FORUMS: list search recent posts

Re: Could Creative Cloud discourage plugin developers from embracing Premiere?

COW Forums : Creative Community Conversations (was FCPX Debates)

VIEW ALL   •   ADD A NEW POST   •   PRINT
Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index   •   Read entire thread


Walter Soyka
Re: Could Creative Cloud discourage plugin developers from embracing Premiere?
on Apr 16, 2013 at 5:49:38 pm

[Oliver Peters] "The AE and ProTools user is different. They live and die by their plug-ins. I don't think it's an issue of price with them. OTOH, if the CC subscription is the only option, then why buy plug-ins if you run the chance of not renewing the subscription. This will tend to drive plug-in purchases according to the needs of specific jobs, rather than as an investment in your company."

Great point. As you know well, but as I often forget to disclaim, I'm a designer first and an editor second, and that colors my perspective.

Interestingly, GenArts Sapphire can be rented by the month -- but that still costs >3x as much as a Creative Cloud subscription's monthly fee.



[Oliver Peters] "This argument has at least been a problem for the plug-in developers of FCP X. Lots of folks buying $10-$50 plug-ins for X. Not that many buying full versions of FxF Pro, BCC or Sapphire for X. Filmlight specifically told me X users have baulked at paying $1K when the host was only $300."

But is this really just about price, or is this about needs and use cases?

In other words, are FCPX users not buying FxF/BCC/Sapphire/Baselight because they are too expensive relative to FCPX itself, or because they don't need what those plugins do and thus wouldn't benefit from having those tools?

There are so many variables here beyond price that may be coming into play, from the architecture of the app itself to the broader user base Apple is aiming for. Please consider the following to be sweeping generalizations, all with notable exceptions:

FCPX has the color board for free, and Resolve reads FCPXML and is free.

FCPX/M5 reduces the amount of rocket science necessary for developers to help editors create cool visuals, encouraging rapid development of relatively limited-scope plugins which can be sold profitably at a lower cost. A "little" plugin that does 80% of what one of the "big" plugins does but that sells for 20%, 10%, 5% or even 0% of its cost may not leave much room in the market.

FCPX/M5 lets regular users, not just developers, make effects which they can re-use or share.

FCPX is not (often/currently) used in interchange situations where having the same plugins in a different host would be beneficial.

FCPX users may prefer preset/template-driven effects rather than more flexible control-driven effects.

FCPX's architecture restricts developers from exposing the complexity of their advanced plugins.

FCPX users who have never used another app may have no idea what FxF/BCC/Sapphire can do or why they might be worth the price.

FCPX users may not be doing the sort of compositing or effects work where FxF/BCC/Sapphire really shine.

FCPX users may have needs for FxF/BCC/Sapphire, but may find those needs better-filled in another host like Ae anyway.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Posts IndexRead Thread 


Current Message Thread:





© 2020 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]