VST 2 SDK no longer available, will it affect plugs?

[Numanoid]

Will this have any effect on developers being able to update VST2 plugs?:

The Software Development Kit (SDK) for VST 2 is no longer offered through the Steinberg website. Steinberg host applications remain VST 2 compatible, but maintenance and technical support for VST 2 officially ended in September. Steinberg wants to focus their efforts entirely on the development of VST 3.

http://www.steinberg.net/en/newsandeven ... -2631.html

[whyterabbyt]

why not read what the developers are saying about it in the DSP forum?

BTW, this shouldnt be in Instruments, since its about an SDK, not an instrument. It should be moved to 'Everything Else'

[aciddose]

It is apparently available as part of VST3, separate, just inside the same package with the same license.

No, it shouldn't affect plugins unless you won't enter into the new license agreement and don't already have a copy of the file you need.

We are very worried about it being dropped from the VST3 package. Things are being worked on to solve this issue as we speak.

It isn't about a particular instrument but it is about the format of a great deal of existing instruments and may affect the format of future instruments.

I'd rather see this thread locked with the link included.

[Numanoid]

No, it shouldn't affect plugins unless you won't enter into the new license agreement and don't already have a copy of the file you need.

So if a dev I have bought a plugin from doesn't enter into the agreement, I can't expect that plug to be updated?

I think that is quite relevant topic for the instrument sub-forum.

[whyterabbyt]

So if a dev I have bought a plugin from doesn't enter into the agreement, I can't expect that plug to be updated?

Incorrect.

I think that is quite relevant topic for the instrument sub-forum.

This forum is for "VST, AU, etc. plug-in Virtual Instruments discussion". The SDK is sued for both effects and instruments, so its not specific to instruments and hence not the Instruments forum. However the availability of an SDK is neither a plugin nor an instrument, so that's not suitable for the Instruments forum.

[Numanoid]

I expect that you start right away going after every thread that's about modular synth plugs, or sample libraries, that are posted in the instrument sub-forum and get them moved or locked?

I mean because a thread is about something that is relevant to both the Effects and Instrument sub-forum, it can't be posted here?

Obviously you got some kind of beef, and trying to bait me. I will need to report you in case you don't stop following me around.

[whyterabbyt]

I expect that you start right away going after every thread that's about modular synth plugs, or sample libraries, that are posted in the instrument sub-forum and get them moved or locked?

Strange, the one person I'm sure Ive seen do that is you.

I mean because a thread is about something that is relevant to both the Effects and Instrument sub-forum, it can't be posted here?

And hosts. Its relevant to hosts as well.

Are you saying that its okay to post stuff when its merely 'relevant'?

Does that apply to everyone else, or just you?

I mean, here's an example of you wanting a thread specifically about an instrument moved from the Instrument forum.

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 94#5323094

Inconsistent much?

Obviously you got some kind of beef, and trying to bait me

Really? I thought this kind of thing was important to you. My mistake.

I will need to report you in case you don't stop following me around.

For what, suggesting that a post is in the wrong forum? Feel free, Im sure the mods will be very appreciative of you bringing something as heinous as this to their attention.

[Numanoid]

I mean, here's an example of you wanting a thread specifically about an instrument moved from the Instrument forum.
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 94#5323094
Inconsistent much?

That is a lie, the comment was made because a thread was already started about it.

I'm quite happy to have this particular thread merged with a previous thread about SDK, if that is the point you are trying to make

[whyterabbyt]

I mean, here's an example of you wanting a thread specifically about an instrument moved from the Instrument forum.
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 94#5323094
Inconsistent much?

That is a lie, the comment was made because a thread was already started about it.

oh, must be the wrong one then. hard keeping track when you do it regularly.

[xoxos]

can we please panic, i need to buy everything now.

[mn]

can we please panic, i need to buy everything now.

I have to give you credit, that was pretty funny.

[umd]

I think that what will happen with VST2.x will be something similar to what happened with MIDI 1.x ( which 30 years later is still faster than my playing ).

[aciddose]

So if a dev I have bought a plugin from doesn't enter into the agreement, I can't expect that plug to be updated?

Incorrect.

whyterabbyt, I think you jumped a little further than you wanted to and you do this quite often in a desire to prove everyone else is wrong, but actually it isn't incorrect.

If they don't want to enter into the new agreement we won't be seeing upgrades to VST 2.5~ or VST 3.x, we'll be stuck with the existing VST 2.4~ format the plugins are already available in, yes.

Although that isn't a problem really but still.

For example they have the ability to enforce a term such as "any binary distributed must be in VST3 format", where the VST2 stuff is just included in the "actually not compatible" compatibility layer of VST3.

[whyterabbyt]

So if a dev I have bought a plugin from doesn't enter into the agreement, I can't expect that plug to be updated?

incorrect

whyterabbyt, I think you jumped a little further than you wanted to and you do this quite often in a desire to prove everyone else is wrong

hello mr pot.

but actually it isn't incorrect.

well, except where it is.

If they don't want to enter into the new agreement we won't be seeing upgrades to VST 2.5~ or VST 3.x, we'll be stuck with the existing VST 2.4~ format the plugins are already available in, yes.

And exactly how does that affect the ability of a developer to update the plugin? What capacity for updating has been prevented?

Although that isn't a problem really but still.

But still what exactly? If its not a problem, then what's the problem with what I said?

For example they have the ability to enforce a term such as "any binary distributed must be in VST3 format", where the VST2 stuff is just included in the "actually not compatible" compatibility layer of VST3.

Sorry, Im missing the part where this prevents a developer from updating anything. Im well aware that they'd be unable to port it to a VST3 plugin, and that this is probably a move to deprecate the VST2.4 format, but neither of those things on their ability to update the plugin, so how is it not incorrect to assume that it does/

I didnt say anything about whether Steinberg et al would force compatibility issues on developers. I said it wouldnt prevent developers from updating plugins.
Is the ability to continue to use the VST2.4 SDK lost if you dont sign the VST3 agreement? No. So, Im saying a developer who hasnt signed the VST3 agreement is in exactly the same position with regard to their plugin code as they were before there even was a VST3 agreement, ie they can update that code. Is that true or false?

If you'd like to explain exactly what it is that would prevent any developer from being able to update an existing VST2.4 plugin in any way, then please, do so explicitly, because nothing you've said so far actually indicates why its not incorrect to think so.

[aciddose]

So if a dev I have bought a plugin from doesn't enter into the agreement, I can't expect that plug to be updated?

incorrect

whyterabbyt, I think you jumped a little further than you wanted to and you do this quite often in a desire to prove everyone else is wrong

hello mr pot.

Fair enough of course

And exactly how does that affect the ability of a developer to update the plugin? What capacity for updating has been prevented?

Oh come on, I specifically said it prevents them from updating their plugin to any new format such as VST2.5 (if that ever happens) or VST3.

That's a stretch already since we've had to make the assumption they would be unable to bring themselves to agree to the new license, as if that ever stopped anyone.

Is the ability to continue to use the VST2.4 SDK lost if you dont sign the VST3 agreement? No. So, Im saying a developer who hasnt signed the VST3 agreement is in exactly the same position with regard to their plugin code as they were before there even was a VST3 agreement, ie they can update that code. Is that true or false?

If you'd like to explain exactly what it is that would prevent any developer from being able to update an existing VST2.4 plugin in any way, then please, do so explicitly, because nothing you've said so far actually indicates why its not incorrect to think so.

Of course that is true, I think you're just being a little more disagreeable than necessary here!

We all love to fight over this sort of thing but honestly, yes there are serious issues even if you continue to use the existing VST2x SDK that you already have. Have you read the old license agreement? For example using the trademark "VST" in advertising which includes product descriptions on webpages requires that you meet certain criteria, such as providing a VST3 compatible version of your plugin.

Urs told me this. I disagreed with him that you would be unable to claim "Plugin is compatible with interfaces such as VST2x, in hosts such as Cubase 5, ..." but he was insistent that even that would in fact be impossible.

I still don't believe that, but there is a chance he might be right depending upon the country you're talking about and simply the FUD factor here might have a significant influence on things.

Does it prevent existing plugin authors from updating their existing products or creating new ones? No of course not, but it does have its little gotchas that I don't think should be brushed off quite so quick.