Pricing and release date announced

[Rhodesy]

I think the above is a bit complicated, just go for the SAAS if your worried about big initial outlays, its something not many companies offer. Price point seems more than reasonable to me in general.

However there is a bit of an annomaly in terms of pushing the SAAS version as the best option over the box version when it comes to long term use. From what I can work out (ignoring any intro pricing) once you are halfway into year three your much better off getting the box license and subs. Total payment for 3 years on box and you pay (450+100+100+100 = 750). Total payment for 3 years on SAAS (25 x 36 = 900). And then from then on you are getting it at essentially 1/3 of the price of SAAS assuming all prices stay the same.

Can you mix and match with getting both a fixed box license and subs and then also getting a flexible SAAS license that can be switched easily from work to home? This could give you essentailly a bunch of render nodes and also the option to have two workstations with full access at work.

Cheers

[boumay]

Total payment for 3 years on box and you pay (450+100+100+100 = 750). Total payment for 3 years on SAAS (25 x 36 = 900

Don't forget to say that, apart from being more expensive, with saas you get nothing at the end. You own nothing. As opposed to the box license, which you really own perpetually, and that you can use when hard times come. It is a huge difference, just like owning your house, or renting it.
This saas, if it is the only option (as AD does), is really a mid-class killer.
I hope that, with corona, you'll always have the choice and that keymaster won't remove this in favor of saas only.

[ikercito]

I don't like this licensing model at all. Yes, it's new and innovative, and supposedly the super-duper-Saas model is very fair to the final users. But in my humble opinion it's not. The first licensing proposal had to be completely redone, because it was so completely unfair for the box model and heavily biased towards the Saas model. And even now, after the changes (thanks guys for at least including payed updates in the box model...) still is.

I look at the Box model and think about Corona as a render engine in it's baby stage, a very promising baby by the way. But let's not forget that there are a ton of features that haven't been implemented yet. I'm very sure the development team is going to do a great job, and give us a full fledged render engine, no doubt about it. But come on... the baby 1.0 version, is the same price as the competition (Octane v2.x is 459€ and Maxwell v3 is 446€), and if you're not lucky enough to get the promo discount you're either left with no updates, or paying 100€ more. Those are way more developed versions, tried and true... those are grown ups compared to Corona. Doesn't seem so fair right?

So then I look at the Saas model, supposedly the fair option. But to me it's just a neat way to get you hooked into the system. Very easy to step in, affordable at the beggining and "you are always free to take the door and leave". Of course you are.... and then in 2 years time, when all your libraries are converted to Corona, all your workflow is optimized for Corona, all your work has been done in Corona, and all the time you have spent in mastering Corona ... are you gonna leave? After two years, when the licensing costs are starting to get equal and you see your mighty Saas slowly overtaking the box model costs, will you want to leave and be left with nothing? I guess not... You're going to be hooked with no way to step out, cause once you stop paying for the Saas you're left with just a crippled demo version. And nobody wants that. That's when the money leak starts, and you wish you had bought the Box version.

If only the Saas model would give us the chance of owning the software once the box model price was met, meaning you could really step out of the game and at least keep a usable piece of software you have paid for... I would see it fair. But right now it just doesn't add up. We're either blind-buying the baby-box model at a higher cost than the competition, or stepping into the leaky Saas model.

[Rhodesy]

I dont think its fair to say that Maxwell and octane are the same price as you dont get any nodes with their base price and its comparitively expensive to add them. I also would imagine that within the year Corona would be fully up to speed features wise and then some. Maxwell is slow and has been since day one and Octane is hamstrung by GPU RAM (and for me an overly complex material editor), Corona is fast and very accessible. Its also a fair bit cheaper than Vray and nodes. Even things like indigo are more expensive, so I think Corona is very competative on price.

My main issue is that the box license is fixed but the SAAS license is floating, I dont see the fairness in that. And with the box and subs your putting more faith / commitment into corona than you are on SAAS which you can bail on after one month. Surely most box buyers would keep paying 100 euro a year to keep getting the best tech. Its very affordable if your making money off it. Especially compared to other software commitments.

I agree on your point about getting 'locked in' to SAAS and passing the point of no return price wise. That's going to be a bit galling for some.

[omar.essam]

I don't like this licensing model at all. Yes, it's new and innovative, and supposedly the super-duper-Saas model is very fair to the final users. But in my humble opinion it's not. The first licensing proposal had to be completely redone, because it was so completely unfair for the box model and heavily biased towards the Saas model. And even now, after the changes (thanks guys for at least including payed updates in the box model...) still is.

I look at the Box model and think about Corona as a render engine in it's baby stage, a very promising baby by the way. But let's not forget that there are a ton of features that haven't been implemented yet. I'm very sure the development team is going to do a great job, and give us a full fledged render engine, no doubt about it. But come on... the baby 1.0 version, is the same price as the competition (Octane v2.x is 459€ and Maxwell v3 is 446€), and if you're not lucky enough to get the promo discount you're either left with no updates, or paying 100€ more. Those are way more developed versions, tried and true... those are grown ups compared to Corona. Doesn't seem so fair right?

So then I look at the Saas model, supposedly the fair option. But to me it's just a neat way to get you hooked into the system. Very easy to step in, affordable at the beggining and "you are always free to take the door and leave". Of course you are.... and then in 2 years time, when all your libraries are converted to Corona, all your workflow is optimized for Corona, all your work has been done in Corona, and all the time you have spent in mastering Corona ... are you gonna leave? After two years, when the licensing costs are starting to get equal and you see your mighty Saas slowly overtaking the box model costs, will you want to leave and be left with nothing? I guess not... You're going to be hooked with no way to step out, cause once you stop paying for the Saas you're left with just a crippled demo version. And nobody wants that. That's when the money leak starts, and you wish you had bought the Box version.

If only the Saas model would give us the chance of owning the software once the box model price was met, meaning you could really step out of the game and at least keep a usable piece of software you have paid for... I would see it fair. But right now it just doesn't add up. We're either blind-buying the baby-box model at a higher cost than the competition, or stepping into the leaky Saas model.

Now I see things differently.. You are absolutely right!!

[yagi]

(1) this is interesting... i was hoping the box model would be a bit more affordable for your maiden commercial edition. ive grown fond of corona and used it already on a bunch of projects at the office. im not sure my boss at the office would be very happy when i come up with the proposal of buying the box model on 8 separate machines.....that's a whooping amount i don't think he can afford cos its a bit unexpected at this point in time(cos they don't use 3rd party renderers till i brought in corona free...gosh! thats trouble for me :(  ), neither can i afford the box model on my personal machine at home. im certain most people ran after corona for its free price hoping it would be fairly affordable even when released commercially but now its somewhat more expensive than the renderers we ran from. this is bad cos i cant go back to mental ray as it is. is there anything that can be done about the pricing before release?....

(2) when i pay $449 eventually for the box model, and at the end of the year cannot afford to pay $99 for subscription does his mean after one year i would no longer be able to use corona without the limitations(resolution, passes n stuff).... you did say "FOREVER" in the posted link so im not sure i quite understand it. thanks

[juang3d]

Answering number 2:

No, It means that you will be able to keep using corona as much as you want, but in the last state you received it, you won't get more daily updates and such things until they release a full point releas were you will be able to upgrade with some discount.
The box license is yours so you can keep using as much as you want without support.

Cheers.

[boumay]

I also find the pricing disappointing.
I remember that corona developpers said they wanted it to be accessible to the majority, and that they were considering the fact that people in their region weren't as wealthy as western countries, etc. The idea of corona remaining free was even mentionned.
So I was hoping to see it cheaper, around 200 dollars or so. I was a bit surprised to see it at almost 600 usd and more expensive than redshift.

[klipanos]

What's the exact release date???

[tomislavn]

What's the exact release date???

When it's ready™

:)

[juang3d]

What's the exact release date???

There is no exact date, it will be released during this month, but I think they want to do a solid release, so they did not gave any exact release date :)

Cheers.

[gilhal]

I still don't get why people like the price, but say upgrades should be included - would you be more happier if the price was 450/550 eur, but with 1 year subscription included?
one of the main elements in 3D studio's exponential spread in the early years was a very generous approach towards the potential client base. price was never the main issue but the trust the community developed towards autodesk being there to help them achieve their aim. of course you do not want to give away your software for less then its worth, but its important to understand that relationship is not built in a day and is not based solely on product quality.
as for your question i think any reasonable/competitive  price- tag on the  box will be acceptable as long as you give your community the strong sense that you are here for them and not the other way around.
by selling the first version of the software with a 1 year hassle free guarantee all bugs glitches and oversights are included in the contract you will get closer in achieving this goal.
on a separate note, it would be nice to highlight the buckets being processed (much like vray) its pain staking trying to find where the image is being rendered...just a suggestion. 

[Ondra]

I do not see any part of that last post answering my question.

[gilhal]

its in there. if you need to jack-up the price in order to make it right, do so. i personalty feel it will be wrong to make the box +1 year guaranteed support and updates - more then now, i would even price version 1 at an entry price. 

[juang3d]

From my POV the answer is no, and that is because, even when we are all happy that corona is reaching it's first commercial release and we will be able to acquire it, there has been a bit of general disappointment regarding the box license pricing, it felt a bit higher than what it was expected to be, and it's render nodes policy was a bit lower than what it was expected to be, so increasing the price again to include that first year maintenance will be counterproductive, IMHO any changes in the current price scheme should be to make the box license more affordable, or to stay as it is right now, any rise of the price will be bad for it I think.
Apart from that, I've always thought that modularity is great and make things more affordable to anyone, so having the subs price separate form the price make sense to me, I just think that acquiring the subs should be a bit more flexible than what is right now, that you acquire it when you acquire corona or you've lost the train.

I know that SaaS model is the main model you want to keep ebcause it will give you a more fluen income, but after speaking to some trusted people (bank, accountant, fiscal advisor) they told me that it has an added risk that we should not take, so it's great as a sidewing to increase the render licenses temporarily, but never as our base of work, because our incomes as small studio are VERY variable, and we should not risk ourselves to be out of busines because we cannot pay the monthly licenses of everything that it seems to come that will let us work, on the other hand the SaaS model is great to "per-project" based studios, like vfx tv studios or big project studios with projects that have a closed budget over time, this help those type of studios to have clear and justified budget, but for us, small and freelancers, is not good at all.

I don't understand why devs are so focused on SaaS, this is not good for users (being you the fairest company regarding SaaS pricing and model), even when some accountants are stubborn saying that renting is good... well it's good depending on every personal situation, anyways you keep the box licensing, wich is the great part of this :)

Well my post is a bit of a mess regarding opinions, and different thoughts, all this about SaaS revolution is making me dizzy and there are companies that will die because of this, in the end behind those companies there is greed, wich I don't think is your case, but the reasoning that says "if I don't rent my software I won't be able to keep upgrading it", that is untrue or we would not have any historical software as of today, like max, maya, softimage, lightwave, vray, krakatoa, and a long etc... and that's the reasoning that some companies like Autodesk or Cebas are saying to justify their jump to the only SaaS, Autodesk is big, and may be able to absorb the hit of users abandoning it, but Cebas is not that big, and IMHO behind that model change there is just greed.

The fairest model I know is subscription for box licenses, this give the dev yearly founds to keep development and live and don't leave the user in a disadvantage place were he won't be able to keep working if he cannot pay the monthly fee, even if the box licenses is a bit lower and the subs is a bit higher, I think this could be great for both sides, imagin paying for corona 250€ for the license and 175€ for the yearly subscription, this will leave the entry price in a similar fashion, but will let users that cannot afford the subscription the hability to acquire Corona, and in the end, since the yearly subscription is higher it will give the devs a bigger yearly income per license.

That's why, even when I thought the Corona pricing would be a bit lower than what it is, I think is good, and having the subs apart still gives the user the option to acquire it or not to.

Just my thoughts in a post, admin please feel free to delete or move this to the off topic forum if you think is neccessary because I think i've drifted a bit, but it's something I wanted to share since there is so much people talking about the pricing model of the box license.

Cheers.