Steinberg Discontinuing VST2 Support in its products

[zvenx]

Please explain to me how it supports SB's business interest?

Surely their developers could have for example, added sidechain for vst2 stuff to cubendo if they thought that was a technical efficient solution.

How do they gain exactly? They could have just come out with vst 3 and said nobody else can use it if the aim was to thwart the competition.

Rsp

[zvenx]

If there are glaring omissions or faults in the VST3 format that other developers can spot then why Steinberg can not remains a mystery.

Of course Steinberg can... they make what suits their business. They have no reason to be helpful to other developers who are competitors of theirs.

I imagine their competitors would be other Daws or in this case au and aax. Or are you really suggesting they are deliberately being unhelpful to third party vst developers. I am not sure that would increase Halion and Retrologue sales.
Rsp

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Surely their developers could have for example, added sidechain for vst2 stuff to cubendo if they thought that was a technical efficient solution.

Surely, they could have! Like every other DAW did with VST2. I think you're not making the point I think you are with that example.

Instead, Steinberg basically said, 'no, VST2 doesn't let you do that, use VST3 for that, Cubase's VST3 implementation makes it very easy.' And the rest of the plugin/DAW world rolled their eyes.

Steiny DAWs are the only ones that require that stupid Quad Bus workaround for sidechaining VST2 plugins. Everyone else makes it really easy.

[Atlatnesiti]

steinberg does have support?

Yes, as long as you’re not a troll.

[zvenx]

Surely their developers could have for example, added sidechain for vst2 stuff to cubendo if they thought that was a technical efficient solution.

Surely, they could have! Like every other DAW did with VST2. I think you're not making the point I think you are with that example.

Instead, Steinberg basically said, 'no, VST2 doesn't let you do that, use VST3 for that, Cubase's VST3 implementation makes it very easy.' And the rest of the plugin/DAW world rolled their eyes.

Steiny DAWs are the only ones that require that stupid Quad Bus workaround for sidechaining VST2 plugins. Everyone else makes it really easy.

I give up..
Said all I had to say.
Anyone can feel free to go to SB's developer forum to see their view point in the matter which they will say much better and much more technical accurate l than I ever could.
Rsp

[whyterabbyt]

Surely their developers could have for example, added sidechain for vst2 stuff to cubendo if they thought that was a technical efficient solution.

maybe their management stopped them, for some reason. maybe adding it to cubase would have eaten nuendo sales or something.

They could have just come out with vst 3 and said nobody else can use it if the aim was to thwart the competition.

well, they came out with vst3 and said nobody else can use vst2, so yeah, thwart the competition sounds about right.

not so sure they'd have done so well if the only plugins folk could use were by steinberg, though.

[zvenx]

Huh? Cubase and Nuendo do it the exact same way. How pray tell would it have affected nuendo sales?

Vst2 was dropped i think 10 years after vst3 was released. 10 years.!!!


They do not gain financially when others use vst.

Rsp

[whyterabbyt]

Huh? Cubase and Nuendo do it the exact same way. How pray tell would it have affected nuendo sales?

i thought you said cubase and nuendo didnt do it.

anyway you were asking us to second-guess a design decision, that was my point.

[zvenx]

Indeed both Cubase and Nuendo affectionately called Cubendo do not allow sidechain without the pita quad workaround for vst2.
I am saying that how would management stopped them from adding it to Cubase possibly affect the sales if nuendo.

You can read the developer forum yourself and see why it was done instead of second guessing.
Rsp

[whyterabbyt]

I am saying that how would management stopped them from adding it to Cubase possibly affect the sales if nuendo.

It was an example, FFS. You basically implied that this was a developer decision based on 'technical efficiency' (which sounds like BS, btw) and Im saying it could just as easily have been a management (or other non-developer) decision based on some other thing and gave an example of the kind of thing it could have been.
And in case you dont know why I'd use that as an example, look to Avid product tiers, for a real-life equivalent decision. As an example.

It wasnt a claim that that specifically was the reason.

Jebus.

[zvenx]

It was a ridiculous supposition which made no logical sense since both products behave the same way with sidechaining.
But once again I encourage you if you really want to know instead of spouting out nonsense, why they did it, is to read their developer forum.

Of course nuendo has features that Cubase doesn't have, so if you were using logic then management would have added it to nuendo not Cubase.

Rsp

[whyterabbyt]

It was a ridiculous supposition which made no logical sense since both products behave the same way with sidechaining.

it wasnt a supposition in the first place. as i have already made absolutely clear.

[zvenx]

Well it was nonsense is what it was.

Rsp

[S0lo]

They do not gain financially when others use vst.

May be there lies the problem!!. If they gained financially (say like JUCE) at least they'd start to care about other developer opinions. And at the same time, devs who can't pay will start looking at viable alternative formats, like CLAP or so, and those would become more popular, way before 2022.

You see the disruptive part here, is that they are offering it for free. But then this freeness is bound to a restrictive none open source license that is governed by a single company who no one knows what will do in the future. Many devs will keep using it simply because it's free, but then they don't know what lies ahead in the future of deprecation and none-backward compatibility. Did any one know 15 years back when they used VST2 that the future VST3 will have limited MIDI support? Or will it be a humongous task to upgrade to?

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

C'mon now, let's just be real here: it was very almost certainly a business decision not to expose sidechain inputs on VST2 plugins. Every other DAW implemented an easy to use solution so there's no technical reason Steinberg couldn't do the same. Implying such almost insults their developers who I'm sure would've been very capable of implementing that feature over the years.

Users requested it. Someone at Steinberg must have asked, "should we do this?" They certainly would've discussed internally and for whatever reason, made a business decision not to. Most of us, myself included, just assume it was to promote this feature in VST3, but whatever the reason, it was almost certainly a business decision not any kind of technical limitation. Every other major DAW that supports VST2 allows for this. Except King Cubase.