Max users complain about frequency of releases (updated)

(Updated) Some posts on the thread at CGTalk are in favor of the subscription system with a 12 month release cycle while others feel forced into it, or consider the one year fixed release dates to be detrimental for development. Ken Pimentel from Autodesk M&E has mentioned the possibility of trying to keep new Max versions compatible with current plugins and minimizing compatibility issues for working with previous versions of Max, something which would be of great help in smoothing out the upgrading process. The fact that an Autodesk representative is listening and replying to users’ concerns is good news in itself. Also of note, Autodesk has come up with a “Simplified Upgrade Pricing” model. The new policy states that upgrading from any three previous software releases will cost 50% of the price of a new license (in effect, raising prices steeply for those who would prefer to choose when to skip or adopt a new release). Customers on subscription will not be affected. This was disclosed a while ago but was not widely publicized, read the details at Autodesk.com. It should perhaps be noted that Max 2010 was a great release, and Autodesk’s efforts in this direction should be commended. One would wish, however, that licensing, pricing and upgrading policies were in line with these efforts.

The obvious: Max users do not need yearly releases of the software. It is actually counter-productive. Autodesk’s subscription model that
produces an artificial, yearly development cycle (as opposed to a
features-driven development cycle), takes away users’ choice of
deciding whether to upgrade or not to a certain version, aligns the
name of the software with company balance-books (2009 / 2010 / etc.),
brings all-too-frequent plugin recompiles, installation issues,
abundant loss of productive time, etc., is being questioned by users. Autodesk representatives are listening and responding to messages from users. Read the thread at CGTalk.