I wasn't imply you suggested Soft becomes C4D :) I'm suggesting that if you drag in the MCD by its heels and it becomes the majority of your user base, then the development will have to cater to those and gradually lose the more technical userbase, in an infinite cycle that leaves you with C4D and Lightwave and their userbases.
At the opposite end of the spectrum in successful education shaping the community into a self-feeding loop: Houdini, which bred a fiercely loyal userbase that makes the software look a lot better than it really is. I like the balance in the middle that Soft caters to, I like its current userbase and communities, and I'd like to see that extended and the app continue with a certain philosophy that I doubt would remain healthy after trying to pull in any and every artist who can't be bothered learning ICE and would rather have an app with a million pre-canned effects and filters. Again, this isn't some mis-placed elitism, this is Softimage preserving how it re-invented its identity since 7.0. Its (partial) failings in market impact are not due to lack of dummy level tutorials or other similar factors, not in the smallest measure comparable to the damage done by uncertain marketing and shelf life and a middle management in constant flux and conspicuous absence, at least. On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Andy Moorer <[email protected]> wrote: > Whoa, hold on. I'm not suggesting Softimage try to become C4D... I'm just > pointing out that they have done a great job of gaining new users by > eliminating the fear of the learning curve and by putting effort into > smoothing the barriers for new untechnical artists. > > But not hobbyists, artists, ones who are professionals, perhaps not > technical directors but lets face it we as TDs are creating these people's > visions, and many people who start out clueless with any tool of any kind > of complexity end up doing amazing and sophisticated work in a few short > years. > > I agree with you that in many ways C4D is a dead end when those people get > to a point where their ideas outstrip its capabilities as a production > tool. Heck, the discovery by small studios and creatives that C4d can't cut > it past a certain point is where my most recent paychecks as a hired gun > have originated. > > So why not pave the way for those same talented people to get into > Softimage, not by diverting the development of the software itself but by > putting significant effort into demonstrating via educational resources > like tutorials how easy it is to do very impressive graphics work with > minimal training, using Softimage? > > You don't have to dumb down the software to appeal to nontechnical people, > you just have to recognize that many of these people are not natural > self-trainers and give them guidance to get rolling. Those "nontechnical" > people aren't dumb, and might just find themselves going further than they > could have ever foreseen. > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jul 21, 2013, at 5:27 PM, Raffaele Fragapane < > [email protected]> wrote: > > In all honesty, if Soft was to go down the route C4D went in the last four > years I'd move away from it in a hurry. > This isn't some kind of mis-placed elitism, it's more that the appeal to > the MCD of the app becomes more apparent each version, and while it's very > fast and practical at doing many small things, it's growing sclerotically > dysfunctional at the bigger picture and it's developed an extremely narrow > sighted user-base. > > There's also a big Apple factor to its success in that field unrelated to > the situation you outline that shouldn't be left out of the picture. > > C4D is more likely to still be a product in three years, for sure, but > it's lost all chances to become a platform. > > ZBrush I don't believe should feature in the comparison and context at > all, it's a singular, field defining blip in history that has little to > nothing in common with the availability of education or its target, and it > results from a singular and very left field vision to begin with. > > I can't say I have seen such complex work done in C4D by all these amazing > artists either. I've seen a lot of small bits recombined any and every way, > sure, but most of it is painfully obvious as a form of thinking particles > kit bashing. Compared to the original FX work done in Soft, Maya or Houdini > for commercials and titles (IE: G-Star Raw work by Glassworks) it's way > below par. > > They've seriously pigeonholed themselves, but they have done so in a very > profitable niche they have now almost cornered. More After Effects than 3D > DCC. > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 4:42 AM, Andy Moorer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think Cinema4D is a great example of the effectiveness of spoon-feeding >> newbies on basic techniques that give them results. C4D has very capable >> artists flocking to it, these are people who are intimidated by DCCs and >> yet who have a lot to offer... Designers and other creatives, Zbrush >> artists and so on. >> >> They have a perception that C4D is easy to use (despite every 3d DCC >> requiring effort to learn) and that perception is enough to get them to go >> the next step, viewing easy to find tutorials, in which immediately useful >> stuff is shown with emphasis on how easy it is. >> >> The result - a fast growing userbase of artists, and those >> art-oriented-people drive a great many jobs. >> >> I see designers who do very complex work in C4D who are -still- afraid to >> try other tools, because what they see are mid to high level workflows >> straight off the bat. >> >> Which is more likely to still be a product in 3-5 years, C4D or >> Softimage? Is this "cater to the newbies" strategy one worth adopting? It >> seems very effective... >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> -- Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!
