While I’m sure that the responses will vary, I can expect that your feedback will be along the lines of the following.

Blender users prefer it over other (commercial) products because:

• It’s free.
• It offers a perpetual use license.
• Massive feature set and ergonomic new UX are largely guided by community input.
• A small footprint and meager system requirements make it idea for a wide range of hardware.
• More so than ADSK products, Blender can replace more apps at once, shortening the pipeline significantly.

Blender users are largely:

• Freelancers
• Hobbyists or students
• Work in start-ups or small studios**

** This is largely due to the fact that ADSK is entrenched and the de facto standard in most major industries. Big studios prefer ADSK products because of their long established pipelines, a talent pool that continues to be educated in the ADSK way, and a climate that discourages change and non-conformity, which can be costly. End users flock to ADSK products not because of price or feature sets, but because they want to be employable. (ie. Learn Maya/3dsmax or face starvation.) IOW, studios stick with ADSK products because there’s a huge talent pool. However, there’s only a huge talent pool because prospective employees know that sticking with ADSK products is the only way they’ll get a paycheck. Only freelancers or new studios looking to buck the system and go their own way go with Blender.

What ADSK products still have over Blender:

• Wider industry support (duh)
• Stronger 3rd party support from top label developers
• Stronger emphasis on team collaboration
• Tight control over FBX, the support of which is typically spotty in non-ADSK 3D apps.

(NOTE: Every app has its strengths and weakness. I won’t argue on a point by point basis why Maya is super cool in some areas or why Blender is superior in others. This is just broad stroke stuff.)

Why users still see Maya LT as an option over Blender:

• In order to get core competency in the industry standard. That said, they’d still have to go 3rd party just to render out their creations for portfolios and reels.

Why users might never see Maya LT as a viable option versus Blender:

• Maya costs $250/yr. Blender costs $0 and is a perpetual license.

• Maya is crippleware given that most of its features are missing. Blender is as full featured as any commercial app.

• ADSK sees its Maya LT user base as mostly indie game developers who are happy to accept strict limitations (eg. export). Blender Foundation sees its user base as anybody looking for pro level power.

• ADSK products, LT included, only service the first world nations; A one year license to Maya LT might as well be a month’s salary (or more). More over, these people live in countries where internet is spotty… at best. The talent is there, but the money and connectivity aren’t. I’ve seen this complaint on Facebook a lot. Money-wise, they might as well be living in the great depression. Tech-wise, they’re largely still stuck in the mid-1990s. It might take some effort for them to actually get Blender, but once they do have it… Blender democratizes CG. (ADSK, afaik, had a somewhat different relationship with its user base during the global recession.)

Why users might never see Maya (proper/full) as a viable option versus Blender:

• Sad to say and hear, but MANY users feel that ADSK isn’t as loyal to its them as they are to ADSK. Just ask Softimage XSI users. Barely 5 years after it got acquired and rebranded, ADSK announced that they’d be discontinuing it. Such users aren’t fans of “buy and bury” tactics.

• Given that Blender users need only invest time, there’s a much higher ROI. Financially, there’s also far less risk in using Blender. When you’re not paying anything, there’s no expectation of grand scale development or huge updates. Conversely, ADSK subscribers take a lot on faith. Such users simply have to hope that Maya or 3dsmax development doesn’t languish and that ADSK will always bring their A game. If it does and they don’t… too bad. Barring a situation where the apps cease to function reliably, these users will continue to subscribe anyway. They still need to do business. ADSK users pay and hope that each new version will be a Ferrari, but know full well that they might end up being stuck driving around in a 30 year old Chevy Nova. Blender always feels like found money whereas subscription software feels like an endless bill. Blender can see its development slow to a crawl and users will still be happy. If Maya only got updated every 3 years, that’s almost $5k with very little return - apart from the initial version. Again, for a studio, that’s not a huge deal. They tweak these apps in-house like software hot rods. For the freelancer or small studio, that $5k (3 year) investment is more risky when there’s no promise of it remaining competitive.

• Some people just hate big business. Period. They may aspire to be “the man”, but ironically don’t want to pay into the system. More for less.

• Some people see subscription as a bit of an insult. First, they take away our big boxes filled with CD/DVD sets and even bigger printed manuals. Then, they cease production of physical editions - asking users to download and then activate online when they only needed a DVD and a single serial number before. Then, you’re being told that even the illusion of ownership is gone. Perpetual licenses are dead and you have to pay in perpetuity. No more hanging onto that beloved version for 5 years. Pay to play or go away. Casual user? We don’t care about you. Cash strapped user who saved for 2 years just to buy into the system? We don’t want you since you can’t pay more regularly. Over the course of their career/life, end users pay for a whole lot, but ultimately own nothing. Imagine going from buying a toaster to put in your kitchen and keep for years to a subscription toast service. Want that slice of buttery bread? That’ll be $1 please. Want wheat instead? Maybe next year, if we feel like it. Decide to put jam instead? Let’s revoke your right to eat toast. I’ve got a waffle maker that I don’t think I’ve ever used. I bought it. I own it. It’s mine. I just never use it. That’s my choice though. I don’t continue to pay for it whether I’m in a waffle mood or not. Software is a tool. Users should be afforded more rights. I don’t know about anybody else, but I have never had to rent my screwdrivers or hammers.

By and large, to me, the only real reasons to continue supporting ADSK products are issues of employability and brand recognition. Want that job? Maya. Want to be respected as an artist? Maya. Blender users have to make their own way and ignore ridicule from the so-called “pro” community. (Never mind the fact that many Blender users ARE pros.)

What I wanna know is why Autodesk is interested in Blender in the first place…??! You guys aren’t planning something nefarious, like say, buying them and then killing them, are you…?

That’s fortunately impossible because of the GPL And with Bforartists around this wouldn’t help anyways

Two things. Money and stability. Blender is free. And it does not crash every ten minutes. And when there is a bug, then the developers does a fantastic job to fix it as fast as possible.

When Autodesk would have a business model like Unity, with a free version for non commercial and hobbyists work, then Blender would most probably be in trouble again. Unity usership exploded when they introduced a free version. But yeah, it was also the right time for it, and the software was great …

Final rant. I promise.

Again, to me, I think that Allegorithmic struck the right sort of balance with their business model. They’re using a tiered structure that is largely based on revenue. On each level, the same exact software product is offered. However, different ancillary options become available or cease to exist. Here’s Allegorithmic’s structure in a nutshell.

TRIAL

• Try it out for 30 days and you’re done.

EDU

• 12 month renewable license
• Non-commercial use

INDIE

• Revenue under $100k
• SUBSCRIPTION OPTION: $20/month or $240/year for the suite
• PERPETUAL OPTION: $150 per app.
  – 12 months of updates.
  – Version frozen at the end of the 12 months.
  – Update period can be extended for an additional 12 months as necessary

PRO

• Revenue $100k-$100M
• SUBSCRIPTION OPTION: $100/month or $1k/year
• PERPETUAL OPTION: $1k per app.
  – 12 months of updates.
  – Version frozen at the end of the 12 months.
  – Update period can be extended for an additional 12 months as necessary.
  – Additional support options during the 12 months.
  – ADD-ON OPTION: Perpetual access to a material library for $7,500.

ENTERPRISE

• Revenue over $100M
• Info by inquiry only
• Options available for custom content, training, or priority support.

In all of the commercial models, they provide options for either subscription or perpetual licenses. In the case of the perpetual license, they also allow end users to control their own activation via license files. That eliminates SO much potential hassle for the support team.

Here’s why, imo, the Allegorithmic method works.

1. Every user gets access to the same core program. That puts all users on the same even ground. More than that, it minimizes the work necessary on Allegorithmic’s side. No need to create a separate version for each license type. That, in turn, creates less work for the developers and the support staff.
2. When users ARE asked to pay more, they get more. That “more” comes in the form of extended support options and side content. If none of that is used, you’re still being asked to pay more relative to how much money you earn.
3. The subscription option provides Allegorithmic with a flow of cash. It provides users with steady updates and fixes.
4. The perpetual model provides Allegorithmic with a one off bulk payment. It provides users with something to keep after the 12 months. Without further updates, that version might grow antiquated or unfixed, but it’s still the end user’s to keep. Like the “old days” of yore
5. Enterprise users with the most cash to burn, let’s talk. We’ll charge you through the nose, but you can afford to pay for that extra attention and special care.

In effect, Allegorithmic’s tiered model looks to even the playing field for all artists regardless of how much or how little money they make.

GOING FORWARD… As any Adobe user can tell you, the $600 annual subscription price is a bloody steal. There’s just SO much bang for the buck. Back in the day, end users would pay close to $3k for the CS version, but somehow got less. With the addition of Substance products to the mix, the enormity of the bundle’s value will only increase even if they up the annual price by an additional $50. Adobe sells a product that people want at a price they can afford. Bundling? It just makes everything more convenient for all parties involved.

Here is, also imo, where the Autodesk method does NOT work.

1. Selling multiple versions of the same product (eg. Maya & Maya LT) is a hassle for the developers and the support team. One need only look at The Foundry’s MODO and MODO Indie to see what I mean. It’s a nightmare, which often leads to the Indie package being one (or two) minor or even major versions behind. MODO Indie users also end up being treated like second class citizens. Even MODO Indie’s dedicated support people sometimes seem out of the loop and ignored. (Go to MODO’s Steam boards to see what I mean.)
2. End users like options. The subscription model doesn’t work for everybody. Some people PREFER perpetual licenses. The idea that you have to support such license holders in perpetuity seems crazy. You don’t have to continue to provide support or hotfixes for perpetual license holders. Just keep their Autodesk Sign-In accessible to them and don’t lock them out after 12 months. Better yet. Give them a license key to allow them to activate offline. This way, once they pay and their support period ends, you can forget about them. Perpetual users sometimes like it this way. They’ll happily sacrifice future updates in favor of convenience and affordability. NOT providing a perpetual option might be great for ADSK, but not for the widest swath of consumers.
3. AFAIK, there just aren’t any or enough bundling options on ADSK’s part to justify the extra expense. Adobe is a different company. I know. However, I kinda like how they bundle and price their products.
4. ADSK says that the LT versions are user targeted, or some such marketing double talk. In fact, they are the worst sort of crippleware. They’re the sort that provides you with just enough functionality to get some work done, but not nearly enough to get it done all in one app. It is, in effect, creative “edging.” LT users sometimes have to jump through massive hoops. (Way worse things to compare it to than “edging”, fyi. Avoid Twitter if you don’t want to hear the other analogies. :p)
5. I don’t think that ADSK really understands their market, rather its range and depth. Yeah. Sure. They totally understand how to make money off of studios. How to treat indies, freelancers, hobbyists, or other sub-$100k users? Not really. Such users might not deserve the same level of advanced support, but they at least deserve the same level of respect. More than that, high pricing and insultingly limited LT versions place a greater value on money than the future of the the industry. Creating tools that only pros can afford ensures that there will be no pros in the future. It’s a “gotta have money to make money” or “gotta have experience to get experience” situation. Chicken V. Egg. Eliminate one and the loop breaks.
6. The final way in which the ADSK method doesn’t work: EDU. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. It’s abused to an obscene extent. The number of legit Maya users here (and elsewhere) is likely outnumbered by the outrageous amount using fraudulently obtained EDU license. It wouldn’t be necessary if the licensing and pricing models made sense and were more fair, a term that is SO subjective tbh.

Looking to Blender for insight is fine. I get it. Some of the ADSK higher ups want to keep their products competitive and push back any potential wave of Blender support. That’s just business. Totally fine. You even want to see how Blender is developing in ways that ADSK can learn from. Perfectly fine too. It makes sense. Totally.

HOWEVER, cribbing off of the next guy’s test answers isn’t necessarily the way. ADSK needs to take its own test, so to speak. They desperately need to address problems that relate more to basic infrastructure and less to program functionality. I can guarantee you with 100% certainty that if Maya or 3dsmax were more accessibly priced and licensed that Blender wouldn’t even be a blip on the radar. Not even a bug on your windshield or a stain on your shirt. Priced and licensed, ADSK would wipe most of its credible competition off of the map. Just look at Adobe. They’ve got competition. Why does nobody care about them? Why is Photoshop practically a verb? Because they provide a superior product at an unbeatable price. Period.

For ADSK’s part, looking at/to Blender is nice. Looking inward is better. I’m an ADSK subscriber, fwiw. I’m also a Blender user. To varying degrees, I understand the strengths and shortcomings of both. I know what I want from both. I also know what I DON’T want.

IMO, ADSK can learn much more from Allegorithmic and Adobe than Blender. ADSK needs to steal business strategies more than they do program features. (Not that Maya wouldn’t benefit from a Blender feature or two.)

RE: Blender’s community. They’re only as passionate as they are because they don’t feel ignored. They feel engaged, respected, and valued. The community itself also comes together regularly via various online challenges, a concept that has been sorely missed since the global recession from last decade. Also, it’s way easier for to be passionate when you’re not working an 80hr week.

I think, at this very moment, Blender users are more fired up than ever for a much more basic reason. They see v2.80 on the horizon and, with it, a new level of maturity. Blender’s UX has reached a point of parity with its feature set. Users feel empowered because the UI is now less of a barrier between product and inspiration. They see works such as the following13 as a sort of validation, proof that Blender isn’t a one trick open source pony.

C4D users were one as passionate, especially in the early days of R8 and R9. Changes were big. Enthusiasm was bigger. Development slows down. Fun gives way to work. Passion and enthusiasm turn inward and, somewhat negatively, as the devs get put under the microscope. It’s a cycle that Blender users from the v2.5x overhaul period are all too familiar with. This is just the honeymoon phase of Blender 2.80. It’ll wear off.