Yeah it’s a bigger shame as it came so late in the C10 life cycle too (Presuming C10.5 hits when we expect)… And was a big part of many users upgrading.
I’d like to think that maybe if enough people made a stink they would offer good pricing on the upgrade to C10.5… Me personally, i can’t see myself jumping on C10.5 straight away based on the long dev time for C10… But we’ll see what it offers before jumping too many conclusions… But yeah, they need to think about the effect this has on people’s mindsets of upgrading on day one or not.
Yeah that really is strange, did you not get any kind of install notification for eLCC when upgrading to 10.0.40? I updated within an hour or two of the update going up, so perhaps it’s something they’ve since fixed?
I did not notice any kind of eLCC installation notification during this update. I estimate that I downloaded/installed the CB update maybe 6 hours or so after the release.
I have complained numerous times to Steinberg about the eLCC getting “downgraded” to an older version during CB updates. I was told that the CB installer checks for a newer version of the eLCC and it will install it. For me, that was not the case until about a year ago when my eLCC version stopped being downgraded. Who knows… Steinberg should review for sure.
About the eLicenser issue: I saw during the installation of the update installer on my 10.0.30 system / Windows 10 Pro / 1903 (without the latest feature KB) that eLicenser software was installed/updated, which surprised me. As usually, I started the eLicencer control center after the update and it threw a couple of errors about too old / outdated files and components. Then I downloaded the latest eLicenser installer from Steinberg and installed it and after that the control center opened with no errors. Also CB 10.0.40 opened without any problems.
Anyways, not very professional and a bit concerning. Should not happen…
Regarding the elicenser rollback which also happened to me with this update. If Steinberg has a logical reason for doing this I suppose we would appreciate an explanation otherwise it is simply an error on their part and could have been avoided with due care and attention on their part.
I agree, it would be extremely bad practice and false advertising. The ARA2 implementation in Cubase 10 is a disgrace and it’s so flaky, undocumented and missing parts, it’s an utter embarrassment. For the first time in about 30 years I’m considering moving on from Cubase to Studio One, which I’m demoing now. That’s a really big deal for me, I’ve stuck with Steinberg through thick and thin and it’s only been in recent years I’ve actually had to join this forum. I’ve no idea why Steinberg feel they’ve got to cram in so much half working, useless garbage, but I suspect it’s so the marketing department can tick box’s, whilst ignoring that the stuff just don’t work like it should. I’m just so disappointed with Cubase 10.
In truth, Cubase is so huge and offers so much that fails to deliver properly on every release. I use 3rd party VSTs and VSTi’s that I only really use Cubase now as a recording and mixing base shell, because of the poor quality control, it is shaky, even with the basics like automation and stuff that is really basic that they should have nailed down years ago. I learned the hard way and I’m now at the stage where even using Cubase as a basic recording and mixing shell is full of problems and so, unfortunately that’s just the end for me.
In the last few years, I’ve continued to pay out for new versions of Cubase that don’t deliver and are full of bugs. This sort of fake, half delivery on promises has driven me to distraction. Money is precious and increasingly hard to come by in this present environment and paying for stuff that just never delivers properly is insufferable. They’ve done that for many, many years and now, at last, that has become unacceptable for a larger amount of people and those people are leaving for other Developers that deliver more closely to what they advertise. I can foresee in the near future company’s like Izotope will launch DAWS that have modular attachments like Neutron and Ozone, with 3rd Party plugins and modules bolting on seamlessly, like ARA2 was meant to in Cubase. But hasn’t.
I understand Steinberg are offering lookalike versions of outstanding 3rd party apps like Melodyne and Revoice Pro and many others, but the offering is so cut down, badly implemented and full of bugs and not properly documented it’s just a waste of money. I imagine they’ll introduce something like Izotope’s Neutron 3 or Ozone 8, but in the traditional Steinberg way, and just like the new ARA2 attempt, they’ll be pale and insipid imitations, full of bugs and no go areas and little documentation. Also, I’m finding it isn’t the 3rd Party plugins that are failing, it’s Cubase, because probably like most people, I have a couple of DAWs running in demo where the same plugins that upset Cubase, run flawlessly in those DAWs.
I’d pay for a super stable modular version of Cubase, just a stable base recording and mixing version without all the average and unexciting content and instruments and plugins. Just a base to have all my professional 3rd Party VST’s and VSTI’s in and not some giant, lumbering ozymandian creation, full of bugs and workarounds. Sorry it’s come to this Steinberg, I really am, I’ve been faithful for many years. I was a fanboy for Cubase and until recent years wouldn’t have said a word against them. I know it works for some folks, but I think I’m at the end of my journey with Steinberg. Sorry for the lengthy outpouring, but this is a major thing for me as I’ve been using Cubase for most of my and it’s life, so yes, I’m upset!