Bye bye VST2

[xphen0m]

I've had zero issues with VST3 on my end.

Old architecture can't be supported forever. As usual, there's always that initial resistance when that old architecture is discontinued.

[hotmitts]

Why would Steinberg do that ? What harm does it do supporting VST2 ?

[__K__]

Why would Steinberg do that ? What harm does it do supporting VST2 ?

Cost and locking up resources in what they consider being legacy..

[AdvancedFollower]

I've had zero issues with VST3 on my end.

Old architecture can't be supported forever. As usual, there's always that initial resistance when that old architecture is discontinued.

Same here. As a Cubase user I've made a conscious effort to move over to VST3 exclusively and so far there haven't been any issues.

[zvenx]

Why would Steinberg do that ? What harm does it do supporting VST2 ?

And.... it holds back Cubendo development by having to make sure it is still vst2 compatible.
rsp

[Cochrane]

Why would Steinberg do that ? What harm does it do supporting VST2 ?

And.... it holds back Cubendo development by having to make sure it is still vst2 compatible.
rsp

Sorry, but have you seen Cubendo source code?

[zvenx]

I beta test for Steinberg.
So i would have info disclosed to me under NDA rules from people who not only see the code but write it.
Nuff Said.
rsp

[EatMe]

Anybody asking Steinberg for a representation of the loss of income ($0.002 per YouTube ad, over $80 per DAW license) from not supporting the VST2 standard anymore (millions of hours of work by dad)?

* 90.000 visitors in 3 years on the museum with (R.I.P.) H. G. Fortune's 32 bit VST2 plugins.
estimated customer lost value lost from Steinberg not supporting the 32 bit VST2 standard:
over 50 million euro.. washed away with the new standart.

[zvenx]

From their vst sdk which has always been free?
That they have never charged a cent to use?

rsp

[Urs]

From their vst sdk which has always been free?
That they have never charged a cent to use?

rsp

Sorry, but that does not reflect the issue at hand. The cost of removing a plug-in format that was originally licensed for lifetime is incredible. Nobody in this industry would have imagined that this could happen in such a way. Nobody had developed their products with "oh, some day we might have to remove this part of the code" in mind. In fact, because it was the de facto standard of its time, many companies have based their entire codebase and workflow on VST2. Not only is the investment in supporting VST2 lost. These companies have to refactor all that - their codebase, their test procedures, their test software. The overall cost on the industry is absolutely incredible.

[jamcat]

Pretty bad news at least for me. The (now discontinued) Automap software by Novation works fine here with VST2 plugins but refuses to work with VST3 ones... and I really like my automapped bread and butter plugins. It allows me to make decisions more with my ears and less with my eyes. Plus the hands on approach is a always pleasure when available.

I'm sorry for the off topic, I experienced this as a betrayal of novation (not to update Automap, at least to be compatible with the new processors), reason why I will never buy a product from them. I don't want more plastic bricks.

It is more Steinberg's fault than novation one in my view here...

That's why we need open source format like CLAP.

Either editors take a contingency on the price in order to have long term support of changing formats. Either they let die.
I want none of these options.

That's why I try to choose CLAP plugins first.

The problem is lack of support from the developer. Adding new formats that they won’t support isn't a fix for old formats they won’t support.

[zvenx]

From their vst sdk which has always been free?
That they have never charged a cent to use?

rsp

Sorry, but that does not reflect the issue at hand. The cost of removing a plug-in format that was originally licensed for lifetime is incredible. Nobody in this industry would have imagined that this could happen in such a way. Nobody had developed their products with "oh, some day we might have to remove this part of the code" in mind. In fact, because it was the de facto standard of its time, many companies have based their entire codebase and workflow on VST2. Not only is the investment in supporting VST2 lost. These companies have to refactor all that - their codebase, their test procedures, their test software. The overall cost on the industry is absolutely incredible.

Agreed with all that, but surely to expect compensation from SB is to me ridiculous.
Whenever my dear Apple brings out a new update and developers have to 'adjust' (yes I know it is not the same), does anyone expect apple to compensate them?
rsp

[jamcat]

Steinberg has given ample warning every step of the way. They give developers a decade to adjust.

[chk071]

From their vst sdk which has always been free?
That they have never charged a cent to use?

rsp

Sorry, but that does not reflect the issue at hand. The cost of removing a plug-in format that was originally licensed for lifetime is incredible. Nobody in this industry would have imagined that this could happen in such a way. Nobody had developed their products with "oh, some day we might have to remove this part of the code" in mind.

But, isn't that a thing that you always have to deal with in development?

Did you foresee that Apple will drop x86 at some point, and you have to develop an ARM, and only a ARM version, until Apple decides to switch to yet another architecture?

What about older operating system versions? What about 32-bit, and the switch to 64-bit?

I really don't think this is anything new, if you're honest about it.

[gaggle of hermits]

Steinberg has given ample warning every step of the way. They give developers a decade to adjust.

can you provide details of where Steinberg warned ahead of time it would use its contracts to actively prevent vst2 plugins being provided by third parties who had agreed to use the relevant sdks?

you seem to be pretty confident so it should be real easy.