Now I just had to talk about this,
I doubled checked the rules just to make sure I am not violating anything,
luckily I am not.
Adobe has been pretty much been able to get away with anything these days, but I’m just going to focus of what angers me the most, the subscriptions.
Let’s first look at a good subscription service
Substance live
This is what I consider a good subscription model, because once the total amount of money you pay is as much as buying substance designer/painter itself, you own it for life.
I really really don’t know why this isn’t the standard
Compare that to Photoshop where you pay as long as you have the software in your system, doesn’t matter if you paid twice the original price of Photoshop CS6, you will have to pay, as long as you still have the contract.
And it isn’t even for good value either, the “improvements” made from CS6 to CC 2015 are incremental at best.
And who is to say that I want the latest photoshop version all the time, what if the updates are worthless to me?
You see this is the prime example of why monopolies are bad, there’s no real incentive for adobe NOT to do this,
After all what’s the alternative? Gimp? Krita? They’re good enough for some people but not for most people.
Autodesk was about to do the same thing but they couldn’t,
They are aware that if they pulled that off, people would just move to modo or blender