How important is VST3 support for you as a customer

[standalone]

also i think the poll is missing the "if the plugin is vst3 only, i won't buy it" option.

That's me

If your host support vst3 there is absolutely no reason to prefer vst2. The anti-vst3 campaign in this thread is embarrasing, to say the least. And the anti-Steinberg stances remember me of the Nintendo-fans versus Sega-fans wars from when I was a child.

Why would you want one click sidechaining when you can achieve the same with seventeen easy steps?. F**k Steinberg and their shitty vst3. And score writers?. F**k them if they want an easy way to work (yes, work, some people use daws as a tool to make a living). If they want different expressions in each note they should open a new instance of Kontakt for each note, there is no reason to support the new features. Why?. Because I say so.

[Burillo]

the developers of vst, steinberg do not support sidechaining in vst 2.4.....
they do in vst 3.....
some have found unintended workarounds to enable sidechining in vst 2.4... waves supports it in vst3 as intended and that makes them lazy?>
rsp

the fact that Steinberg doesn't enable easy sidechaining in its host doesn't mean the possibility isn't there. In REAPER for example, sidechaining is a breeze (and only a couple of clicks away). But instead of updating their host Steinberg decided to invent a new plugin standard. "Newest standard" makes a good point in marketing materials. Innovation is so innovative.

And yes, it makes Waves lazy not to add multiple inputs to their 2.4 plugin and make it support sidechaining.

Also, i believe score writing has nothing to do with VST3. New VST expressions could be implemented in 2.4 (old ones were there), so there was no reason to make it VST3-only.

Guys, the problem with VST3 is not that it sucks. The problem is that it doesn't solve anything and doesn't introduce anything fundamentally new. Sidechaining was there. VST Expressions were there. Score editors were there. Why so much hype about something that was already possible since ages ago (and had good, convenient implementations in non-Steinberg hosts)?

[Big Tick]

I don't want to speak for other devs, but I think many will agree when I say that the rejection of VST3 is not about the new features, but about the way they were introduced. It was completely unnecessary to rewrite the SDK from scratch like they did.

[standalone]

Could be, but other developers seem to be more inclined to design customers that can use their products than to desing products that can be used by their customers.

[beltrom]

also i think the poll is missing the "if the plugin is vst3 only, i won't buy it" option.

That's me

If your host support vst3...

It doesn't - and that's a bit of what I agreed was missing in the poll.
The host developers need to be aboard as well, before most of them are AND people have upgraded to that host version plugin developers will have to support both levels or accept losing customers one way or the other.

[standalone]

Then, if your host doesn't support vst3, this thread is meaningless for you, I guess. A bit like the Mac threads for PC people. I don't see the point in asking people that simply can't use vst3 about the importance of it when buying.

[beltrom]

Then, if your host doesn't support vst3, this thread is meaningless for you, I guess. A bit like the Mac threads for PC people. I don't see the point in asking people that simply can't use vst3 about the importance of it when buying.

The question was "How important is VST3 support for you as a customer". For me it eliminates me as a customer if it's the only level that's supported. I doubt my situation is very unique. Creating JUST VST3-supported plugins might for this reason not be a good business move for a plugin developer if it's not necessary from a technical point of view.

I would also say that VST3 would be nice in my host (Sonar) but nothing I presently would remotely consider changing host because of.

This is much more of XP vs. Vista then Mac/PC btw.

[aciddose]

if you don't poll all people who use anything related to "vst", it wouldn't be accurate. i think the thread's title has more people who care about vst3 reading it, therefore falsely increasing the ratio between vst3 needed/not needed.

even then, i'm surprised how many people are voting "it would be nice". i wonder if the language is clear there. it's equivalent to "if available, i'd use vst3, not vst2".

since i'm a coder, i know exactly what is in the code. given the option to have magically all my code converted to vst3 without any effort what-so-ever, including any additional effort ever again in the future (so, none at all, ever) i'd still stay with vst2. looking at vst3 code just pisses me off. i already have huge problems with the implementation in vst2, vst3 they just went totally nuts and pissed up the wall.

[beltrom]

if you don't poll all people who use anything related to "vst", it wouldn't be accurate. i think the thread's title has more people who care about vst3 reading it, therefore falsely increasing the ratio between vst3 needed/not needed.

even then, i'm surprised how many people are voting "it would be nice". i wonder if the language is clear there. it's equivalent to "if available, i'd use vst3, not vst2".

I'm actually a bit surprised that even given the probable bias in the poll and threadname there's currently just 6% of the voters that a plugin developer would seriously risk losing by only supporting vst2.

[aciddose]

why should that be surprising though? vst3 genuinely doesn't offer anything that customers/users have ever asked for in the past. i'm willing to bet a significant number of vst3 implementations are incomplete as well. not 100% implemented according to the spec, i mean.

the "sidechaining" thing while "awesome" for some people is "extremely annoying" for anyone who knows what they're doing and understands that routing options outside of strict single-bus routings are not limited merely to "side-chaining". the way they have it implemented in vst3 limits it to a subset of what you can already do with vst2.

from the user's perspective, brainwashed by marketing and made to believe that "newer = better" in a society driven by consumption vst might actually be better, almost as good as 1984. it would be cool wouldn't it? let's throw out our concept of "freedom" and "libre", those are disgusting french inventions from what, a million years ago? they would be replaced with something new. not something better, not mere incremental modifications to fix the problems with what we have now.

revolution makes sense when you are severely limited by the way the system was implemented in the past. that's fine.

not the case with vst2x.

[beltrom]

why should that be surprising though? vst3 genuinely doesn't offer anything that customers/users have ever asked for in the past.
...
from the user's perspective, brainwashed by marketing and made to believe that "newer = better"

That's why...

[standalone]

Creating JUST VST3-supported plugins might for this reason not be a good business move for a plugin developer if it's not necessary from a technical point of view.

But nobody does that, not even Steinberg, Halion Sonic comes as vst2, vst3 and AU. So why bother?.

[beltrom]

Creating JUST VST3-supported plugins might for this reason not be a good business move for a plugin developer if it's not necessary from a technical point of view.

But nobody does that, not even Steinberg, Halion Sonic comes as vst2, vst3 and AU.

How nice! Let's hope they keep doing that...

[standalone]

since i'm a coder, i know exactly what is in the code.

Since I'm not a coder, I don't care. I want one click side chaining, I want one click articulations, I want one click breakfast, I want one click chicks and I want one click everything. And my money will go to the one who gives me that, I don't care if it's Steinberg or Satan.

And, of course, I don't care how hard it is to code the plugins I use. Nobody cares how hard it is to compose the music I make, and everybody is right not caring about that.

[aciddose]

"one click"..that's up to the author of the host, not to the plugin.

so what? i want "one click" bus swapping, "one click" bus sub-division and "one click" modular routing. apparently stienberg's answer to that is "one click get f**ked".