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 - ninsix

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
So basically, the "We believe that when the content and services... & These future offerings will be primarily subscription-based" line signals you are all in with Adobe's method of turning SOFTWARE AS A PRODUCT...into SOFTWARE AS A SERVICE.

This is not pro-consumer. I'm afraid that all the damage control up until this point was done in bad faith, trying to use emotional appeal to make it seem like it wouldnt be the adobe "business as usual", but thats exactly what we seem to be getting.

 "I told you so" seems like a good response (feel free to correct me if I am wrong on this, but be honest as this message comes with exactly what many of us expected, in a bad way).




2
Is there a timeline for when perpetual licence will no longer be offered? If that is the case?

I would like to purchase perpetual licence before it's no longer available. To get the "final" version. But not sure how soon that could happen. Weeks? Months?

No one said that perpetual license will no longer be offered.

Unless some upper management over at Adobe says otherwise, it is a safe assumption that perpetuals will go away. Adobe makes is money from offering software as a service, not as a product these days. They know this, we know this. As such, the best way to deal with the assumption regarding loss of perpetual options is to simply get Adobe's upper management to outright say it won't happen with this line of products, otherwise the safe assumption is that it will happen.

Once again, assumption and speculations neither give any answer nor help in the debate. All the scenarios have been elaborated about what will or will not happen. I'm not saying what you are telling is not elaborated, but once again, please wait and judge when/if  we'll announce anything.

In the behavioral sciences, there is, discussed, a kind of conditioning which involves learning through stimulus. One such example is the infamous red button test. If you see a red button, and you press it, you get shocked. When you see another red button, you won't know if it will shock you like the last one did. When it does, you start to become conditioned with the understanding that red buttons result in a shock. By the 10th button that expectation is conditioned into the person or animal.

At the same time, as humans we are capable of pattern recognition. The pattern of Adobe, using software as a service that coincides with the removal of perpetual licenses is just that. You can tell us that it is not helpful, but it is only unhelpful to those trying to avoid the subject altogether. Simply saying "we don't know" at this point means that the user has no option but to look at the pattern, the "red button" as it relate to Adobe.

This is why it is imperative that Adobe's upper management makes it clear, responding to user concerns, that perpetuals are here to stay. If the rent to own or perpetual model goes away, it turns the product into a service. This is kind of important to the user. There is no wait and see when you already know what to expect unless told, officially, otherwise. In other words, its less helpful for "debate" to leave it as one big unknown. We don't need faith, but assurances that the corporation is on board with some products actually being products, rather than a rental service. =)

(While this may sound like criticism only, it is meant in part to be feedback. The best way to manage this situation, to get the best out of it, is for upper management to come out publicly in support of the concept and belief in products rather than services. Whatever path Allegorithmic via Adobe takes going forward, it would have to be on either the side that sells a product, or sells software as a service. They need to pick one and let us know. If its the latter, the switch into developing a service then much of the good will given to Allegorithmic in the past will most likely be lost.)

3
Is there a timeline for when perpetual licence will no longer be offered? If that is the case?

I would like to purchase perpetual licence before it's no longer available. To get the "final" version. But not sure how soon that could happen. Weeks? Months?

No one said that perpetual license will no longer be offered.

Unless some upper management over at Adobe says otherwise, it is a safe assumption that perpetuals will go away. Adobe makes is money from offering software as a service, not as a product these days. They know this, we know this. As such, the best way to deal with the assumption regarding loss of perpetual options is to simply get Adobe's upper management to outright say it won't happen with this line of products, otherwise the safe assumption is that it will happen.

4
SubstanceSubstance - Discussions - Re: Why Adobe?
 on: February 01, 2019, 03:05:20 am 
What I want to know is whether or not Adobe via Allegorithmic (as their 3D initiative) aims to target the entire 3D market or just texturing. If all, then is there going to be some 3D modeling application in the cards?

5
SubstanceSubstance - Discussions - Re: Why Adobe?
 on: January 31, 2019, 01:56:02 am 
Change is scary and requires courage, much more than keeping the status quo.

Problem is, the "status quo" is what we were trying to get away from by not using Adobe. All Allegorithmic ended up doing is getting groomed to become part of the status quo. The risk you face is losing control of your IP, yeah it can be scary, but also kind of stupid if you value the ownership of the work you put into it. If you value something, you try to preserve what made it good, you preserve what it is. Change is often the opposite of preserving something you value.

It is highly likely you guys will find yourself not working for Adobe in the future, as is the usual pattern, only difference is that IP you build will not go with you. For us, as the user base, this is a form of tragedy.

6
Quixel has responded to Allegorithmic becoming Adobe. Interesting developments, good for users, perhaps not so much for Adobe.
https://quixel.com/blog/2019/1/30/the-year-of-mixer

7
No surprise, and even if we expected it, what affected the team the most, are some reactions we got. Not necessary skepticism, rage, or sadness. But the fact that some messages were directly aiming our integrity (our = Allegorithmic staff), that we are selling our soul for money, etc... To me, this is the harder to read (this and the user guide of my new Ferrari (photo in attachment in case it's taken seriously  ;D)).

And a lot of this has to do with user perception as well. When interacting with the team, they were seen as the underdogs, those rebelling against the business as usual types found at Adobe and Autodesk. The perceived integrity came from the expectation that you were not one of corporate workers, but a new force that is continuously growing in order to compete with the bigger guys.

So when you sell out (and yeah, technically its still selling out), the "integrity" aspect comes into play. Though to be fair, its a bit of projection on the user side as well, since what they see in Allegorithmic might not be what Allegorithmic saw in Allegorithmic. A lot of your supporters wanted Allegorithmic to grow in order to compete with Adobe, Autodesk, rather than merge with them. Thus its seen as selling out. It seems like the "hurt" aspect is mutual between user base and staff.

On the selling out aspect, it was about money by your own admissions, however its not the personal wealth kind but the company backing kind. I'm sure for your team it came across as an opportunity to do more, rather than just get paid more or cash out, however it still goes right back to the money aspect. Regardless, it will be hard for the user base to see it the way you might see it, especially since joining Adobe comes across as unnecessary.

I hate to say it but it will be difficult to get the same treatment going forward as you guys are no longer independent, no longer the under dog. The way people will see you will change, it comes with the territory (the new badge you wear "adobe"). Just that alone can make users not fully trust what is said. From independent and respected, to industry pariah.

8
Thanks for sharing: I'm sharing internally as well

To look at it another way, is Allegorithmic going to continue making products (that you can buy) or force users into a service (subscriptions)? Whatever you guys do going forward should be phrased within the context of "are we giving them a product, or turning it into a service", as a lot of us do not want a service, but rather a product. Adobe wants everything to become a service.

9
So an easy one: "You guys, sold your soul to the evil just for $$$"
If it was the reason then we would have been really stupid  ;D

Allegorithmic would have gained (a lot more) value just by waiting 1 or 2 years.
+ we have received a lot of offers in 2018 (investment funds, other companies): we just chose it because of it the best option regarding of the goals we want to achieve.

So cash was low in the list, regarding the decision to join Adobe (sorry I have to go: my private jet is waiting for me to go to Ibiza)

This doesn't help. The reason? Simple. On page 2 you admit that the sale to Adobe is for a "legally undisclosed number". Furthermore Jerc also dropped this in another thread, he said and I quote "Allegorithmic was too attracted to the financial backing Adobe can bring to the table."

So this mixed messaging is doing you no favors, especially now that the community is more or less on guard due to Adobe worming its way into the picture. One cannot say it was not about the money at this point based on those to comments alone. If you sell out, you sell out, regardless of the reasons. Granted, I think Allegoritmic's reasons might be different than a quick "get rich" scheme, but it still involves caving in and giving away the IP to a corporate entity for the sake of financial backing.

For many of us, this move was unnecessary. You don't need a massive team and high cost offices with massive bills to pay in order to "innovate" and develop great software. Many other independent studios have done this with as little as 1 to 2 highly skilled developers. The Affinity team which competes with Photoshop and Designer only has between 13-16, 3D Coat has 1 primary developer and some helpers...

...Thus many can only take an educated guess as to why Allegorithmic went with Adobe. Either its because Allego was impatient to get to their perceived finish line and took what appears to be an "easy route", or the offer to play in the "big league" was too attractive, thus the sale was also a mix of a "job offers" for a higher profile company. Both come across as developer centric decisions (whats in their own best interest) as opposed to whats in the best interest of the end user.

A reminder, a lot of the willingness to buy into and support Allegorithmic's products, to help give them the financial backing to keep going, had a lot more to do with the fact you were NOT Adobe, and could grow up to compete with them, rather than just the product itself. I think you guys over at Allego believe it was just because you made a great product, that really isnt the case. Obviously you need a decent product sell, but a lot of people were also buying into the potential of the said product. Potential includes not being part of Adobe's lineup. So in that sense, it really does look like a kind of betrayal to some users. Buying products in this industry is in part a kind of user investment into its future. If at any point you say "our ultimate goal is to sell to adobe/autodesk", then that user support will largely vanish.

Whats the point of starting new companies and supporting them if they are just going to turn over and sell to the giants that are hated? You see where we are coming from? Allegorithmic, rather Adobe, will probably never get to the point where you guys are going to be accepted now. The close knit, community trust factor, is largely going to diminish.

You guys might not even like how the corporate structure changes who you were, and will end up leaving and moving on to something else, much like what we saw with Luxology turning into Foundry. Everyone went in with high expectations and hated the stiffling corporate culture that creeped in. There is that sense that you can go in and change everything from the inside, but in reality its the opposite. It changes you. At the end of the day, your own IP is no longer in your hands and you just don't want to be a part of it anymore. If someone calls you guys "naive", it would most likely be based on that understanding of how this all plays out.

Anyways... as for as where to go from here (positive feedback). I highly recommend doing everything in your power to remain, at least on the surface, visibly, as independent from Adobe as possible. Keep the Allegorithmic branding, separate yourselves from CC, treat the products as a subsidiary rather than part of Adobe's main lineup, otherwise the affiliation to Adobe alone will be a major deterring factor. Too many of us will not, ever, install CC (not anymore). This is in everyone's best interest, yours, Allegorithmics...and Adobes.

Cheers


Add: Also want to point out that the concerns over perpetual vs subscription needs to be presented in a slightly different light. What some fear, legitimately, is that the loss of perpetual is going to happen. What does this really mean? Its the difference between selling a product and selling a service. The user base likes to buy a product, or have the option to do so, not get locked into a service. This is how the subject regarding perpetual options vs subscription only needs to be phrased.
Product vs service.

10
It is this exact behaviour why companies stop caring about indie artists and only concentrate on Enterprise users....

The focus away from user base towards corporate clients is all about money and general practice, it has nothing to do with how "toxic" one thinks the user base is or not. To suggest otherwise would be projecting. =)

Quote
Please take a step back and reflect upon your behaviour and try to put yourself in their shoes. They are real people who have friends and family reading these posts and they have done nothing to deserve this kind of hate. Jesus fucking Christ!

This is called moral posturing. Your reaction seems a bit hyperbolic based on whats seen so far.

Quote
Stop acting like the sky is falling. Nothing has been announced in terms of pricing, licensing, etc.

When Adobe or Autodesk obtain something in the industry (which is why so many become jaded), something always changes, which includes pricing, licensing and so forth. People are capable of pattern recognition, which means they can come to some generalized conclusions on why this is acquisition is not good for them or their interest. Just look at the history of these "acquisitions". They have every right to get pissed.

Quote
Please stop saying they are sellouts. It is their product. Their company. They have the full right to decide what to do with it.

Indeed, its their company and they have every right to do with it what they want.... which includes selling out. lol

Quote
Every single one of us would probably do the same if presented with the opportunity to grow in terms of cash inflow, research and development and still having operational control.

1. Not really, especially when you look or judge who you are dealing with.
2. Since when has an acquired company ever really retained operational control in the long term? I can't think of any.

Quote
Every studio that I have worked for has Creative Cloud built into the pipeline. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. So, it's sensible to bring Substance under that umbrella.

So going back to the first thing you said, the clients matter more than the average end user. It has nothing to do with "toxic" communities. =)

Quote
Voicing criticism is completely within your rights as a paying/future customer but mob-mentality / trolling is not.

When the majority of users don't like something, and feel it is bad for them, they will voice it. You can refer to it as mob mentality if you wish, but that is just attempting to attach a negative connotation to what is normal behavior as it relates to a massively disliked move. Look not everyone is taking it as well as others, but for the most part its all a form of criticism.

At the end of the day moral posturing is even less valuable than pointless trolling. Its an appeal to emotion based on projection, nothing more.

Food for thought.

11

I cant wrap my head around this. Allegorithmic is 20 years ahead of Adobe with its 150 employers versus Adobes 30.000.
It just doesnt makes sense.

What they will tell you is that they got some 100+ employees after taking Adobe money 2 years ago. I also wonder how many of those employees are actually developers or are just the usual non developer roles, such as marketing, sales, HR..ect

This was posted in another thread, read point #2

Two things are obvious.
1) Allegorithmic did not realize how much their user base actually hates Adobe. Their user base was drawn to them being a newer independent studio that was not Adobe.
2) Allegorithmic was too attracted to the financial backing Adobe can bring to the table. This obviously was bait, and it worked. Allegorithmic didn't need to do this in my opinion, they didnt even need to expand as much as they have already. The users were fine with the basics of designer and painter, even if they were updated at a slower pace. All the other stuff is just fluff.

1) We knew, If anything we underestimated how much people loved us rather than how much people disliked Adobe.

2) You are right, we didn't need to at all, but we wanted to, because it's an everyday frustration to have ideas you know will revolutionize 3D creation and not being able to carry them further than the idea stage because of a lack of resources and time.

I don't buy this completely due the fact you don't need a big team to "revolutionize 3D", which we have seen in the past. Just one or two insanely good developers can do magic, you don't need a ton of money and a giant team with nice offices with massive bills to pay. Its like wanting to get to the finish line (big successful studio) without running the entire race. So what if it takes a bit longer to get where you want to be? Whats the rush?

3D Coat was basically done by 1 guy with some helpers, Zbrush started with a small team, Affinity which is competing with Adobe for photoshop and designer only have around 13-16 people if I remember correctly. History shows that you can "revolutionize" and simply design good software with just one person, you can do it with a small highly skilled team.
Thus, this idea that you need big "publisher like" money to help you "produce" or shape the industry (when you already had a strong following) is simply not believable.

What they also don't realize is that no matter how good they do at Adobe, its going to go to waste for a lot of people since they will NOT be installing Adobe's CC. Allego can tell me all the great stuff they plan on doing, and it won't matter as long as I am told I have to use CC to use any of it.

At this point I can appreciate the argument coming from those in favor of open source software. Users were drawn to Substance in large part because it wasn't Adobe. I stopped using Quixel back then, not because I thought it was worse, but because it forced me to rely on Adobe Photoshop. This was a choice a lot of artist had to make back then, which one got us away from Adobe.

Allegorithmic, some advice. Don't force the use of the CC going forward. Too many of us will not install it.

12
SubstanceSubstance - Discussions - Re: Why Adobe?
 on: January 26, 2019, 08:25:08 am 
Two things are obvious.
1) Allegorithmic did not realize how much their user base actually hates Adobe. Their user base was drawn to them being a newer independent studio that was not Adobe.
2) Allegorithmic was too attracted to the financial backing Adobe can bring to the table. This obviously was bait, and it worked. Allegorithmic didn't need to do this in my opinion, they didnt even need to expand as much as they have already. The users were fine with the basics of designer and painter, even if they were updated at a slower pace. All the other stuff is just fluff.

I am one of those people who is done with Adobe. I washed my hands of them long ago and will not be installing CC on my workstation. This means future Substance software is no longer going to be used on my computer. There is no way in hell that Adobe will not force Substance Designer/Painter to be strictly available via CC. We know how this game works.

This also means all the work Allegorithmic will be doing at Adobe will go to waste, simply because so many of us are not going to use CC, PERIOD. Its just not going to happen. When the investors who only care about profit margin and ROI see they are not getting the complete carry over of Allegorithmic users, they won't be happy either. So I am not so sure the new Adobe branch should be celebrating just yet.

That said, thankfully there are some alternatives out there that, while not nearly as polished as Designer/Painter, can still cover most of the same territory.

I recommend looking at 3D Coat for now, even if you don't use it for texturing, the retopology/UV features are extremely good and who knows you may enjoy sculpting in there as well if you don't use Zbrush.

The other bit of software to seriously consider switching over to is Blender believe it or not. Big changes happened with 2.8, and I think there's enough work being done to show off both a nodal (procedural) and a projection based painting approach. 3rd Party plugins are also being developed for Blender which can hit that sweet spot, for example https://armorpaint.org/news.html

I doubt 3D coat will ever be bought out and Blender is open source, thus at least the two can remain free from the usual industry bad guys.

13
I am so disappointed by this news. I'm not so interested in sticking around as a user/customer anymore. No joke, I don't buy adobe products. This is a sentiment shared by many.
 :'(

14
Part of the confusion, or rather misinformation includes this from the rules thread:

"You can use any texture or alpha, you just can't resculpt the whole object in ZBrush and bring that as a normal bake. The limit of what you can and cannot do is pretty blurry but the main point is: the creative process has to happen mainly in Painter." -Jeremie

"Sculpting of the mesh in an external tool is not recommended. The jury wants to see the creative process happen in Substance Painter, not in ZBrush." -Jeremie

If the creative process happens mostly in say Photoshop, how is then that any different than if it were in zbrush? Both are generating "texture maps" right? 

Part of the problem is that if the "creative process" is being done in photoshop (hand painted textures for example), its not really happening in Painter. With the same logic applied, zbrush really wouldn't be much different (from photoshop) in that its just an external application which the texture maps can be generated via "painting" topology rather than pixels.

Its hard to believe that the Jury really cares about where the creative process happens, since as long as they like it, it will win at the end of the day. Thus for future reference its probably worth it to just ignore anything that suggest the grading process involves how much the primary application is used as part of creative process. So far it doesn't seem to matter.

Some artist may limit themselves more than others based on the belief that how much an application is used for the creative process matters more in the grading process, even to the point of staying almost entirely in Painter, which in turn is actually giving them a disadvantage.

On that note, my post is hopefully read as a mixture of criticism and feedback. Nothing personal against Jeremie or those on the Jury. Its a learning process after all.

15
Well that was disappointing, congrats to the winners all the same.

Pages: [1] 2 3