I let subscription go completely already, no problem there Graham. On 13 July 2012 10:35, Graham Bell <[email protected]> wrote:
> There was a good case for this Subs pricing for Soft, but I think you’re > gonna have to let the Silver Subs thing go, for now anyway. > > G > > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Thomas Helzle > Sent: 12 July 2012 15:26 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: price increases? > > Interesting! > > Now add a silver subscription for ~300 - 400 Euro and even I may think > about it again. > > Add another silver subscription option without Mental Ray for ~200 Euro > and I'm sold ;-) > > Cheers, > > Tom > http://www.screendream.de > On 12 July 2012 13:56, Matt Morris <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>> wrote: > I've just been informed that as of 1st august prices for subscription in > the UK will be dropped down to £545. (Still gold subscription) > > That's a much more reasonable 20% increase on my last subscription, rather > than 70%, and I will probably now upgrade. I wonder how many subscriptions > Autodesk has lost through this period though. There must have been a fair > few like me who decided it was a pretty unreasonable hike! > > > > On 9 July 2012 17:48, John Richard Sanchez <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Hmmm Well I was paying $795 a year for subscription for XSI last year, I > upgraded to the suite and now my Subscription price is 1,300per year for > full suport or $900 for just upgrades and no phone support. Thats a pretty > steep increase thought It was my choice to upgrade. Still trying to decide > if the 1,300 is worth the money. > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 3:26 AM, <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>> wrote: > yes, '6 versions' made me wonder if a pre-autodesk version could become > upgradeable again - which didn’t sound like autodesk. > then again, if it’s a way to get people back to being a paying customer, > it would be beneficial... > > > -----Original Message----- From: Graham Bell > Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 12:25 AM > > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected] > > > Subject: RE: price increases? > > I think for Soft its different, as 6 versions back takes it into Avid > territory and am not sure how that stands, etc. Though Soft 7.5 was post > acquisition so not sure about that particular version? > It appears they have followed the standard support policy which is the > current verion and 3 versions back - 2012, 2011 and 2010. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]> [mailto: > [email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>] On Behalf Of [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: 02 July 2012 19:44 > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected] > > > Subject: Re: price increases? > > thanks for getting back graham, > > hm 2010, that’s only 3 releases back then - not 6. Oh well. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Graham Bell > Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 6:56 PM > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected] > > > Subject: RE: price increases? > > Apologies for the late reply, but I believe (though TBC) that the oldest > upgradeable version for Softimage is 2010. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]> > [mailto:[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>] On Behalf Of [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: 22 June 2012 20:00 > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected] > > > Subject: Re: price increases? > > thanks Graham for the clear information. > it beats rumours, and this doesn’t sound like 'evil coorporation' schemes > to me, more like standardization of policies. > > can you find out which the oldest upgradeable version is? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Graham Bell > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 9:53 AM > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected] > > > Subject: RE: price increases? > > Ok, so after following this thread, I met with some of my colleagues and > we sat down to go through the recent pricing announcements and perhaps try > and make it clearer, the best that we can. So here goes, however this is > just from a Europe/EMEA view. Also to the best of my knowledge this applies > to the majority of Autodesk software, not just M&E, though there are some > exceptions, I don't know them all. > > Changes to the upgrade model for Autodesk software: > Basically for those who don't know, Autodesk has pricing models for when > someone wants to upgrade an old version of software to the current version, > if they haven't been on Subscription (for whatever reason). From February > 1st 2013, these models are changing > > On February 1st 2013, the upgrade pricing model will change so that > upgrades from 1 - 3 versions back will increase from 50% of the new licence > SRP to 70% of the new licence SRP. > > Upgrades from 4 - 6 versions back will remain at 70% of the new licence > SRP. > > Upgrades from versions older than 6 releases back will not be upgradeable. > > Many customers are actually on subscription already, and this continues to > be the most cost effective way to keep your software current. > > > Subscription price changes: > > Autodesk has recently increased the cost of new subscriptions across many > product lines - these changes apply to subscription renewals from February > 1st 2013. > > However, there is an exception for Softimage which wasn't mentioned because > at this time it is not confirmed. As previously discussed on this list and > other forums the Softimage subscription price has changed within the last > year, and is only available as a gold subscription (not wanting to open > this > debate here). The subscription price for Softimage is not expected to > increase further and in many cases might reduce back to a previous price. I > do not know exact details, but information on local prices is expected > soon. > And again, I must state that I'm talking from a Europe/EMEA view. I don't > have any information outside of that. > > Multi-year subscription discounts to be phased out: > > On August 1st 2012, the discounts for multi-year subscription will reduce > from 10% to 5% for 3 year contracts and from 5% to 0% for 2 year contracts > > On February 1st 2013, the discount for a 3 year renewal will reduce from 5% > to 0% > > > So that's basically the pricing announcements that Autodesk recently made > which were only focused around the upgrade models and Subscriptions. > > > As for anything else, and to the best of my knowledge, there are no further > price changes planned at this time in EMEA. Unfortunately I cannot > absolutely state that this won't change in the future or that there will > not > be some exceptions. > > > > > From: [email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]> > [mailto:[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>] On Behalf Of Thomas Cannell > Sent: 19 June 2012 21:50 > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected] > > > Subject: Re: price increases? > > Modo does in fact have the ability to edit and build materials with nodes. > Just add them into the Schematic view and connect away. You will still > have > to use it in conjunction with the tree for certain effects as it won't > support everything you can do with tree. > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Thomas Helzle > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto: > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > Steffen, sorry for the confusion - they call it Rendertree as well ;-) > While it's not node based (and I really am a node addict myself) this is > much less of a problem than I thought, in some areas it's even better. Now > that I used it for a while, my old impression (not so different from yours, > Steffen) has changed a lot. > > BTW. Lightwave isn't "layerbased" and never really was, Ronald? Current > versions of Lightwave (for many years now actually) have full blown node > shading which is in some areas better than XSI (no conversion nodes, yay > ;-) ) and less good in others (some factory shaders are a bit simple). But > I > think the Lightwave Renderer is still top notch and GI is very fast. > > Again, I don't think modo is for everybody, but IMO it's more artist > friendly and -centered approach goes a long way towards getting stuff done > fast where the big packages can be a bit long in the tooth. > > Regarding the price: 20 years ago even a rotating cube was considered > awesome and you needed a lot of special knowledge, gear and patience for > even the most simple stuff. Been there, done that. > But the times are changing and today 3D is no longer something special. > I see an inflation happening: falling rates, cheaper, better and faster > gear, more people wanting "in" etc. > The big tools are up against Blender - with Cycles, Camera Tracking, > Volumetrics, Fluids, Compositing etc. today. > Very very different times IMO. > > I can't see how Autodesk prices are cost-of-development driven in any > reasonable way. > The packages they have already exist. They are noodling around with them a > bit, but the last time I saw something really impressive in a major 3D > package was ICE in XSI 7. > > But anyway, I don't want to convince anybody of anything here, it's just > that I get the impression of a serious "Stockholm Syndrome" from some of > the > discussions on this list ;-) > > Each to his own - YMMV > > Best regards, > > Tom > > On 19 June 2012 12:55, Steffen Dünner > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected] > ><mailto:[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>>> > wrote: > 2012/6/19 Thomas Helzle > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto: > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> > especially their render tree > > They have a render tree? Node based? > Last time I checked, all I found was some sort of layer-based stack that > felt somehow "ancient". Can you point me to a tutorial or feature > description that shows this render tree? I would be very interested in it. > > Cheers > Steffen > -- > PGP-ID(RSA): 0xCCE2E989 / 0xE045734C CCE2E989 > Fingerprint: 394B 3DA9 9A9A 96C6 3A5A 0595 EF92 EE1F > > > > > -- > ------------ > puppetstring.com<http://puppetstring.com><http://puppetstring.com> > > > > -- > www.johnrichardsanchez.com<http://www.johnrichardsanchez.com> > > > > > -- > www.matinai.com<http://www.matinai.com> > >
