Autodesk aims to make tools more affordable and accessible

We speak to the toolmaker about targeting mobile, and tackling the challenge of platform fragmentation

Creating games requires an array of software tools for generating and processing code, artwork, music and everything else that goes into a complete product. While many tools can be found for free, typically game creators have used a variety of commercial software to create games. One of the leaders in such software has been Autodesk.

Autodesk has been providing modeling and animation tools, and more recently UI and middleware tools that have powered the top console games from the big publishers. Products like 3DStudio Max, and SoftImage have been mainstays in the production departments of major publishers. These tools aren't cheap, though; seat licenses run in the thousands of dollars, which has put Autodesk tools beyond the reach of most independent studios and individuals.

That is changing, though, as Autodesk moves to address the fast-growing mobile, web and online game markets. GamesIndustry International recently spoke with Mark Strassman, vice president of Industry Strategy and Marketing for Autodesk's Media and Entertainment industries, and Gregory Castle, senior product marketing manager for gaming, about how Autodesk is adapting to a quickly evolving market.

"There's been a huge democratization of storytelling capabilities," said Strassman. "Mobile devices are everywhere, and most of them have more power than many consoles. Even before we specifically targeted web, mobile and social games markets, we've seen a huge increase in interest in our tools such as 3DS Max and Maya to do modeling, make characters and animate those characters. Trial of those products has been going through the roof, and interest in buying them in a much more accessible way."

"There's been a huge democratization of storytelling capabilities"

Mark Strassman

Strassman points to the fact that mobile developers have a very different budget. "A lot of them are doing this development at home, at night or on the weekends, in small companies, so they've asked for more flexible ways to pay," he noted. "We've actually released a pilot of a 90-day production version of Max and Maya, just a few months ago that we've seen great uptake on mainly for web and mobile games."

Spending thousands of dollars for software doesn't make much sense to small developers trying to build a mobile product that likely will be given away for free. "Especially for experimentation," said Strassman. "A lot of people want to experiment and play, and they may or may not be creating a business. Some people are looking to create experiences, whether it's for marketing or visualizing or education. We're looking at it a very different way than we used to; the market is exploding for creating web, mobile and social games, and to date we've participated mainly on the high end, and we know we need to transform there as well."

Castle brought up the example of Scaleform. "With Scaleform we had a 2D renderer that was used for UI in AAA games, that enabled you to do overlays of HUDs and menus," he said. Autodesk discovered one AAA developer who broke off and then started doing his own mobile games. "He was used to using Scaleform as a 2D renderer, knew that our SDK was cross-platform, and actually started using it as a sole 2D engine for making mobile games," Castle said. "It was completely unintentional. We started to work with this one customer, and other customers started to request it. The price for AAA developers to use it as UI tool was quite high, so we released a version which is $295 per seat per platform to be able to deploy mobile games. We've had over 5,000 people download and trial it, we have over 500 licensees now for the product."


"When we released the Scaleform Mobile SDK we also created an in-house game, Starforce Battlement," said Castle. "It shows off what's possible using the mobile SDK. When you purchase the mobile SDK you also get the game and the source code. It's all part of changing just slightly how we position our products and make things more accessible."

Sometimes you need to lead the marketplace, and sometimes you need to follow the marketplace and be there for the customers with what they need. "I think this trend is not something by any means I could say that Autodesk has led," Castle acknowledged. "There are loads of factors that have contributed to this. We are being reactive in some ways, but we are looking ahead at what's going on with Android-based consoles, with next gen consoles. Our product is a high-priced product, there's no two ways about that, when compared with other 3D packages in the market for mobile developers. What you're seeing now with devices constantly improving their graphic capability, customers more and more want the high-end tools because the graphical fidelity they're getting on these high-end devices is getting to a point where you're surpassing console quality. You want to have models that really look the part, that really look great. So we're starting to see more and more adoption of our tools for mobile products."

"A lot of people are using the 30-day trial to do their production work, and we realized there was a great opportunity to extend that," said Strassman. "In addition to the 90-day production version that we launched, we're looking at a lot of other similar term models to be more like what are customers are expecting."

There's been a lot of concern expressed among developers about the increasing costs of development for next-gen consoles, given the increased resolutions and greater numbers of polygons and better rendering. "I remember last GDC Epic showed off their Elemental demo to show what Unreal Engine 4 could do," Castle said. "It was a phenomenal demo that completely knocked your socks off with what the engine could do with light and effects. It was probably a 45 second clip. What they failed to mention in any of the demos, and what only came out a couple of weeks later, was that it took a team of 16 four months to make that demo. There is no doubt with this next generation of consoles we're going to see that divergence continue, and that chasm grow between AAA and large studios and mobile developers with smaller, more nimble teams."

"When it comes to our plans for the future and what we're working on right now, there's seldom a meeting that takes place where workflow isn't one of the top topics we discuss, and how to make workflow easier and how to increase efficiency," Castle continued. "That's one topic that's in nearly every meeting we have; and the other topic is democratization and how we make our products more accessible."

"Console games are getting deeper, challenges are mounting and costs are rising," said Strassman. "One of the issues is how can we help our customers with their pipeline and solve their problems? And then how can we take what we're doing there and make it affordable and make it approachable by a much broader base?"

"Console games are getting deeper, challenges are mounting and costs are rising"

Mark Strassman

"As there's increased fragmentation and complexity in game development, middleware is something we've seen grow in importance," said Castle. "Two years ago we made an acquisition of a company called Scaleform, which I was a part of. That's probably our most popular tool, and it takes all of the hassle out of creating UI for games. UI is one of those things that when you look at it doesn't seem like it will be a time-consuming part of development, but in actuality it is. Many game developers have three, four or even five people who during the entire development cycle are just working on UI. We have other tools as well, like our lighting tool, an AI tool, and each one of those pieces, when you add it all up it actually turns out to be a significant part of your development budget."

Are developer fears over the cost of next-gen development justified? "I don't know. If you're a PC gamer you're pretty much playing on next-gen hardware as it is," said Castle. "If they're designing for the PC, game developers are already essentially designing on next-gen capabilities. I think it's a bit exaggerated." Strassman points out that "At the same time the console platforms are evolving, so are the development platforms. You can develop on faster computers, you can render faster, you have things like middleware so you don't have to re-solve problems again and again. It's not a problem that we hear from our developers that it's getting more and more complicated."


"I think the biggest differentiating point going forward is fragmentation," said Castle. "I think it's good for a company like Autodesk to be frank because we are the tools provider; it becomes our problem to ensure our products are working cross-platform. Customers will rely more and more on toolsets like us to take care of that cross-platform implementation rather than doing it on their own."

"Where I am seeing more pressure from AAA developers of console games is they're seeing more and more competition from web, mobile, and social," said Strassman. "Over the past couple of quarters you've seen their revenues decline even with new platforms coming out, and they want to differentiate as much as they can from the web and mobile gamer. I think that differentiation is actually really important to them. Whereas they might not have taken advantage of all of a given console's features, I think now they're looking to create a better and deeper experience than you get on a tablet or a phone. I think that's pushing them further as well. They have to keep up with these things."

"We certainly want to serve the high-end customers, but we want to bring that power to the masses as well"

Mark Strassman

"More and more we're seeing different needs from the high end developers and the web and mobile developers, both in terms of features and how they want to purchase products and services from us," said Strassman. "In terms of licensing options, maybe even in terms of feature sets in the future, we'll be serving the two markets differently."

Autodesk now has a range of consumer products as well as its professional products. "We started our consumer business with the thought that everyone out there is creative," said Strassman. "Everyone wants to build and create things. On the physical side of things, you have this whole Maker movement, where you can print things in 3D. I think we'll be seeing a similar movement in the gaming space. I think there will be, and there is, an emerging market for not just playing games but for making games. Individuals can not just make a game from scratch, but start with some content and they're not creating a AAA experience, but to create a compelling game and to tell a gamified story. It's certainly something we're interested in, how we can allow people at all levels to be creative."

What should we be expecting from Autodesk in the next year or two? "We're continuing to focus on an integrated set of tools, with even tighter integration," said Strassman. "Pricing flexibility we think is really important; we came out with this 90-day production version where you don't have to buy a full license, you can buy 90 days at a time. I think you'll see continued flexibility on meeting different users' expectations and willingness to pay. Reaching out to broader platforms, and enable users on the low end of the market to create interactive gamified experiences in a new way. There's a lot going on and it's an exciting time in our market."

"There are some parts which we are reactive to, but it's quite obvious there's a fundamental change that's going on with the market, and we are now staying ahead of the curve," Castle noted. "We're testing on Android-based consoles to make sure all of our products work; whether or not it's Ouya or GameStick, we see that as a really interesting trend. Developers are going to be able to rely on us for compatibility with all of these new different platforms."

Strassman feels that the future is a much broader market than just the established console game makers. "It's not just high-end trained professionals that are going to create entertainment experiences; everyone's going to do it," said Strassman. "At different levels of the market there's going to be different needs, different functionality, and different pricing. We certainly want to serve the high-end customers, but we want to bring that power to the masses as well."

Related stories

Autodesk to cut 1,150 jobs amid restructuring

Software and 3D tools firm is shifting towards a subscription model

By Christopher Dring

Autodesk acquires Solid Angle

"Will allow us to help customers better tackle this computationally intensive part of the creative process"

By Rachel Weber

Latest comments (12)

Jamie Read 3D Artist, Neon Play Ltd6 years ago
Can only be a good thing.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Yiannis Koumoutzelis Founder & Creative Director, Neriad Games6 years ago
For a long time i have been of the opinion that autodesk should provide the tools in some sort of indie licensing scheme. i.e monthly subscription. they have made the first steps in the americas, now they need to do the same in EU as well. Adobe has with the cloud. very smart and helpful move!

It is great that autodesk is listening, i know this first hand and very well! they do indeed! but it is a big and slow company. needs to become more flexible and a lot more responsive! having a 3-4 years delay from industry action to autodesk reaction is not helping them!

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Yiannis Koumoutzelis on 27th February 2013 2:51am

0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Paul Johnson Managing Director / Lead code monkey, Rubicon Development6 years ago
There's a gaping gap in the sales model. The only reason game studios settle on 3DS Max is because programmers can write exporters to get the data out.

So stop charging developers a full price license just so they can dip in for about 2 weeks, not making any "production" art with it, but instead extending the functionality of the product so the rest of the industry can use it.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Show all comments (12)
Peter Dwyer Games Designer/Developer 6 years ago

Hu? Surely charging developers less because they MAY create an exporter is nonsense. Either the price is reduced for all or none. After all it's not the software houses or the other buyers concern what YOU choose to use the software for. Yet you expect to get some special treatment if you may use it for something your company needs you to use it for like writing an exporter to your custom/off the shelf game engine.
1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Andrew Animator 6 years ago
There's a gaping gap in the sales model. The only reason game studios settle on 3DS Max is because programmers can write exporters to get the data out.
You only have to look at Epic to see how far you can take max or maya in the production process. max and Maya are far more than glorified exporters and can be heavily integrated into a game development pipeline. It really depends how much you want to invest into your tool chain.

Art production can/should involve a whole lot more than just "exporting". The pipline you suggest doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Andrew on 27th February 2013 12:46pm

0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Angus Syme Senior Artist, Lionhead Studios6 years ago
Autodesk has some great products (I've used and loved 3dsmax for years) but they're also expensive for much of what the games industry needs, VERY expensive for what start ups working on IoS stuff are using them for and increasingly being matched by free programs such as Blender.

A major complaint I also have about them as products is at times they feel deliberately hobbled. 3dsmax added a paint package for example (yay) which was actually great for low poly texturing. Problem was they didn't finish it off. No links to Photoshop, no projection painting, very specific ways of applying alphas etc. Why? The rep I spoke to pointed me helpfully to Mudbox as part of a 'suite' package costing thousands.

Er.... no. Having left my last company for a smaller one I'm going to choose the cheaper options especially when even Industry Standards like Zbrush are STILL giving me free updates years after I bought the initial product.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Sergio Rosa6 years ago
As a Maya user I wonder if a solution could be to go back to that time when we had two different versions: the basic ona and the unlimited version that included all the bells and whistles. I don't know how many may find Hair, Cloth, matchmoving or muscle deformations a "crucial" part of game development (I can't even remember when was the last time I even used Mentalray). How about a cheaper "game developer" version of Maya that allows users to model, shade, skin and animate? Or maybe a similar approach to that from Maxon: buy the base package and then buy the modules you need.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Andrew Animator 6 years ago

You raise a good point there. I guess it's a tricky problem for them to manage when all three main packages are designed to do the same thing. By improving any one packages deficiences they risk canabalising the sales of the others. Autodesk does offer a Maya, Mudbox and Motiobuilder bundle which to me seems like a very well rounded toolset, all be it an expensive one.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
why not simply lower the price significantly, but make the software one year licensing. That way you get clients , not customers. You greatly remove that initial pricepoint wall you have created , you instead with lower prices invite and get the entire industry hooked on your software, I really dont understand why they dont do this. Why have a handful of people paying 3k every 5 years for a program, when you could have tons and tons of people happily paying a few hundred dollars EVERY year.
1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Yiannis Koumoutzelis Founder & Creative Director, Neriad Games6 years ago
@Paul, what you say really makes no sense. if you only need an exporter, make an exporter for the 3d tool you use. That sounds like a weird pipeline you got there.

@Angus, Viewport Canvas is not where it should be, but it does offer some amazing features.(Projection Painting is there and you do work and save your texture to PSD and can have both open simultaneously) Here's what i made while testing Viewport Canvas.

However i do agree with you they should make a special indie license. and they have in USA and Canada. 3month indie license. more than enough for an iOS project. (that is if you have some sort of organized art production) The suite is really an amazing package! Mudbox and MoBu are really great tools! (and it only costs 1-2K more for the whole pack which is an awesome deal, does it help indies budgetwise? yes and no.)

@Sergio, this has been discussed with maya/max product managers many times as it has been requested many times. it seems that they also have issues with production budgets. and it costs more for them to test and support multiple versions than one that fits all. on the other hand, the price of 3dsmax has remained stable for over a decade! and maya price came down while it has added so many 3dsmax features! so i think i understand their point of view when it comes to pricing. However the market has changed and with so many vfx studios closing they have to overcome this challenge.

They have done many things to reach the users more. one of these is a direct feedback initiative that actually works!
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Emily Knox Associate Designer, CCP Games6 years ago
When I worked in a smaller studio we opted for Modo over Max purely because of the price tag (I was pleasantly surprised with Modo once I'd adjusted to using it), the only reason I returned to Max after graduating was because Autodesk made their software free to download for students/graduates - I can't begin to explain how fantastic that is when you finish university, have no job, no money, and need to continue working on your portfolio.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Paul Johnson Managing Director / Lead code monkey, Rubicon Development6 years ago
Given that it appears no artists can see this, I try a different angle.

If exporters could not be written, you would be using blender. No, really.

Asking programmers to pay x thousands just to ensure that their artist friends can purchase this product, whilst not being able to use it for its intended purpose themselves, is just stupid. I can't put it clearer than that.

Without that vital link in the chain, Aurodesk would get zero sales from the entire game development community. And I really do mean zero. That should be worth something, especially given that (almost all) programmers don't even want it for themselves.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Paul Johnson on 28th February 2013 11:41pm

0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply

Sign in to contribute

Need an account? Register now.