How important is VST3 support for you as a customer

[AdmiralQuality]

It doesn't have to be a game. Who says you have to use the mean marketing machine to sell that feature? Just advertise what it is. No need to blow bubbles. Also you could still offer both versions at different prices and leave the choice to your customers.

Yeah but my existing customers don't need me spending a few months on something that, when finished, won't offer them one iota of improved functionality.

But really, I'm just looking for a practical example. Impress me! What's this stuff FOR that's so vital that mankind has somehow been able to make music without it for the previous million years?

You know, I'm the customer and I don't have to prove anything. I want technology that keeps up with the times. A dev/company who doesn't simply won't get my money. Again I'll vote with my wallet

Well, I just don't agree that Steinberg dictate what "the times" are. They're off on their own thing here, and adoption is less than luke warm, for all the reasons so many have mentioned above.

I agree with you that newer is not always better than older, but I can guarantee you that the demand for VST3 will slowly, but constantly rise. Ignore VST3 as long as you can, but don't complain when you missed the train.

The train doesn't become any more difficult to catch as time goes on. Just the opposite, the longer we wait the more time the early adopters have to find the bugs for the rest of us. (And if we wait FOREVER, then we really win.) But as I said, if they ever get it working right they'll just release VST 4.x the next day. It'll have some other vital new feature you won't know how you ever lived without.

But for now, all hosts accept VST 2.4 plug-ins and only 2 or 3 accept VST3. In this business, that makes for a very easy decision.

[AdmiralQuality]

Now where's that update for my Atari?

I still have my 2600. And somehow, here in the future, it still works without any update!

[bM3w]

Well, I just don't agree that Steinberg dictate what "the times" are. They're off on their own thing here, and adoption is less than luke warm, for all the reasons so many have mentioned above.

There you said it! This is your single only problem with VST3.

Let me tell you that - as a customer - I really don't care about those kind of problems. I go by what the product has to offer and if it doesn't meet my requirements I won't buy.

It's your decision which group of customers you'd like to attract. Maybe you can afford to miss out the (currently) handful of customers who demand VST3, but ultimately your resistance just doesn't make your company look good and you shouldn't be surprised if more and more people won't buy from you because of that.

Seriously, that can't be your goal.

PS to your Atari comment: As much as I hate Apple, but they managed to sell millions and millions of the same old phone every other year with just a new version number. So what? Give the people what they want!

[AdmiralQuality]

Well, I just don't agree that Steinberg dictate what "the times" are. They're off on their own thing here, and adoption is less than luke warm, for all the reasons so many have mentioned above.

There you said it! This is your single only problem with VST3.

Let me tell you that - as a customer - I really don't care about those kind of problems. I go by what the product has to offer and if it doesn't meet my requirements I won't buy.

It's your decision which group of customers you'd like to attract. Maybe you can afford to miss out the (currently) handful of customers who demand VST3, but ultimately your resistance just doesn't make your company look good and you shouldn't be surprised if more and more people won't buy from you because of that.

Seriously, that can't be your goal.

PS to your Atari comment: As much as I hate Apple, but they managed to sell millions and millions of the same old phone every other year with just a new version number. So what? Give the people what they want!

Newer, bigger, version numbers?

I'm not sure what you mean by my "only problem" with VST3. I could go on and on. But most issues are on the development end and I don't want to bore the laypersons or get wildly off topic.

But to be clear, my main problem with adopting is that it's a lot of work for us, with ABSOLUTELY no benefit for our customers. (Indeed, we would be guaranteed to introduce new bugs and break things that have long been established as working and stable. Wouldn't be serving our customers very well by doing that for no reason at all, would we?)

Maybe someday if I'm starting a new product from scratch, and I can imagine how Note Events might be useful (doubtful but I'm still waiting for that demo!) then I might try it. But again, I'm waiting to see things stabilize. Developers are still having a LOT of trouble with VST3 and 3.5 SDKs.

And sorry, but my goal isn't to impress people who just want a bigger version number by releasing a bigger version number. If you don't get it, that's fine. But as you can see, most in this poll do understand that they're not missing anything by sticking to 2.4.

Or whatever, buy a VST 3.5 host and Halion and go nuts with your mouse editing. My VST 2.4 plug-ins will still work fine in it. They just won't "note event", which is also fine as it's a model of a classic analog synthesizer and therefore also PLAYED like a classic analog synthesizer. And in that world, we call "note events" "polyphonic aftertouch". And sorry, that's the only per-note controller you get (though you can assign it to anything, it's a modulation source just any of the others) but as I've said 15 times already, that's the only per-note event you can PERFORM. But feel free to launch any number of instances of the instrument if you need to do anything crazier. That's the ONE thing we couldn't do in the old days.

[Krzysztof Oktalski]

ITT: Dev's tell users that you can do the same thing by working slower and harder because you're not statistically important enough.

You don't need VST3 sidechaining - set up a quattro track you lazy bastards! Note Expression is just a quicker way of doing the same thing with loads of midi tracks!

I don't want slower working methods, I like faster, because my time is very valuable to me and my family. It may only save 30 seconds a time, but I want to save that 30 seconds, I'm not setting up sidechains for my own amusement. Does anyone at all prefer this process taking a lot longer? Would anyone prefer not to have the ability to have control data on a note by note basis? Remember, the traditional behaviour is still available, nobody loses functionality, but they gain more control per note, why would anyone not want that?

Good luck with the sales pitch!

[bM3w]

I'm not sure what you mean by my "only problem" with VST3. I could go on and on. But most issues are on the development end and I don't want to bore the laypersons or get wildly off topic.

You apparently have an issue with Steinberg and their marketing, which seems to drive your objections against VST3 more than anything else.

But to be clear, my main problem with adopting is that it's a lot of work for us, with ABSOLUTELY no benefit for our customers.

Funny enough that Hans Zimmer asked for VST3. Now feel free and tell him he doesn't need it and that there's absolutely no benefit for him having a VST3 version of Zebra. Maybe that saves Urs some time...

And sorry, but my goal isn't to impress people who just want a bigger version number by releasing a bigger version number. If you don't get it, that's fine. But as you can see, most in this poll do understand that they're not missing anything by sticking to 2.4.

I absolutely GET that you don't like to impress people. Too bad for you and your potential customers who certainly will look elsewhere.

My VST 2.4 plug-ins will still work fine in it. They just won't "note event", which is also fine as it's a model of a classic analog synthesizer and therefore also PLAYED like a classic analog synthesizer.

Now that's the first time you really have a point regarding YOUR product. Still I don't agree with your general reluctance.

[jupiter8]

My main problem with VST3 is how Steinberg intentionally botched the 2.4 implementation in Cubase to enforce a shift to VST3. Every feature VST3 has could have been implemented in Cubase without a new plugin standard. And now the developers look bad and has to do lots of unnecessary work for no good reason what so ever.

ITT: Dev's tell users that you can do the same thing by working slower and harder because you're not statistically important enough.

You don't need VST3 sidechaining - set up a quattro track you lazy bastards!

Like this for example. You can thank Steinberg for that mess and not blame it on the plugin developers.

I remember someone over at Gearslutz being all extatic about Waves (or whomever it was) plugins finally being VST3 and how lazy they were and what took them so long. When i reminded him how he could have had all those features 4 years if SB had done their work properly he got curiously quiet.

[jupiter8]

Funny enough that Hans Zimmer asked for VST3. Now feel free and tell him he doesn't need it and that there's absolutely no benefit for him having a VST3 version of Zebra. Maybe that saves Urs some time...

Hans Zimmer uses Nuendo. Do you think it would have been easier to tell Steinberg to fix their botched 2.4 implementation or to tell Urs to clean up their mess ? Who does he have the biggest leverage on do you think ?

[AdmiralQuality]

Thanks Jupiter8, that's it exactly.

I'm not sure what you mean by my "only problem" with VST3. I could go on and on. But most issues are on the development end and I don't want to bore the laypersons or get wildly off topic.

You apparently have an issue with Steinberg and their marketing, which seems to drive your objections against VST3 more than anything else.

The point is, all it IS is marketing. It's marketing DRIVEN. It's nothing BUT marketing.

But to be clear, my main problem with adopting is that it's a lot of work for us, with ABSOLUTELY no benefit for our customers.

Funny enough that Hans Zimmer asked for VST3. Now feel free and tell him he doesn't need it and that there's absolutely no benefit for him having a VST3 version of Zebra. Maybe that saves Urs some time...

That's marketing!!! Hans Zimmer is most likely PAID by Steinberg to say that! (By the way, can you find me a link to that quote? They seem to have all been removed. He's definitely on their roster of endorsers though: http://www.steinberg.net/en/artists/ste ... tists.html ) I however am free to tell it like it is, no global megacorp overlords holding an ax over my head here, forcing me to screw my customers just to milk their wallets yet again. (And firing me if I don't. "The shareholders made me do it!")

And sorry, but my goal isn't to impress people who just want a bigger version number by releasing a bigger version number. If you don't get it, that's fine. But as you can see, most in this poll do understand that they're not missing anything by sticking to 2.4.

I absolutely GET that you don't like to impress people. Too bad for you and your potential customers who certainly will look elsewhere.

I like to think (and this poll would support this belief) that there are enough folks out there who can discriminate between quality products, and a complete load of B.S. No, that will never be everybody, but I use myself as the model for our target demographic (perfectionist musicians who have an advanced understanding of the underlying technology and how to use it). I can't compete at B.S., only at anticipating my customers' needs and doing an excellent job of implementing solutions.

My VST 2.4 plug-ins will still work fine in it. They just won't "note event", which is also fine as it's a model of a classic analog synthesizer and therefore also PLAYED like a classic analog synthesizer.

Now that's the first time you really have a point regarding YOUR product. Still I don't agree with your general reluctance.

Well exactly, here's a product that's not broken, yet some will unfortunately perceive it as substandard because it doesn't implement new "features" that it never needed in the first place to meet its design goals 100%.

It's also offensive from a sanity viewpoint. We didn't need any more standards in this industry, but there they go... (As some smartass who pre-dates me said, "The great thing about standards is there's so many to choose from!")

[bM3w]

I totally understand your point when it comes to functionalty of most things when you compare VST3 to VST2.x. Believe me, I hate Steinberg as much as you do for their crippled implementation of their own spec. Part of the reasons why I ditched Cubase after over 20 years. However it seems we can't change the fact that VST2.x is history, so like it or not, but at some point you devs have to look into VST3. Like I said earlier, as a customer I really don't care about all your personal issues with Steinberg and their marketing. Complaining about something you even might be right about doesn't change a thing when you look at it from a consumers point of view. Consumers want new technology regardless of their actual needs. The poll doesn't represent that yet, but it won't be long and the picture regarding VST3 will look different. Keep on denying, but time will tell.

It's the same with x64 versions. How long did it take companies to finally offer x64 versions of their plugins? Way too long and still many don't. I understand the impact and all the extra work, but hey, it's your product and at the end of the day you want to make money with it, right?

[whyterabbyt]

However it seems we can't change the fact that VST2.x is history, so like it or not, but at some point you devs have to look into VST3.

In what way is it history? It still exists, it still works, its still being used, it could still be extended to include everything that VST3 does and then some.
It's actually a bit like saying 'The C programming language is history now that C++ exists'. It just doesn't work like that.

[AdmiralQuality]

I totally understand your point when it comes to functionalty of most things when you compare VST3 to VST2.x. Believe me, I hate Steinberg as much as you do for their crippled implementation of their own spec. Part of the reasons why I ditched Cubase after over 20 years. However it seems we can't change the fact that VST2.x is history, so like it or not, but at some point you devs have to look into VST3. Like I said earlier, as a customer I really don't care about all your personal issues with Steinberg and their marketing. Complaining about something you even might be right about doesn't change a thing when you look at it from a consumers point of view. Consumers want new technology regardless of their actual needs. The poll doesn't represent that yet, but it won't be long and the picture regarding VST3 will look different. Keep on denying, but time will tell...

But 2.x isn't history. Again the point I've been trying to make, SB declaring a new interface doesn't suddenly break all the old stuff. And even they are smart enough to continue to support 2.4 plug-ins in their current hosts.

Functionality is everything. Nothing else matters. If VST 2.4 support suddenly disappeared from the industry then sure, I'd be forced to adopt 3.x. But seriously, don't hold your breath.

[bM3w]

However it seems we can't change the fact that VST2.x is history, so like it or not, but at some point you devs have to look into VST3.

In what way is it history? It still exists, it still works, its still being used, it could still be extended to include everything that VST3 does and then some.
It's actually a bit like saying 'The C programming language is history now that C++ exists'. It just doesn't work like that.

Oh yeah, absolutely, no disagreement here. It still works and it won't be completely ditched by VST3 anytime soon. It's history in terms of development at Steinberg. They would clearly ditch VST2.x right away if they could.

That's marketing!!! Hans Zimmer is most likely PAID by Steinberg to say that! (By the way, can you find me a link to that quote? They seem to have all been removed. He's definitely on their roster of endorsers though: http://www.steinberg.net/en/artists/ste ... tists.html ) I however am free to tell it like it is, no global megacorp overlords holding an ax over my head here, forcing me to screw my customers just to milk their wallets yet again. (And firing me if I don't. "The shareholders made me do it!")

Geez...go and search the u-he section yourself. You won't find a quote from HZ himself, but a very very undoubtful hint from Urs about the request.

Well exactly, here's a product that's not broken, yet some will unfortunately perceive it as substandard because it doesn't implement new "features" that it never needed in the first place to meet its design goals 100%.

And you think instead of explaining publicly why your product doesn't need VST3 it's better to slam on VST3, Steinberg and all the mean markting BS altogether? You might be the "perfectionist musician who has an advanced understanding of the underlying technology and how to use it", but you fail at understanding consumer needs and embracing and adopting new technology. Sooner or later that will have an impact on your sales. Often enough it just happens to be about the represantation of your company and your products = marktening rather than the actual technology. Hopefully by the time you made enough money to be not worried about that anymore

[Krzysztof Oktalski]

You can thank Steinberg for that mess and not blame it on the plugin developers.

I'm not blaming it on anyone, I'm saying if the choice is a process that takes 30 seconds, or one that takes 5, I'll take the quickest. If it's a choice between more or less control of notes, I'll take more. As to why it happened, that's historic trivia, it won't change the fact that I'll always prefer the faster/better process as an end user, regardless of who's to blame.

A few years ago my associate and I argued about VST3/64 bit; after reading this thread, I'm glad we resolved it, because this is very weak. We nearly certainly spent more time arguing about it than the implementation took, now I see we could still be at that point today; on the internet, blaming our users for wanting more.

[EvilDragon]

Let me rationalize a bit:


* for PERFORMING MUSICIANS, VST3 is moot. They don't gain any real-time use from Note Expressions, because there's no MIDI controller which can output multiple per-note data streams. Only PAT offers that, and those are as rare as <insert witty metaphor here>.

* for WORKING COMPOSERS and SOUNDTRACK WRITERS, VST3 is sort of important because they indeed can work faster having all strings on one MIDI track instead of several, for example. I can see that importance - and hey, if Hans Zimmer says he finds it useful, then I won't object, because he's one of the best in his business.

* I can understand the complete code rewriting that's necessary to implement the new functionality to already existing VST2.4 plugins. I can also see that NOT EVERY TYPE OF PLUGIN ABSOLUTELY NEEDS NOTE EXPRESSIONS. That is what AdmiralQuality is trying to underline here, and I support him in that viewpoint.

* Let's not forget that FruityLoops had per-note volume, pan, pitch and glide (well, rather polyphonic glide than per-note) events way before VST3. Granted, only for I-L's own plugs, but still.


Let me once again underline that IMHO x64 support is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT, to me, personally, than any of the VST3 marketing blurbs.