Home General Discussion

What do you want in light or freelance editions of software?

ngon master
Offline / Send Message
ZacD 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

Replies

  • repete
    Offline / Send Message
    repete polycounter lvl 6
    Limitations would seriously boil my piss and I think it's only fair that hobby and academic folks get the same functionality in the software as commercial versions but keep in mind that I am talking about software like Quxiel & Allegorithmic etc, I am a bit dubious when I see Hobby & Freelance on one license (freelancers are commercial imho). 3D modellers are a different ball game as you at least have a choice, modo for instance is an awesome app which will not kill your bank account and you have blender which is free but one thing I don't get with Luxology is why they don't offer the peeps who are using the SE version a discounted full version as the SE limitations really suck.

    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:
  • RobeOmega
    Offline / Send Message
    RobeOmega polycounter lvl 10
    Student versions:

    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
  • SnowInChina
    Offline / Send Message
    SnowInChina interpolator
    full featured, but capped on max profit you can make with those per year.
  • NegevPro
    Offline / Send Message
    NegevPro polycounter lvl 4
    I'd imagine it wouldn't be the best for business but I'd like to see Academic editions of software that are free. Autodesk sucks ass in a lot of areas, but I love the fact that I can download new versions of their software for free simply because I'm a student. I can't make any money but I can improve my skills and work on non-commercial projects.

    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.
  • pior
    Offline / Send Message
    pior grand marshal polycounter
    When it comes to apps like Photoshop/Maya/3dsMax :

    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.
  • root
    Offline / Send Message
    root polycounter lvl 18
    I like the quixel, substance, UE4, and Zbrush licensing approaches.

    I don't so much like the autodesk, adobe, and modo licensing approaches.
  • Pancakes
    Offline / Send Message
    Pancakes polycounter lvl 10
    rootdown wrote: »
    I like the quixel, substance, UE4, and Zbrush licensing approaches.

    I don't so much like the autodesk, adobe, and modo licensing approaches.

    +1
  • repete
    Offline / Send Message
    repete polycounter lvl 6
    Zero chance that this will ever happen with Autodesk & Adobe products,
    with the renting option allowing one to stop renting at any time but still lets the user keep the program
  • pior
    Offline / Send Message
    pior grand marshal polycounter
    Oh yeah - in the case of historically expensive licenses like Photoshop or Autodesk products it wouldn't really work. But they could still allow owners of full one-time licenses to just pay the equivalent of one month of rent in order to unlock the updates and bug fixes.
  • Neox
    Offline / Send Message
    Neox godlike master sticky
    i dunno, adobe has some of the most fair pricing options, especially for students.
  • SaboR1996
    Offline / Send Message
    SaboR1996 polycounter lvl 8
    I'm happy having no limitations if I don't make money, if you pay for something you should have access to all the feature or what is the point of buying it.
  • WarrenM
    The trouble comes in enforcing that. How do you ensure that someone who didn't pay isn't selling content they made with the free version? Companies need to eat and keep the lights on...
  • pior
    Offline / Send Message
    pior grand marshal polycounter
    But is it really relevant ? Users gaming the system by using an unrestrained learning version for commercial projects would be no different from users relying on a cracked copy - the same enforcing means apply. And a big studio would never dare using such a trick anyways, since the consequences would be too big ...
  • Ispheria
    Offline / Send Message
    Ispheria polycounter lvl 3
    (I'm a student)

    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.
  • Equanim
    Offline / Send Message
    Equanim polycounter lvl 11
    I agree with Warren. At the end of the day, developing and supporting software costs a lot of money. Our tools do some pretty crazy sh** and our market is relatively niche. That's why they're so expensive. I think there are two really intelligent things a software developer can do.

    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.
  • ZacD
    Offline / Send Message
    ZacD ngon master
    Equanim wrote: »
    I agree with Warren. At the end of the day, developing and supporting software costs a lot of money. Our tools do some pretty crazy sh** and our market is relatively niche. That's why they're so expensive. I think there are two really intelligent things a software developer can do.

    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.
  • Meloncov
    Offline / Send Message
    Meloncov greentooth
    WarrenM wrote: »
    The trouble comes in enforcing that. How do you ensure that someone who didn't pay isn't selling content they made with the free version? Companies need to eat and keep the lights on...

    It's no harder than making sure people aren't using a pirated version.
  • Neox
    Offline / Send Message
    Neox godlike master sticky
    Ispheria wrote: »
    (I'm a student)

    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.

    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
  • iconoplast
    Offline / Send Message
    iconoplast polycounter lvl 13
    Meloncov wrote: »
    It's no harder than making sure people aren't using a pirated version.
    It's actually quite a bit easier, I would think, since you would have the name and contact info for legitimate software users. Pretty sure you don't get that from people illicitly using cracked copies.
  • Eric Chadwick
    Tangentially related. I loooove the software update mechanism in FileZilla. Why don't other programs do this??

    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).
  • marks
    Offline / Send Message
    marks greentooth
    I think everyone wants the same thing - the software, no limitations other than can't be used commercially. imo 30 days is not enough to thoroughly evaluate a big software package...
  • JamesTKirk
    Offline / Send Message
    JamesTKirk polycounter lvl 8
    rootdown wrote: »
    I don't so much like the autodesk, adobe, and modo licensing approaches.

    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.
  • passerby
    Offline / Send Message
    passerby polycounter lvl 12
    Tangentially related. I loooove the software update mechanism in FileZilla. Why don't other programs do this??

    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).

    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.
  • igi
    Offline / Send Message
    igi polycounter lvl 12
    edit oops wrong thread :poly136:
Sign In or Register to comment.