Hey guys, it's Celestia, and today's video actually isn't the main one that I planned for this week;
that one is still coming on Sunday or Monday, don't worry, and it'll also have this month's
contest updates. This one, however, is just gonna be a quick update or rundown on a situation
that's got artists everywhere thoroughly and rightfully enraged. Which is basically to say that
Clip Studio Paint did something dumb, so you get two videos this week. If you're an artist
and you're somehow unfamiliar with the software, Clip Studio Paint is one of the biggest-- if not
THE biggest-- digital art softwares out there, especially amongst manga artists, and rivals
Photoshop in terms of prevalence in industry use. In fact, debatably, one of the biggest reasons that
it DID rival Photoshop quite so consistently and closely was that unlike all Adobe products, it was
not a subscription-based service. You have to pay $25 a month for Photoshop; with Clip Studio Paint,
up until recently, you just had to make one single $50 purchase-- or $219 purchase for the pro version--
and you would have that software forever, with unlimited and indefinite access to all of the
updates and new features added in the future; which, as of right now, totals over 80 completely
free upgrades that have been made available for the original product. For a lot of artists, that
was a no-brainer; you get this incredible software that professional artists everywhere swear by, and
instead of paying $300 a year for something like Photoshop, you can either pay $50 or $219 dollars now
and never worry about it again. For this reason, a large portion of the art community considered
Celys, the makers of Clip Studio Paint, to be one of the good guys; a company that had artists' backs
and actually cared to make a good product that people could both afford and rely on. As of August
22nd, 2022, that changed pretty aggressively. Because, see, while in April of 2022, Clip Studio Paint DID
start offering monthly usage subscription plans for its software as an alternative to a one-time
purchase, they have now announced that they will, for all intents and purposes, be making that
subscription plan mandatory. The exact nature of their method for making it mandatory is a little
more complex than one might think, though, which is, in and of itself, something they're facing scrutiny
for. Their new payment system literally needs a flow chart to be able to explain itself, and
while that's not necessarily unheard of in terms of monthly subscriptions for software, some are
arguing that if you need a flowchart for people to understand where their money is going and why,
compared to your previous system, it's probably too unnecessarily complicated. I personally find their
inclusion of this chart informative and helpful, and I feel like it's a necessary evil for any kind
of monthly payment plan, but the bigger problem is that they're forcing people into a monthly payment
plan at all. Now, to be clear, there IS still a one-time purchase option; it's just that the nature
of it has very shadily changed. That's because this update comes alongside the announcement that in
the first half of 2023, Celsys will be releasing a 2.0 version of Clip Studio Paint, presumably with
brand new features and additions, although they have confirmed that there are currently no planned
changes to the existing features or UI. And while that's exciting, it also means that as soon as 2022
is over, they will no longer be providing updates for version one-- the one that artists everywhere
are currently using and relying on. Basically, they said: "We'll update this forever", when they sold it
to people, and now they're saying: "We'll update it for a few more months". They have, nonetheless,
confirmed that current owners of version 1 software will be able to continue to use it
without any need for a monthly payment, but they've also stipulated that you will be able to use it
forever PROVIDED it works on your device. Which is, effectively, to say that because they're no longer
updating it but the operating systems running it will continue to update, there will eventually come
a point where the operating systems can no longer run it without being updated to match
their requirements, and this software that was once touted as yours forever and future-proof will be
rendered thoroughly obsolete, and we really have no way of even knowing when. Their Q&A elaborates
further on this by saying that: "the perpetual version, version 1, will continue to receive bug
fixes and stability updates", presumably to help prevent that eventual obsoletion for as long as
possible, but it still clarifies that: "You are free to use version 1 as long as you like, provided your
device and OS can run it". Basically: "We'll keep providing bug fixes, but here's an out for us
in case those bug fixes and stability updates aren't enough to keep our software functional
on your ever-updating OS". They also mentioned that they plan to release a version 3 in the
future, after the release of version 2 in 2023, and once that version is out, version 1 will no longer
even receive stability updates. But that's only part of the problem; the other part is that if you
want version 2 at all, there are stipulations. As I mentioned, to my understanding, you can still buy
it via one-time purchase and have that perpetual license to have and hold in your loving arms as
long as you want, but if you want absolutely any of the updates that come to it to improve and
stabilize it in the future, you need an Update Pass. They've confirmed that the monthly price
for that pass will be less than the monthly usage plan, which is currently five dollars a month, but
they haven't confirmed how much less it'll be. To many, though, the actual price of that update pass
isn't the concern; the problem is that artists will now have to pay just to have an up-to-date version
of the software they purchased, which makes it effectively pointless to get the perpetual license
one-time purchase at all, because based on that, it would make more sense to just get the monthly
usage plan and have those updates included. The real kicker here is that if you own a perpetual
license for version 2 and you get an update pass, you'll only be able to use and have those updates
for as long as you have the pass. If it lapses or you cancel it, you'll be reverted back to the base
original version, even if you've been paying however much a month just for the right to use 2.3
or whatever you've gotten to. So really, everything about the way they frame this is saying "we'll
placate you and let you get a perpetual license if you want it, but you'll have to pay extra if
you want everything subscription-based users are getting for free, so why would you get it when you
could just get a subscription?" They're trying to corner artists into switching, because compared
to the alternative, it DOES make more sense to. You kind of have to wonder if what they did with the
iPad version was their way of subtly manipulating us into being prepared for this, like; the iPad
never got a one-time purchase option. If you want to use CSP on an iPad, you have to do so via
monthly subscription, and that has, to my knowledge, always been the case since it was released there.
And while that faced its own share of scrutiny and artists demanding a one-time purchase option
be made available, a lot of artists DID effectively take the L and sign up for the subscription anyway.
And those iPad users, as well as anyone currently on a subscription plan, are now essentially facing
no change at all; they'll get version 2 and all of its updates with the plan they already have with
no problems, and they'll eventually get version 3, too. It's almost like they said: "look how much more
convenient this is" on a small scale to get people on board in preparation for announcing: "by the way,
that's how it is for all our software now-- but look how easy it is for the iPad users! It's not
so bad, right?" That might be a little tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist of me, but it would have been a
smart marketing move. Now, all of that said, none of this is unheard of for subscription-based software.
All of this is pretty standard, albeit a little convoluted, and is generally how most similar
models tend to work. The problem people are having with it is that Clip Studio Paint sold itself to
artists around the world as the one major software that would never use this model to begin with. It's
received praise for years for being an alternative to Adobe that's actually affordable and doesn't
gouge people with monthly fees, and the backlash they're receiving from artists saying "this was the
one thing that set you apart from Adobe, and now that you're no different, we're just gonna either
keep using our base version one and not indulge any of this garbage with version two, or we're
gonna find another software altogether"-- and on a fundamental level, I agree with them. Financially
speaking, CSP is still much cheaper than Adobe, so I don't think that people saying that now
they're exactly the same and equally unattainable are being at all reasonable, but I do understand
that it's coming less from a place of money and more from a place of betrayal. People bought this
software and trusted this company not to use a model that's designed to gouge customers, and
they've turned around and done that anyway. And if artists are choosing not to support them anymore
on that basis alone, I completely understand. But I do think that there is another side to this that
isn't being considered, largely because people are still too hurt and angry to be willing to
see it. Clip Studio Paint is an industry leader of digital art software, and they were selling it with
a business model that can't possibly have been profitable enough for them to actually afford to
provide that constant, indefinite support while still making much money at all. If they want to
make better software with stronger features, they need to be able to make more money to be able to
afford to, and it's not like they're not trying to make this transition as smooth or affordable
as possible, either. Their rates for subscriptions are not high or expensive, especially compared to
Adobe, and they're clearly making an effort to at least TRY to please every group of people here.
People calling them a malicious, money-grabbing Adobe-clone are not, in my opinion, being fair, and
are either intentionally or unintentionally interpreting their actions in bad faith.
As far as I can see and understand, this choice was made simply because they needed to be able to make
enough money to keep creating and delivering the best software and support possible, and they are
doing their best to keep it as accessible as they can within the confines of this new model.
If it were a brand new software being released with these prices and this subscription-based
model, I thoroughly believe that artists would be considering it a promising option. But it's
because it's Clip Studio Paint that's switching to it from something that was much better for artists
that's making it so unacceptable. That said, their intentions and implementation only go so far when
context is considered, and the context is that they did this poorly. Number one, they clearly
failed to consider that they built their brand on the trust they built amongst artists that they
would maintain their status as an alternative to subscription-based software, and they clearly
didn't realize just how much more that aspect mattered to its users than any other feature of
their program. As a result of that failure, they've lost both trust and support in much larger numbers
than I imagine they anticipated. Number two, they didn't even figure out their own pricing before
announcing this. I don't think this update would have been well received even if artists DID know
how much they should expect to be paying based on it, but I think it would have softened the blow if
they had the foresight to establish that first, and then say: "well, the update pass is only $0.99",
or $2, or whatever else, because the low amount might have placated some artists and
at least given them some defensibility against accusations of corporate money-grabbing. Instead,
they said: "we don't know how much we'll be charging you, but we WILL be charging you", and
they had to have known that that wouldn't go over well. Finally, number three: at least in my opinion,
they made the new payment model both unnecessarily complicated and as far from user friendly as they
could have. As far as I'm concerned, CSP: if you're gonna switch to subscription-based,
switch to subscription-based. Don't give artists the illusion that they can still make a one-time
purchase and have that purchase actually have the value that it's supposed to-- the value that it USED
to have. As it stands, if artists want to have a regularly updated program, they have to pay monthly,
so they've been pushed into a corner where the only option that really makes sense as a result
is to just NOT buy that one-time perpetual license and switch to subbing. And if you're gonna do that
to them, you may as well just not give the option of a one-time purchase at all, because it has so,
so much less value, and was clearly INTENDED to have that much less value to incentivize people
to switch to subscribing. Just switch your model and be done with it; you're not going to please
everyone either way, and this desperate attempt to do so anyway is just serving to unnecessarily
confuse people or make them angrier. Conversely, if they're adamant about maintaining one-time
purchases as an option, there are still a litany of other ways they could have gone about this
rather than implementing an update pass: they could have given people the option to buy updates and
features as they came out, so that they could at least get to keep them, allowing them to make more
money and still allow some semblance of a real alternative to subscriptions. They could have added
the option to buy an expanded library of resources or cloud-based storage that would otherwise only
be available to subscription holders. They could have let us pay to use experimental, new, early-
access features. They could have raised the price of the one-time purchase itself, which
people everywhere are saying they would have been fine with. There were plenty of alternatives
to adding an update pass, and I really do think it was a pretty bad move to not consider those.
At the end of the day, I don't know how much I actually think this is going to change
anything for artists; I think a lot of people will choose not to get versions 2 or 3 and stick with
the original version for as long as possible. I think a lot of other users are already using
the subscription option and will see very little change. And I think a lot of people on Twitter are
blowing out of proportion how much this is really going to impact Clip Studio Paint as a result.
I don't think they're going to lose their entire userbase, nor do I think they should; they're still
making a quality program and doing their best to keep it affordable, and just because they made what
is largely being reasonably viewed as a scummy choice doesn't mean we should just boycott them
altogether, at least in my opinion. I also don't think people will anyway, because they're still
an industry leader offering one of the best pieces of software at the lowest price. Either way, I still
think, regardless, we should just let companies learn and tell them why we find their actions
unacceptable. If they won't learn, find alternatives, and stop supporting them-- but attacking them as
being money-grabbing, capitalistic, corporate scum that are now on Adobe's level seems both
unfair and counterproductive to me. Criticize them, don't demonize or attack them. It's also
worth mentioning that they did tweet an update on the situation today, as of recording this-- or
September 2nd, for literally all of you that will be watching this at least a day later--
saying the following: "We've received a lot of feedback, and are taking note of your comments.
We will share any further announcements with you here. We would like to clarify some points:
1, a one-time purchase option will remain after version two. 2, version one users can continue
using the app and services at no extra cost. 3,bug fixes will be free of charge for version one
users until the release of version three. 4, you will not need the update pass to use the app."
On the surface, that's basically just them saying "we hear that you're angry, please
allow us to tell you all of this information you already knew because we aren't changing anything".
But they DID say that they'll share any further announcements in that thread, and they did claim
that they're listening, which implies that there are further announcements to be had, so let's
at least give them a chance to hear us when we explain why this isn't what anyone wants, because
they've at least suggested that they're willing to hear our criticisms and implement changes.
And please be as respectful as possible when you give those criticisms, too. Anyway, hopefully this
little recap was at least relatively helpful and informative, and thank you for watching! Special
thank you as always to channel members Cafe Soleil, Joseph Solomon, Unknown Code, Abyss Reborn, Dalth,
and Lucian is Apa, as well as patrons Batman, Kyle Lowe, blueswanson, thisistotallymyname, Uni Tea,
Cora Feere, Jamesha Walker, and ShiromeArtiste for their support. I hope you enjoyed today's
video-- please leave a like and subscribe if you did-- and I'll see you in my next one!