I’d like to add a short, more consolidated summary here, mainly intended for the Steinberg team who may be reading this thread.
The core point is not a request for a large number of new features. Rather, it’s an observation that many workflow-related pain points raised on the forum are small, highly specific, and user-dependent, yet they repeatedly require official feature requests and long feedback cycles.
Using PLE as an example:
PLE itself is extremely powerful, but once workflows become more complex (chaining presets, switching between multiple logic steps, handling edge cases like multi-target renaming), users quickly hit structural limitations. At that point, the only available options are increasingly cumbersome workarounds, or simply waiting for future versions to address each individual case.
From a user’s perspective, this creates an ironic situation:
Nuendo is chosen specifically for its high level of integration and efficiency, yet advanced users sometimes end up spending significant time building tools or workarounds just to reduce repetitive actions.
This is why several of us feel that a controlled, officially supported form of user-level extensibility could be highly beneficial — not as a replacement for Steinberg’s development efforts, but as a multiplier for them.
If users were able to solve certain edge cases themselves via limited scripting or APIs, many small feature requests would no longer need to compete for core development resources.
In practical terms, this could:
- Reduce long-tail feature request overhead
- Encourage community-driven workflow solutions
- Strengthen Nuendo’s ecosystem, especially in post-production and large-scale pipelines
We fully understand that architectural, stability, and support considerations are critical, and that such decisions are non-trivial. This post is simply meant to articulate why this topic keeps resurfacing among power users, and why it’s seen as a potential long-term win for both users and Steinberg.
Thank you for taking the time to read.