Steinberg is dropping support for VST 2

[Tzarls]

http://www.steinberg.net/en/newsandevents/news/newsdetail/archive/2013/09/03/article/vst-2-development-ends-2504.html

So.... better start working on having the export function upgraded to produce VST3 plugins. I know VST2 is still widely supported by the majority of DAWs, and even Steinberg´s will support it for some time.... but the day will come when none of our VST2 plugins will load on any DAW ...

[tester]

a.D. 2050

"The VST 3 development kit not only generates VST 3 plug-ins, but also is capable of rendering to VST 2 and AU formats." [followed from above link]

Which means that every respected developer will produce VST 2 plugins anyway, because some respected studios and/or individuals will be interested still to use it.

For so long as VST2 works - there will be market for it, I guess. It's like with newer Windows versions. For so long as motherboards support them - old Windows versions still are active, although MS stops to support them. Realistic, and following the past - I think it will be a matter of system and hardware architecture, not fancy of some Steinberg dinosaurus.

[trogluddite]

Going by Stienberg's previous track record, what will happen is that, although we can still produce VST 2.0 plugins and other hosts may happily use them, this is a prelude to their other products dropping official support for VST 2.0 plugins.

So although the change is relatively insignificant for folks using other platforms, or happy to stick with the current version of Cubase etc., sooner or later VST3.0 will be a requirement to ensure compatibility with Steinberg's future upgrades.

That's one of the reasons I switched to using Reaper; absolutely every plugin in my collection, back to the very first release of VST, works fine . Steinberg seemingly are the first to drop compatibility for the older versions of their own standard, presumably as a "back door" to selling upgrades of their own plugins etc.

As with the 64bit question, each (potential?) FS user's stance will depend on who they are producing plugins for - it's not good news for anyone wanting to release anything commercially.

[VPDannyMan]

As with the 64bit question, each (potential?) FS user's stance will depend on who they are producing plugins for - it's not good news for anyone wanting to release anything commercially.

Yeah or DSP Robotics has to get the lead out and get a 64 bit VST3 version built. The longer this takes the worse it gets in terms of what has to be supported. Now its no longer just 64 bit that has to happen, but vst3 as well. All of which does nothing to inspire new customers to FS which in turn does not lend itself to inspiring DSPR to put development money out. If no money is coming in, then how can spending more on a product be justified. Its a circle..

[Nubeat7]

Now its no longer just 64 bit that has to happen, but vst3 as well.

i think 64bit is much more important than vst3 because all important hosts support vst2.4 and this will not change in near future also most of users dont care about this but they care about 64 bit to not use bridges or have to stay on 32 bit just to use their favourite vsts, and nearly everybody i know owns already a 64bit machine, also most of commercial vsts are on 64 bit yet, so this have to happen next!

[tester]

What about directshow support for audio/video?
And unified streaming and loading of (audio/video) files (right now: mp3 = streaming wav = loading)?
And DAW like display (with partial viewing, zooming, paging/scrolling) and correct data logging for high speed?
...and fast and better processing of graphic files and video streams for creating fast scientific filters?
What about expanded FFT capabilities?
What about better handling of multimedia (html-like style)?

And then - maybe 64-bit support.

[VPDannyMan]

For me.. 64 bit support is #1

[Nubeat7]

What about directshow support for audio/video?
And unified streaming and loading of (audio/video) files (right now: mp3 = streaming wav = loading)?
And DAW like display (with partial viewing, zooming, paging/scrolling) and correct data logging for high speed?
...and fast and better processing of graphic files and video streams for creating fast scientific filters?
What about expanded FFT capabilities?
What about better handling of multimedia (html-like style)?

And then - maybe 64-bit support.

if you need all this multimedia and video stuff maybe you should have an eye on max msp

better streaming for audio.. for sure it would be nice for building another audiofile or sampleplayer luckely there are already 1000`s, so it has no big priority for me.

i don`t know what graphic and video processing should have to do with audiofilters but maybe i have not enough knowledge about this..

i really would prefer 64-bit support as the next big step, because it has to be done anyway and then there is time to improve all other things (already in 64 bit).

[tester]

@Nubeat7 - would you like to become my sponsor for completely featured max?

As for "streaming audio", there are other purposes. Scientific (sampled) data can be also streamed that way. So it's a matter of general streaming routine, not "yet another sampler". But even if - better network and p2p connectivity support would add a taste to any audio application. How many samplers can be correlated via internet/network? Remote control of players has it's own ways, also in science.

[Nubeat7]

@Nubeat7 - would you like to become my sponsor for completely featured max?

its 455€ including gen and cyclop, its not that bad, after 3 years it starts to be cheaper than FS...

but if you have a really good idea including full concept some usecases, activity and sequence diagrams for it and a good businessplan, with me as license holder, we can talk