Why do plugin writers do it?
I'm in the process of writing yet another plugin for my 'Space' series and it occurred to me to wonder why I'm actually doing this. Thinking about it a little, I came up with a number of possible reasons. Here they are; see what you think.
1. The writer needs a plugin for a scene he/she is creating in Cinema
Perhaps surprisingly, this is the least likely reason. It implies that the plugin writer is also an artist. This, of course, is true to some extent of every user of C4D or other DCCs - otherwise , why would we start using the software in the first place? But from my own experience, much as I'd like to be a creator of great images that other people like, I found out a long time ago that I'm not! And without intending any offence, I think the same is true of most plugin writers.There are some great C4D artists who couldn't code a plugin if their life depended on it, and there are plugin writers who like me are pretty clueless artistically. (No offence intended, for those of you who are both great artists and plugin writers!)
So it's unlikely that plugin writers create a plugin to fill a need for themselves, except in the occasional case. I wrote my 'Nudge-It' plugin when I needed to move a scene object by a tiny amount, but that is about as close as it comes for me.
2. Other C4D users perceive a need for a plugin that the writer can meet
This is the most likely reason. It happens a lot. Someone mentions how good it would be if there was a plugin to do something, or the plugin writer themselves notice a gap that can be filled. When we started to write X-Particles, it was because there was a need to fill a significant gap in C4D's armoury - there simply was no usable, effective particle system available. (Thinking Particles did not meet those criteria.)
There are two paths to take here. The first is commercial: there is a need for a plugin, and users might be prepared to pay for it. Or, it's simply an altruistic action. A plugin is needed to help other users, and the plugin writer creates one.
To be frank, writing a commercial plugin is a monumental PITA and the more widely it is used, the worse that becomes. You've got issues with licensing and the software pirates (I prefer 'thieves') who try to crack it. Then there are bugs. If someone has paid for the plugin, the developer is pretty much obliged to fix the inevitable bugs. And of course, users always want more features, which you have to add to keep the thing active and selling. The other issue is that, if the plugin is commercially successful, the back office functions can take over from the coding, so you end up needing to employ people to handle those functions and the whole thing just becomes less enjoyable.
Writing a plugin simply to give it away sounds a little odd, but it isn't just the pleasure of knowing that someone else is using, and hopefully appreciating, your work. That leads me to the third reason...
3. The plugin writer does it for pleasure
Which is going to appear weird to many people. But it's a fact that writing a plugin, getting it to work, and solving coding issues that crop up along the way, can be very rewarding. For me, this is the main reason why I continue to write plugins for Cinema, and I hope to carry on for a long while yet.
Downsides (warning: rant ahead)
Of course, there are downsides. It can be frustrating when you just can't get something to work and you have to abandon a feature you wanted to include. There can be a lot of research involved before writing any code, though that in itself can be a real learning experience. I found out about ShaderToy when I started writing my recent series of shader plugins, which I probably would never have done otherwise.
Another downside is (sorry to say) Maxon itself. The SDK and documentation is pretty good. So is the support forum for plugin and script writers - the support there can't be faulted. There are two issues I have with Maxon right now though.
First is the fact that Cinema can be used only on one machine at a time. Many other manufacturers' licensing lets you use their software on two machines - a desktop and a laptop, for example. It is maddening developing a plugin on PC then wanting to build it on a Mac but having to transfer the C4D licence back and forth between the different machines. I don't hold out any hope of this ever changing but maybe Maxon could allow registered plugin developers to use their copy of Cinema more flexibly. Maybe.
Second - and this is just a personal opinion - Maxon seem to have a habit of looking at plugins and then incorporating similar functionality directly into Cinema. This, of course, means that there is no need for the plugin any more. Or perhaps less need - if you look for example at X-Particles versus the new particle system in Cinema, the new system is not (yet) as capable or full-featured as XP. But the damage this does to third-party developers of commercial plugins is considerable, and if any long-term users of Cinema wonder why there are fewer such producers compared to a decade ago, this may be one of the reasons. For producers of free plugins it doesn't matter so much, especially if the main reason for writing them was for the fun of doing so, and because (I must be honest here) such plugins are often small and have niche functionality which isn't required in C4D itself.
So, there you have it: why do people write plugins for Cinema 4D? Now you know why I do it, and why I like it when someone downloads one of my plugins and uses it. I hope this has been of some interest (and apologies for any ranting!).
Page last updated April 11th 2025