$600 a year for the cloud subscription is great if you use many of the platforms available on the Creative Suite. I'm not certain that would be true for just Acrobat, Illustrator, InDesign, and Photoshop, even though I've not priced these separately. I wonder, too, if frequent upgrading of any of these products is really necessary for graphic arts, especially where much of the work might be started with traditional art methods. Most of the recent upgrades in Photoshop have only applied to photography, not graphic arts. That said, I don't do much traditional artwork on Photoshop, but do use that program to finish illustrations and size them for delivery. And in that type of work, my old Photoshop 7.0 would be just as useful.
If I were you, Emily, I'd decide based on what clients expect from you. Tifs are still tifs, if you see what I mean, and even if the means to transport work to clients changes, this is mostly going to be web-based change, not basic processing of art work. That may not be the case with InDesign particularly, but even there, I wonder how many graphic artists use age-old InDesign to put work together for printers.
In photography, as I mentioned in the earlier discussion on this topic, there is a serious rebellion against the cloud. Many pros are going to other software like that put out by Phase I. I've stuck with Pshop but adjured the cloud and instead bought Lightroom as the upgradable "front end" for Photoshop. Frankly there's so far no difference in the raw converter in LR, although it has been updated to accept images from newer camera models, for which I also don't have any current need. So I'm not so certain the cloud is completely inevitable for basic image processing software. It might be a good marketing ploy for Adobe to offer more than one CC subscription, with a plan or two for just the most basic software, and at a reduced rate.