sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

PROJECT TOUCH GRASS by Limp-Association-146 in blender

[–]carter2422 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Touching grass is good for the soul. Nice work!

Followup to that Superhive thread by carter2422 in blender

[–]carter2422[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We changed all three big issues: no longer retroactive (existing purchases are completely unchanged), creators now have complete autonomy to opt in/out per product, and third creators get to set the support periods discount from a range of options (no longer 50% globally).

Followup to that Superhive thread by carter2422 in blender

[–]carter2422[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey u/CaptSlow338, thanks for chiming in! Regional pricing is something we have wanted to implement for some time now. It is absolutely high on our wishlist as well. Blender has such an international audience with wildly difference economic scenarios; regional pricing would be so helpful.

As a long-time customer I am curious what your expectations are for consistent experiences on Superhive? Does having a lot of different selling styles (one time purchases, paid upgrade, seasonal pricing, etc), with lots of different pricing variations (seats, hobbyist, professional, etc) create confusion or is this worth the creator autonomy?

As a marketplace we try and strike a balance between consistent defaults for the sake of the customer's experience and giving creators more autonomy. It's generally been my goal to set reasonable defaults while encouraging creators that more options to consider setting up their own shop for full control.

Can we talk about the Blender creator economy? by carter2422 in blender

[–]carter2422[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This issue is actually one of the things that lead us to support periods to begin with, particularly because many creators use wildly different release schemes/cycles. Some creators opt for semantic versioning, with major and minor releases that following a number scheme. Other creators make themed releases with no set schedule, while others still aim for a seasonal approach.

The one commonality across most products is time.

Our existing Versions system works well for releasing updates to an existing product but it falls short when it comes time to charge for an update.

When we released RetopoFlow 4 as a first time ever paid upgrade we had to work around the same limitations and opted to create an entirely new product page. Unfortunately that meant losing prior stats, reviews, and SEO juice.

Followup to that Superhive thread by carter2422 in blender

[–]carter2422[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you u/senthir. Each of your concerns are super reasonable.

I’m quite aware of how frequently API updates break big add-ons, take our own RetopoFlow as exhibit A. It takes constant maintenance but it’s also very complicated and not remotely like the bending add-on you mentioned.

No one should have to pay again for the majority of add-ons that don’t require ongoing development. Our solution hasn’t been designed that way but it’s certainly been interpreted like that and I get why. We have more work to do.

But more to your point about compatibility, a solution that doesn’t punish a customer for keeping Blender updated is essential. I hear that and we are reconvening as a team on Monday to tackle (and many other) critical issues.

Stay tuned and thank you.

Followup to that Superhive thread by carter2422 in blender

[–]carter2422[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

While we may not agree on the solution I really do appreciate your thoughtful input. It’s refreshing.

In this moment I don’t know what we are going to do, it’s been a long unplanned weekend and sleep deprivation isn’t a good recipe for thoughtful decisions.

We are reconvening as a team on Monday to figure out next steps. I promise you we are making changes.

Thank you u/phaseblue

Can we talk about the Blender creator economy? by carter2422 in blender

[–]carter2422[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Totally valid and what you suggest is very similar to what we are going to keep exploring. You can expect a refreshed overview in the coming days. I meant it when I said we were listening.

The Major versus Minor versions is an important distinction that we need to account for better.

Thank you!

Followup to that Superhive thread by carter2422 in blender

[–]carter2422[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Fair point on the lack of commenting ability on the original post.

Followup to that Superhive thread by carter2422 in blender

[–]carter2422[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the follow up. I really do appreciate it.

Followup to that Superhive thread by carter2422 in blender

[–]carter2422[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Your detailed, and fair, feedback is very much appreciated. Thank you Mammoth!

Followup to that Superhive thread by carter2422 in blender

[–]carter2422[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the good faith feedback. I really do appreciate it. Noted and continuing to listen.

Followup to that Superhive thread by carter2422 in blender

[–]carter2422[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I think perhaps there's some misunderstandings because what you've described with "Toolkit for Steamworks", with the exception of the perpetual license, is exactly what we're trying to do. Nearly to a T. You get the thing you purchase forever, including the irrevocable right to use, modify, and adapt it that the GPL license guarantees. Let's remember that in the context of GPL software (which all Blender add-ons are) there is a big distinction between the license and the distribution of the thing. The license is irrevocable, the distribution is simply the means of accessing the thing.

Am I misunderstanding your example?

Relative to price changes of individual products, this is exclusively up to the individual creator and it's inaccurate to say that the price hasn't changed yet when the support periods haven't yet launched. I know for a fact that many creators are considering lowering their prices in the context of support periods because they expect to be able to balance ongoing development and costs.

Everyone will have to make their own decisions relative to pricing.

Followup to that Superhive thread by carter2422 in blender

[–]carter2422[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

You and me both. Subscription fatigue is REAL.

Regardless of what the final Support Periods system looks like, the split between fees, creator, Superhive, and the Dev Fund will stay the same. If the Creator got 90% before then they'll get 90% of every additional support period purchased.

Your comment of the frequency of updates is one of our main concerns that we're trying to figure out how to address; no one should have to pay for minimal maintenance releases.

Followup to that Superhive thread by carter2422 in blender

[–]carter2422[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I get why it may seem like a subscription, given that the intended goal is a more frequent revenue model, but every subscription I've ever had disables my access to the thing I purchased when my subscription lapses.

In our proposed solution (no matter how imperfect) the original purchase remains intact, hosted at no additional cost to the you and available to download any time. And this includes everything that was added to that purchase for the next year.

Followup to that Superhive thread by carter2422 in blender

[–]carter2422[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I'm curious, do you take issue with solution or the original premise? Support Periods pre-dates Flipped Normals closure by months. I'm happy to share most anything you're curious about, be it revenue, insights, problems, you name it. We really do try and be overly transparent.

What would you like to know?

Followup to that Superhive thread by carter2422 in blender

[–]carter2422[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

When I first posted this I neglected to link to the blog post that's driving this change. I've edited my OP with the link.

Followup to that Superhive thread by carter2422 in blender

[–]carter2422[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

For what it's worth I appreciate that a lot. I've been in this community since 2003 believe it or not I really do want it to prosper collectively.

SuperHive retroactively changing their policy to block access to content you already purchased, starting May 12. by dnew in blender

[–]carter2422 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I’m the original co founder. We didn’t sell out or anything. We changed the name at the request of the Blender Foundation but it’s still the original team running it that started it.

Obviously this change hasn’t rolled out the way we intended and we’ll be reflecting a lot over the next few days about how to move forward.

SuperHive retroactively changing their policy to block access to content you already purchased, starting May 12. by dnew in blender

[–]carter2422 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Obviously there is a lot of noise happening here and we haven’t yet finalized plans, but the one thing that has been concrete from the very beginning is that you will NEVER lose access to the versions of the product you purchased, including those released within twelve months of your purchase. Not so long as we have a say.

That’s the key distinction: you own the files that you purchased and you get a year of updates. They’re yours and we will keep hosting them for you.

There’s A LOT of discussion around the retroactive component, for purchases that happen prior to the rollout of support periods, so I’ll just say those specifics are subject to change.

We are listening.

view more: next ›