That’s just plain out of left field, and there’s no basis at all for it.
This is not just about me…
Its not about me. I’m happy.
HALion will be VST3 only in the future, And yes, newer versions will be on the new licensing also.
I don’t know if that bricks it for you or not, but that’s where it’s headed.
Good for ya…
Yeah, you’re right. Steinberg should pay everyone like you money…
And YOU chose to upgrade from your systems when they were no longer supported. Thats on YOU not Steinberg. When you buy software, the hardware/software requirements are stated as is. You could have kept everything in the environment it was sold to run in but YOU chose to move ahead and its YOUR fault you lost your ‘thousands of pounds’ in plugins. If you’re losing that much money from upgrading hardware, you’re not doing your job right as you should be covering that fairly easily if you are actually working with paying clients.
You’re right studios dont trash their gear regularly they stick with what’s working. A friend of mine’s dad is still running Mac OS 9.04 with a TDM system because it just works. He’s not whining about all the progress Digidesign has made since 1998, he’s still getting work done with the same system he’s been using. Its a frigging beige 9600 tower, its not even a G3 processor. THATS what big studios do, just like you could have done.
3 Likes
OK, first of all, I don’t appreciate your aggressive tone OK bud?
Secondly I did absolutely nothing wrong with my old computer.
I stated very clearly the horrific situation I was left with, when every company I was depended on for my PC to run, betrayed their paying costumers by not giving a monkey’s, and refused to maintain downloads of a simple service pack which would cost ZERO dollars to Microsoft (I am referring to Windows 7) and the refusal by ASUS to update the drivers of my motherboard for Windows 10.
By a freak situation, my back ups (all of them) of Windows 7 with the now obsolete service pack failed, and my computer became a jigsaw puzzle which none of the pieces fit anymore.
This led to a catastrophic situation, purely because the two companies I relied on did not give a flying. OK buddy?
Don’t judge without knowing one’s specific circumstances.
There is no choice here. You have to understand and accept this. You cannot stay with Cubase 8 (e.g) forever because the whole industry moves ahead in tandem to milk the consumer.
Unless you keep buying and updating you will find your self out of the loop, very quickly.
Also please do me a favor and don’t assume my financial situation, OK? You don’t know me, you have no idea of any issues or difficulty I might be going through, so please stay out of suggestions like these.
Good for your friend’s dad. I am writing music for films, not recording bands.
The latest libraries won’t work without the latest Kontakt player for instance and VST Connect won’t work without windows 10 and so on and so forth and here we go , getting milked forever and ever.
I don’t mind upgrades, however there are questionable morals (if any) from companies which choose to force people to trash their old hardware and software.
If you want to normalize this, by all means, but whatever the argument, I can’t agree to this,
Sorry.
2 Likes
Indeed
Maybe it is time for me to eventually switch DAW software, after I forgot how long. (since SX) on PC, and before that Atari ST. I just don’t see the reason for dropping VST2… “stability” is the reason… well, if the user chooses to use a VST2 plugin as part of their setup, then surely the “stability” hit should be their risk to accept? I don’t understand why having the ability to run VST2 plugins is being snatched away, along with the ability to run a great number of plugins currently available, which will then become inaccessible, unless you use an alternate DAW software solution.
I’d love to get the dev lowdown on why maintaining VST2 compatibility is going to cause such a stability hit moving forward?
1 Like
Despite all the loaded language in the announcement, no-one knew they’d cook this up so quickly like an unwanted new years turd.
Though I would be happy to use any VST 3 version offered, I find the some plugins for some reason have a gui issue on my machine, where opening it will increase the size of the display each time it’s done, like zooming in, until it is off the screen and unusable (Windows 10). Cherry Audio and some others do it. Not the steinberg ones. A small point, but you can see why I might want to keep using the VST2 versions of those affected plugins too. Maybe this will be corrected in v12, or it’s a unique bug on my system. I guess this means all of my jbridged 32bit gems will also be unusable in the next version.
I can’t myself upgrading ever again at this point. There’s an arrogance in the language of the announcement too - ‘the final step in the transition…’.
As if something like abandoning supporting a format used by hundreds of plugin developers, operational or out of business, many with no alternative vst3 versions were somehow ‘inevitable’ in the time-frame they themselves have set. They do it all the time, throw a bomb out there nice and early, then see how much of a stink it causes, in case the customer decides it’s really a step too far, too soon. Then perhaps walk it back a bit. Not a nice wayto do things.
Many smaller developers are still supporting even older OS’s on Windows, some even 32bit, as they have faithful users of older tech who support them. Why is Steinberg any different?
Despite some Steinberg flag waving I’ve seen in the comments - some seemingly itching to throw away anything that has worked well because it has a smaller version number, and because the Yamaha/Steinberg corporation has decided to trim down operations due to changing it’s software licensing method, there’s possibly going to be more of a backlash about this. Probably.
They need to spend more time on other stuff like licensing as they also work on (perhaps) a rebuilt cubase 12 engine or framework?
Ok - but a new form of licence will not help me find good sounds from vst 2 plugins, of which I have many and use all the time in my music. I pay money to this company every year for upgrading this software, it’s not freeware like many fantastic VST2 plugins and synths are.
Their staff are well paid for their labour (you would hope) – and still Steinberg make a profit from selling their wares at a high price. Of course… capitalism.
Not so much fun for the one paying them for a tool they have learned over decades and can rely on to create work which they mostly give away to the world freely.
1 Like
The transition to VST3 has been more than 10 years in the making. Even I noticed that, and I’m not the most tech-savvy guy in the world. Change didn’t start with Steinberg’s recent announcement. Nevertheless, there are people looking for hills to die on and, apparently, VST3 is one of those hills.
Stick with your VST2 tech if you want; nobody’s forcing you to change. Or get off the computer and move to hardware. But VST2 is being phased out, like it or not.
3 Likes
Like it or not = yes it’s ‘inevitable’ isn’t it?
Make the hills too pointy, and at some point you too will stub your toe on it.
Perhaps steinberg have enough money to keep paying you, too. Probably not… that’s just silly.
But ooh we must move forward! We are so backward in our music tech, aren’t we?
How old is that tech, anyway? The code is too old, etc.
What is your linear progression, and where do you think it will end up?
What works best to me is what sounds right or is exciting, and also what is easiest to use.
There are many things - some effects but mainly Vsti’s - in vst2 only that make certain noises I want to hear which are just not available in vst3.
If I’m going to keep paying this company for the access to these wonderful VST2 effects and vst instruments, I will make my point about about where they might be going wrong, at this point in time.
1 Like
I think the idea was that by keeping VST2 it’s more work to keep the DAW stable and smooth running or whatever, and so it’s not only about someone who chooses to use a VST2 plugin but about those who choose not to who than have a DAW that’s less stable generally.
You know how long VST 2 and 3 have been around right? And now there are 24 months to go it seems before VST2 is gone. I don’t see how that = “so quickly”.
But if you don’t think it’s important for tech to move forward then all you have to do is not upgrade Cubase and you can keep using VST 2. So it seems like no problem.
I need popcorn. …
How is it explained that other DAWs don’t require to do this? Studio One runs slicker than Cubase, is stable, and has Silicon support with VST2. Likewise Reaper manages it with only 2 main developers at the helm, the DAW can transparently bridge x86_64 VST’s within the native ARM build too.
If the platform owners can’t manage this - what conclusion are we to draw from that?
I adore Cubase, but it’s hard seeing how other DAW’s are ramping up features while we sit with decades old MIDI Mapping and antiquated MIDI Inserts (As one example). I can’t believe that’s because VST2 has held them back as they’re saying that MIDI should be dealt with in the DAW and Host OS, not within VST3.
Then, if that was the case, why aren’t the supporting MIDI tools up to standard to carry that weight!?
If what they say is true then it can be a matter of resource management. Obviously not all DAWs are the same, and obviously that has to mean that they’re all coded differently, and that should tell us that we probably can’t assume that just because one DAW runs “slicker” than another the second one “should” do the same.
Studio One is twelve years old.
Cubase is thirty-two years old. Two more decades.
So unless Steinberg ‘cleaned out’ all legacy code (which I suppose is possible) Cubase has to deal with more legacy code to make it all work… which could include things related to VST2.
Well if it’s any consolation MIDI 2.0 is supposedly automatically “integrated” in VST 3. That’s pretty forward thinking, no?
(“integrated” is probably the wrong word, but still)
They are their own worse enemies and regularly called out on it over the years - you’ve only got to trawl these very forums. We routinely see features being added to Cubase over the years where a lot of work goes into release, and then left to ferment.
If you have an ounce of experience in development it’s very clear to see where the bones lay… And it continues till this day, it’s legacy is a ball & chain no doubt.
However, as a competitor - Presonus are very clear in promoting that they operate a clean codebase where possible - Those who left Steinberg no doubt carried this mantra after their past experience. They have developed their own ARA standard, are pushing key switch/articulation standards with library owners, and happily support VST2, VST3 and AU.
All of these things are now coming home to roost, if indeed Steinberg are needing to pull their own formats when other third parties can support them better and more efficiently it’s not a great sign.
It’s “As hoped” for me, they are on the MIDI board responsible for drafting MIDI 2.0 and also control the VST spec - using xml data for transporting parameter data is one of the most vanilla options out there.
There’s very little forward thinking in regards to advantages of the VST3 spec within Cubase other than Note Expression, which very few developers utilise. Then you see how VST Plug-In napping can be set per plug-in on other DAWs… It’s all a little bit confusing about who leads development.
If Steinberg wanted devs to embrace VST3 they should have made the reasons far more compelling within their own DAW’s - but they didn’t.
There’s been no progression in MIDI Inserts, nothing in Generic remote. I mean, imagine allowing the user to map potentially 100’s of parameters of a bankable vstxml - but forgetting to be able to control increment/decrement via the generic remote to go beyond the first 8?!
In fact, imagine calling two different mapping systems “quick controls” within the same DAW. Who even signed that off as a good idea? 
2 Likes
Ok but what’s the alternative then? On the one hand you seem to be saying that it’s questionable that SB is correct when they say that ditching VST2 will help with stability etc. and on the other you acknowledge that the code could be pretty old. Clearly they have to do something.
Rewriting all the old code takes time and resources.
Writing new code for new features = time and resources.
They don’t have infinite time and resources. What’s the best approach?
As for MIDI and VST3 I’m not sure I follow what your point is. At the end you seem to think that allowing for a couple of ways to map things is a bad thing, and so I’m guessing you’re referring to VST3. But it also seems to me that it’s because VST2 is somehow ‘wrapped’ inside of VST3 or something along those lines. From what I understand VST wasn’t really meant to be for MIDI but for audio, so if we want one way of mapping MIDI then it would seem sticking to the future MIDI 2.0 would solve that problem, and if that’s automatically compatible/included in VST3 then VST3 is essentially a solution to that problem.
100% they should be doing this yes, big fan of what VST3 and MIDI 2.0 could bring. And it’s well overdue.
But they should’ve got with companies such as NI etc. and drawn up a plan so that Cubase/Nuendo users had a clear definitive path to VST2 being switched off.
If they were unable to reach that or developers can’t commit to VST3 in discussions, then they’d need to go back and work out why, and perhaps revise the spec to allow for it. But when you see developers reaching out publicly to very arrogant replies - it’s not a good look.
It’s not really all that an outrageous expectation is it?
Your incessant defending of them has just lead me down a completely different path demonstrating how awful their disjointed decisions making has been in this general area of development and comparing to similar DAW’s.
Sadly that’s what happens when people start applying such biases as you have, it derails the subject somewhat.