Steinberg Discontinuing VST2 Support in its products

[tony10000]

"The discontinuation of VST 2 marks the final step in the transition process to VST 3. Focusing solely on VST 3 will increase the stability of our products and allow us to fully leverage the advantages of the VST 3 platform.

"As it stands, Steinberg hosts continue to offer VST 2 compatibility. But as Apple has transitioned its Mac line to Apple silicon, those Mac users will still be able to use their VST 2 plug-ins under Rosetta 2.

"Moreover, within the next 24 months, Steinberg’s host applications and plug-ins across macOS and Windows will offer VST 3 compatibility only.

"To ensure that you are prepared for these eventualities, we recommend to check if any third-party VST 2 plug-ins are in use and, if so, to contact the corresponding plug-in developers for details on supporting VST 3."

https://forums.steinberg.net/t/vst-2-di ... ued/761383

[Markus Krause]

Not a very smart move by Steinberg. This is what will happen:

1) Steinberg will get a huge shitstorm when their customers won't be able to load their old song-projects containing vst2 plugins
2) Most Cubase users will refuse update and stick with the last VST2 compatible version
3) People will use wrappers that adapt VST2 to VST3. This will result in more instabilities
4) Steinberg will loose customers, since they will move to other DAWs

[v1o]

Forced obsolescence.

[Super Piano Hater 64]

3) People will use wrappers that adapt VST2 to VST3.

I don’t think these will be around much longer.

Steinberg has made it clear that they don’t just want to drop VST2 support from their own products. They want the entire ecosystem of VST2 software to go away. They’ve made all kinds of legal threats against VST2 compatibility projects and really anything that uses the name “VST” in a way that they haven’t approved through the SDK license agreement, such as websites that host plugins. They’ve even taken over a few of those in recent months. And last spring they tried that stunt with the clause in the VST3 SDK terms of use that revoked VST2 licenses. They backed down, but I expect them to try that again once they think they can get away with it. If/when they bring it back, these adapters will be in violation, as will any DAW that still supports VST2. So, customers can go where they like, but they won’t be allowed to take their VST2 plugins with them.

[Markus Krause]

We (Tone2) as well as several other well-known companies own a valid VST2 and a VST3 license. I do not see how Steinberg can prevent us from creating a VST2 to VST3 adapters or prevent us from supporting VST2 also in the future.

[LeVzi]

3) People will use wrappers that adapt VST2 to VST3.

I don’t think these will be around much longer.

Steinberg has made it clear that they don’t just want to drop VST2 support from their own products. They want the entire ecosystem of VST2 software to go away. They’ve made all kinds of legal threats against VST2 compatibility projects and really anything that uses the name “VST” in a way that they haven’t approved through the SDK license agreement, such as websites that host plugins. They’ve even taken over a few of those in recent months. And last spring they tried that stunt with the clause in the VST3 SDK terms of use that revoked VST2 licenses. They backed down, but I expect them to try that again once they think they can get away with it. If/when they bring it back, these adapters will be in violation, as will any DAW that still supports VST2. So, customers can go where they like, but they won’t be allowed to take their VST2 plugins with them.

Steinberg won't outlaw these wrappers, because when VST2 stops launching in old projects, the wrapper will fix that and they won't want the consumer loss if they don't allow something.

Jbridge is still going strong, so VST3 wrappers will be around for a long time too.

[jamcat]

I don’t remember endless public whining when Avid dropped TDM and RTAS overnight. Steinberg has given developers 10 years to learn new skills.

[imrae]

Steinberg has had 10 years to make VST3 appealing to developers.

[tony10000]

We (Tone2) as well as several other well-known companies own a valid VST2 and a VST3 license. I do not see how Steinberg can prevent us from creating a VST2 to VST3 adapters or prevent us from supporting VST2 also in the future.

Urs made this comment on thread about the new, open source, CLAP format. He makes it sound like Steinberg can pull your VST2 license when they feel like it. Pretty ominous:

"For most developers who lose the license to publish a plug-in format, all backups have to be removed including all version control histories that are available online, and surely all derivative work. Because in that event, one can not publish anything in that format anymore, full stop. As it looks now, this is going to happen to many of us, as the commercial license of the substitute format has a built-in expiry mechanism.

"I understood your sentence as "who cares, someone can just put it back in". Maybe you meant that differently. IDK. Maybe that's okay in some kind of rebellious way of thinking, but for most of the people in our position, this is not an option.

"We need an absolutely clean alternative that secures safe investment."

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=574861&start=375

[tony10000]

We (Tone2) as well as several other well-known companies own a valid VST2 and a VST3 license. I do not see how Steinberg can prevent us from creating a VST2 to VST3 adapters or prevent us from supporting VST2 also in the future.

I also looked at the termination clause of the Steinberg VST3 licensing agreement:

"1. The Agreement shall run for an unlimited period.
2. Steinberg is entitled to terminate this Agreement with a 24 months written notice. For the validity of
the termination it shall be sufficient that Steinberg sends the termination to the last known email
address of the Licensee.
3. Steinberg is entitled to terminate this Agreement with a 6 months written notice if Steinberg publishes
a new version of VST Software Developer Kit subject to a separate licensing Agreement.
4. If the Licensee is in breach of any material obligations set out in this Agreement and does not cure
such breach by Steinberg’s demand within 14 days, Steinberg shall be entitled to terminate this
Agreement immediately. In such a case, this license and all the rights granted to the Licensee herein
shall immediately cease.
5. The right to extraordinary termination for good cause shall remain unaffected.
6. For the validity of the termination, it shall be sufficient that Steinberg sends the termination to the last
known email address of the Licensee.
7. Any and all prior VST 3 Plug-In SDK Agreements between Steinberg and the Licensee shall be
automatically terminated by signing this Agreement."

It would probably be wise to see if this clause appears in the VST2 licensing agreement you signed.

[jamcat]

Steinberg has had 10 years to make VST3 appealing to developers.

That is ridiculous. The appeal is having a free platform to develop commercial products for.

If developers don’t want to be in business anymore, that’s their choice. There will always be someone new who is willing and able to take their place.

[S0lo]

The very fact that a technology had to be forced. Puts question marks on the technology.

If it's really good and worth the effort. It will pick up popularity on it's own. No need to push it.

[chk071]

The very fact that a technology had to be forced. Puts question marks on the technology.

If it's really good and worth the effort. It will pick up popularity on it's own. No need to push it.

Like MP3, eh?

I would really rather say that it's a matter of marketing. The customer won't give a damn whether it's VST2 or VST3, because, he doesn't know, and doesn't care about the technical side.

Anyway, this is a pretty useless discussion, with more and more developers, including the ones present here, who developed VST3 versions of their plugins. It was rather a question of when, not if Steinberg makes this move. Other DAW's will follow. There's absolutely no doubt for me.

If I had to guess, then I would say that developers have even been informed beforehand. It's really "suspicious" how many suddenly came out with VST3's in the last year or two.

[S0lo]

Example, when MPE was introduced to the MIDI standard. Many developers moved on to it right away. It was a clean and easy addition to implement and the benefits way out way the trouble.

No one had to push us with legal matters, licenses and stuff like that.

[chk071]

If anything, that's an extension of an existing standard, no replacement, or the next version. MIDI is still MIDI.