Received: from e55.webcom.com (e55.webcom.com [206.2.192.66]) by keeper.albany.net (8.7.5/8.7.5-MZ) with ESMTP id XAA03326 for <DWARNER@ALBANY.NET>; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 23:12:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost by e55.webcom.com with SMTP
(1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA290722707; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 20:11:47 -0700
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 20:11:47 -0700
Errors-To: dwarner@ALBANY.NET
Message-Id: <317AF856.47AC@ix.netcom.com>
Errors-To: dwarner@ALBANY.NET
Reply-To: lightwave@garcia.com
Originator: lightwave@garcia.com
Sender: lightwave@garcia.com
Precedence: bulk
From: Elliot Bain <ebain@ix.netcom.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lightwave@garcia.com>
Subject: Re: LW 3DSM plug-un, why?
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status: A
DavHibsher@aol.com wrote:
>
> On Sun, 21 Apr Elliot Bain <ebain@ix.netcom.com> posits:
>
> > [A LightWave plug-in for 3DS Max is n]ot as bonehead as you might initially
> think.
> >
> > Apart from the features/useability flames, the one thing
> > that most people agree on, is that LW rendered output is
> > better than that of 3DS and it's Max counterpart.
>
> But then why not just write a specific render module for 3DSM? We could do
> this. We could also produce tires and compete with Goodyear. Buy why? We are
> not in the business of writing plug-ins for OTHER companies 3D programs.
> Other people can (will? have?) do this for 3DSM users (and probably should).
> ((<--oops, please disregard that flamable comment!))
>
> > Another area of consensus, is that rarely do users of
> > either program switch to the other.
>
> I have talked with many people who have switched to LightWave from 3DS.
> Recently, someone posted here that the gaming house they work for was
> abandoning 3DS in favor of LW and said that several (some? many?) other
> houses were following suit. Also, there are many people who use both and like
> certain features of each best. This would almost always be the case in any
> comparison of 3D products. And, for all I know, there are users of AutoDesk
> products who've abandoned LightWave.
How many is many? 20-30? 200-300? 2000-3000? Subtract that number from 70,000 and
decide if selling some of these remaining people a $500 plugin LW renderer wouldn't
generate some cash.
>
> > Newtek has no reasonable expectation of converting more than
> > a small number of these users to LW users anyway. So, if you
> > can't sell them a whole loaf, sell them half a loaf. This
> > would be a hard-headed business decision, not a religious one.
>
> This would be a hard-headed business decision for anyone--NewTek would be no
> different, except for the fact that we sell a competing product. Others could
> (will? have?) write renderers for 3DSM just as others have written renderers
> for LW.
I mean no disrespect, but you and others seem to think that selling a competing
product is enough of a reason not to do it. Where in the marketing manuals does it
say that?<g> What's the downside? There are two downside scenarios I can think of;
development costs can't be recouped or it would actually cause a slowdown in
Lighwave sales. I don't think either would happen.
My opinion doesn't count for much at Newtek, nor should it because it's not my
money invested in the company, but I can't believe any company wouldn't use all its
resources to its advantage, even making a competing product better, while profiting
from it.
>
> (The following marketing hype is not meant to be taken seriously, nor to
> cause flame, or even stick-match wars:)
>
> If AutoDesk wants to keep from going out of business, they should jump on the
> bandwagon and start writing LightWave plug-ins.
>
> (End superfluous marketing hype.)
>
> David Hibsher
> Just speaking for myself
My guess is that if someone started using a LW renderer for 3DS/Max, they might
wonder why they're still using that obtuse shaper/lofter, and switch all the way to
