Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Good Eye

Pages: [1]
Substance Alchemist - Discussions - Re: Sub only?
 on: March 27, 2019, 05:15:14 pm 

So as an example.  modo Full cost 1717 dollars...  if I subbed it would be 600 dollars a year..Lets x it by three years... 1800. ..and when done, I'm left with nothing....I still OWN Modo and its very useful.... and I can make a living still....  The list goes on, see some people may use it once in awhile a sub would make sense...but for US, it cost way more money as it is Steam takes 30% after taxes, and cost of software we are lucky to see 35%..of  our profits...with Subs, and yes I used to sub to software, it cost us way the end of the day...... and we are LEFT with NOTHING..     Maya 2016, I have a 20 man license, PAID in full, this means I won't have to pay 300-400 dollars a month per person...... Since 2016...... It works great and its PAID for and we used for more than one game, client work and much the investment of buying software at the end of the day is cheaper and we are NOT left with nothing..

Succinctly put. 

Subscriptions (especially when compounded) are just not workable many indie game dev budgets.   As more and more companies try squeezing their customer base with sub-only options - they will lose to perpetual license alternatives that pop up.  Affinity's Photo and Designer are full-featured perpetual-license options to Photoshop and Illustrator.  In regards to Autodesk - there are a lot of lower priced and perpetual alternatives such as C4D, HoudiniFX, Zbrush, Mari, and of course there is the always-free Blender nipping at their heels.

I totally understand the temptation to go with a sub-only model from a software dev standpoint - it provides consistent and seemingly unending income.  However, the fly-in-the-ointment is the fact that subscriptions subtly yet significantly shift the relationship between the developer and customer.

In a perpetual license model, the developer is always pushing hard to make the next upgrade a desirable release - they work hard to make their software amazing, or else the customers will not upgrade. As a result, the software becomes better, gains more market-share, and attracts talented people to jump on board and improve it further.

In the subscription model, over time, the developer begins to understand that the customer is stuck paying every month or else they are shut out of the software and projects may be compromised.  The developer realizes they have their customer over a barrel, so why push hard to improve the software?  Over time, the annual updates and improvements to their software dwindle to minor tweaks, bug fixes, and one or two easily-implementable novelty additions. 

 Anyone who has been with Autodesk or Adobe for 6+ years has seen this happen.  For a quick example, try comparing the type and volume of improvements in Maya 2016 (last year of perpetual license model) and Maya 2019 -- Then compare those updates to the last several years of HoudiniFX.

Eventually, the subscription model becomes its own undoing. The Developer is flush with (seemingly) endless cash, and it begins to bloat itself with new staff, marketing, buildings, etc.. meanwhile, the software beings to stagnate which gives space for a new competitor to emerge.  As subs decrease, the bloat becomes unsustainable, and lay-offs happen, people are forced to work long hours to make up for shortages, moral suffers, talent leaves, and the software dies a slow death.

I've personally seen this happen in a corporation I was working for.   I'd prefer it didn't happen with Substance.

Nicolas answered here:,28337.0.html#msg110471

There is nothing there that explicitly states that Alchemist will eventually be available to Indie or Perpetual license holders.  It just restates the marketing pitch for the subscription model.  The fact that the core question of that thread is not addressed in a straightforward manner is pretty disconcerting.

Quite Adobe-esque. :-\

Has there been an announcement that Alchemist will ever be available outside of subscription?

Allegorithmic was a great company that really cared about the Substance community, but I'm afraid that the acquisition by Adobe may be ruining all that.

Hopefully not. Time will tell.

Substance Alchemist - Discussions - Re: Sub only?
 on: March 20, 2019, 05:43:12 pm 
According to the Alchemist page, it doesn't appear to be in beta anymore.. and it's available via subscription only.

I am a perpetual license holder with active yearly maintenance.  From what I can tell, in order to use Alchemist, I need to spend an extra $240/yr for a subscription to the same software+maintenance that I've already paid for.

Where are the options for those of us who prefer to be perpetual license holders?

I haven't seen anything official that states that we will get access to Alchemist in the future... Please tell me I'm wrong on this.

Pages: [1]