PDA

View Full Version : AutoDesk policy



erikals
08-14-2012, 12:03 AM
you cannot sell your 3DSMax copy (or xSI, Maya)

you have to have a subscription in order to avoid "penalty" cost

if you skip an upgrade you cannot upgrade, you are forced to buy the new full license

upgrade cost is high

render nodes cost extra


things to consider,
plugins for AD might be expensive and further plugin support is not guaranteed.


(is the above correct?)

 

Ryan Roye
08-14-2012, 12:11 AM
Actually, the entire above info could be condensed into the following term:

KA-CHING!

m.d.
08-14-2012, 12:37 AM
you cannot sell your 3DSMax copy (or xSI, Maya)

you have to have a subscription in order to avoid "penalty" cost

(is the above correct?)



i think this went to court.....
guy was selling autocad, and autodesk said he couln't....but i believe he won in court....

but yes it is autodesk policy, and even the law and justice does not think its fair

erikals
08-14-2012, 12:40 AM
as far as i know AD "fixed" that now buy printing some small text on the back of the package.
he won't be able to do it again...

adk
08-14-2012, 01:12 AM
if you skip an upgrade you cannot upgrade, you are forced to buy the new full license
 

... yeah that makes sense :stumped: I buy a Pirate 01 Leggo set (trying real hard to stay away from cars) ... forgo the 02 Johnny Depp & Orlando options that come bundled in the next release ... then when I choose to "upgrade" to set 03 I'm slogged for the full set yet again. That's not customer policy, that's Dick Turpin (= highway robbery)

Ernest
08-14-2012, 01:21 AM
you cannot sell your 3DSMax copy (or xSI, Maya)

you have to have a subscription in order to avoid "penalty" cost

if you skip an upgrade you cannot upgrade, you are forced to buy the new full license

upgrade cost is high

render nodes cost extra


things to consider,
plugins for AD might be expensive and further plugin support is not guaranteed.


(is the above correct?)



They call their legal customers to accuse them of being filthy pirates.

If a student bought the student version of one of their programs, they cannot upgrade it to the commercial version, they can only upgrade to a full suite that they may not need for around $3500.

If the program the student wants is SI, there is no standard suite for you, only option is to upgrade get a premium suite for almost $5000!

biliousfrog
08-14-2012, 02:01 AM
Their 'policy' might seem unfair but it's common knowledge and it's the buyer/owner's responsibility to ensure that they agree to the policy before using the software. Basically, if you don't like it then look elsewhere. I don't understand why we need another thread going over how bad Autodesk is...I don't like their company, I don't use the products, I don't get angry about it.

zarti
08-14-2012, 02:37 AM
one Q :

is it that really hard for AD users to stop upgrading ? to boycot for few years ?

as a suggestion it might be better save their original copies in safe places . =)


what might look a nightmare about the future wd be the extreme scenario of an actual license not working when new version is available .. well , actually this doesnt bother me personally since i do not have any , but when i try to imagine how many people are 'dependent' to those tools ..... man ! Thats Scary !




.cheers

COBRASoft
08-14-2012, 03:00 AM
In europe you can ALWAYS sell your bought software now. There's a new law for this.

Red_Oddity
08-14-2012, 03:11 AM
In europe you can ALWAYS sell your bought software now. There's a new law for this.

Actually, you always could with Autodesk, but you need to comply to some rather strict rules, and you pay a transfer fee ( 1000 euros ) and a new subscription fee ( 800 or 1200 euros )

Also, it's not only Autodesk that is to blame here, it's the colleges and universities as well, they should not just focus on a single piece of software by the largest and market dominating company. If you graduate and you want to start on your own you can't be expected to just buy a new software program and take a half year of to teach yourself a new program.

zarti
08-14-2012, 03:49 AM
if they offer free lics to schools , then .. it is up to schools ( which orients the artists' generations , somehow ' dictating ' the way ) to reconsider the future of their students . if learning a software is Knowledge , why not offer the possibility .. and let the student choose .

if that isnt going to change , maybe there is a way which student should put pressure to schools to not have only That option . somehow they have that right . No ?? esp these days and the tendency of days ahead ..

also other 3Dapp-makers should offer absolutely for free their lics . absolutely ! Im saying this mostly considering they offer it as an Knowledge , from which many people 's investment and life will depend somehow .


maybe real laws should enter in game ..



.cheers

BigHache
08-14-2012, 07:05 AM
I don't think schools are going to change until they need to. Schools are a business and their interest is making money, not making sure you're getting the best education possible, no matter what the PR person for a school says. And they've been doing this quite well for a long time. But schools are also making themselves irrelevant. The industry is changing underneath them and they will start to vanish like Blockbuster.

torturebori007
08-14-2012, 08:14 AM
Actually, the entire above info could be condensed into the following term:

KA-CHING!


LOL I love that!

torturebori007
08-14-2012, 08:16 AM
I actually use maya for fluids simulations and such. I have been buying older lightwave videos on Hypervoxels and such to see if I can just use lightwave but man, hypervoxels are a whole new beast.

hrgiger
08-14-2012, 01:19 PM
The bottom line is that AD sucks.

DigitalSorcery8
08-14-2012, 01:23 PM
If the program the student wants is SI, there is no standard suite for you, only option is to upgrade get a premium suite for almost $5000!

Yeah... THIS is probably the PRIME reason I decided not to go the SI route. Unfortunately at the moment we will need Motion Builder, but hopefully that will change in the next few years. It appears that AD is seriously pricing themselves even out of the small studio marketplace.

jasonwestmas
08-14-2012, 04:56 PM
I wouldn't want to sell maya or mudbox or motionbuilder. But point taken. Now if AD suddenly decides that I can't use my old copy of whatever, then yes we are stepping into highway robbery.

Titus
08-14-2012, 05:17 PM
They call their legal customers to accuse them of being filthy pirates.


And any other who is not their customer. They called offering me to audit my studio and solve my "licensing problem", or face the law. They got ofended when I said we use LW and Blender.

Cageman
08-14-2012, 05:17 PM
I've heard about resellers as well as schools that want to sell/educate other softwares that if they proceed with their plans they will loose ADs support and the ability to sell/teach AD products.

This might be a myth though... I have not experienced this myself, but on the other hand, I've not worked at a school nor tried to sell products.

Cageman
08-14-2012, 05:18 PM
and any other who is not their customer. They called offering me to audit my studio and solve my "licensing problem", or face the law. They got ofended when i said we use lw and blender.

lol!! :)

EDIT: What licensing problem were they talking about? Did they actually think that you guys used their products in order to do what you guys do?

Titus
08-14-2012, 05:45 PM
lol!! :)

EDIT: What licensing problem were they talking about? Did they actually think that you guys used their products in order to do what you guys do?

Just "licensing problems", never someting clear.

They are trying this squeme with everyone:

A week before they called impersonating a tv producer to ask a quote from my studio for a tv series, and demanding a studio tour. They wanted to know our software, projects and reel. I wrote a budget (something that takes a considerable amount of work) and sent it with a demoreel, never got a response.

Then the calls and emails started; First from the BSA, then from AD. All this finished when I sent a copy of the GPL to them for their revision :D.

m.d.
08-14-2012, 07:57 PM
back in kaydara days...with motionbuilder 4/5/6...
once they were bought....AD said they would no longer support the licensing system...
meaning change your computer or any major components and you were out of luck...

I started a little campaign, called the editor of 3dworld, they contacted AD to write an article about it....AD then relented and said they would support the licensing for the time being.
That was my first experience with AD

Back in those days kaydara customer relations was great....
I remember when they were gonna pull 'story' from motion builder basic and only have it in pro, on the forums I and another user asked the president to reconsider and keep it in....he replied minutes later with "OK" I dont think he is with AD any longer...

But great customer service where you can actually communicate with the company president...kinda like here :)

m.d.
08-14-2012, 08:03 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc.

here's the case

DigitalSorcery8
08-14-2012, 08:20 PM
back in kaydara days...with motionbuilder 4/5/6...
once they were bought....AD said they would no longer support the licensing system...
meaning change your computer or any major components and you were out of luck...

I started a little campaign, called the editor of 3dworld, they contacted AD to write an article about it....AD then relented and said they would support the licensing for the time being.
That was my first experience with AD

I made a BIG stink on the CGTalk forums and contacted the Better Business Bureau - with Autodesk responding and - as you said - relenting stating it was "a misunderstanding" and that they never intended to "abandon" those users. Yeah, right. I still have those emails somewhere. I found it amazing on the CGTalk forums how many people didn't care and thought that AD had every right to do so. Talk about misinformed users.


Back in those days kaydara customer relations was great....
I remember when they were gonna pull 'story' from motion builder basic and only have it in pro, on the forums I and another user asked the president to reconsider and keep it in....he replied minutes later with "OK" I dont think he is with AD any longer...

But great customer service where you can actually communicate with the company president...kinda like here :)
Yes, I do miss Kaydara. Their forums were great and extremely helpful with the developers often responding. I completely agree - Kaydara customer relations were great - I miss that company and wish they'd never sold MotionBuilder. Oh well... :cry:

AbstractTech3D
08-16-2012, 01:32 PM
Its a strong market opportunity for LW as a comprehensive software alternative, with MUCH more favourable existing customer relations and pricing / licensing terms than AD. C4D equivalent in price to AD. Blender and Modo have their issues. Only leaves LW.

But to seize the opportunity - development does indeed need to (continue to) happen aggressively.

cresshead
08-16-2012, 04:03 PM
Its a strong market opportunity for LW as a comprehensive software alternative, with MUCH more favourable existing customer relations and pricing / licensing terms than AD. C4D equivalent in price to AD. Blender and Modo have their issues. Only leaves LW.

But to seize the opportunity - development does indeed need to (continue to) happen aggressively.

....and houdini
plus sketchup pro, messiah studio, formz, bonzai, vue,sculptris, zbrush, 3d coat..lots of renderers like kray, maxwell, vray, delight...
and a few other smaller apps

luminon3d
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYHVVtdeCas&feature=player_embedded#!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQHyD5hu-mU&feature=related

erikals
08-16-2012, 04:21 PM
not for a full featured app though,..
except Houdini 'lite" which is missing all the VFX stuff :/
the full Houdini is nice, if you have the $...

there is Cheetah3D though, for Mac.

AbstractTech3D
08-16-2012, 04:35 PM
… oh yes - Houdini… definitely I should also have mentioned. And now with a much lower price - but still expensive compared to LW.

As a result of the recent price drop, Houdini is probably now competing much more strongly against AD XSI. And without the rubbish AD licensing terms involved - I do find Houdini to be an attractive alternative proposition to XSI.

(My hope really is, though, that the depth of thorough control present in XSI and Houdini (and speed when considering ICE) emerges in very near future releases of LW - which is exactly what I fundamentally had hoped for with LW Core. In which case I'd be very happy to stick with LW - and not spend 4x as much on an alternative. I think other potential and existing customers of those apps would likely think similarly).

edit: another thing I do strongly dislike about AD is that the price for the products outside the USA is roughly double, in some instances. Definitely not on! How to lose friends and infuriate people. Ill-will well achieved.

KurtF
08-16-2012, 08:52 PM
which is exactly what I fundamentally had hoped for with LW Core

Same here. In fact, when Core was dropped/postponed? in favor of Lightwave 11 I was quite disappointed. Still, it may make itself known in the future.

jwiede
08-16-2012, 09:09 PM
things to consider,
plugins for AD might be expensive and further plugin support is not guaranteed.
This could pretty much be said for any 3D package (esp. the underlined portion), LW included. Given how many LW plugins remain non-updated for LW11 (or MacUB, for that matter), I don't think it's reasonable to suggest AD is somehow worse in that regard.

jwiede
08-16-2012, 09:12 PM
I found it amazing on the CGTalk forums how many people didn't care and thought that AD had every right to do so.
I've witnessed similar apathetic forum reactions around here a few times over the recent years as well, though. I don't really think there's anything unique about the "AD faithful" versus, say, "LW faithful".

I too really miss Kaydara, saddest day for me was when I discovered my Mac MB5.5 no longer ran properly (with no hope of any recovery).

DigitalSorcery8
08-16-2012, 09:14 PM
Same here. In fact, when Core was dropped/postponed? in favor of Lightwave 11 I was quite disappointed. Still, it may make itself known in the future.

Same here. :D

But I've come to the (hopeful) realization that with Robs enthusiasm and the current developer teams abilities I think (hope) we will see LW moving forward faster and hopefully see integration between Layout and Modeler beginning seriously in LW12.

DigitalSorcery8
08-16-2012, 09:18 PM
I've witnessed similar apathetic forum reactions around here a few times over the recent years as well, though. I don't really think there's anything unique about the "AD faithful" versus, say, "LW faithful".
:agree: Definitely. I was (sad to say) one of those LW "zealots" until CORE. Now I'm just Pro-LW. :boogiedow

I too really miss Kaydara, saddest day for me was when I discovered my Mac MB5.5 no longer ran properly (with no hope of any recovery).
Theoretically you should STILL be able to license it on a different machine. I can't remember the name of the website that you should contact, but it's STILL supposed to allow you to transfer the license to a different machine since it IS a permanent license.

erikals
08-16-2012, 09:38 PM
I've heard about resellers as well as schools that want to sell/educate other softwares that if they proceed with their plans they will loose AD's support and the ability to sell/teach AD products.

it's not, i can understand that policy though, as they get the software for a very cheap price.
this is a clever trick AD use to make schools jump to their "popular" software.

 

robertoortiz
08-16-2012, 09:53 PM
it's not, i can understand that policy though, as they get the software for a very cheap price.
this is a clever trick AD use to make schools jump to their "popular" software.

 
I do wonder if that practice is legal?


I made a BIG stink on the CGTalk forums and contacted the Better Business Bureau - with Autodesk responding and - as you said - relenting stating it was "a misunderstanding" and that they never intended to "abandon" those users. Yeah, right. I still have those emails somewhere. I found it amazing on the CGTalk forums how many people didn't care and thought that AD had every right to do so. Talk about misinformed users.
Well things are changing...
Have you seen this thread?
2013 extension announcement...rant (http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=6&t=1064055)

The natives are restless.

lwanmtr
08-16-2012, 10:29 PM
This could pretty much be said for any 3D package (esp. the underlined portion), LW included. Given how many LW plugins remain non-updated for LW11 (or MacUB, for that matter), I don't think it's reasonable to suggest AD is somehow worse in that regard.


With reguards to plugins and AD products...you have to get new versions of any plugins when you move to a new version..such as Maya-2009 to Maya-2010...even thought the app is the same and the plugin is the same, you have to get a version specifically for that version of Maya...3D Max is the same.

LW on the other hand will try to run any plugin you toss at it, reguardless of which version it was written for (not always successfully). I have plugins from 9.6 that I still use.

erikals
08-16-2012, 10:49 PM
I do wonder if that practice is legal?

i'm not sure.
but it's been going on for years.

erikals
08-16-2012, 10:51 PM
I have plugins from 9.6 that I still use.

i'm sure i have plugins from LW7 that i still use...

geo_n
08-16-2012, 10:54 PM
I do wonder if that practice is legal?


Well things are changing...
Have you seen this thread?
2013 extension announcement...rant (http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=6&t=1064055)

The natives are restless.

That is bad! We also don't need mudbox and motionbuilder.
Those two appz probably don't sell as much as one thread poster mentioned and now they are bundling it to their top seller 3dmax so it can be spread to many companies. Sneaky, effective move by AD. Users have no other software choice anyway and probably will swallow the added cost for mudbox, mb.

DigitalSorcery8
08-16-2012, 11:12 PM
That is bad! We also don't need mudbox and motionbuilder.
Those two appz probably don't sell as much as one thread poster mentioned and now they are bundling it to their top seller 3dmax so it can be spread to many companies. Sneaky, effective move by AD. Users have no other software choice anyway and probably will swallow the added cost for mudbox, mb.

They're bundling it with all of the suites - MotionBuilder w/Max or w/Maya or the super suite with SI too. One of the reasons I decided to bank on LW as opposed to SI - way too much money not to mention subscriptions. They grab you by the sack and tell you you MUST subscribe or we'll take your first born when you want "back in."

DigitalSorcery8
08-16-2012, 11:15 PM
I do wonder if that practice is legal?
Kind of sounds allot like extortion really.


Well things are changing...
Have you seen this thread?
2013 extension announcement...rant (http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=6&t=1064055)

The natives are restless.
The Motion Builder thread at CGTalk was in the LW forum, so not too many AD users were posting - mainly LW users who either didn't use Motion Builder or just didn't care that users were being taken advantage of. Although there was one or two that said there was nothing we could do about it. We did... show them that they were incorrect. :)

geo_n
08-16-2012, 11:24 PM
Problem is there's really no other alternative right now atleast for our case doing character based CG.
There's no good mocap solution in lw without dealing with too many workarounds or steps or adding motionbuilder. Hopefully that will change with genoma, soon I hope. It really just needs basic retargetting and support for common mocap data. NT should hire Leslie from animeeple.

DigitalSorcery8
08-16-2012, 11:34 PM
Problem is there's really no other alternative right now atleast for our case doing character based CG.
There's no good mocap solution in lw without dealing with too many workarounds or steps or adding motionbuilder. Hopefully that will change with genoma, soon I hope. It really just needs basic retargetting and support for common mocap data.
Very true. I don't see Genoma being able to handle retargeting - at least not till LW12. But it certainly would be GREAT to see it available directly in LW. Another obstacle would be with multiple characters. I'm planning on capturing three characters at once and have them interact. Motion Builder is really the ONLY solution I see that could do this with relative ease.

NT should hire Leslie from animeeple.
THAT... is an excellent idea!

Hey Lightwave3D Group... there's a great idea right here. :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Ernest
08-17-2012, 12:09 AM
Well things are changing...
Have you seen this thread?
2013 extension announcement...rant (http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=6&t=1064055)

The natives are restless.

Wow.
Can't blame them. I would be too, if I paid for our subs.
Looking forward to the announcement that Naiad will only be available for Premium Suite subscribers.

jwiede
08-17-2012, 03:01 AM
With reguards to plugins and AD products...you have to get new versions of any plugins when you move to a new version..such as Maya-2009 to Maya-2010...even thought the app is the same and the plugin is the same, you have to get a version specifically for that version of Maya...3D Max is the same.

LW on the other hand will try to run any plugin you toss at it, reguardless of which version it was written for (not always successfully). I have plugins from 9.6 that I still use.
If you compare the overall percentage of plugins released which subsequently stopped being developed/maintained, LW has issues compared to AD pkgs (esp. w.r.t. commercial plugins). LW's smaller total plugin population makes each loss "more dear", as it were. If you look at cross-platform availability percentages (% avail that don't support all platforms the pkg does), there too LW seems at a relative disadvantage.

There are legitimate advantages LW offers over AD pkgs, but plugin longevity and stability aren't among them, IMO.

lwanmtr
08-17-2012, 03:05 AM
Wasnt comparing the # of plugins, just stating that with LW you arent forced to get a new version of x-plugin just to use it on the newest LW...where as with AD products, each plugin has to be specific to each version of their software

jasonwestmas
08-17-2012, 06:20 AM
Wasnt comparing the # of plugins, just stating that with LW you arent forced to get a new version of x-plugin just to use it on the newest LW...where as with AD products, each plugin has to be specific to each version of their software

Not necessarily so. It depends on which plugins and which versions of lightwave we are talking about here. Not really any need here to make Lightwave sound miraculous, it's still code just like any other program.

erikals
08-17-2012, 07:23 AM
Not really any need here to make Lightwave sound miraculous, it's still code just like any other program.


there, that's better... http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/lwicon.png

jasonwestmas
08-17-2012, 07:25 AM
hehe, oohh so majikal!

erikals
08-17-2012, 07:35 AM
http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs50/f/2009/333/f/c/wizard_by_krissi001.gif

gravin
08-17-2012, 08:20 AM
This is all played a major role in my decision to not pick up a commercial license of Maya or XSI when I left school. AD has some great tools but I would rather put my money and time behind a company that treats all of it's customers with equal respect, not just the big studios. AD might just be too big to behave any differently. With so many different products to maintain and develop they have to be aggressive to protect the profitability of holding so much of the creative 3d software market. I can't help but think that they may be reaching the point of becoming to big to keep going, especially if there artist unfriendly business practices continue to push talent away.

lwanmtr
08-17-2012, 01:53 PM
Haha....miraculous...

Isnt it a little miraculous its survived as well as it has...even with the long game of catch up? lol.

Anyhoo...Wasnt saying that...was referring to the policies.... AD's 3rd party development policy requires that they make each plugin for each version of their products (version coded), so that a plugin made for version x will not work in version y.

cresshead
08-17-2012, 02:39 PM
AD's 3rd party development policy requires that they make each plugin for each version of their products (version coded), so that a plugin made for version x will not work in version y.


not true for 3dsmax...some version of max the plugins worked in the next version of max without need for recompile because they used the same version of app to compile max as previous version.

this is not always the case must some releases the plugins worked without a hitch.

lwanmtr
08-17-2012, 02:42 PM
Every plugin I've had for Maya has not worked on the next newer version. It's required that the plugin be renamed or whatever they do to make the new version accept it.

cresshead
08-17-2012, 03:13 PM
Every plugin I've had for Maya has not worked on the next newer version. It's required that the plugin be renamed or whatever they do to make the new version accept it.

well that's Maya not 3dsmax...as you know autodesk isn't just all about "maya"...they bought every top 3d app in the last few years to add alongside - 3dsmax.

motion builder
softimage
mudbox
maya

Tranimatronic
08-17-2012, 06:41 PM
The real kicker with these Autodesk suites is that you may get 4 applications, but only ONE licence. So say we have 4 suites, 4 people using Maya and someone else wants to use Motionbuilder - all of the licences are checked out. Tough luck. You would be better off buying them separately. Then at least user #5 would be able to work.

DigitalSorcery8
08-17-2012, 06:56 PM
I was wondering about that - and concerning MotionBuilder as well. If one person was using Softimage from the suite and another wanted to use MotionBuilder... could we do that? I guess not. So yes, definitely a GREAT reason to buy MotionBuilder separately. Not too great a difference either between getting a new seat and upgrading - new is $4k; upgrade is $2.8k. :foreheads

Tranimatronic
08-17-2012, 07:00 PM
If one person was using Softimage from the suite and another wanted to use MotionBuilder... could we do that? :foreheads

Unless you are on the same machine.... NO

Celshader
08-17-2012, 07:12 PM
Unless you are on the same machine.... NO

I had no idea. I thought the components of an Autodesk Suite would act like separate licenses in production.

Thank you for sharing this information. :phone_cal

DigitalSorcery8
08-17-2012, 07:29 PM
Unless you are on the same machine.... NO


I had no idea. I thought the components of an Autodesk Suite would act like separate licenses in production.

Thank you for sharing this information. :phone_cal

Yeah, thanks.

Just yet ANOTHER nail in the "use more AD apps" coffin.

I will need Motion Builder, but I don't need anything else they've got - and by their policies they keep pushing people away. Almost time to upgrade LW. :eek:

Tranimatronic
08-18-2012, 12:40 AM
We have a whole lot of laughs in a morning making sure the people that need motionbuilder get the correct licence. A whole lot of person A shutting their Maya down while person B loads motionbuilder (to pull a suite licence) then person A opening a vanilla maya.....
Motionbuilder and Maya use different versions of QT so don't expect UI's built for one to work in the other.
From a pipeline point of view motionBuilder is just awful. What I am most surprised at though is there is no real alternative...

DigitalSorcery8
08-18-2012, 01:10 AM
From a pipeline point of view motionBuilder is just awful. What I am most surprised at though is there is no real alternative...
The ONLY thing I've used Motion Builder for is retargeting. Put the mocap on the rig and bring it into LW. I plan to use it more extensively in the future by having three characters mocap in realtime and THEN transfer to LW. But then that's still the same basic thing - just retargeting. Expensive app for JUST retargeting, but at least it's relatively fast at doing so.

jwiede
08-18-2012, 04:03 AM
Yeah, thanks.

Just yet ANOTHER nail in the "use more AD apps" coffin.

I will need Motion Builder, but I don't need anything else they've got - and by their policies they keep pushing people away. Almost time to upgrade LW. :eek:
Hang on, how is the situation any different than buying 1 seat of LW? I wouldn't expect to have one person running Modeler and another running Layout, that'd require two seats, just as with a single AD Suite license seat I only expect one person to be allowed to use the license-covered pgms at a time. AD views the separate suite pgms as "interconnected" w.r.t. a "license seat" in the same way Newtek views Modeler & Layout w.r.t. a Lightwave "seat", there's really no difference.

lwanmtr
08-18-2012, 04:12 AM
One difference is that you can afford 2 seats of LW for the cost of one seat of AD Suites.

DigitalSorcery8
08-18-2012, 01:18 PM
Hang on, how is the situation any different than buying 1 seat of LW? I wouldn't expect to have one person running Modeler and another running Layout, that'd require two seats, just as with a single AD Suite license seat I only expect one person to be allowed to use the license-covered pgms at a time. AD views the separate suite pgms as "interconnected" w.r.t. a "license seat" in the same way Newtek views Modeler & Layout w.r.t. a Lightwave "seat", there's really no difference.

Huh? You must be joking. We are talking about completely separate programs - Max (or Maya) Motion Builder Mudbox, etc. - that can ONLY be run on one machine (or by one artist) meaning I can't use Motion Builder while another artist uses Max. Lightwave is ONE program that is split into two modules - unless they've started selling Modeler and Layout separately? And no matter how you define "suite" it's still an assortment of INDIVIDUAL programs.

ShadowMystic
08-18-2012, 02:01 PM
Huh? You must be joking. We are talking about completely separate programs - Max (or Maya) Motion Builder Mudbox, etc. - that can ONLY be run on one machine (or by one artist) meaning I can't use Motion Builder while another artist uses Max. Lightwave is ONE program that is split into two modules - unless they've started selling Modeler and Layout separately? And no matter how you define "suite" it's still an assortment of INDIVIDUAL programs.

Some people don't like Adobe but they are good about this. Their Suites are significantly cheaper than buying individually because its still only one license. AD is just greedy. That's been established.