This is a chicken/egg thing imo. I'd agree with you if for a second I thought that subscriptions fell off before development did but I really doubt that's the case here. Instead I bet there's a pretty solid correlation between AD purchasing Softimage and a erosion of the user base due to reduced and poorly directed development. AD is a big company with a LOT of products that cover a massive range, they do not and cannot take the same development risks that teams take with isolated products that are fighting for market share.
People bought licenses of Softimage, they were happy, AD bought Soft and satisfaction has decreased fairly linearly over time. It's really simple, people stopped investing because they felt they weren't getting a good enough return. Why keep shoving money into a product that hasn't offered you anything new or useful for your pipeline over several years? We're all running businesses here. On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:57 PM, jim bough <jimbo...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I agree with you 100%. That is the case now. > > I do however feel that people using older versions, did not invest in the > future of Softimage. Of course, there are many other considerations, SDK, > core, etc. But with the investment, perhaps many of these wouldn't be the > factor they are now either. And, not to rail against businesses that chose > this path in the past, business is business. But, I do feel software has > become too cheap for the r&d requirement of users expectations. > > Yes, there is Blender, but I prefer to invest in my software.. it really > is a minimal investment compared to what I make from it. > >
