Steinberg Discontinuing VST2 Support in its products

[rasmusklump]

The next thread that can be trolled

[vurt]

You know who is cooler than the person who complain,

pingu?

[Super Piano Hater 64]

Seeing complaints about the licensing, the thread is deep so I haven't seen the actual explanations of the problem..

Why not go ask or constructively critique where it counts? https://forums.steinberg.net/t/vst-3-sd ... /201638/26

You managed to link to a thread that explains part of the problem. The issue isn't with the current terms of the license, but rather, the way Steinberg seeks to weaponize it against VST2 developers.

My own analysis from a few days ago:

Last March, Steinberg added a clause to the VST3 license agreement. I'll refer to a post from the Steinberg forums:

I’ve read the new VST 3 License Agreement version 2.1 of 30 March 2021 and am very worried about clause 9.7:

“Any and all prior VST 2 and/or VST 3 Plug-In SDK Agreements between Steinberg and the Licensee
shall be automatically terminated by signing this Agreement.”

Does that mean that if i want to add VST 3 support to my DAW MuLab that i have to kill support for VST 2 plugins?

The response from a Steinberg employee (one who, as you can see, is in contact with their lawyers) was as follows:

We will change the formulation in order to make it clearer.
This §9.7 does not apply to Host which already supports VST2, in this case your last signed VST2 license agreement is still valid.
For plugins developer we will add a transition period.

They did indeed "change the formulation" in a subsequent update to the license agreement. Specifically, they changed it by simply removing it. But look closely. They clearly intended to enforce this against plugin developers, and "a transition period" implies they fully expected to enforce it later.

We can hope that they change their minds, or already have. But their actions and statements demonstrate several things: That they're aware they have the ability to do this; that they decided they would do it; that they ran it by their lawyer to put it into motion; and that their stated reason for agreeing to a change of plans was that the extent of the clause's enforcement could be "clearer."

It is very difficult for me to take this as anything but an existential threat to all VST2 plugins, and it has nothing to do with the technical merits of VST3.

And Urs's reply to that:

Here's the thing though. §9.7 in that formulation does apply to hosts as well. Either any lawyer (if involved) or the employee are simply wrong. It also fuels fire on the situation as plug-in manufacturers feel double crossed - why should they suffer while host developers get a free pass?

Apparently, by dropping §9.7 altogether instead of adding a "transitional period" into it - for now -, Steinberg has realised just how much backlash there would be, and how much trust from the industry they would lose.

Because: The concept indicated in this, no matter how long a transition period is given, has enormous gravity for many people in the industry. Every VST2 host or plug-in developer who signs this (or any future version of it) has to immediately (or within months) wipe any derivative of VST2 off their websites, distribution chain and download archives, including any mention of VST2 as a trademark. This means for many: Rework the code base big time, throw out any VST2, replace it with something else and possibly change the whole debugging and testing workflow from VST2 to something else. And also: Rerelease the entire portfolio, "cleaned". This is, for many, many developers, a bigger change than any recent move by Apple.

Dropping VST2 support now in their DAWs is the complete opposite of restoring that trust. As I wrote elsewhere, their best option to move forward IMHO would have been placing VST2 in the public domain. The other options are rather grim for the industry, no matter of what attempts are made to add a light at the end of the tunnel. Everyone tries their best though.

(Attempting to quote him without pinging him, because he's a little busy right now.)

And while I'm at it...

and fiy, im not a steinberg employee, I'm a user and vst dev.

Really skeptical of that last part. Are you saying you've worked with the VST3 SDK before?

[Super Piano Hater 64]

Seems like the whole thing is a little over dramatic.

Yeah, you clearly don't get it.

Here's a short version you can understand: Developers can't trust Steinberg after this.

We can talk all day about the technical reasons why VST3 sucks, and why it wasn't a viable platform for many plugins until roughly 2018. But the bigger problem has nothing to do with VST3's technical shortcomings, and everything to do with the legal killswitch Steinberg is trying to put in place. It's like they want the kind of power over the VST ecosystem that Apple has over its app store, but the way they're approaching it is even nastier than anything I've seen Apple do.

[Super Piano Hater 64]

Steinberg haven't really do that have they? VST2 plugins aren't disappearing...

They aren't disappearing yet, but Steinberg clearly wants to make them disappear.

If they ever bring back this rule (that they temporarily removed) then developers will have to choose between keeping VST2 and switching to VST3. If they give up their VST2 licenses, then their VST2 plugins instantly become illegal to distribute (for copyright reasons) and Steinberg can go around sending DMCA notices to anyone who has a copy. If they don't want to give up VST2, Steinberg can punish them in other ways, like permanently banning them from using the VST3 SDK.

[LeVzi]

So is Cubase 12 going to be VST3 only ?

[o-range]

..

[S0lo]

Seems like the whole thing is a little over dramatic.

And again people... 14 years. 14 years all these devs had to see the writing on the wall. VST2 was officially discontinued in what, 2012? Comon folks.

By that same logic. MIDI shouldn't be used at all today because it has been for 35 years now. Yet, new hardware comes out every year supporting MIDI. Why does Roland, Korg, sequential, Novation, Arturia, Moog, etc still support MIDI. Comon folks. move on.

C++ STL library has been there for 22+ years now. We shouldn't use cout, cin, iostream, vectors, etc. they're too old. Let alone C functions like printf() and scanf()

Windows API still has functions and structures that are 25+ years old. BitBlt(), CreateThread(), OpenClipboard(), GlobalAlloc(). etc.. Why doesn't Microsoft remove those old horses ?

I don't know about Apple. But I'm sure others do.

Time doesn't make something obsolete. Some thing is obsolete only if people don't have a use for it any more.

[Super Piano Hater 64]

So is Cubase 12 going to be VST3 only ?

Not on Windows. But 12.1 might, and 13 almost certainly will.

[zvenx]

So is Cubase 12 going to be VST3 only ?

no!! ..
rsp

[Erisian]

Time doesn't make something obsolete. Some thing is obsolete only if people don't have a use for it any more.

[zvenx]

So is Cubase 12 going to be VST3 only ?

Not on Windows. But 12.1 might, and 13 almost certainly will.

You are so sure of your opinion.

They said two years.. I am sure 13 will come out before then..

maybe, emphasis on maybe 13.5 or 14, is my guess.
rsp

[zvenx]

So is Cubase 12 going to be VST3 only ?

The longer answer which is all over kvr and elsewhere.

Cubase 12 and vst2:

Windows, it will be there and working as it has been.
Mac Intel, it will be there and working as it has been.
Mac Silicon Native, only rosetta 2 vst2 will work, natively silicon coded vst2s will not.

100% sure of this, unlike mr. Guessing above.
rsp

[o-range]

..

[Super Piano Hater 64]

You are so sure of your opinion.

I'm only mostly sure. Maybe 13 will keep it and 14 will drop it. But 12 still isn't out yet, and their release cadence tends towards a major release every two years or so. Let's bet five dollars on this. I think I'll win.