why you feel the need to defend the status quo.
Sure it is depending on what you do. It is NOT an import limit, its not even a limit for saving a scene, nor is it a limit when working inside of Modo. The only limit is with export, and if you work smart you can even get around that limit. Its not necessarily the softwares fault if the artist cannot overcome certain challenges or become efficient for certain tasks.
You dont NEED to work outside of modo, as it offers modeling, retopologizing, sculpting, painting, baking/rendering features. What it comes down to is just the feeling of entitlement, which I think is silly. These are software solutions, if its not a solution and you cant get use out of it, then skip it. Its not rocket science.
Lets just assume you want to use zbrush as part of your workflow right? Well model the base mesh in modo, want to work at a higher poly count? Use subdivision or a multirez modifier. You can still export the base and get the SAME results in zbrush. Sculpt away, bring back into Modo indie (no import limit) and retopo with its retopo toolset/mode. UV and export. Now you have a high rez sculpt, and low poly UVed retopoed mesh, and any outside baking tool you want to get your maps from. Again its not rocket science. At some point the complaints end up happening for the sake of complaining, not because you are actually prevented from working.
Would it be nice if the poly export limit wasnt there? SURE! I dont think any one would argue the opposite. When you say the limit is arbitrary or there for no good reason, that is patently false. They do have a good reason, doesnt mean you have to like it... but there is reasoning behind it.
Again, they already said they are getting plugin support going for it.. but this is ya know the first VERSION of indie. Its not a "snap my fingers and its there" kind of development process. When substance painter and designer were on steam there was no Indie version at first, in fact painter had all sorts of issues that make it hard to work in due to it being JUST released and they have a lot of functionality they still need to add OVER TIME. Modo Indie is one of those new products that is being developed over time.
When Modo SE came out it had a limit of 7k polygons, no animation or rendering functionality. It was limited to the point where it was only useful for pumping out Dota 2 armor and weapons, which was the goal. Less than a year later, its now up to 100k polygon limit and a lot more functionality. Do you see the pattern? If not then you should.
Locking a project file to a steam ID IS minor. Its so incredibly minor that suggesting otherwise sounds silly to me. These are inconveniences, not roadblocks. If you want to send a file to another indie user, then give it to them as an fbx or obj. If you are in a large team and literally require the sending around of scene files in their native format, then the foundry wants you to use the full version of Modo. Pretty simple eh? Its not unreasonable. Indie targets individuals, not teams.
Suggesting there is a status quo makes me think that you are speaking again on an emotional level, with some anti-business mentality or some imaginary evil corporate entity to fight against. Its really not like that at all. The modo people are developers, we are consumers, and if you spend some time on the official forums or chatting with them in the steam chat channel, you would realize the relationship between the two groups is very close. So please stop making assumptions and look into the situation/software first. If it were anything like Autodesk I wouldnt personally be using it much less taking the time out to address the misconceptions regarding it.
As for Houdini Indie, its a bit hard to compare the two applications just as its hard to compare it to what Allegorithmic is doing. They are not the same company, not in the same position with different software that has different and or varying levels of market exposure.
Lets say you do go look at Houdini Indie though, since you brought it up. It has its share of limitations. Did you look them up? Not only are there limitations with Houdini Indie, but last time I checked that $199 price tag + another $99 for the Houdini Engine is only good for ONE year. Then you have to pay it all over again. Modo Indie does not have that requirement, buy the perpetual license. Its yours. Want just a few months of it? Go for it, it cost less than a world of warcraft sub. I cant stress enough how important it is to consider the element of "Value" what you pay vs what you get.
I'll just end this (beating of a dead horse) with the fact that I am an equal opportunist when it comes to criticizing poor products, business models and even design. The Foundry has gotten its fair share of it from me, even to the point where the head honcho of Modo pretty much got onto a podcast, specifically pointed out the criticism and who gave it, and admitted they didnt realize the issue was there... said they got caught with their pants down...they listened and used the information to fix reasonable complaints. This is not a bad group of developers you are dealing with here. They are not out to screw you over and take all your lewt.
Dataday, I would venture to guess that the diverging opinions about such software restrictions depend on whether or not a given person has been slowed down by such limitations in practice.
For instance, besides still not understanding the reasoning behind these restrictions to begin with, I know I am against them in principle simply because I experienced the issues that they caused first-hand. Had I not run into such issues my stance wouldn't be as firm and I would be probably more candid about it all. But once one reaches the point where time is being wasted instead of being saved, convincing oneself of using workarounds (like splitting a mesh into multiple chunks in order to circumvent an arbitrary polygon export limit) just isn't a good enough option anymore.
While I can see that a marketing department would think that everything will be fine, actual user experiences may differ widely. For instance, despite all the good intentions behind it, ModoSE was *not* a viable all-in one tool for Dota2 production. It might seem so on paper (decent sculpting and baking sure seems to be enough ...) but in practice Dota2 creators rely on much, much more than that, like very specific baking setups in Xnormal, the need to export to a myriad of external programs like Topogun, 3DCoat and Handplane, the obvious need to exchange files between teams of collaborators, and so on. To put things in perspective, despite ModoSE being perfectly tailored for Dota2 item creation on paper, I do not know of a single Dota2 Workshop artist using it for actual Dota2 item creation, so clearly there is something amiss here.
Again, just offering my feedback based on practical experience.
Oh I wont argue that some limitations can slow someone down. I pretty much agree on that, including trying to get around a polycount cap on export. I do argue though when instead of calling it an inconvenience, its called a roadblock or something that stops all work from being done.
I doubt we could find any user that wouldnt love to see all restrictions removed either, myself included. There is a line though, from my pov, at what is a reasonable expectation and an unreasonable one, especially when certain words are used to make it seem like the development end is being stupid or cruel by including any restrictions, despite the lower price price.
Outside of Blender, I dont think there is a better deal out there in terms of what you pay for and what you get with this kind of software package.
Suggesting there is a status quo makes me think that you are speaking again on an emotional level, with some anti-business or some imaginary evil corporate entity to fight against. Its really not like that at all. The modo people are developers, we are consumers, and if you spend some time on the official forums or chatting with them in the steam chat channel, you would realize the relationship between the two groups is very close. So please stop making assumptions and look into the situation/software first.
Status quo is not an inherently emotionally loaded term, also I have no idea where you are getting this anti-business crap.
As for Houdini Indie, its a bit hard to compare the two applications just as its hard to compare it to what Allegorithmic is doing. They are not the same company, not in the same position with different software that has different and or varying levels of market exposure.
It's not hard to compare them at all. The fact they aren't the same is what warrants the comparison.
Lets say you do go look at Houdini Indie though, since you keep bringing it up. It has its share of limitations. Did you look them up? Its so mind numbingly frustrating when people do this. Not only are there limitations with Houdini Indie, but last time I checked that $199 price tag + another $99 for the Houdini Engine is only good for ONE year. Then you have to pay it all over again. Modo Indie does not have that requirement, buy the perpetual license. Its yours. Want just a few months of it? Go for it, it cost less than a world of warcraft sub. I cant stress enough how important it is to consider the element of "Value" what you pay vs what you get.
Look a little closer. Houdini indie can function as Houdini engine. Additional licenses of Engine cost $99. It's basically a batch license. Yes, it's a yearly license that includes upgrades (Houdini indie is a separate license, not a separate product so it gets upgraded when FX does), as well as daily and production builds. Some people don't think that's a good deal, a lot of others do. I am also familiar with Houdini indies limitations, however since I am not going to render animation over full HD or have a render farm to run unlimited mantra tokens and batch sims the limitations in Houdini indie might as well not exist from my point of view. Yes, I find the value of Houdini indie to be much higher than what the Foundry offers with Modo indie because the things that limit me from taking advantage of Houdini FX are out of my reach anyway (massive investment in hardware and staff). In a very real way Houdini indie offers greater value in my current situation than Houdini FX. Eventually that may change.
I honestly don't see the point of Modo indie, Modo's price isn't very high and the upgrades seem reasonable. Mari indie on the other hand I can see a case for.
Do you (the team) already have an idea of what you'll do with the feedback about the lack of custom scripts in Modo Indie? Are you planning to officially add the tools that we currently use as custom scripts for game art?
And what exactly in your mind makes Modo Indie different from Modo full version? I mean, people won't stop to ask for less limitations so where is the line that we shouldn't cross?
Hey Tidal Blast,
We do in fact have a plan for scripts in MODO Indie, but I can't disclose any more detailed info at this time as we are still working on implementation. (Get mad at me if you want for this answer or even challenge me to a foam sword duel... on a coastal bluff preferably, for this is all I can say at this time)
Like Jack G. said, we really do appreciate all of your feedback, because it helps us to improve the product for the community as a whole. We released the Indie products on Steam to give more individuals access to MODO and MARI at a lower price point aimed at game projects though with some limitations as we've all discussed at great length. No one likes limitations, because it means that we as artists feel that we're not getting the full version of what we may need or want.
These business decisions on limitations are never made lightly and there will always be people that don't agree with them or wonder why they exist in the first place, but sometimes it is what it is. The Foundry wants the MODO/MARI Indie community to be strong and feel connected to us, because of this we are listening and doing our best to accommodate specific requests while at the same time trying to keep within the long term goals for these products.
We are artists as well as developers and I just want to try and clearly communicate to all of you that we do listen to this feedback. I think that's what makes us a little different.
I'm just glad that we're all still on speaking terms... I can't say the same for my pets and I at the moment. Lets just say that Nerf guns aren't their favorite motivator for exercising!
Sorry you're not happy with our Indie products. Our target market for these products is people who individually or in small teams (2 or 3) produce assets for Indie games development.
We did research while putting these together and found that the majority of people didn't go over 100k (exported) poly's per game object or 2 4k patches per channel for textures.
The functionality was designed around this target market. We understand it won't fit everyones needs but we are keen to tweak these settings to make it more usable by more people, hence the request for feedback.
This thread is a bit old but I just found it and I hope I can add some feedback.
I've tried the demos of Modo 801 and recently 901. I love it. I'm interested in using it for game dev. I'm an indie. Modo full is not in my budget.
Here's the problem with Modo indie for me.
Scripts/plugins disabled: This alone is a non-starter for me. As I learned Modo with the demos almost every tutorial instructed me to install sometimes hundreds of (very useful!) scripts. Everyone I've found using Modo in game dev is using scripts. I couldn't imagine accomplishing what I want in Modo now without scripting. People have made AMAZING scripts for creating things and game dev (UE4 export as well). This modularity of Modo is one of the reasons I would use it instead of something like Maya LT or Blender. But with indie? Can't do it. This is the #1 thing that needs to change in my eyes with indie.
Locked to a single user: I don't know why giving indie its own file format wasn't enough. This makes it IMPOSSIBLE for two people on a small team to work together. Indie having its own file type is cool, but this is excessive. Show some trust to your customers- we WANT to use Modo!
100k Export Limit: I'm not really too limited by this in game dev HOWEVER if there was a native way to export into UE4 or Unity like MayaLT has then this could go away in those situations in my opinion.
I've looked at a lot of indie solutions and the product that seems to really trust their indie devs and is aggressively trying to gain a market is Houdini. Here are their indie limits:
Commercial usage of Houdini Indie is limited to following:
The annual gross revenue of commercial entities and contracting entities does not exceed $100K USD
Commercial entities and contracting entities can purchase a maximum of 3 Houdini Indie and 3 Houdini Engine licenses
Houdini Indie cannot be used in the same pipeline as commercial versions of Houdini
Houdini Indie uses its own file format for saving scenes and assets
It is restricted to 1920x1080 when rendering out animations
Houdini Indie does not work with third party renderers.
That to me is excellent...and it's only $199!
Indies should be limited by licensing rather than product neutering.
The idea that studios are going to go "indie" is easily remedied by the limitations Houdini is using or similar. Anyone who is going to break licensing limitations is probably already using illegal software anyway! They aren't waiting for indie "loopholes" to do it.
In short, show some trust to the indie community and go after them aggressively to build the market. I would pay more than what Modo indie costs now if the limitations were more like Houdini's indie product.
Replies
https://steamcommunity.com/app/321540/discussions/1/619573787566699491
https://steamcommunity.com/app/321540/discussions/1/616199347850420846/
Developer posts in those threads confirm it.
The Foundry Indie team was hoping you could help us to gain some valuable feedback so that we can improve the community.
Please follow the link below... as if it were a trail of virtual breadcrumbs... Oh jeez now I'm hungry!
http://steamcommunity.com/app/321540/discussions/1/611698195171541599/
We appreciate your help in this!
Stop doing indie licensing like Autodesk, start doing it like Allegorithmic and Side Effects.
I second that. Rarely a good idea to emulate the business practices of Autodesk; That's generally the stuff that makes people despise them.
What aspect of the Indie licence don't you like? We don't believe that we're copying Autodesk in this respect, but are always open to suggestions about how we can do things better.
It's similar to Autodesk 'indie' licensing in that it has had significant features stripped out.
Look at what Side Effects did with Houdini indie, it's the full Houdini FX package with limitations only on rendering size (can't go above full HD for animation, but unlimited for stills) and you don't get unlimited mantra tokens.
No custom shaders, no python scripting, very low object limit, very limited export options, and limited to 8 bit per channel all work against a decision to purchase Mari Indie. Those limitations do not make for an attractive purchase at any price and do not motivate me to look beyond the affordable painting software I already have.
The only limitation that makes sense imo is the resolution limit, 4k is plenty, if you need more than that you should upgrade to full Mari. Ease up on the UDIM limit as well, 2 seems a little stingy. UDIM is one of those features that sets Mari apart, but others are catching up and are not limiting people to 2 UDIM patches.
If you need to raise the price of Mari Indie to remove the severe restrictions, I can respect that, as it will most likely be a far better value than what is offered today.
Hey Tidal Blast,
Very good point man. We are aware of some of the main user concerns over limitations and are working to address them to aid the community further.
Since you already took the survey, would you be so kind as to let me know the limitations that effect your workflow.
Brandon (BladeEvolence)
This is a bit misleading.
The Indie License for both Modo and Mari are not doing what Autodesk is doing.
Lets make sure we are being completely honest and transparent about this.
Take Maya LT for example, it has limited animation, no dynamics, no rendering. These are some pretty big components of Maya.
Going over to Modo Indie, you do get all the animation tools, the dynamics, the rendering even (Modo's renderer, even as a stand alone one, is pretty damn good).
The limitations are not severe and I would hardly classify it as missing core functionality. Scripting is a tricky wicket because it can make null those minor limitations that exist (and for a reason). Maya LT also COST more for both perpetual and subscription licenses. So no matter how you look at it, they are not remotely the same thing.
Modo also never really had a strong scripting (plugin reliant) scene to it...it does exist on a small scale but its not as important as say working with Maya. Thus the need for scripting and plugin support is much lower on the Modo front. Good news is that they are looking into finding a way to get that element added to Indie.
Also, unlike Maya LT, Modo Indie has an upgrade path. If you want the full thing, just contact Brandon at the Foundry (brandon.reddick@thefoundry.co.uk) and a reduced price will be given based on your purchase of Indie. There is no penalty for not upgrading Modo, you can skip as many upgrades as you want and then just pay one flat upgrade price to get the current version. We both know Autodesk doesnt do that at all.
Finally, not every studio has the luxury to mimic Allegorithmic's Indie licensing. Theres risk vs reward at play. I think everyone would love to see that licensing become the norm, but its also highly unrealistic if you think about it. Allegorithmic's indie licensing came much later btw, even after they had educational steam versions. Indie is still pretty new for the Foundry, which lets face it is known for some pretty high end pricing schemes which target studios.
With the Modo and Mari indie you are getting a lot of bang for your buck.
I still don't understand why there is a need to limit anything at all. If the fear is that some people would "game the system" by using Mari Indie on non-indie qualifying projects, then there's nothing for the Foundry to loose anyways, since such users would put themselves at risk of getting into legal troubles.
Personally after trying both of them, the only thing that MayaLT and Modo Indie managed to do was to drive me away from Maya and Modo for good. It's just such a convoluted system for no real good reason.
Even better once you make use of the smooth edge shader, something substance designer 5 is going to add as well.
As for sculpting...eh I have never really seem them push Modo as the pure sculpting tool, if anything (like blender, which you are now familiar with), its just an added tool which can allow the artist to stay within the application itself. Good for smoothing out or relaxing verts, moving stuff around or adding some quick details for a bake. When working with the multirez, you can easily just send out a displacement map if need be. Its painting toolset is also pretty decent, again all inside of the application. You can pull off the usual blizzard like hand painted texture work with a brush control scheme thats a lot like 3d Coat... It could use some work but for being a part of the application itself its not horribly bad.
Regarding the Dota2 weapon tutorial... that was made for the ModoSE (steam edition) which was entirely focused on making Dota 2 assets with Modo. As such they had to stay entirely in Modo and show it could be done. Indie is the evolution of the Steam Edition, instead of focusing on just one application within the steam platform, it acts as an accessible swiss army knife like tool for the indie artist who likes the commercial viability.
What specifically is a convoluted system? One could argue Mari is extremely convoluted (to which I would agree) but certainly not Modo, even in Indie form. No more so than say Blender, which is extremely convoluted in its design. If you are talking about the restrictions, I dont see how thats convoluted, or why convoluted would even be the right word for it.
There is a good reason for its restrictions.... assuming you consider funding continued development and keeping the shareholders happy a good reason.
They have a flagship product, its used in just about every industry (some more than others naturally) and in the case of Modo its more than half the price of a Maya or Max license. So if you want to make it more accessible for those who cannot or do not want to drop that kind of money, while not encouraging your current full license user base to drop and go to the cheaper version, then some restrictions are logical.
The restrictions are minor for allowing commercial use. Sure it would be nice if there were no restrictions at all, but I think its safe to say they do exist for a GOOD reason. And of course there is the reminder that they do not penalize anyone for not upgrading nor do they force subscription models. If you like the new developments, they earn it with an upgrade purchase, if not hold off as long as you like with no additional cost to the upgrade. This is very pro-consumer.
I understand the restrictions, however personally I would like to see the export limit get adjusted(removed) since I bake my models in substance designer.
- I meant convoluted in regards to marketing and product offering. Having to chose between a full package as a one-time purchase or a limited "indie" version on a rental basis just seems like an annoying choice to make for the customer. But to the credit of The Foundry, Modo full is pretty affordable to begin with and at least the rental option allows the user to try the app for any duration of time before deciding to commit to it, so that's not too bad.
- The "indie = less graphics" comment was just a tongue in cheek way to refer to the fact that someone at Autodesk and The Foundry believes that indie development = less polygons, which I think is misguided. It is as if we were all painted with a broad Flappy Bird brush ... Now I understand that this is not coming from bad intentions, as illustrated by the Modo Indie limit being based on the UDK import specs as you said, and the LT limit being basically based on surveys. But what if an indie dev was working on a Mist-like iphone game with pre-rendered environments rendered in an external renderer ? All of a sudden this project wouldn't be "indie enough" and that bothers me. After all, the only thing that "indie" means is "independent from a publisher".
- I agree that the Modo renderer is great ! No doubt about that. But I still have a problem with the assumption that the realtime assets of an indie project should be baked internally, and from there we are back at the polygon limit again. In a way it doesn't really matter how good the internal renderers and bakers of LT and Modo Indie are ; there are many scenarios where one would need something else (Xnormal, Handplane ...) and I don't see how an indie version of an app is being helpful by limiting that as it disrupts any established workflow. In regards to scripting : I have heard and seen that many Modo converts rely a lot on the Seneca scripts, to a point where these user-made tools and the accessibility of the scripting and macro creation systems are a good part of the success of the program to begin with. Limiting this is another thing that strikes me as odd.
Now to be fair, I have absolutely no issue with a software company releasing a limited version of their software at a discounted price. I just have an issue with the claim that such a version is "made for indies", especially when the justification for the limitations often amounts to "hmm, but we do have to limit something don't we ?"
Pior, your position understandable and I appreciate the detailed clarification as well as it helps to understand your POV much better.
There are actually a few other options available to the user regarding how they can obtain a license. In addition to the full version perpetual purchase, Indie does offer a perpetual $299 or rental $9.99/month. So pretty much 3 solid options, one being a rental. Also, its probably worth highlighting the fact that Modo often sells for less than $999 when there is a sale going on, which seems to happen at least once a year. For some that 40% discount might be relevant.
Its true, if they wanted to render a large scene with over 100k polys in an outside renderer, that would pose a challenge. Not impossible mind you, just theres less convenience...which I suppose is one of the points of going for the cheaper version. Sending out individual assets or groups might have to happen in that case, or working based around SubD's in which they can have extra resolution added outside of Modo Indie. Ultimately though I do think they intended for the user to stay inside of Modo for its renderer. Considering that Modo's best quality is its modeling workflow and capability, I don't blame anyone for wanting to grab it for just that...and as such an export limit inside of indie would indeed come across as a problem.
They probably should have just marketed it towards games like LT did rather than sell it as a generalist application for every market. This is probably the fault of marketing...
For example when you mention the "Made for Indies" tag, its obviously a marketing thing. Before (and you can probably still find the naming in some of the files) they were going to with "My" in front of the name. So MyMari or MyModo. I don't know how many of the beta testers mentioned it, but it was fairly cheesy as far as naming goes. So instead the "Indie" label got slapped on and of course they have to come up with some "fun" marketing slogans to go with it (its like tourette syndrome for marketing folk). I would have preferred they went with lite or something else, since now Indie seems to convey different expectations. Anyways I believe the "made for indies" notion is a last minute marketing choice rather than something Indie was designed around from the get go.
Its also true that Senecas scripts are widely used, more often than naught for the booleans since to be quite honest, the default booleans in Modo are just horrible. This is something they agree with though and there should be some plugin support coming for the Indie version, whether its open for all plugins or scripting or limited to specific ones, we shall see. Also the form editor is still there so at the very least one can make use of the custom hotkey, macro and pie menu workflow. Its a big time saver once you have a set of actions you tend to do every time.
I think we can both agree that the Foundry has become a lot more prosumer/accessible since the merge with Luxology. I would never have imagined they would offer anything below $2000 + additional maintenance cost prior to that merge. So perhaps all this is just gradual shift in mind set and it takes time letting go of that old approach. The whole Made with Mischief lineup they are building up to should be even more prosumer than the foundry line...
http://www.fxguide.com/featured/whats-the-foundry-buying-the-tech-of-adf/ (watch the sculpting vid too)
https://www.thefoundry.co.uk/about-us/news-awards/the-foundry-acquires-made-with-mischief/
They both place arbitrary limits on the software that will get in the way of getting work done. Why should anyone pay for that?
Spin? Spin is when you speak from assumption and on an emotional level, one in which to push a confirmation bias. What I respond with is specifics, a bit of logic and objective information. In essence, you writing off my response with vague and emotion based proclamations is the only spin I am seeing here.
Again, why is it arbitrary? I already shown that it is not. You can call it something, but you need to back it up with specific examples otherwise you are just making pointless noise. You also seem to misunderstand or not acknowledged the difference in value. Its not a "black or white" subject, there are variables involved you MUST consider. Its about value. If you cannot see or find value in a product having a 80% price reduction at the cost of some minor restrictions, then you are obviously not part of the target audience. Just because you pay any amount doesnt require it to not have any restrictions, the retail price is also an important factor. Common sense.
They are arbitrary because they are unnecessary restrictions, look at what Side Effects offers in an 'indie' license. The only things I need to consider is what is being offered and at what price everything else is irrelevant.
The Foundry is gathering feedback on their indie licensing, so obviously something isn't working out with it from their point of view. I really don't see why you feel the need to defend the status quo.
Sorry you're not happy with our Indie products. Our target market for these products is people who individually or in small teams (2 or 3) produce assets for Indie games development.
We did research while putting these together and found that the majority of people didn't go over 100k (exported) poly's per game object or 2 4k patches per channel for textures.
The functionality was designed around this target market. We understand it won't fit everyones needs but we are keen to tweak these settings to make it more usable by more people, hence the request for feedback.
On this :
I think the problem comes from the question being framed too narrowly. Of course if you ask people about the kind of polygon count they use for their individual ingame assets, you would get these kind of numbers (around 100k). But if you were to ask "As an indie developer, what would you see yourself using Modo Indie for ?" you could get very varied answers : "Leveraging the Modo sculpting toolset to bypass the need for Zbrush altogether, while still baking in Xnormal" ; or, "building full level prototypes straight from Modo for the greyboxing stage" - both of which would be severely hindered by any arbitrary export limit.
The problem with limiting features in the hope of tailoring the app to a specific audience lies in the fact that it potentially hinders creative (and unexpected !) uses of the toolset. Then again, I haven't used Modo Indie much, but I am speaking from the painful experience of having given MayaLT a fair try, which put me in the position of having to transition assets out of it because I ended up running into unexpected issues related to the built-in limitations - and that's not something I am wishing on anyone.
As a matter of fact, I am still wasting money on this monthly LT license it as we speak because I am not done yet with transitioning these assets out, and that annoys me to no end. I hope this makes sense !
So why is that limit even there? All it does is throw a wrench in certain workflows. It also hamstrings the entire sculpting toolset, since most people don't bake in Modo.
I check in pretty regularly. We do understand that people have different workflows and requirements and we are listening to all of your feedback. At the end of the day we want people to use and enjoy our software.
We're not going to get this right all of the time for everyone. We are learning about this market and model as we go along. we tried ModoSE, leant from that, iterated and made Indie. We will look at that too and continue iterating. We appreciate every bit of feedback we get. Positive or negative.
Sure it is depending on what you do. It is NOT an import limit, its not even a limit for saving a scene, nor is it a limit when working inside of Modo. The only limit is with export, and if you work smart you can even get around that limit. Its not necessarily the softwares fault if the artist cannot overcome certain challenges or become efficient for certain tasks.
You dont NEED to work outside of modo, as it offers modeling, retopologizing, sculpting, painting, baking/rendering features. What it comes down to is just the feeling of entitlement, which I think is silly. These are software solutions, if its not a solution and you cant get use out of it, then skip it. Its not rocket science.
Lets just assume you want to use zbrush as part of your workflow right? Well model the base mesh in modo, want to work at a higher poly count? Use subdivision or a multirez modifier. You can still export the base and get the SAME results in zbrush. Sculpt away, bring back into Modo indie (no import limit) and retopo with its retopo toolset/mode. UV and export. Now you have a high rez sculpt, and low poly UVed retopoed mesh, and any outside baking tool you want to get your maps from. Again its not rocket science. At some point the complaints end up happening for the sake of complaining, not because you are actually prevented from working.
Would it be nice if the poly export limit wasnt there? SURE! I dont think any one would argue the opposite. When you say the limit is arbitrary or there for no good reason, that is patently false. They do have a good reason, doesnt mean you have to like it... but there is reasoning behind it.
Again, they already said they are getting plugin support going for it.. but this is ya know the first VERSION of indie. Its not a "snap my fingers and its there" kind of development process. When substance painter and designer were on steam there was no Indie version at first, in fact painter had all sorts of issues that make it hard to work in due to it being JUST released and they have a lot of functionality they still need to add OVER TIME. Modo Indie is one of those new products that is being developed over time.
When Modo SE came out it had a limit of 7k polygons, no animation or rendering functionality. It was limited to the point where it was only useful for pumping out Dota 2 armor and weapons, which was the goal. Less than a year later, its now up to 100k polygon limit and a lot more functionality. Do you see the pattern? If not then you should.
Locking a project file to a steam ID IS minor. Its so incredibly minor that suggesting otherwise sounds silly to me. These are inconveniences, not roadblocks. If you want to send a file to another indie user, then give it to them as an fbx or obj. If you are in a large team and literally require the sending around of scene files in their native format, then the foundry wants you to use the full version of Modo. Pretty simple eh? Its not unreasonable. Indie targets individuals, not teams.
Suggesting there is a status quo makes me think that you are speaking again on an emotional level, with some anti-business mentality or some imaginary evil corporate entity to fight against. Its really not like that at all. The modo people are developers, we are consumers, and if you spend some time on the official forums or chatting with them in the steam chat channel, you would realize the relationship between the two groups is very close. So please stop making assumptions and look into the situation/software first. If it were anything like Autodesk I wouldnt personally be using it much less taking the time out to address the misconceptions regarding it.
As for Houdini Indie, its a bit hard to compare the two applications just as its hard to compare it to what Allegorithmic is doing. They are not the same company, not in the same position with different software that has different and or varying levels of market exposure.
Lets say you do go look at Houdini Indie though, since you brought it up. It has its share of limitations. Did you look them up? Not only are there limitations with Houdini Indie, but last time I checked that $199 price tag + another $99 for the Houdini Engine is only good for ONE year. Then you have to pay it all over again. Modo Indie does not have that requirement, buy the perpetual license. Its yours. Want just a few months of it? Go for it, it cost less than a world of warcraft sub. I cant stress enough how important it is to consider the element of "Value" what you pay vs what you get.
I'll just end this (beating of a dead horse) with the fact that I am an equal opportunist when it comes to criticizing poor products, business models and even design. The Foundry has gotten its fair share of it from me, even to the point where the head honcho of Modo pretty much got onto a podcast, specifically pointed out the criticism and who gave it, and admitted they didnt realize the issue was there... said they got caught with their pants down...they listened and used the information to fix reasonable complaints. This is not a bad group of developers you are dealing with here. They are not out to screw you over and take all your lewt.
For instance, besides still not understanding the reasoning behind these restrictions to begin with, I know I am against them in principle simply because I experienced the issues that they caused first-hand. Had I not run into such issues my stance wouldn't be as firm and I would be probably more candid about it all. But once one reaches the point where time is being wasted instead of being saved, convincing oneself of using workarounds (like splitting a mesh into multiple chunks in order to circumvent an arbitrary polygon export limit) just isn't a good enough option anymore.
While I can see that a marketing department would think that everything will be fine, actual user experiences may differ widely. For instance, despite all the good intentions behind it, ModoSE was *not* a viable all-in one tool for Dota2 production. It might seem so on paper (decent sculpting and baking sure seems to be enough ...) but in practice Dota2 creators rely on much, much more than that, like very specific baking setups in Xnormal, the need to export to a myriad of external programs like Topogun, 3DCoat and Handplane, the obvious need to exchange files between teams of collaborators, and so on. To put things in perspective, despite ModoSE being perfectly tailored for Dota2 item creation on paper, I do not know of a single Dota2 Workshop artist using it for actual Dota2 item creation, so clearly there is something amiss here.
Again, just offering my feedback based on practical experience.
I doubt we could find any user that wouldnt love to see all restrictions removed either, myself included. There is a line though, from my pov, at what is a reasonable expectation and an unreasonable one, especially when certain words are used to make it seem like the development end is being stupid or cruel by including any restrictions, despite the lower price price.
Outside of Blender, I dont think there is a better deal out there in terms of what you pay for and what you get with this kind of software package.
Status quo is not an inherently emotionally loaded term, also I have no idea where you are getting this anti-business crap.
It's not hard to compare them at all. The fact they aren't the same is what warrants the comparison.
Look a little closer. Houdini indie can function as Houdini engine. Additional licenses of Engine cost $99. It's basically a batch license. Yes, it's a yearly license that includes upgrades (Houdini indie is a separate license, not a separate product so it gets upgraded when FX does), as well as daily and production builds. Some people don't think that's a good deal, a lot of others do. I am also familiar with Houdini indies limitations, however since I am not going to render animation over full HD or have a render farm to run unlimited mantra tokens and batch sims the limitations in Houdini indie might as well not exist from my point of view. Yes, I find the value of Houdini indie to be much higher than what the Foundry offers with Modo indie because the things that limit me from taking advantage of Houdini FX are out of my reach anyway (massive investment in hardware and staff). In a very real way Houdini indie offers greater value in my current situation than Houdini FX. Eventually that may change.
I honestly don't see the point of Modo indie, Modo's price isn't very high and the upgrades seem reasonable. Mari indie on the other hand I can see a case for.
Hey Tidal Blast,
We do in fact have a plan for scripts in MODO Indie, but I can't disclose any more detailed info at this time as we are still working on implementation. (Get mad at me if you want for this answer or even challenge me to a foam sword duel... on a coastal bluff preferably, for this is all I can say at this time)
Like Jack G. said, we really do appreciate all of your feedback, because it helps us to improve the product for the community as a whole. We released the Indie products on Steam to give more individuals access to MODO and MARI at a lower price point aimed at game projects though with some limitations as we've all discussed at great length. No one likes limitations, because it means that we as artists feel that we're not getting the full version of what we may need or want.
These business decisions on limitations are never made lightly and there will always be people that don't agree with them or wonder why they exist in the first place, but sometimes it is what it is. The Foundry wants the MODO/MARI Indie community to be strong and feel connected to us, because of this we are listening and doing our best to accommodate specific requests while at the same time trying to keep within the long term goals for these products.
We are artists as well as developers and I just want to try and clearly communicate to all of you that we do listen to this feedback. I think that's what makes us a little different.
I'm just glad that we're all still on speaking terms... I can't say the same for my pets and I at the moment. Lets just say that Nerf guns aren't their favorite motivator for exercising!
This thread is a bit old but I just found it and I hope I can add some feedback.
I've tried the demos of Modo 801 and recently 901. I love it. I'm interested in using it for game dev. I'm an indie. Modo full is not in my budget.
Here's the problem with Modo indie for me.
Scripts/plugins disabled: This alone is a non-starter for me. As I learned Modo with the demos almost every tutorial instructed me to install sometimes hundreds of (very useful!) scripts. Everyone I've found using Modo in game dev is using scripts. I couldn't imagine accomplishing what I want in Modo now without scripting. People have made AMAZING scripts for creating things and game dev (UE4 export as well). This modularity of Modo is one of the reasons I would use it instead of something like Maya LT or Blender. But with indie? Can't do it. This is the #1 thing that needs to change in my eyes with indie.
Locked to a single user: I don't know why giving indie its own file format wasn't enough. This makes it IMPOSSIBLE for two people on a small team to work together. Indie having its own file type is cool, but this is excessive. Show some trust to your customers- we WANT to use Modo!
100k Export Limit: I'm not really too limited by this in game dev HOWEVER if there was a native way to export into UE4 or Unity like MayaLT has then this could go away in those situations in my opinion.
I've looked at a lot of indie solutions and the product that seems to really trust their indie devs and is aggressively trying to gain a market is Houdini. Here are their indie limits:
That to me is excellent...and it's only $199!
Indies should be limited by licensing rather than product neutering.
The idea that studios are going to go "indie" is easily remedied by the limitations Houdini is using or similar. Anyone who is going to break licensing limitations is probably already using illegal software anyway! They aren't waiting for indie "loopholes" to do it.
In short, show some trust to the indie community and go after them aggressively to build the market. I would pay more than what Modo indie costs now if the limitations were more like Houdini's indie product.