Network License : So expensive?

[Chad Smith]

Firstly, I've just been approved to purchase the offices second Revit license, Woo-hoo. :lol: :lol: 8)

At the same time I asked for a quote for the new license, I also asked how much it is to get network licenses.
My quote for this was pushing the AU$1000 mark per license. Why is it so expensive to get a network license. Close to $1000 is just down right ridiculous. :evil:

I don't understand why it costs more in the first place. Stand-alone and network licenses should be the same price.

[davidwlight]

Chad,

Autodesk Network licenses are always more expensive than standard alone versions. It doesn't matter whether it is Revit or Autocad! Personally, I think its mad / daylight robber! Autodesk claim it has something to do with flexibility/ admin costs, but I can never get a straight answer out of anybody. When Autodesk introduced a premium cost for network licensing a couple of years ago for Autocad, corporate IT/ CAD managers went mental. Autodesk pulled the increased cost first of all, but then introduced it at a latter date. Standalone copies should be the same price as NLM versions.
Say you had 4 copies of Revit standalone, & you then decided to change those 4 over to NLM + you then wanted to purchase a new copy of Revit but add it to your NLM pool. You would have to pay for each of the 4 copies to be transfered to NLM, something like £495 per copy in the UK, + the £3600 for the new copy of revit + £495 to turn that into NLM. Mad or what!

[Steve_Stafford]

Not a defense...just a perspective...Their logic is "value added" therefore higher cost.

Standalone licensing, you buy four seats for four PC's.

Network licensing you buy four and use on twenty. You have four licenses in your pool to pull from.

This let's you install it and use it legitimately on twenty PC's. Value or not? Do the math, buy twenty standalone licenses so each PC is legal and compare the price against the number you really need for twenty PC's based on actual usage. The value doesn't seem there for "small" shops but for big firms it's a "no brainer".

Using standalone licensing, if you are really patient you could install the software on all your pc's, then use the license borrowing function to transfer the license around the office as needed...that sounds like lot's of fun to keep track of..."hey, who's got the Revit license today??" :D

[Chad Smith]

I understand your 'value added' perspective, and it makes sense, but not at the price their asking. Maybe a couple of hundred more, but definitely not nearing the $1000 mark. My boss would have convulsions if he saw the cost :!:

[cphubb]

Chad,

I don't know what the conversion is in AU but in the US the "network activation fee" is $450 +/- perlicense. However it may seem expensive (my boss did back flips as well) but I am now running a 6 person office on 4 licenses of Revit (actually 2 Revit and 2 ARS). I look at is as spending $900 to save $2500 (the cost of 2 upgrades from ADT3.) Once I run out of ADT 3 licenses the price will make even more sense. You should be able to run on 75% fewer licenses with the network than standalone. That can translate to thousands of dolllars saves. Tell your boss that and he may calm down. Mine did.
Send me a message if you have any further questions. We are runnig well with the network (after a few Revit ARS problems).

Chris

PS on draw back, no license transfer. To check a license out you need to have the computer on the same network. We are considering 1 standalone for our notebook/ home use.

[Chad Smith]

Chris,

How do you have 6 people but only 4 licenses?
What are the 2 spare people doing while the other 4 are busy working?

We have 5 drafties and therefore need 5 licenses.
The only benifit that I can see is easy license maintainance, install to the server and forget.

[Steve_Stafford]

In your case, Chad it sounds like stand alone is the "right fit".

[Wes Macaulay]

Is it possible that Autodesk has to pay a licensing fee for network licensing that adds cost over and above the standalone licensing? This seems counter-intuitive since the security required for standalone licensing is much more extensive. (I prefer NW licensing -- you don't have all that C-Dilla **** all over your computer!)

[Marek Brandstatter]

NLM Downside - Expensive (IMO should be approx 30% cheaper)

NLM Upside - Works very well, allows mass/pool installations, suits offices where not everyone is behind their machines at the same time.

[cphubb]

Chad,

I agree that if you have 5 drafting people you need 5 licenses to keep them working. However, do you have project architects, marketing people principals designers, project managers who do/could use Revit also? At least half of our people are half time CAD users or less and to spend a full license fee for them to use CAD 2 hours a week or less is just wasteful. I do not know about your firm but our CAD use has gone through the roof with people who never touched it before. We are discussing adding one or two more because we are bumping into the limit occasionaly and it requires a little planning.

Still cheaper and esier though.

Chris

[Danny Polkinhorn]

Chad,

You didn't mention what your standalone quote was, but here in the US, the network version is usually 15% more than the standalone. That may help you with a comparison of costs.

I would also agree that the the standalone structure would be better in your case. At my last firm we had 350 licenses of ADT with over 500 installs/users in ten offices. The justification for network licensing was obvious.

[rkmcswain]

Is it possible that Autodesk has to pay a licensing fee for network licensing that adds cost over and above the standalone licensing?

Definitely.

[tc3dcad60731]

I am not trying to stir up more debate here but this is my two cents.

1. I have 1 to X seats and I want to add to that number then I should receive 5% discount (or atleast $250) off of the $4000 cost.

2. I have 1 to X seats and I want to transfer those to network licensing then I should still get a 5% discount (or atleast $250) off of the $4000 cost.

My reasoning on this is that you have shown you are sticking with ADSK, and you are sticking with the version you purchased, and you are trying to stay legal!

Several years ago I knew some people that only had 4 dedicated users and fluctuated with 6 to 8 total drafters as their market demanded. At the time, 5 seats was the limit for subscription and there was no "license borrowing" type functions for the fluctuation periods. Now i am in no means defending them because what they did was wrong but surely it should be more cost enticing and not prohibitive to do this.

(They did pay a huge fine and rightly so)

[rkmcswain]

1. I have 1 to X seats and I want to add to that number then I should receive 5% discount (or atleast $250) off of the $4000 cost.


AFAIK - there is no discount for multiple (or additional) seats unless your dealer is offering some sort of deal.



2. I have 1 to X seats and I want to transfer those to network licensing then I should still get a 5% discount (or atleast $250) off of the $4000 cost.


This costs more $$, not less. By transferring standalone to network, you are, in theory, costing Autodesk sales of more licenses, hence the additional cost.



My reasoning on this is that you have shown you are sticking with ADSK, and you are sticking with the version you purchased, and you are trying to stay legal!


I'm sure that Autodesk's outlook on this is that 'you are going to be legal no matter what the costs'.

[jpolding]

Because they can... :veryevil:

[tc3dcad60731]

AFAIK - there is no discount for multiple (or additional) seats unless your dealer is offering some sort of deal.

This costs more $$, not less. By transferring standalone to network, you are, in theory, costing Autodesk sales of more licenses, hence the additional cost.

I'm sure that Autodesk's outlook on this is that 'you are going to be legal no matter what the costs'.

This is all good and well BUT i still contend that they should benefit there long time customers and there biggest customers in a better manner. Even MSFT has figured this one out!

[rkmcswain]

This is all good and well BUT i still contend that they should benefit there long time customers and there biggest customers in a better manner. Even MSFT has figured this one out!

I don't disagree with you, but if I'm Autodesk today, enjoying these good times, what incentive do I have to lower prices, offer discounts, etc.?

[cphubb]

When I first came across the network license feature a few years ago it was explained to me as this:

1. The license manager is third party software + Adesk customizing $$
2. You typically can operate with 25% fewer licenses than with individual. Requires some management but the savings are evident even at 10% fewer licenses. We often need to prioritize our CAD usage and people cannot leave it open and go to a 3 hour meeting. (That never happens)

No whether or not you believe Adesk that was the logic behind the "Modest" fee for the network license. I would prefer to pay $1000 once for the license server and the standard fee for all workstation licenses.

BTW Take a look at other companies up charge for network licensing and you will see that Adesk is downright cheap.

Adobe 25 licenses min $10k or so for the license