I haven't listened to the pod cast yet so I may be way off base or completely contradictory, but three issues pop into me head on the topic.

The first being tech support. As a studio, on a deadline, you expect a certain level of tech support to be available for the software you purchase, say for example AutoDesk's Make it Pretty 2014 or whatever they're calling it this year. I mean sure you expect to trouble shoot some specific issues yourself, but there's a massive installed user base relying on the same software, so you expect that there won't be catastrophic tech issues, and if there are, that they'll be addressed quickly. I realize all the major software packages have long lingering bugs and issues, but the major "deal breaker" issues are addressed quickly. You also know you're getting a finished, polished piece of software that you're going to be using for awhile, and this leads into my second point, with Blender, which version do you use?

With a piece of software like Blender, that's under constant developement and in a constant state of flux, which version do you use, which version should you use, when do you upgrade to the next version? Those are major issues for a studio that has an established pipeline. It can take a few [sometimes several] months after the release of the latest version of software that a studio is using before they have it fully implemented in their pipeline, especially if they're using proprietary inhouse tools and code like data exchange/management systems. The larger the studio, the more rigid the pipeline [generally speaking], and slower they are to update and implement anything, the smaller production houses and freelancers can usually upgrade more quickly, and while that may be the case, the larger studios still have considerably more influence on steering the direction of the industry because you'll always have smaller studios looking and saying, "...MegaStudio X uses AutoDesk MiP 2014, we need to use that to compete..." Something like Blender that has version iterations turning over faster than a lot of studios could implement, makes it a much harder package to "buy into" figuratively of course, Blender being free and all.

The third thing that comes to mind goes with the last one and continues with something unbroken-fighter touched on, and that's users showing professional level work done in Blender, that's just not going to happen. Why not? Certainly not because Blender isn't capable, it is, very much so, and there are plenty of talented users doing excellent work in Blender all the time, but [and this is an assumption so my point might wobble little here] they're largely just hobbyists, very talented hobbyists, but still just hobbyists. When you look to get into the industry professionally, you look at job postings, major studios often list in their job postiings "proficiency in Make it Pretty 2014 required" or whatever that studio happens to be using for the position you're applying for. What choice does that leave the aspiring 3D artist with? Not much other than to learn the software package[s] the studios want. Sure there are always cases of someone being talented enough a studio is willing to train them on a new package, but that's not always the case and is very circumstantial depending on the studio and scope of the project they're hiring for. No studio is going to hire someone for a 3 or even 6 month project if they're not already proficient and other similarly qualified applicants are. This results in a trend that as indiviuals climb the ladder from hobbyist [or student] to professional they tend to be leaving Blender and moving on to another package, so the "professional" work you end up seeing from those users, isn't done in Blender even tho that may have been where they started.

 

All that said, I think we are starting to see a slow trickle of professional implementations of Blenders, and given enough time it might start to gain a bit of a foot hold but I think that's still quite a ways off. I think there's a very real trend right now toward smaller "indie" studios, especially in the game developement segment of the industry. If that trend continues and with it comes a sort of "decentralization" of production with work being outsourced to other small independant studios and to free lancers, then I think Blender has a chance to gain some real ground there. Blender makes a lot of sense for a free lancer, it does almost everything [modeling/sculpting/texturing/rendering/dynamics/compositing/etc/etc], and does most of it well enough. There are better options for all those aspects of production, but they each come with their own price tag.

There's a lot more complexity and variety in 3D packages than say PhotoShop vs GIMP, you could take a proficient user in either of those packages and have them up to speed in a day or two on the other, it takes a lot longer to get up to speed moving between 3D packages. I don't think we'll ever see Blender as a solution in large production studios, their pipelines are too specialized, and they're only going to be using [what the perceive] is the best software package for each segment of their pipeline. I do think we could start to see Blender being used more in smaller studios tho, but I expect even that will be a long slow process.

 

Now off to listen to the podcast, while I get some work done in Blender...

Core i7 950@3.02GHz | 12GB Corsair Dominator Ram@1600mHz | 2GB Geforce GTX 660

Lightwave | Blender | Marmoset | GIMP | Krita