Autodesk introduces pay-as-you-go licensing
Autodesk has announced that it will shortly introduce pay-as-you-go licensing. Named Autodesk Flex, it allows companies to purchase tokens that can be exchanged for 24 hours of software use. 3ds Max, Maya, MotionBuilder, Mudbox and Flame are included alongside many other AEC and manufacturing applications.
The number of tokens required to activate software for 24 hours varies, but for 3ds Max and Maya is 6 tokens per day. The smallest number of tokens that can be purchased is a bundle of 500 for $1500. At this pricing, a day’s use costs $18, though token prices reduce if more are purchased.
The new licensing is not designed to replace subscriptions which remain much more cost-effective for regular use, but is instead designed to give access to software that may only be used infrequently.
Read more on the Autodesk website.
Important note:
“You have one year from the purchase date to use your tokens for Flex.” Goes well with the minimum purchase quantity 🙂 .
This is weird. It feels desperate.
Not necessarily. Seems like targeted at big studios and small projects.
More creative ways to improve their income and not their software, yay!
OMG another “magnificient” way to milk the user, well if someone wants to pay a minimum of 1500$ / year for the tokens, and they have 1 year of time limit to use it… why purhcase token instead of subscribe?
And you get around 83 days of using the software… LOL
Subscription 3dsmax: 1700$/year.
Tokens, minimum purchase: 1500$ – A year to use them, 83 days of max.
it’s absurd, both are absurd, but some people and big companies will continue feeding this absurd monster.
They must really thing their client base is stupid.
This is such a blatant scam.
I know it is for occasional use, but Maya or Max alone costs almost the same/year just for comparison. If you pay for the flex, you have ~83 days to use it. So I can’t find any benefit here. Maybe, it favors big co only. In my fool mind, it won’t get any success, at least among typical studios. But, of course, Autodesk had the means to do its market research and release such license.
P.S – The logo on that video is old 😀
This is nothing new, its been around for quite some time they are just giving everyone a reminder. There are some good use cases for tokens like occasional use by certain users where a subscription would just be overkill. BUT subscription is the way to go.
This is not for everyone, and actually a similar system has been working like that for quite some years already. Mostly used in medium/big companies. Obviously for indie users has no sense.
People usually forget that autodesk has more products than maya/3dsmax. They have over 90 products on his catalogue. If you are an architect house, where you use autocad, bim 360, fusion 360, inventor, ROBOT, 3dsmax, ShotGrid, and some others. Its quite possible that during the process you only use a couple of them a day. But during the process you end using a large number of them. Instead of paying for 20 different programs that you dont use all the time, then… yes, the token system can be cheaper and allow to increase/decrease the amount you need much easier.
Thank you, atleast someone with a brain here 🙂
It makes sense if you have several products you want to use sparsely. This is convenient specially for companies.
Usually companies has own expertise for cad, visualization, animation etc. So there is one maya user, one inventor/fusion, one 3ds etc. Usually artist who knows that one specific tool real good.. its rare in big companies have generalist who knows little bit cad, little bit animation and rendering: shading and lightning etc. But maybe there is market share for this. Still it does sound pretty bad deal with those prices and more like new way to milk (especially if they will turn fully into this “token” based system and i am 100% sure that this will be the only way rent ad software in future.. same thing happened with subscription.. first they offered it for companies abd then for inviduals and then they made it only way just like this has been already tested in smaller scale already: to make sure that it will be more productive.. for autodesk = more profit = happier share holders)
Well you can be an Autodesk shareholder too if profit is so certain.
Check the list of products available, you will see several ones that are not very common.
Beside no ones is forced to use Flex.
That sounds rather similar to Autodesk’s arguments for rental just being an option and perpetual wasn’t going anywhere.
Until it became the only option and perpetual was axed.
Are you implying that rental is going away(or going very expensive) and only Flex remain?
Your assertion is only valid that way.
I’m stating that they have said one thing, and it lasted less than 18 months – the video they put out that they explicitly stated that perpetuals weren’t going anywhere and rentals weren’t for everybody.
The direction of travel for users has been on a consistently downward trajectory.
You used to be able to stagger upgrades – they stopped that.
You used to be able to upgrade perpetuals – they stopped that.
You used to be able to buy perpetual licences – they stopped that.
You used to be able to ‘buy’ a maintenance subscription – they stopped that.
I’m saying that they have ‘form’ for making things worse for users, and telling them it’s ‘simpler’
Exactly. One can see how folks still want to believe they are a normal company, doing business like everyone else.
Then… why do tokens expire after one year already? Couldn’t they have been a bit more generous and give you 2, 3, 4 years. After all the money is in their pockets already so what’s the point? Why do tokens have to expire at all?
Also, can tokens be transferred to someone else or be traded in for subs etc. – I bet not.
Because inflation.
If they dont do that, you could accumulate Tokens today, and use them 10 years later, where because inflation, the tokens will be more expensive.
Could be more generous? For sure, but they are the only “evil” company doing that? I dont think so.
-My prepaid phone plan expires every month.
-My 10 days pass to the swimming pool expire every year.
-My 10 days pass to the climbing center expire every year.
-My 10 public transport tickets expire every year.
And so on…
And I believe all is for the same reason.
Inflation? It’s an interesting excuse, but it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. What about the interest earned on the money paid to Autodesk in exchange for the tokens? It’s trivial to out earn inflation with investments. And the tokens have zero capital costs associated with them, since it’s software.
Interestingly the cost of Mudbox is 1 token, so you cannot spend it all if it is the only thing you want.
This is great if you are a person who don’t use autodesk products day in and day out . Lets say you are a small time builder who complete 2 houses a year. The yearly AEC collection subscription is $3,115 in US, you need to shuffle between Autodesk products like revit – autocad – 3dsmax for a span of 3-4 months to develop documentation. You can just buy 500 tokens, complete the project documentation and save $1615.
If you need to re-visit your project for an extra month, you can just subscribe to that specific software for a month. Which would still be less than paying 3115 annually.
Unfortunately, I can’t come up with a similar situation in CG. So I guess indie license is still best for most in that area.
I understand your point, however I disagree in one thing:
“indie license is still best for most in that area.”
That’s not something that applies to everyone and in all situations, in fact a small studio its probably not entitled to it:
Only one license subscription can be used per user or organization
So it’s not the best option.
The best option is to opt out of Autodesk software, which is fairly easy in the CG area, and perfectly possible in the AEC area too, many companies are doing it.
If you want to know an advertising and animation production company that uses Blender, to mention one that is different from others mentioned here in the past, there is this one for example:
https://www.thecathedralmedia.com
So that’s the best option, opt out of Autodesk or rental software.
Indie license doesn’t apply to almost anyone who uses AD software to make a living. The $100k income limit is reasonable, but inability to use the software on any project that exceeds $100k in value makes it invalid for the vast majority of freelance work. And alternative to freelancing is full time job, where the studio pays for your license anyway.
They made sure that the Indie license eligibility applies to as few people as possible.
Almost every Indie License out there has a limit of 100k, even Houdini.
The Autodesk hate just gets lame at some point.
Did you actually read my post? Or did you just skim over ever third word? Cause that would be lame 🙂
I said that the 100k income limit is reasonable, but they also employ a limitation that it can not be used on any project that exceeds $100k in value. Neither Houdini license, nor majority of other Indie licenses for any CG related software out there have such limitation.
As I wrote, this limitation alone excludes vast majority of use cases.
Here’s more about it:
https://makeanything.autodesk.com/me-indie-faq-usa
Specifically this:
“Here are some example scenarios to help you better understand when and where you are eligible to use 3ds Max and Maya for indie users:
• You create and sell digital products and have been approached by a games company with annual revenues greater than $100,000 USD to provide them with an asset (whether off-the-shelf or custom built). You are paid a fixed price for the ‘product’ delivered. In this case if your revenues are less than $100,000 USD, so you can use Indie. Examples of assets can be 3D models, textures or even rendered images.
• You are approached by an architectural company with revenues of over $100,000 USD to work as a freelancer creating a visualization for them. You are paid an hourly/daily/weekly rate till the project is done and the assets belong to the company – in this case you cannot use an Indie license.”
Just shows how dumb the limitation is.
As a freelance artist, you more often than not do not want to work at a fixed price, cause client can then complicate the artwork with endless changes and comments till you start losing money.
As someone who hires freelancer, you may not have an exact idea of the required scope of work in advance.
Hmm I didn’t know it got that bad. I am under the umbrella of a company so I wasn’t fully informed on the indie license terms.
Ye, most people don’t. And I suspect there are quite a few using indie license not knowing about this, just waiting to get sued 🙂
Houdini indie has not this limitation? Maybe read again the conditions. 🙂
Dumb? I think has his logic. They dont want that big companies force their employees to be freelance, to move all licenses paid by the company to individually indie licenses maintained by each freelance.
Here this next paragraph explain it:
“The key distinction is whether what you are doing can be reasonably considered to be your own work or whether you are working for hire. If you are producing and selling your own intellectual property (IP) and make less than $100,000 USD/yr doing so, you qualify to use Indie. If you are working for hire for an organization that makes over $100,000 USD a year, even if you are making less, then you do not qualify to use Indie. We expect companies making more than $100,000/yr to pay for the full commercial licenses of the software they need (as well as the artists). “
What they dont want is “false freelance” using the indie, when in reality they are working as part of the big company, just as freelance instead of employees.
Here, again from their faq:
I am a freelancer and I’ve been contracted by a studio that makes over $100,000 USD in gross revenue. Can I use 3ds Max or Maya Indie?
If the contracting company has contracted you to deliver a specific digital product (such as a model or rendered frame) that is valued less than $100,000 USD, you may use 3ds Max or Maya for indies users.
However, if that company has hired you for your time to work on a project, a full commercial license would have to be purchased for the duration that you are working on the project.
The limitations you are trying to imply, Ludvik, are not correct. Indie can be used by quite a big user base of freelance artists.
I think that that’s similar to what Houdini says, if you are delivering frames than you are considered indie. But it is confusing, you don’t always know the total value of the project you might be just hired to do a small bit. How do they check from the end of year tax returns?
I’d love to know how many that truly applies to. I can’t think of many projects I’ve worked on where the overall budget is less than 100K – and I’ve done events projections, medical animation, TV intros, AR apps, product visualisations – all of those would fail to qualify, and even then it only needs one project for indie to be invalid, so you’d have to rent the full-fat version anyway.
If Max’s development was half decent it wouldn’t be so bad, but paying that amount for minimal updates every year until you die, or ditch it… pfft.
Again, is not the “overall budget” of the project this limit applies to! its the budget of your contract you are hired to do. Paragraph 14 its quite clear:
“If the contracting company has contracted you to deliver a specific digital product (such as a model or rendered frame) that is valued less than $100,000 USD, you may use 3ds Max or Maya for indies users. “
See my post below.
I do not trust Autodesk.
They could quite happily have me paying £1200 as a maintenance sub rather than the much cheaper indie licence.
But a company that legally threatened me into buying a second perpetual licence, and then axes maintenance subscriptions, and then threatens not to activate licences over 3 versions olds are some magical unicorn company that has my best interests at heart?
Sorry, leopards don’t change their spots.
Eh, wtf are you talking about?
What you are calling “false freelance” is the vast majority of freelance work. When you work for a larger company for couple of months on a project, and you want to be paid hourly, because you don’t want to lose money when the scope of the work exceeds the original expectation without reworking the contract, that still doesn’t mean you are a studio employee. You will finish the bulk of the work and move on to work for someone else couple of month later.
Specifically selling your own IP is extremely narrow subset of what freelance work consists of. You are really not making any sense here.
The idea of a company I freelance for providing me with a software license is also preposterous. Even if they were willing to do that, which many of them won’t, since what kind of professional would you be if they had to get the tools to do the job for you, I can’t imagine juggling different licenses provided by all the different clients on couple of months basis. That just sounds cumbersome.
Lastly, here is full EULA for Houdini Indie License:
https://www.sidefx.com/legal/license-agreement/
I already said that I consider $100k yearly income limit reasonable, and that what I do not consider reasonable is Autodesk’s limitation that the license can not be used on any project which exceeds $100k value. Can you point out where exactly does Houdini license have any degree of similar limitation in the link above?
Did you actually read my post? You are saying that the limitations I am trying to imply are not correct. Which ones, specifically?
No, it is not. A “False freelance” sorry for the expression, is an spanish expression directly translated to english, and I dont know the equivalent in english. Is when you are a freelance, but all your work you do as a “Freelance” its with 1 single company. In Spain this is prohibited and there are laws against that. In Canada there are laws as well to prevent that, you can not do more than 2 years of work for a single company as a “Freelance” or you and the company will be penalized on taxes.
For Houdini EULA, yeah, please read 2 times the 6.2 because this point limits what you can do with Houdini Inide, MUCH more than the limits in 3dsmax Indie.
And again, read again the FAQ in 3dsmax Indie (point 14), the limit you are considering for a “project” that exceeds of 100K value is not how you are presenting it. If the company its doing a project worth 10Billion dollars, and they outsource to you as a freelance the modeling of X items for a value of 100K$, the “limit value” of the project is not the 10B, its the 100K$ of the assets, so you are entitled to use the 3dsmax Indie for this job. (where you could not use Houdini indy if you read the terms of both products).
At the end: If you are subcontracted by a BIG company, in a BIG project to do something specific models, VFX, or images to be delivered and “YOUR” project and final gross revenue its under 100K, you can use the indie. What you can not use an indie is if you are working directly for the studio in a none specific task by contract. (I think that here there is a huge difference). As you said, if you are contracted by a vfx studio as a freelance to work 2 month on a project, you can not use it. But if you are delivering specific assets/vfx shots whatever yes. You can not use a Houdini Indie, if the project you are working for, are using a comercial Houdini indie, I think its pretty clear on his EULA, and this is way more restrictive to what its offering autodesk (even it can be a little more confusing).
Sorry I can not edit the previous comment, and I did a mistake typing the latest point. Houdini Inide has a big constraint, where if you do freelance work for another company where they use a Houdini license (not indie) you as a freelance can not use an Indie license for this job, no matter your income or project budget (EULA 6.2). And this I found it quite a big limitation factor in a lot of cases from sidefx. You can use a 3dsmax Indie even you are doing work for another company where they use a none indie license, giving much more flexibility.
I have read it. All it says that if you are an Indie Freelancer who is making a content for 3rd party, which does not qualify for Indie, you can only create final output for them, not the 3D data. That’s still fine because that covers most of the work.
You can’t be seriously making a comparison between restriction which dictates whether you are eligible for Indie license based on “how” you work with someone (hourly rate vs fixer artwork price), as opposed to “what” you deliver.
One of the biggest markets for 3ds Max is architectural visualization. Archviz artists mostly deliver just images or animations, so for them, Autodesk’s limitation is way more restrictive than SideFX one.
Both limitations are trying to solve the same problem, but SideFX is going much smarter about it.
Again, not agree with you.
MPC wants to outsorce the modeling of the next batman car, and they offer to you by contract, to do the modeling and offer them the final 3d model.
-You can use for this 3dsmax Indie respecting the EULA.
-You can NOT use Houdini Indie for this job.
And the same will happen for any VFX where you need to provide caches, or vdbs, scripts, vex code or whatever.
Agree with you, if your work its a final image render, then here this restriction doesnt apply, but if you intend to work for any big vfx company using houdini, I see unlikely that you will deliver final images as a solo freelance.
For archviz I think you are quite wrong (I have worked a LOT for archviz). its very usual to outsource only the modeling, only the materials, or only the rendering, delivering to whoever is the big studio 3d files to be processed. (it obviously depends). I can not see how for archviz 3dsmax indie is more restrictive than the sidefx even on this situation.
I think you are trying to make this more complicated that it really it is. In max if you do any work as a freelance, you are entitled to use 3dsmax indie. The limitation of 100K is not what you said 3 comments above, its the limitation of the project in YOUR contract. The limits added by autodesk are just to avoid that companies that are actually paying the complete license to outsorce all of their work to full time freelance that are working for them.
Yeah,
sorry I’ve had Autodesk send me threatening legal letters over loading up an old version of Max because my sub had expired – I find it very hard to give them the benefit of the doubt that they wouldn’t try to find some way of screwing me over an indie, just because they think they can.
From what you’re saying above, I could probably qualify and not spend £1200 or whatever the last maintenance sub was.
But they took that out of my hands, so they get nothing at all from me, and I don’t trust them not to try some legal action if I rented indie.
I’m not going to risk it. I’ll just use my 2022 until they decide they’re not going to activate licences.
I hear you on that. I am just expressing what they have right now write on the license, and trying to correct some misinformation that I am not sure the intentions of it. But the indie version as it is right now, is way more flexible that some people think.
Commercial usage of Houdini Indie is limited to following:
Seriously, if you are trying to convince me that this is less restrictive than what autodesk offers with indie license, you need to do it better. With Max indie, you Can do work if the commercial entity contracting you exceed 100K$. With the Indie you get a floating license that you can use on as many device as you want (1 at the time). You can use it in the same pipeline as commercial versions of 3dsmax. 3dsMax Indie use the same format as 3dsmax, there is NO difference. The only thing here in favor of houdini indie is that you can purchase 3 licenses, where in max its only 1. But, yeah, 100K/3=33KUSD a year working as a freelance in vfx… good luck.
Eloi – you are an Autodesk shill and on their payroll, of course you are going to back this incremental removal of fair software pricing and acess.It would help if you disclosed your clear bias here.
Silence please.
Im sorry, you are being a bit rude. Eloi makes only substantive arguments, trying to clarify what is factually the difference between the licenses. I never bothered to read up on Houdini. Eloi is very helpfull.
Try to contribute in a constructive way please.
While I do agree calling Eloi paid shill is a bit too rough (although he is sponsored by AD), your comment doesn’t sound very wise.
“I never bothered to read software license terms, so I am gonna trust some forum post of this random guy sponsored by a competing company to interpret the license for me”.
Even if his interpretation was correct, you should still read the license terms for yourself (they are not that long) and make picture based on that.
One thing is not being able to access the original source of the information. In that case, you don’t have much more choice than rely on unreliable interpretation. But actually having the original source of the information and still willingly deciding to go with someone’s interpretation is just close minded.
I can regonize fair arguments and am willing to trust people that have helped the comunity for years. Inuslting and judging people does not.
20 years working in 3d. Autodesk sponsored some videos I do in youtube during last year. No one ever paid me any license for 3dsmax, Houdini, or any other software. For that I can not engage in an online diacusion? Yeah, right.
I don’t really care to be honest. It’s not about quantity of the limitations, it’s about their implication. One crappy limitation can be enough.
Bottom line is that if I wanted Autodesk Indie license (not that I do), I would not be eligible for it. On the other hand, I am eligible for SideFX Indie licence based on what I do, so I own one.
When I ask the fellow artists that I know, I get pretty much similar response. Almost none of them consider themselves eligible for Autodesk Indie license just due to that single limitation. One of them was even using Indie lic unaware of that limitation, and was shocked to find out 🙂
Regardless of what you say, dictating whether independent freelance work consist of selling artist’s IP or selling artist’s time on the project is just unacceptable for many of us.
Is not what I say, and is not “my interpretation”, I am just writing here what the 2 indie licenses offers, and that you can found on their EULA.
Explain me how you can use a Houdini Indie, and you could not use a 3dsmax indie. Again HoUDini indie is more restrictive.
If the contracting entity its doing over 100k. You can not use a Houdini license in any case! In 3dsmax you can, with exceptions.
Maybe you are breaking the EULA of Houdini and you didnt know for what you are describing,
Very simply. What I am delivering are final images/animation frames (no scenes/models/3D data) for a project that’s over $100k in value, is invoiced based on the hours worked, not on a fixed artwork price, and Houdini is part of the pipeline which produces those images and animation frames.
With 3ds Max, I’d be in violation of the license, with Houdini I am not.
I also did not say your interpretation is wrong. I just reacted to DavidZ saying your insight is helpful because he did not bother to read on licensing. I just wanted to point out that’s irresponsible, because you should always read the license, not rely on what someone else tells you.
Ok, you are right, and I think I am right as well on my arguments.
I contacted Sidefx support, you can export geometry as well from indie to a major studio (I didnt read this anywhere online). From a sidefx rep:
As long as your income is under $100,000 USD/yr, then you can use the Houdini Indie license to deliver rendered images and static geometry (like an .obj file) to the larger company.
You can not deliver: Houdini files, Houdini Digital Assets (HDAs), FBX or Alembic files.
So yes, indie has limitations from houdini and from max/maya. They try to acomplish the same, and is that big companies keep paying the full price and avoiding companies to outsorce everything to freelance to avoid paying licenses. How impact you it will depend. On my situation, and what I see around me, I always work based on a fix contract. For a show, for delivering and archviz video, to create a specific fx, tools, whatever, and I think its easy to dont get in trouble with autodesk restriction: just get a contract based on a specific amount of money defining that you will dedicate a max amount of hours and everything extra needs to be paid in top.
In this case with 3dsmax has no restrictions and its way more flexible: deliver images, max files, alembics, scripts whatever. But I get your point, some people that work on hourly based this is a no, no.
With Houdini you can work hourly yes… but with a huge cost, only delivering final images or static geometry. For you this is perfect, I get that, but you can agree with me here, that for other people that needs to deliver animated objects, vdb sequences, or not being able to share files its a huge limitation as well. What will be more restrictive… here I disagree with you and it totally depends in what you do. For your work you could not work with a 3dsmax indie, but for what I do, I will not be able to use a houdini indie and i am able to work with the 3dsmax indie (I had youtube videos sponsored by autodesk in the past, but I pay my indie licenses, and this is not altering the reality and restrictions I have with booth indie licenses) 🙂
That hourly rate exclusion for Max indie is new to me. It is indeed a big problem, and is absolutely alien to any freelancer business. Now even if I can do more with Max in terms of the content that I’m allowed to share with my customer, the no hourly-rate rule makes it all pretty much useless.
I wonder how those guys come up with the reasoning, that’s quite a dent in their indie license availability and business readiness.
One thing is certain, if Autodesk stayed with maintenance they would’ve got my money. Since they forced me out of it they don’t get any of it… which doesn’t hurt them since they make much more from CAD/CAE/CAM, the DCC segment is probably not meaning much to them.
As was stated above already, we all have been screwed by that company, and it sure wasn’t the last time.
Tokens are yet another thing to keep users dancing to the tune they play, isn’t it a bit tiring how they introduce something new and confusing every 2 years?
The token system is not new, and is not directed to any particular. They only offer this to big companies, it exist for more than 5 years already.
The hourly rate exclusion… Yeah, can be confusing and has been confusing until they clarify what it is with this FAQ.
But before, you had a bigger “limiting” factor with the “You may not use the license on any project valued over $100,000 USD.” The question is what they define as a project. If you are hired to do a specific task (model X number of buildings, render this, create a max file,….) the project value is what you charge for your contract, Doesnt matter how big is the overall project you are being subcontracted for.
If instead you are getting paid by the hour, then you are part of the project the contractor is hiring you for, and here yes the 100K can be a big limiting factor.
Yeah, I can’t think of many jobs where I don’t calculate it as an hourly/day rate – there might be the odd fixed cost job, but they’re in the minority.
That’s why most of the time clients ask ‘what’s your day rate’
Even if it’s a fixed cost job, the work itself can vary – if it’s less work then I charge less, if it’s more I’ll swallow as much as I can but even on those internally I’m thinking how many days it’s going to take.
Which makes Indie useless to me, and for a lot of other freelancers – it basically becomes a ‘not for commercial use educational version’
The project value would need to be increased by 5 or maybe even 10x to safely cover modest real-world budgets like indie games production or run of the mill arch-vis.The ‘Indie’ name is misleading.. it should really be called a ‘StartUp’ license. So it might work for you if you have a business idea and you want to get the ball rolling.
I don’t think so. Well, depends on if you mean indie as in independent individual or as an independent team. The former is reasonable, the latter is not. The main issue is that for example 3ds Max indie license does not cover the needs of majority of independent archviz artists, yet majority of independent archviz artists do use 3ds Max, as it’s a mainstream tool for archviz. While many of them don’t make over $100k/year, many of them work on a project of over $100k in value as a 3rd party.
Had that single “no projects valued over $100k” limitations been lifted, many more people would be eligible for Autodesk indie licenses, but apparently that’s not what Autodesk wants.
Seems we agree on all points :-). Yes, I had small Indie teams in mind, but these days even a single person indie game that requires the use of Max would likely require a budget of over 100k if publisher or platform funded and spread over 2-3 years. I think more often than not even the simplest indie games have at least 2 core full-time devs (one art and one code) – but there are exceptions. Regarding archviz, Autodesk recognise there are many one person viz businesses out there working for clients with big construction or marketing projects. They want these people to pay for the full-blown Max license, even if they earn less than 100k. Its a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
You keep spreading missinformation Ludvik.
If an architect studio contract a freelance or small studio to do a 1 minute video of a building. 20 static images of interiors. Or give a 3dsmax model of a building. The “Project value” is NOT the architectural project, but the 3d Project.
Zaha Hadid has a 2Bilion project going on. She subcontract your studio to do 10 images for the project, And in the contract she pays 9K per image. 9K*10 = 90K.
The project the freelance or studio is doing has a value of 90K$, so you CAN use the indie. In this case the project is not the 20B$, because is clear by contract that the Architectural studio is outsorcing a specific project to you.
You can NOT use max indie in the situation YOUR project its over 100K, or Zaha Hadid instead of outsorcing a totality of the design process decides to hire you, pay by hour, and you work for Zaha Hadid as part of the studio as a freelance.
I dont know where you are based, but I dont know ANY freelance doing archviz for other architectural studios to be working by hour. You always work by a fix contract, based on number of images, on seconds of video, or based on squares meter if your job is to deliver a 3d model. You will be paid by hour if you are working by a bigger archviz studio helping them deliver bigger archviz projects.
What is your problem? Seriously?
You keep speaking as if you were someone who is absolutely certain about how everyone else works and what kind of projects they work on.
I mean, it’s not just me. Or did you ignore the posts by Steve Green and Marcin above?
Also, Autodesk’s indie license terms do not seem to specify that the project value limitation is just on your side. I am referring to you saying “You can NOT use max indie in the situation YOUR project its over 100K”. If that would be the case, then it would make no sense, since:
I may be wrong, and you may be right that they indeed consider the $100k project value limitation to be only in terms of scope of the work purely between you and the client, not the entire project on the client’s side. But if that is the case, then they are doing a piss poor job of communicating that in their materials: https://makeanything.autodesk.com/me-indie-faq-usa
And I am certainly not going to take your word for it. You had to, as you say, contact the SideFX support to actually correct yourself in understanding of SideFX indie licensing terms, only after you posted several posts, where you spoke about those terms with absolute confidence.
I am not certainly how everyone works.
But different people here its “Certain” that most artists works by hour. When… I dont know what are the numbers, but I am quite sure a lot of freelance artists works by contract as well, specially in archviz.
I have no problem on rectifying myself if I was wrong. Because sometimes I am wrong, I dont know what is the problem on that?
SideFX has different information on his front page, and on his EULA and one contradicts the other.
“You can use Indie if the annual gross revenue of commercial entities and contracting entities does not exceed $100K USD” This is from the Houdini Indie, not Autodesk. And I understand it as a limitation quite similar to what autodesk has in place on his front page. If you read the EULA in houdini, and the FAQ in Autodesk indie, the more accurate explanation says something different. Thats the reason I contact SideFX, and after his response I was able to make a different opinion from what they said on his frontpage.
Yes, you are wrong. Its very clear what you are trying to imply on point 14:
I am a freelancer and I’ve been contracted by a studio that makes OVER $100,000 USD in gross revenue. Can I use 3ds Max or Maya Indie?
If the contracting company has contracted you to deliver a specific digital product (such as a model or rendered frame) that is valued less than $100,000 USD, you may use 3ds Max or Maya for indies users.
My Problem, is that you are implying things that are not true. And people that can be eligible for an Indie can be mislead by your comments and pay more.
You said something that its true, you can not work for projects over 100K if you are paid by hours.
But you said something that is not true constantly. You can work for bigger projects, if you are paid by specific amount of money.
Again, not inventing anything. Read point 14 10 times if you need it. its clear.
I am reading it. It still doesn’t make sense, at least not the way you put it. How is the gross revenue of the studio I am contracting for in any way related to the project being contracted?
Ok, tell me this: Let’s say I have been contacted by a studio that makes $2M gross revenue annually, and they want me to make a few shots for a short movie they are working on. The short movie is a project, which has $350k budget, and they want me to make a series of shots for that short movie for $65k total.
Am I eligible for the AD Indie license or not? And if so, based on which paragraph exactly?
Thats a good example.
Read again point 14. And way lower you have another time a description saying that:
“This restriction applies when working-for-hire for an organization that makes over $100,000 USD per year. The restriction does not apply to the sale of digital goods to such organizations”
If in the contract its for a “digital good” you can do it. If you are working for hire, you can not do it.
If your contract says: Creation of 10 shots, for 6.5K each. Total 65K$. You are delivering a digital good. The project in this case its 65K$. You CAN use the indie.
If your contract says: We hire you for 70$/hour. You are not selling any good, you are “Working for hire”, The project you are working for its 350K$, so you CAN NOT use the indie.
I dont think its so obvious, but I dont think its so much complicated to understand. The end goal its that Autodesk want that freelancers can adopt for the indie if they are independent contractors, but that bigger companies can not make use of this to hire freelancers to avoid paying a commercial license.
Not wanting to interrupt the flow here, but perhaps a simple solution would be to include a clause in your client contract, making clear that you are providing a digital product rather than a time-based service. This might be good practice anyway to prevent the tax office from arguing you are really a remote employee and avoids questions of social security obligations for the client.
Exactly Cantankerous.
you can easily say in your contract that you will be delivering x product, and add a series of limitations ( like any contract already has, like number of revisions, or even a limit of number of Hours you can dedicate to the project). You will forget about this second limit on the project revenue, and on the same time you avoid having problems with the tax office. Being hired as freelance based on time has a lot of constrainst by law in a lot of countries. Thats the reason when some people here “know” that most freelance work based on a time rate, I have my serious doubts that this is the reality. 3ds max indie can be used by A LOT of artist, if you have any question, send a mail to autodesk to get information on your specific case.
Autocoin
Is to expansive. They must think to yung beginners. That they give them 20 free open files… With small budgets 100$/Yr… For example.
And for the company’s of course they use this program daily…they must charge them more.
Would make more sense if you did not have to buy a minimum of $1500 worth of tokens, that freakin’ expire! For a bigger studio with multiple users that a few times a month need the AutoCAD, Inventor, or other software they have but not often enough to get a subscription, I can see it being used. For smaller studios that need a license of Maya, 3ds Max, or Fusion 360 every now and then, but will never use up 500 tokens in a year, this is a rip off.
I think it’s been clear for a long time now that Autodesk doesn’t really care about the artists.
This sort of company mentality will only lead to one thing down the line.
Artists not caring about Autodesk.
We move on and forget, let the shareholders in a few years review why they lost their userbase.
Not our problem =)
I thought this was an article about new facial rigging software or an improved muscle system for Max or some more character animation tools, but I see it is only about a new way to send money to Autodesk for the product they already have.
Indi is too precarious, and subscription is way too expensive. In the next couple of weeks, I won’t be able to renew my licence. I’ve paid for every update on time since version 1. Surely 2022 is the final version of Max.
For me, a small one-man-band, I can’t see the use of Flex. I only use Max now from Autodesk. The Max development cycle has been lamentable for years. There is nothing I couldn’t have done with 3ds Max ten years ago that I can do with it now. Some things like modelling are easier. Other things Arnald could be good but are too expensive to use. If Brfrost ever comes out for Max, it will be years away. So why pay more for what you have already got.
I would imagine this is the end of the road for many animators in my position, and the pool of freelance users will reduce.
I am getting the message to move on.
Unwanted customer.
Exaggerating a bit? You must be doing only low poly modeling, and using only a couple cores for rendering to think you could use 2012 today. It’ll crash instantly if you forget to change out of scanline before opening the material editor on a modern system due to the CPU limit. And the display speed, yikes. I only open 2012 to convert an old customer file from Brazil to VRay. I can’t do anything productive with it, at the same speed as I could with 2021 that is.
Wow, they always find a way to dig deeper.
Autodesk think their clients are Stupid..
I have used 3ds since R4…
I had multiple co. buy the Perpetual license and upgrades…
I was an instructor at Universities, Private Institutions, Friends, promoting Max for 20yrs
BUT
when AD when subscription .. with weak updates… I turned on them
I stared to learn BLENDER
Now I am completely off Max (I Am so sad because of that)
Just like the Corona Virus Injection…
They want us to be beholdened to them
GO TO HELL MAX
Now I am off you……
after 25 yrs