What's new

Orchestral Tools: OT Sample Player

MartinH.

Senior Member
But I'm not sure economics have a play in here. Developing a sampler from scratch requires a shitton of resources and lots of manhours... I am not exactly sure that Kontakt Player encoding fees end up costing more than paying for ground-up development of an entirely new thing.
Maybe it's meant as a tool to either negotiate better fees or ensure that NI doesn't extort them by raising the fees in the future?
I would just abandon the Kontakt player compatibility and sell regular full Kontakt requiring libraries like other devs do. Or maybe they're keeping the true reasons in form of revolutionary features that really do challenge Kontakt secret till release to give NI the least possible time to catch up?
 

Fry777

pragsound.com
More than the fees, I'd say they're banking on people spontaneously buying part of a library on the spot, via their interface, when realising they need x or y instrument, without having to review the entire content of a library to check if all of it would be relevant to their use.
I'd say it's a good plan... if pricing of these individual parts is done right.
 
Last edited:

lokotus

Member
But I'm not sure economics have a play in here. Developing a sampler from scratch requires a shitton of resources and lots of manhours... I am not exactly sure that Kontakt Player encoding fees end up costing more than paying for ground-up development of an entirely new thing.
economics always have a play- I think you describe short time thinking. In the long term you always win if the software is good and you can do custom things for your own samples...
 

Mike Greene

Senior Member
Moderator
But I'm not sure economics have a play in here. Developing a sampler from scratch requires a shitton of resources and lots of manhours... I am not exactly sure that Kontakt Player encoding fees end up costing more than paying for ground-up development of an entirely new thing.
This is correct. Hendrik and I were "talking shop" here at NAMM, and since I've also toyed with the idea of developing my own player, I asked him about their reasons and process. He specifically said NI fees were not a factor (or at least not much of a factor), which makes sense, because:
a. NI fees are actually pretty reasonable. They could get expensive back in the day, but the new structure they implemented a few years ago is very fair. I've never heard a developer complain.
b. They spent a TON developing this player. I doubt they'd ever recoup based solely on NI fee savings.

This was all specifically about things Kontakt can't do. A number of features, as well as the new purchasing options. Brilliant IMO.
 

lokotus

Member
This is correct. Hendrik and I were "talking shop" here at NAMM, and since I've also toyed with the idea of developing my own player, I asked him about their reasons and process. He specifically said NI fees were not a factor (or at least not much of a factor), which makes sense, because:
a. NI fees are actually pretty reasonable. They could get expensive back in the day, but the new structure they implemented a few years ago is very fair. I've never heard a developer complain.
b. They spent a TON developing this player. I doubt they'd ever recoup based solely on NI fee savings.

This was all specifically about things Kontakt can't do. A number of features, as well as the new purchasing options. Brilliant IMO.
at the end of the day if after 10 years it still more expensive to update your own sampler vs paying fees to NI that is one thing. But when your overall profit grows because your own sampler has awesome features and workflows that sell is better over the competition then you win long term...
 

MartinH.

Senior Member
But when your overall profit grows because your own sampler has awesome features and workflows that sell is better over the competition then you win long term...
It's a big "if" though...


This is correct. Hendrik and I were "talking shop" here at NAMM, and since I've also toyed with the idea of developing my own player, I asked him about their reasons and process. He specifically said NI fees were not a factor (or at least not much of a factor), which makes sense, because:
a. NI fees are actually pretty reasonable. They could get expensive back in the day, but the new structure they implemented a few years ago is very fair. I've never heard a developer complain.
b. They spent a TON developing this player. I doubt they'd ever recoup based solely on NI fee savings.

This was all specifically about things Kontakt can't do. A number of features, as well as the new purchasing options. Brilliant IMO.
Just wanted to say how much I appreciate you always sharing your knowledge and perspective as a developer with us, thank you Mike!
 

valexnerfarious

Active Member
The thing with this new payer is really easy IMO ...
It clear looks like it has some potential, given the features provided that are not possible in Kontakt. Yet, the whole thing will work or fail, based on the OT player managing to deliver ...
... the same efficiency as Kontakt.
... background loading of the samples to shorten start up times.
... not lack any Kontakt feature that might be important to many.
The last part is complicated, unfortunately! For example, I tend to use Kontakt multi scripts to create some custom key switching solutions or repair some bugs in scripting. One example: If you send one Midi CC to a Capsule instrument (just one midi command, like CC 56 with a value of 127), this midi command is ignored by capsule. Probably, this is by design, as older fader boxes sometimes send values without touching them from time to time. That is why I suppose, they programmed Capsule to only process CCs, if at least two values got sent. It might just be a bug as well ... I am not sure!
However, this is a problem for me, as I want to send all values as a bulk message, as they are set on my Lemur controller app. Kontakt enables me to fit things like that, by finding out what the problem is. It is tedious at times and I hate it! :) But I have to face the fact that almost no developer ever did everything to my liking in their scripting. Some features are locked, like certain CC parameters or sometimes key switches. If there is no multi script available, I need everything to be user definable and also CC-controllable. Otherwise, I cannot see how I could fit a different player to my workflow.
I could not agree with you more..
 

Geoff Grace

Senior Member
Hendrik and I were "talking shop" here at NAMM, and since I've also toyed with the idea of developing my own player, I asked him about their reasons and process. He specifically said NI fees were not a factor (or at least not much of a factor), which makes sense, because:
a. NI fees are actually pretty reasonable. They could get expensive back in the day, but the new structure they implemented a few years ago is very fair. I've never heard a developer complain.
b. They spent a TON developing this player. I doubt they'd ever recoup based solely on NI fee savings.

This was all specifically about things Kontakt can't do. A number of features, as well as the new purchasing options. Brilliant IMO.
These features include Auto Volume Scaling to enable legato transition and release samples to blend better, High Res Resampler, Mic Position Merging, Core Implemented Legato, and Advanced Articulation Management.

It's worth adding that you can't create a truly free instrument or library on the Kontakt platform: either the manufacturer has to pay licensing fees for it to work on the free player or the customer has to buy a copy of Kontakt to use an otherwise free library that's given away without a financial loss to the manufacturer. One way or another, someone has to give money to Native Instruments for this "free" library.

I hope Orchestral Tools succeeds with its stated goals for this player as we will benefit from the added realism and any freebies they decide to release (such as Layers, for example).

Best,

Geoff
 

EvilDragon

KSP Wizard

wst3

my office these days
Moderator
Of course there is a financial component in their decisions! If OT did not figure out a way to profit from these developments they won't be around much longer - and I'd never bet against them, in addition to being quite musical, they strike me as people who care about their customers - and that is a great way to stay in business.

I doubt that the NI fees are a big component, but I think some of the features could be tailored specifically for their libraries, or rather their libraries can be tailored for the features, or... both?

And the in-app purchasing thing is absolutely brilliant. Especially as they are going to make purchases at the instrument level possible. In fact I think that might be about the coolest new feature I've heard about in a long time, and it really has nothing to do with sound, or play-ability, or any of the factors we normally consider. Brilliant.

As much as I hate to tell folks how to run their businesses, and as much as I know how difficult it could be, I do hope they provide a "complete the package" or "complete the bundle" function - although I would not want to be the one to try to manage it<G>!

I do not think that the OT player will replace Kontakt, but it might just encourage NI to do some more development, and that's good for all of us - even OT!
 

Floris

New Member
I can imagine it also being worth it in the long run to not have to rely on any of NI's actions. Even though I don't see Kontakt 'dying' anytime soon: if you're more independent from them you're always in the clear if anything happens. Having your own architecture in place, you can fix things you want to see fixed and add features you care about being added.
Same with their own sample edit tool they showed in the presentation.

Besides, they seem to be wanting to open up to different genres of music based on their presentation: here it's also very valuable to now have to drag new customers through a big price hill of getting full Kontakt before being able to use a potentional non-player lib. Kontakt is really the main VST for orchestral music, but not as overwhelming in other genres.
 

TheSteven

Lunatic in training...
I doubt that the NI fees are a big component,
I really hope so but you never know. I've worked with some very persuasive programmers who claimed they could transmute lead into gold in only XX amount of time.
Case in point i worked for a company years back that had a legacy app written in VB3 and some wondurkin convinced the CEO that he could create a C 32bit version of the app in 3 months. After a year they pulled the plug and abandoned it - they forgot the programming maxim that the last 10% of any major project takes over 90% of the time.
 

RightOnTime

New Member
One thing nobody has mentioned yet - having their own sample player may potentially mean it's possible to do rental/subscription services if he licensing system is robust enough?

I admire OT libraries immensely but the cost has been prohibitive for me as a hobbyist. Would love to see them do a Composer Cloud-esque subscription plan!
 

dariusofwest

Active Member
One thing nobody has mentioned yet - having their own sample player may potentially mean it's possible to do rental/subscription services if he licensing system is robust enough?

I admire OT libraries immensely but the cost has been prohibitive for me as a hobbyist. Would love to see them do a Composer Cloud-esque subscription plan!
+1, also looking forward to thier Single Instrument options
 

Parsifal666

I don't even own a DAW, I'm just a troll.
One thing nobody has mentioned yet - having their own sample player may potentially mean it's possible to do rental/subscription services if he licensing system is robust enough?

I admire OT libraries immensely but the cost has been prohibitive for me as a hobbyist. Would love to see them do a Composer Cloud-esque subscription plan!
I guess like EW I'd be a little prickly about in the beginning, but I can't help get a gut feeling subscription services might become the norm in the future...perhaps near future.

I could be wrong.
 

kevthurman

Active Member
I guess like EW I'd be a little prickly about in the beginning, but I can't help get a gut feeling subscription services might become the norm in the future...perhaps near future.

I could be wrong.
This seems the case in most industries these days... why not this one too? Who knows.
 

MartinH.

Senior Member
It's your choice, all you gotta do is not buy into the sub model when a new company offers it. Unlike Adobe and Autodesk they are nowhere near a position to force you if you don't want this. But if everyone eats up the sub model without thinking about longterm consequences, you'll soon be enslaved to monthly payments - the height of which are subject to change and solely decided by the developers - and you'll have to keep paying for as long as you want to be able to edit projects you did with sub-only libs. Personally I'd much rather buy stuff and own it forever. Subs would be too cost prohibitive for hobbyists like myself. But hey, I always say I want to stop buying new stuff anyway, a sub-only model would make that so much easier...
 
Top Bottom