It’s justified because you’re (hopefully) making revenue on your brand/product/whatever that can offset the cost of subscription software, but I do not. I can’t justify spending money month after month for software when I get very little (or in most cases, no) return value on it.

I don’t make 3D stuff for a company or even for a living. Just my simple opinion, and not to belittle anyone’s stance presented here. Autodesk - heck no, I don’t make that kind of money. Blender and Adobe software, yes, I can say i make enough to make it worth it for me. I dare say that we are actually just holding onto a tired and obsolete view of how computers and software relate - because even our phones and tablets and computers need that constant rollout of updates for a lot of smaller changes, and the software you use can be very important to get right so that project can be completed.īalance in the overall cost versus income, that is what I look at. I ‘subscribe’ by paying a low monthly rate to help the dev fund, and I can constantly download latest builds on to check out the newest tools and bug fixes, and I can get really good feedback on ideas for improvements and bug issues. This all actually very closely resembles the environment of a certain OSS that I love - Blender. I also can now get feedback on bug tickets and they actually answer me. That was until I did a few years of Adobe subscription for my day job, and experienced the feed of updates from Adobe for each of the apps I use, including new tools (finally, old days meant years between new tool introduction) and bug fixes. I get the desire to both get new updates and still retain the original value invested in the software - I too was at first against the subscription model.

Substance painter adobe cloud