I nearly exclusively use the inlcuded plugins, excellent quality and great workflow, intergration in EUCON etc.
The only 3rd PTY plugins I use are Diva and Arousor.
Also the included plugins have been updated in this release, check out the new de-esser, it’s great.
It’s ignorant to assume that the included plugins are not valuable and no one is using them, you would be surprised
It’s also ignorant to assume that everyone works the way TS does.
I did not say they were not valuable at all in my post. I just stated that I myself didn’t use them much and wondered how everyone else worked. And whether valuable time was being spent on developing these plugins rather than including more feature requests.
I was trying to open up a discussion on why we couldn’t prioritise features to be included in future updates so we all get what we need.
no need to call someone Ignorant 
But valuable time has been well spend, 9 is a great upgrade, carrying so much value.
I know professionals who make quite a buck using almost exclusively stock plugins.
That is a good point and i’m sure that is the case. The point is how important it is to you to have a DAW packed with incredible features or a DAW with loads of bundled plugins? It would seem from the discussions on here that we can’t have both though…
Why not? 
might be different teams even?
I don’t need any more plug-ins included in Cubase. But the ones included are as good as any IMHO.
In the past I’ve bought a lot of boutique plugins, but have found less is more and it’s better to really master a few plugins really well, than barely scratch the surface with an extensive collection.
And regarding features, I think it’s important to continue the Cubase path and legacy and not try to turn it into a melting pot clone of Live, S1 and Protools. Cubase currently is distinct and you either love it or hate it.
development must continue, but the worst thing than can happen is a flood of flavour of the week feature requests being implemented and it becoming a jack of all all trades, master of none. Also all added functions much seamlesly add value to the existing functions and not break or clutter them.
It’s not as easy as I want his, that and the other, otherwise Cubase sucks!
well thats a clear and reasonable explanation…“Q: why dont you give us a bugs and fix list? A: Because we never have and because we said so.”
Your customers are demanding a bugs and fix list for a new version. Are you listening to your customers?
It’s that threatening tone that really makes your requests shine.
Do me a favor. This is simply a missleading interpretation of Fabio’s answer. If you can’t quote a specific statement from our side, avoid doing such assumptions. This isn’t nice, and hereby violates the 3rd rule of the Forum’s terms of use.
If we determine we necessarily have to publish a version history for Release Versions in the future, we will gladly do so.
This. You can’t, on the one hand, say stability and performance improvements were a priority while, on the other, minimizing paying customers’ inquiries into what these actually were. Sorry, but that leaves a bad taste in one’s mouth.
Dear Fabio and Filipe,
Please provide a clear and reasonable explanation for the average consumer as to why you do not provide a bugs and fix list for major releases. So far the only explanation is that “Unfortunately there is not…” It would be much appreciated.
Many thanks and kindest regards,
Blackout
But some things have not improved in so many years such as the midi effects, the macro editor, and the metronome. Those parts need an overhaul.
The plugs are good. But there are some really basic things that need to be in Cubase and aren’t. Like group warp edit (not tempo warping - simple group editing functions)
My sense is that the people in this forum have a lot of third party plugins but we are a minority.
I asked nicely, no response? That is not very polite…
Look, I can quote myself too!
Put away the knife and relax, man. The truth is that you’re not entitled to whatever you’re expecting here.
Nonsense, stock plugings are generally very good, I use external plugs where I need a certain colour or the workflow improvements are huge. Other than that I use the stockers alot. StereoEnhancer is brilliant, as is Quadrafuzz, the gates and expanders are good, the transient shaper is very effective. The reverbs are pretty good (these days!), there’s nothing wrong with the channel-strip EQ if you just want a transparent tweak or lo/hipass - I have an enormous number of third party plugins but still turn to the stock ones where I need a particular job done with minimal CPU overhead.
First I want to state that I´m happy with Cubase 9 but I´m little confused by the way Steinberg are “defending” this update. Many users argue that there is not enough new features that it qualifies as a major release but should have been a .x release to v8.
The message from Steinberg is this and it is repeated several times on the forum:
“I do see the point of having new features, especially for a major version, but the problem is that resources are not unlimited. It has been requested by a large part of the users to concentrate on stability, workflow and performance.”
If you break this into pieces “stability, workflow and performance”. My personal opinion is that it is wrong to use stability and performance to sell a software update. A professional application should always be stable and perform well. If it doesn´t it has to be fixed by the vendor without cost because if it underferforms or crashes it does not qualify as a professional application. You can sell a program to new customers by advertising that it is stable and performs well but not ask existing customers to pay to get it there.
Workflow enhancements and new features etc etc qualify but not stability and performance.
To defend the fact that there is fewer new major features than usual in v9 by saying that the resources are not unlimited and that a large part of the users base had asked Steinberg to concentrate on Stability and Performance is strange.
To pay for stability and performance fixes is wrong, as long as there is not implemented any major features that makes a difference and v9 does not have that.
I think that the Cubase user base is actually little fed up after the latest v7 and v8 releases because they had a lot of issues when released. I also believe that when the users requested stability and performance, it was not as features for version 9 but a request to fix it for the current version before releasing a new major version with alot of new features.
Well, that became a long post. Not trying to speak for every Cubase user on the planet, just my personal observation.
Such a great point!
You pay for the continued development of the software. If that’s right or wrong, you as the customer decide by buying into this model or not.