### #6Prinz Eugn  Members

Posted 08 May 2013 - 01:09 PM

As a hobbyist I'm probably going to hold onto CS4 I got in college until it literally stops working (Windows 10?), and then I would be more tempted to try GIMP before giving a subscription a chance. $20/mo wouldn't be that bad (for just Photoshop) if I were actually making a reasonable amount of money using it per month, but that's pretty unlikely. -Mark the Artist Digital Art and Technical Design Developer Journal ### #7TheSasquatch Members Posted 08 May 2013 - 01:56 PM Adobe has known for many years that most of its users are pirate and so it is just trying to combat that. Counterproductive. Piracy can't be stopped--all DRM can and will be broken. Any attempt at prevention inevitably alienates users and creates more pirates. As does price gouging, which was the root of their piracy problem in the first place. If they really wanted to minimize piracy, they'd have to lower their prices and be more ethical, i.e., by respecting their users' property rights (preferably by throwing the entire EULA concept out the window). I doubt it's about piracy at all, though. Much like certain game companies, they want to be able to, at any time and for any reason, flip a switch and kill the product, forcing everyone to "upgrade" whether they want to or not. It's taking the old concept of planned obsolescence to an extreme--rather than simply building cheap products that will quickly break, they're going to break them themselves, and on a schedule. They want to ensure their continued profitability without having to worry about their new product ever actually being a worthwhile improvement over the previous one. Every corporate suit out there is drooling at the prospect. If the idiotic masses can't be educated as to why they should be furious about this, it's going to spread to every possible industry, and it won't be long until we'll all look around our rented apartments and realize we don't own anything in them. ### #8riuthamus Moderators Posted 09 May 2013 - 09:13 AM I am not sure why so many of you have an issue. Ill be honest, for many years I had to pirate the software simply because I did not have$4000 for the full suite to learn on. ( this is true for many people today ) It was not until I had a real job ( doing IT work ) that I was able to actually pay for the product and feel like I was not cheating some form of the system. Shortly after my purchase Adobe released CS5.5 and expected another $700 for me to upgrade. For big business this is no problem but when you are talking small time just getting started this is a massive concern. Instead of working with whatever adobe is throwing out that is new I had to work with older stuff because I could not afford to upgrade. When CS6 came out they wanted another$2000 for me to upgrade to the new suite...

Shortly after the cloud process came up I jumped at the first chance to pay monthly for automatic upgrades and full access to their entire collection. Imagine, I want to try out some new software that they produce but do not want to spend 5k per seat lisc. to test it out... now I can get full access based purely off of the money I put down monthly. Do i own the product? No but why should I need to since it is software and can be installed on the machines I want when I want.

I have 2 seat lisc and have it installed on 5 of my machines. When I want to use the products on a new machine I simply deactivate one of the other machines and go at it. I pay the monthly charge and at the end of the day I think its reasonable. That said, if they go higher than their current price I would object to it... but with the current model you can do 1 project at UNDER industry standard and afford several months of the product(s) you would use. I just dont see why people are so upset...

Edited by riuthamus, 09 May 2013 - 09:19 AM.

### #9Cornstalks  Members

Posted 09 May 2013 - 10:08 AM

I just dont see why people are so upset...

Because a) not everyone buys the full suite1, b) not everyone upgrades to the latest and greatest every time a new version comes out2, and c) choice is nice3.

1: Sure, this might be nice if you're the kind of person who bought the Master collection, but if you didn't buy the Master collection but instead bought a couple of products or bought the Design or Web collections, this deal isn't nearly as worthwhile.

2: You do realize that if you bought CS3 when it came out 6 years ago, then upgraded to CS6 today for the $2000 you don't want to pay, that's still about half the price you'd be paying for the$50/mo CC subscription, right? Some of us would prefer to do that because we don't always need the latest features, and it's cheaper to wait and upgrade every few versions than pay $50/mo. Or, if you're an even cheaper person, you wouldn't ever upgrade and would instead run CS3 (because it might fulfill all your needs) for several more years, making the$50/mo subscription look even less attractive.

3: I have nothing against Creative Cloud in and of itself. If it works for someone, great. But I do have something against it being the only way to get Adobe products now. Just because it works well for you does not mean it works well for me. And in fact, it doesn't work well for me. I've done the numbers. For the Adobe products I use, and for how much I use them, and for how much money I make using them (read: $0), CC is way more expensive. I can't justify the subscription. As a side bonus: I can get CS6 Master collection for$600 with a perpetual license. I can buy it now and use it for several years. That's waaay better than the educational pricing of $30/mo (because a) I can use CS6 Master collection after I graduate (while I can't for CC), and b)$600/$30 = 20 months, meaning that after 20 months of CC I'd have been better off buying it for$600 and using that for a few years and then upgrading when I feel compelled to).

[ I was ninja'd 71 times before I stopped counting a long time ago ] [ f.k.a. MikeTacular ] [ My Blog ] [ SWFer: Gaplessly looped MP3s in your Flash games ]

### #10riuthamus  Moderators

Posted 09 May 2013 - 10:52 AM

1: Sure, this might be nice if you're the kind of person who bought the Master collection, but if you didn't buy the Master collection but instead bought a couple of products or bought the Design or Web collections, this deal isn't nearly as worthwhile.

Exactly my point. What reason would you have NOT to try out the master suite now? I dont know what kind of art pipeline you are into but I certainly use 5 - 7 of their programs depending on the medium in which I am working for as well as if I just want to dabble with something and see what I can make for another project.

2: You do realize that if you bought CS3 when it came out 6 years ago, then upgraded to CS6 today for the $2000 you don't want to pay, that's still about half the price you'd be paying for the$50/mo CC subscription, right? Some of us would prefer to do that because we don't always need the latest features, and it's cheaper to wait and upgrade every few versions than pay $50/mo. Or, if you're an even cheaper person, you wouldn't ever upgrade and would instead run CS3 (because it might fulfill all your needs) for several more years, making the$50/mo subscription look even less attractive.

No... If i paid the full year right now thats $600 which gets me the full suite. ( which I do in advance ) I was even luckier because I got it for$32 when it first released as they were encouraging people to try it out. The issue is that with these products coming out yearly ( which they were ) it become stupid crazy to upgrade each time they came out with a new version and keep paying out. With the current model they can update as much as they like with as many major or minor features and it will still cost me the same $50 ( or$32 ) to obtain these new features. If they did not update the product on a constant basis or make continual changes than sure you would have some ground to stand on with your point... but they often do and these changes come at 0 cost to for that month or duration of your subscription.

Furthmore, if you are running on CS3 i simply feel sorry for you. I have went back and used the old tools ( at work because they do not allow private lisc on the government machines ) and there is a vast disparity in the workflow. CS6 has many features that are just not there with CS3 and I would certainly hate to go back and redo those old methods because I am too cheap....

I will give you an example. The art I have been doing up until recently was done with a mouse and keyboard. For the longest time I have wanted to obtain a Cintiq 24HD so that I could increase my workflow and reduce the time needed to work. Can I do the same art with a mouse and keyboard that I could with a penpad? Yep... will it takes me 50 times longer? Yep, as I have empirical proof of that now. Art that would take me 4 hours can now be done in a matter of moments. How much did this new tool cost me? 3k!! Was the price worth it? Yep! If i was cheap I would have stayed with the mouse and the keyboard but I would have been holding back my potential and wasting time because I wanted to save some extra bucks! Problem is that in our industry time = money. The sooner you realize that the better off you will be. There are hundreds of other examples I could be giving you at this point but the main thing is if I am going to try and work in this industry why should I hamper myself because I want to save a few extra bucks? Makes no sense... if I have the money than I should be spending it to further my career and development process.

3: I have nothing against Creative Cloud in and of itself. If it works for someone, great. But I do have something against it being the only way to get Adobe products now. Just because it works well for you does not mean it works well for me. And in fact, it doesn't work well for me. I've done the numbers. For the Adobe products I use, and for how much I use them, and for how much money I make using them (read: $0), CC is way more expensive. I can't justify the subscription. This is something I agree with. You are 100% correct that it should NOT be the only method. I feel that this is the correct method for me but I do not see a reason to force the rest of the world into this model! So for that I can agree and have sorrow for those that are forced into it. The good news is, there will always be cracks and hacks! As a side bonus: I can get CS6 Master collection for$600 with a perpetual license. I can buy it now and use it for several years. That's waaay better than the educational pricing of $30/mo (because a) I can use CS6 Master collection after I graduate (while I can't for CC), and b)$600/$30 = 20 months, meaning that after 20 months of CC I'd have been better off buying it for$600 and using that for a few years and then upgrading when I feel compelled to).

Not sure I follow the logic. Sure you could use the outdated product and it might just work for you for what you are doing. The issue is not whether or not it is usable bur rather if it is economical. What does it mean to own something other than you owning it? Do i care what software I do own? Nope... so long as the people who I am leasing it from does not attempt to withhold it from me or take it from me without justifiable means or cause. I suppose this argument is more or less the discussion of the age old ideal of ownership vs the concept of "fast new now".

### #11Chikako Hatanaka  Members

Posted 09 May 2013 - 11:00 AM

This is terrible, regressive, invasive move. The console game industry used to work like this back in the SNES / Saturn days. One provider owns the market and the media, and if you want to play, it is entirely on their constantly moving terms. They can change terms, pricing, anything at any time. Also, they can monitor your activity, files, whatever.

Price is the tool they will use to get you - the same old story of the first one "being free". The argument there is they can say its cheaper than "buying". That argument holds as long as they reach the threshhold where they own X % of the market with this strategy. If a few people are angry because of a 10-20% price bump, what are they going to do?

For all that software "in the channel" has become unpopular - stores, resellers, distributors - it also provides a thriving tech economy, and regulates release quality. You don't put something out in the channel that's half baked. But direct download sales removes that.

Its a bad move for the consumer. But people are dumb enough to buy in so its inevitable, unless the creative community really rallies against it.

Posted 10 May 2013 - 02:29 AM

I am really disappointed too! Everytime the new versions come out,I must hesitate whether to update for it,I am just afraid that it isn't worth my money.

What's more,what should I do if the new version is not suitable for me,that's too dumb and awful.

### #13Middleman  Members

Posted 10 May 2013 - 02:31 AM

And in case any of you have missed it, here's Hitlers take on it all...

### #14riuthamus  Moderators

Posted 10 May 2013 - 04:33 PM

And in case any of you have missed it, here's Hitlers take on it all...

While i feel you have some form of a joke here I really dont think its relevant! Even if you do have a point hilter was bad so... your point is further invalid! AHAHA

EDIT:

Actually, i watched it again... and ill be damned if i cant tell if he is being legit ( the person who wrote this ) or if it is some form of a satire.... i dont know!!!!!

Edited by riuthamus, 10 May 2013 - 04:36 PM.

### #15vtaroc  Members

Posted 15 May 2013 - 03:44 PM

I understand the Cloud system and how they feel they need to combat piracy.  I think if I worked at Adobe I'd probably be pissed that I was losing out on so much cash.  It would be like if I made a game and it was be torrented out there to the world instead of being bought off me.

But as a person who's always had multiple copies of the Adobe suite, one at my company and a version at home for freelance, I'm pretty sure I won't pay for the subscription.  I think it's fair that they offer the full suite on the cloud for a subscription.  But I think their price point is way too high.  They may not like the reality of it but for freelance designers, going from free to $50 a month is just too much of a jump. Those artists who are dependent on a pirated version don't make enough money to warrant paying that subscription. They'll find another way. And I think other companies will use this as an opportunity to steal away Adobe customers. I think they would've received less of a backlash if they offered the master collection around$30.  I think overall they'd make more money and get more of the pirated users on board if it were just a bit more reasonable.

### #16TheSasquatch  Members

Posted 15 May 2013 - 09:15 PM

I think they would've received less of a backlash if they offered the master collection around $30. I think overall they'd make more money and get more of the pirated users on board if it were just a bit more reasonable. Changing the price of the subscription model wouldn't solve anything; it would still be a scam that benefits only them. Selling (as in "not renting") the software at more reasonable prices would be better for the consumer, and would do more to combat piracy (as in the miniscule fraction of the pirates that actually use the software commercially--something tells me most are just kids that run the program once or twice for kicks and don't have any money anyway). Like I said before, though, that would also force them to actually improve the product a significant amount with each new release to convince people to buy again, which is something they'd really like to avoid; free money with little to no effort is far more appealing to the execs. ### #17samoth Members Posted 16 May 2013 - 02:00 AM This is not Adobe's model, it's Salesforce's model, and Adobe is only the last one to adopt it, after Microsoft (Office 365, anyone?). Though of course, the original selling gag was "you only pay for what you actually use (evil laugh)", not "you pay for everything, flat". It's not surprising that Adobe would pervert an already rotten concept further, though. So you're upset, but honestly, who cares. They'll still go that way, even if people are unhappy. Adobe has been selling overpriced products for decades and has successfully used its market position to push inferior and ill-advised technologies (PDF, Flash) to mainstream. They're now only following the "everything must be cloud" movement that the entire industry is going, and they're using the opportunity to secure a market position for their less valuable products (people will use them since they've already paid for the package, and many people using a product raises its market value, think Microsoft Office) as well to make more profit on a regular, predictable base. Someone said "open source" above, which if you allow me to say, is a joke. The sole reason why Adobe is in such a position is that there is no alternative. Open source (or gratis non-OSS) image processing software is ridiculous. Inkscape may be somewhat of an alternative as a vector drawing program, but that's about it.There's Blender for 3D, but that's an entirely different thing. For pixel processing, there's Paint .NET, which offers about 1/4 of Photoshop 7.0's features and has an interface that apparently tries to look somehow like Photoshop, and then doesn't.There's GIMP which is unwieldy and slow, and the second worst software I know of. And then there's those 3-4 more or less similar programs from Corel (PaintShop and what they're called), which are just about good enough to crop the photos that you want to upload to Facebook. Oh right... Picasa. did I forget an important competitor? I think not. If you are somewhat serious about raster graphics, you have no choice but to use Photoshop, there simply exists no alternative. Insofar, Adobe can do just what they want, they'll sell. ### #18unit187 Members Posted 16 May 2013 - 02:31 AM Well, to be honest 20 dollars per month for Photoshop is reasonable. Of course the concept of renting is not ideal, but it still gives some benefits to both Abode and their customers. I mean, I live in Russia and even in IT many people get paid around 1000$ per month. Cut cost of living and there will be almost no money left, so if a person will want to buy Photoshop license, they will have to save money for a few monthes. On other hand, paying 20 dollars is affordable.

Though it is retarded to offer subscription as only option.

### #19Plethora  Members

Posted 16 May 2013 - 06:25 PM

If you are somewhat serious about raster graphics, you have no choice but to use Photoshop, there simply exists no alternative.

This here is the thing... You're right of course and that sucks.  While its a poor substitute to having a worthwhile alternative, this move and other's like it are ultimately trading away future profits for current ones.  No product or company or service maintains a monopoly in software forever, it just doesn't happen.  It might take 5 or 10 years, but pissing off your customers to this degree more than likely made the day a viable alternative does exist a little closer to the present than it would have been otherwise.

I'm working on a game!  It's called "Spellbook Tactics".  I'd love it if you checked it out, offered some feedback, etc.  I am very excited about my progress thus far and confident about future progress as well!

### #20Craixis  Members

Posted 17 May 2013 - 04:24 AM

I understand the Cloud system and how they feel they need to combat piracy.  I think if I worked at Adobe I'd probably be pissed that I was losing out on so much cash.  It would be like if I made a game and it was be torrented out there to the world instead of being bought off me.

But as a person who's always had multiple copies of the Adobe suite, one at my company and a version at home for freelance, I'm pretty sure I won't pay for the subscription.  I think it's fair that they offer the full suite on the cloud for a subscription.  But I think their price point is way too high.  They may not like the reality of it but for freelance designers, going from free to $50 a month is just too much of a jump. Those artists who are dependent on a pirated version don't make enough money to warrant paying that subscription. They'll find another way. And I think other companies will use this as an opportunity to steal away Adobe customers. I think they would've received less of a backlash if they offered the master collection around$30.  I think overall they'd make more money and get more of the pirated users on board if it were just a bit more reasonable.

Actually, the math ends up being cheaper than paying for a new CS suite every upgrade.

For the CS 6 master collection, it's 2600$Canadian (mind you, this is what I'm going off of because I live in Alberta), or 50$ a month.

Now, looking from the past four years or so, I've seen two major upgrades for CS, from 4 to 5 (5.5), than to 6, but let's not include upgrade cost (which are covered by the subscription).

Now, for four years, 50$a month is 2400$... 600$a year, right? That's still cheaper than buying the CS Suite right now (it'll take four and a half years before the subscription starts costing more than the Creative Suite). As a college grad trying to get started, 50$ a month is much more reasonable than 2600$flat out, right? It's actually a much better deal if you include the fact that the next versions of the program are upgraded for free with subscription. I could pirate it, but rather than searching through a site for a cracked version, I could save time and effort just subscribing to Adobe, and not have any legal issues come up if I want to use it for commercial use. Not to mention I can get the suite for as long as I need it, stop subscribing when I have few projects to do (maybe I'm just setting up Wordpress sites, or coding CSS and HTML from scratch and don't need the Suite for a few months), and end up ultimately saving money (one of my instructors was thrilled that it was that cheap per month). That being said, yeah, there are problems with the subscription module, but, cost wise, you can't say it cost more to pay monthly than it does to buy the Suite flat out (if you don't upgrade, you still get more value for your buck with the subscription module for four and a half years). Personally I've been on CS 4 for the last few years, and I don't like the idea of needing to buy a new version (because I have a student licence), but I'd much rather pay 20/50$ a month to get the programs I'm using verses 550+$for each program (or 2600$ for the full Suite).

Where it does start costing more is the situation the OP is in; Lightbox and Acrobat together cost about 600$, which, if you're not planning on upgrading for two editions, will end up costing more. Though Photoshop Extended is 1000$, you can get it alone for 20$a month (which is only 240$ a year). One thing they could do to help balance the cost more is with programs like Lightroom and Acrobat, make it cheaper for them monthly (as they ARE the cheaper programs that will end up costing more over time).

I like the direction they've gone from a costwise standpoint (because for me, it works, as I use Photoshop, Flash, and Premier often, and those three programs alone cost about as much as the Suite), but I'm uncertain of the reliability of the subscription module if I'm unable to stay connected to the internet (if they'll copy Diable 3 and Sim City, for example, where you need to be online to even use the programs).

The fact that the only way to get Adobe products now is subscription based is a kick in the teeth; not everyone has the bandwidth (again, Canadian, I'm paying 40\$ a month for 1mbps download speed, because I'm in rural area and can't get higher speeds) to download the programs and their upgrades every update. If I'm not able to connect to the internet for a month (say I move and am trying to find an ISP that can suit my needs, and not finding one at a reasonable cost), will the programs shut down after the pay period (or will they even open if I'm not online)? They should have a retail copy available for the public; there is no reason not to (having the subscription based system is a great way to combat pirates, IF it's not the only method of purchasing the programs. When it's not convenient anymore, it's a waste of effort). Because it's the standard for web development is the only reason why I'd pay for monthly an upgrade (currently I'm staying with CS 4 until I get enough hours to cover my living cost before I start trying to upgrade).

At least CS 6 is going to be available (though in six to ten years, who knows how that'll hold up). Maybe there will be more competition coming in the future, who knows? Until that time we're going to have to either get the latest version of the tools we need and never use Adobe again, or pay monthly; not the most ideal options (unless we as content creators decide to develop our own tools, which isn't out of the realm of possibility).

Old topic!

Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.