Thank you for the feedback. The core app is very very feature full and it’s a one time purchase.
The subscription is for people who want to support me and get access to new features moving forward!
1 Like
Hi there everyone! I signed up for the forums because I was about to purchase this app as soon as my new iPad arrives, very excited. But then I read through this post and starting to wonder why not just subscribe to zbrush for iPad and learn that instead if Valense is going to a subscription model for “more advanced features/tools”?
I mean why learn a new tool that is supported by one guy that’s isn’t much cheaper than the industry leader like zbrush? Serious question not just for the dev but also the community members who have tried both on their iPads.
Thanks in advance 
Valence isn’t replacing the single purchase option with a subscription, but just adding an optional subscription option for more advanced tools. Valence already offers a great set of advanced tools for creating really nice work, the “advanced tools” we’re talking about here are fairly niche. Also, ZBrush is a sculpting app, not a 3D modeling app. They are very different things when it comes to feature set and use-case. I can barely eek out some modeling functionality from Nomad Sculpt (an app very similar to ZBrush), but it requires a bunch of complicated workarounds and such that consume far more time than just using the right tool for the job, aka, a 3D modeling app. Sculpting apps like ZBrush are great for sculpting, or essentially shaping and refining something that’s already formed. They are not very good for creating 3D models by combining primitive shapes and such, they lack many of the tools that make that kind of workflow efficient. For example, sculpting apps generally lack precision tools for precisely sizing parts of a model. They usually lack any kind of object snapping tools etc, meaning everything is eyeballed, and so many elements can be out of precise alignment. I actually use both kinds of software, and I know many other 3D artists do as well. I think it’s pretty rare for someone to only use a sculpting app and no modeling app.
Valence currently offers all of these 3D modeling tools, and will continue to offer these features and will probably gain some more features on the single-purchase tier. All the developer is talking about doing is adding an optional subscription to support more niche tools that will require a lot more effort to implement and support in the app.
I hope that helps to explain the difference, and why it would still be well worth buying the single purchase of this app, even if you consider paying the subscription for ZBrush.
PS, I haven’t tried ZBrush yet, and it does look like a great option, but Nomad Sculpt is another single-purchase app with some optional advanced (read niche) tools subscriptions that is a great lower-cost alternative to ZBrush if you’re interested in an option that’s cheaper than ZBrush for sculpting.
1 Like
Yes, but Valence is still missing key features. Bevels and Booleans for example. Would these be considered as advanced features?
What would you consider niche tools or features?
I think zmodeler from zbrush is pretty much what valence does, I know it’s not available on iPad yet. But probably is coming very soon.
So, between $30 upfront and then $60 a year for the full valence experience vs $99 a year for the zbrush, it’s going to be a tough sell. Unless I’m completely wrong about what zmodeler is and does.
I don’t mean to come across as I’m dissing valence, I’m trying to figure out if I’m not just monkeying around with 3d modeling and sculpting, what’s the advantage of devoting time to learn valence instead of zbrush when ultimately the difference in price is only $39 a year?
1 Like
It’s possible Zmodeler will come to the iPad version, but at this point it isn’t included as far as I’m aware, and there’s no guarantees it will ever be included (though it probably is likely, but may be a few years away). From what I’ve heard though, Zmodeler is even more primitive and basic in functionality than Valence. Maybe I’m mistaken, but that’s what I’ve heard.
Also, if you decided to go with the single-purchase version of Valence it would be $30 once, not $30 a year. Apple has a great return policy for software in the App Store, so you could always try it out, and if it doesn’t suit your needs, you should be able to get a refund within I think it’s 30 days of the purchase. Anyways, that could be something to look into. You may also be able to test ZBrush that way as well. ZBrush may have a free trial version.
For me, I’ve found Valence to be very useful in my workflow. To me at least, it was definitely well worth the $30 purchase. I understand why others would consider the available options, and I understand why you’re looking at ZBrush due to its popularity. But as I mentioned before, ZBrush in its current form on the iPad is heavily geared towards sculpting, and doesn’t include many modeling tools if it even provides any at all from what I’ve seen. ZBrush could eventually incorporate Zmodeler, but we have no idea when that could happen, for all we know it could be 5 years from now, or 2 months. We really just don’t know, so I wouldn’t buy a software counting on a needed feature to be added in the future. I would really look closely into ZBrush and Valence with an eye for what you want to achieve with the software and what kind of tools you’re going to want/need for your projects. That will help you narrow down which would be a better fit for you. If you’re more interested in creating less-precise “organic” models and sculpting shapes from other shapes, a sculpting app could be ideal. If you’re more interested in designing parts or objects by combining primitive shapes like blocks, spheres, etc. (aka hard-surface modeling), a 3D modeling app would be a better fit. If you’re project requires precision scaling, like your designing a part to 3D print for example, I would strongly suggest a 3D modeling app. I was technically able to design some such parts in Nomad Sculpt, but I had to use a ton of complicated workarounds to get that to work, and I don’t think some of those workarounds would even work in ZBrush in it’s current form.
Ultimately, it’s totally up to you, and I hope I don’t come across like I’m trying to pressure you one way or another. I think both are great apps for very different things, and so which will be a better fit for you really heavily depends on the types of projects you’re wanting to do.
1 Like
Question - if you have a model started with the core features and add some premium features for a month or so, then cancel premium. Does the user model BREAK since it incorporates premium features but the user continues modeling it with only core features ?
While it’s a Valence decision how to proceed, but since there is only one developer it perhaps will complicate the development of Valence going forward while adding complexity keeping premium features isolated and the whole app Premium and Core more Bug free.
If its the direction Valence goes, a user might try it one month using a premium tool then cancel and edit the previous model using only core features. IF it turned into an unstable buggy nightmare you might lose a user and more revenue versus a Maintenance and Update Fee idea.
With regard to your current plan, the word “subscription” may not be a good one as some may not give Valence a chance, perhaps “Rent a Tool” or something for premium features.
As previously mentioned this user has no problem paying a yearly fee for Maintenance and Updates AND the user keeps ALL the features he has paid for to date (unlike other subscription plans). Should be a lot easier on the development side while retaining the same $50 to $60 a year your new “subscription/rental” plan gets .
Agree with that statement, especially "holds their files to ransom "
Might still too early to determine what’s the best path forward as it’s still missing some core features. There needs to be a list of what would be locked behind a subscription and what will be included in the base version for $30, in order for users to determine if valence is right for them. Until then, people will try valence, like and get excited by what it offers and promises on its website(I’m specifically referring to the pay once, keep forever thing, it also implies that updates won’t cost extra), and then come here to learn to see what’s coming is a knife tool and then everything else that’s “missing” will continue to be missing unless you opt for the sub…It’s hard to not get the bait and switch feeling, also this shows more uncertainty regarding the future of the app, if it can change from pay once and keep forever into a subscription model just a few months after release, who knows what other even more niche(whatever that is depends on who you ask) tools or features down the road that will cost more money because it’s tricky for one person to develop? It’s not a comfortable position to be in.
Next thing we know is that there will be a companion app to valence you’ll have to pay for to access more “niche” features, because it’s bad to keep raising the price. I just hate to see this going down the road of those big companies with lots of resources, why support something if it’s just going to become the very thing it was created to not be? Most of us are here because we love what nomad has done in the past few years and only raised its price recently by $5, valence is already more expensive right off the bat but it’s already talking about how it’s not sustainable and needs to find more ways to make money just isn’t a good look for a young app like this while it’s still missing features.
I’ll continue to watch the development of valence but as of now, I don’t even want to try it because I’m not young anymore and wouldn’t want to waste my time to learn a new tool just to save a few dollars a year. I want to support projects like this but not when the dev go back on their promises and follow the playbook of those big companies that we don’t want to support.
“Going back on promises”? The developer never promised they’d never have any features that require subscription. They promised a single-purchase core app, and this isn’t changing. Nomad Sculpt as you mention is also looking to add subscription purchase tools to help support the project, and Nomad is far better established and likely has more revenue due to its more established base. There’s a lot of work involved in developing and maintaining an app this complex. Some of the complex tools people are wanting would probably require a lot of work to implement. I for one have no problem supporting that effort with an inexpensive subscription for those advanced tools. I’m so frustrated with all this complaining about an optional subscription. If you don’t want to pay a subscription, no one’s forcing anyone to. The core app is already really great! All of this negativity and complaining is starting to make me wish I wouldn’t have created this thread… 
Sorry you feel this way, man. I don’t think people are complaining, they’re just concerned about where this is all going because they care and are expressing their views, it’s all valid.
Of course, $30 a pop isn’t sustainable if the user base doesn’t grow, therefore justifying the need to go to a subscription base so that the fixed number of users can continue to support the development. However, if the app continues to improve at a reasonable pace, missing features added one at a time, the user base will naturally grow and translate to more income for the dev, because good products sell themselves.
If nomad changes to subscription based anything, it just makes it even easier to justify biting the bullet and give Maxon $99 a year.
My only advice to the dev is that he keeps on cooking and don’t lose that passion in him/her 
and deliver a complete package that anyone can easily recommend. I’d also suggest deleting this thread if the idea of going to a subscription based service isn’t decided yet. It’s only scaring away potential users.
Lastly, I think the dev should create a Patreon for fans like yourself to make additional contributions to support this project, in exchange for test versions of Valence with new tools and features before they become public or whatever. This way the project can get extra support and without the scary talk of changing from one time purchase to yearly subscription.
Cheer up, my friend. We all want what’s best for valence and want to see it improve over time instead of slowly fall into obscurity.
1 Like
Just to make sure everyone is on the same page regarding the potential of a subscription (which has not even happened yet).
Valence 3D will always be a one time purchase for the core product (mesh editing, exporting, subDs, mirroring).
For the subscription, it would be an in app purchase (meaning you keep the core product and all the features that came with it) and the subscription would unlock new features, like new primitives, new mesh operations, new tools, etc.
I’ve learned that people have very high expectations and I’m clearly out of my mind for even considering a subscription tier for Valence. This thread is very depressing and gives me no hope that valence will be a sustainable product in the quickly evolving 3D software market.
1 Like
Don’t be disheartened. I feel there are some very vocal people who will complain, but I think there are more people who will buy the app and enjoy it that aren’t as vocal. Some in the community have an in extreme aversion to the word “subscription”, so perhaps it would be best to refer to these coming changes as what they are “in-app purchases”. While there definitely seems to be some negativity, I think there are many others like me who will be happy to help support your work. In software you just have some people that expect everything to be given to them for free or insanely cheap. But these people can’t and shouldn’t always be catered to. App development is a lot of work, I think many don’t appreciate the amount of work that goes into these projects. And while there are some who aren’t willing to pay for things and want them given to them, or are extra critical of any subscription add-ons or in-app purchases, there are also many who are willing to pay for a good-quality app like yours. There simply isn’t anything really competing with your app. People have brought up ZBrush and Nomad as if they’re competing softwares, but they are simply not even comparable. They are designed for a completely different purpose. And the price-point of this app is less than half that of ZBrush, and is a one-time purchase. 3D tools are typically expensive, they aren’t extreme budget software… Heck, the closest thing to this app that I’ve ever used, Shapr3D, is over a $300 a year subscription… You’re pricing is very fair.
I think we just need to get the word out more about this app. I think there will be plenty that see the value of this wonderful tool, especially as it continues to improve! 
1 Like