In time, further updates should remove these error messages and quite possible open things up to how they would have been under eLicenser - bundled HALion content works in all hosts via all editions of the current version of HALion. The only eLicenser work-round I would think is appropriate is to add Verve to Cubase 11 (not upgradeable) licences - as those users must also own Cubase 12. Conversely, HALion Symphonic Orchestra is core content for Dorico Pro, as it is used by the default playback template. As Verve is new, nobody has existing projects requiring it. Why should Steinberg give away standalone Verve licences to Cubase 12 owners on request (which they could later sell) or add Verve to Cubase 11 and Nuendo licences (giving away one of the benefits of upgrading to version 12) just to prevent an annoying error message? Installing Verve alongside Cubase 12 is optional - if you don’t want issues with non-Steinberg Licensing hosts, don’t install it for now. Your suggested solutions are inappropriate. There are bound to be a few edge cases with Steinberg Licensing that resolve over time - I’d call it part of the pain of moving to a much-needed new licensing system. I suspect, but cannot confirm, that Olympus Choir Micro and HALion Symphonic Orchestra behave the same as Verve for those who purchased Dorico 4 outright (so their only Dorico licence will be a Steinberg Licensing one). Both are also available as a standalone products. I have Olympus Choir Micro and HALion Symphonic Orchestra on my system, which are enabled by three bundle licences: my Dorico 4 Pro licence (Steinberg Licensing), my Dorico 3.5 Pro (not upgradeable) licence (eLicenser) and my Absolute 5 licence (eLicenser). Steinberg content is often licenced in multiple ways. PS - credit where credit is due, ALL other aspects of the new licence system were totally smooth for me so congratulations on that Ben.Īs you are still giving away elicencer codes for new products it’s odd you didn’t do that to C12 customers too for Verve avoiding the problem all together. I can think of some other potential solutions to this ‘dual licenser’ dilemma too, but I suspect that ship has sailed You could have very quietly added Verve to the C11/N11 elicenser and nobody would have noticed either. Personally I would have thought that making the transition as transparent or invisible as possible outweighs any possible advantage to having some Verve users on an error-generating new licence and some on a elicenser. ![]() ![]() ![]() The install base for C12 is vastly outweighed by v11 and below users. As you are still giving away elicencer codes for new products it’s odd you didn’t do that to C12 customers too for Verve avoiding the problem all together. Transitioning to a new licensing scheme was never going to easy (understatement!) - and there are many potential ‘edge case’ problems. The devil is always in the detail but the understanding was that ‘new’ products would be using the ‘cloud’ licensing - but it seems some are using both/either You’ll understand that we have to make assumptions because the communication between company/customer sometimes isn’t always as smooth as we (customers!) would like
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |