Autodesk subscription scandal

[tricky]

eh?

So don't they backdate your subscription as they have with ours?

[Dynedain]

Can't think of any. Autodesk are turning into a new Microsoft or Ipod IMHO, steamrolling there way through the industry they way the have done.

Turning into? Autodesk has been in that position for quite a long time. There's a reason why they're probably the single biggest software developer besides MS.

The only way to fight a company giant is to take your purchasing power elsewhere. Unfortunately Autodesk bought Maya (can't believe that got by regulators) but there are some other alternatives out there.

[tricky]

aaaggghhh!!!

[jkletzien]

They seem to have gotten a lot more greedy ever since they bought Maya and Discreet, and had to pay back those loans - funny.

I imagine if you contacted them directly and inquired what exactly were the responsibilities of the reseller (and whether that included reminders about subscription renewal) that eventually you could find someone reasonable to issue a stern warning to you but forgive the penalty - and for that amount it might be worth it.

[Dynedain]

They seem to have gotten a lot more greedy ever since they bought Maya and Discreet, and had to pay back those loans

Actually since v2, they've always owned 3DStudio. Autodesk was the original publisher and Yost was the creator. Autodesk bought out 3D Studio from Yost to make versions 2 and 3, then went back to Yost to have version 4 (first Windows release) produced, which was released by Kinetix (a subsidiary of Autodesk). Kinetix merged with Discreet (who were very small and niche at the time) and eventually became Autodesk M&E. They've just recently decided to consolidate the brand identity.

And as for paying back loans, I doubt they had to take any out to make the purchase of the destroyed hulk of alias/wavefront after SGI spun it off.

[charleyc]

...then went back to Yost to have version 4 (first Windows release) produced, which was released by Kinetix (a subsidiary of Autodesk...

actually 3DStudio R4 was still DOS. That was right around the time I started off in this field. 3DStudio Max 1.0 was the first windows version and it came out a bit after 3ds R4.

As for subscriptions. There are definitely pros and cons. But Autodesk is not the only company that wants to push these. Microsoft has been tossing the idea around for many years. Maya and Softimage, while not including upgrades for the product had similar setups, and a lot more pricey, for annual support. Which in the days of SGI was pretty much a must have.

[DJ-Studd]

The thing is, we, like many others, would probably not bother upgrading quite so often. Every upgrade so far has caused us varying levels of headaches with ongoing projects that run over the various iterations of Max/ADT.
...
We mainly upgrade Max to keep us up-to-date with vray
...
We could say 'no more' to this subscription malarky, but what happens when we get another memebr of staff?

No point in me typing exactly the same thing, so I'll just quote you instead!

-- DJ

[tricky]

tricky wrote:

The thing is, we, like many others, would probably not bother upgrading quite so often. Every upgrade so far has caused us varying levels of headaches with ongoing projects that run over the various iterations of Max/ADT.
...
We mainly upgrade Max to keep us up-to-date with vray
...
We could say 'no more' to this subscription malarky, but what happens when we get another memebr of staff?


No point in me typing exactly the same thing, so I'll just quote you instead!

This is quite fundamental isn't it? They are w**kers! (sorry moderator)

[arobbert]

I'm old fashioned I still use Viz 4 Vray 1.09 for production. I upgraded to Viz 2006 to evaluate it with the new releases of Vray but skipped the subscription (bad for A.Desk but relatively solid).

Last year a license for Viz 4 failed as it has done before. When I called to reactivate I was told that because I had upgraded to Viz 2006 my license was no longer valid for VIZ 4 and there was nothing they could do to reverse this.

Here I am with projects due and no Viz or Vray. After navigating a maze of "support personnel" I was told that I could use my old VIZ 4 (referred to as "legacy software") if I purchased a subscription. The hitch was that I would also need to purchase the upgrade to VIZ 2007 because I missed the free upgrade from 2006 purchased five months earlier. All so I could use my old VIZ 4 that I thought I had already paid for.

People weren't buying the subscription. So they added a little gem to their license agreement for upgrades negating previous license agreements for previous versions. I failed to read the fine print. Who reads that crap anyway. Well, it cost me a bundle to upgrade two seats and then buy subscriptions for both after just buying the upgrade to Viz 2006 five months earlier (that I wasn't even using)!

Be vigilante because these guys will screw you the first chance they get. And there is no one there who will help you, unless you give them more money. These guys will do anything to find new ways to gouge us for more cash.

[charleyc]

...So they added a little gem to their license agreement for upgrades negating previous license agreements for previous versions...

Actually that was not added during subscription. That is how it has always been as long as I can remember. It just only showed its face as the lic applications took place of the dongles (post R4 era). It was to prevent people/companies from multiplying seats for little cost by reusing older versions after upgrading (I know of at least one company that did this). It was, in fact, added to subscription to finally make it legal to use your older versions.

I would say that it is because of situations like this that helped get subscription implanted. It costs Autodesk money to try and maintain support for products that are basically out dated and in reality only used by the smallest of percentage of its overall users. Most people will not willingly use a product that long because they cannot meet the rising demands of their particular niche if they do. Subscription is a way to add an incentive (a very reduced upgrade cost) to move on with technology and not stay too long in the older versions. It has always been Autodesks policy to only support products back through a given number of releases. AutoCAD has been like this as long as I have known of it. With subscription you have more choices if one choice fails to meet your need.

[tricky]

It costs Autodesk money to try and maintain support for products that are basically out dated

Support? Autodesk? That's a joke, surely?

I've only ever tried to get support to Autodesk software (or any other for that matter) on a couple of occasions, and each time, the result wasn't worth the effort in raising the support queery in the first place. My current issue (the second occasion as referred to above) is a problem with FLM and ADT/Max9 which our office is experiencing regularly. It is requiring us to use Max8 for a number of projects because Max9 will suddenly stop file linking.

We have contacted Autodesk, our reseller, the AREA forum and now Chaosforums. The only response I have had thus far is from Chaosforums!

I'll repeat:

Support? Autodesk? That's a joke, surely?

[charleyc]

Let me first say that this is in response to the discussion of a user running an R4 release. I am not talking bugs in current releases of the software. I am talking about Autodesk having people on staff who need to know the older versions of the software when questions arise as OS and hardware continue to update. Staff to train resellers to support these same questions. Staff that needs to update things like Object Enablers for 5 versions of max rather than say 2 every time one of their other products update. It does cost time and money to maintain support for older versions. That is why most all software companies don't do this and it gets increasingly difficult to deal with Autodesk the further back you are going.

I am not saying Autodesk is some company who can do no wrong. I disagree with many of their decisions and policies, especially of late and especially pertaining to their overseas dealings. But I am also not so naive to think that managing a company of that size, with that many products and users spanning the globe, coupled with the state of today's changing technology is easy and going to cater to my needs some of the time, much less most of the time. Over the years, they are going to make stupid mistakes and fall short at times. I put my 2 cents in at the Autodesk forums and bug reports as needed, but in reality I tend to have to adjust a lot of what I do to what I have, not what I 'might' get them to give me. There is only so much time, so much money and so many people, even with a company like Autodesk. When that gets taxed, that is all there is. It is great to work with developers who can get you want you want when you need it. A lot of the 3rd party developers can do that for you. But most of them only have one to a small handful of product offerings and a user base much lower than 300,000+. It is sad that we have to accept less than we may feel we deserve given the time and money we have to spend. But that is the nature of a company that size. I remember the early days of Turbosquid. Now try and get email responses in a timely fashion. Even ChaosGroup has changed over the years with their obvious growth from VRay. There is a no doubt more to do and a lot more people with problems to listen to. And how many products do they have to deal with? I am not saying this because I think you guys shouldn't be upset. I just want to try and keep things in perspective.