Rent-to-own?

[almazmusic]

Didn't found this topic.

Any plans on subject?

[Urs]

Thoughts, but no plans.

[simmo75]

I'm a fan of it, I would definitely jump on board.

[synth_punk]

I think it's really helped Serum sales as well.

[antic604]

Thoughts, but no plans.

Please find the time to think more & convert it into actual action plan

Maybe partner with splice.com like Xfer did?

I think it's a win-win for both sides - I'm a hobbyist and it's difficult for me to justify spending 100+ EUR on something that I might not have a lot of time to use due to job & family stuff, but if that expenditure could be spread over time then it suddenly becomes a much more appealing proposition and easier to justify. Not sure how big of a problem piracy is for u-he's stuff, but I recall Steve Duda saying that for Serum more than 90% of users aren't legit. So, if just 10% of those would get encouraged to rent-to-own, then suddenly it's 2x more legit users.

[Urs]

I think it's a lot of development work for a major business risk. It involves creating a challenge/response (or online activation) scheme, or it involves using a pre-made solution such as iLok. It also involves creating separate binaries for each platform and license model. Either way we would have to initially try it with one product, and it'll take a one or two year trial to see how it stacks up against our current scheme.

Thing is, an overall loss of 10% over the course of a year costs two jobs. I much rather spend time on developing new things than on such risks.

[antic604]

I think it's a lot of development work for a major business risk. It involves creating a challenge/response (or online activation) scheme, or it involves using a pre-made solution such as iLok.

Oh, indeed! I've not thought about it - you need to be able to disable the plugin if someone stops paying

I'll start saving for that Repro-1 then

[AnalogGuy1]

FWIW, my opinion is that profit margins against development time are so slim for VSTs (vs. most of the non-music software and hardware industry) that I'd rather see the man-hours that would take to make this a viable approach not be spent by the developer for the few users that want this, but by the few users that want this at work to earn the money to purchase the program. Then the developer takes that time to produce new products that could benefit everyone. Everyone wins (although the win for a few is delayed).

I'm sure 100 different people will have 100 different opinions on this, though. Mine comes as a developer of non-music software and hardware.

[Teksonik]

Please do not spend valuable development time on a "Rent to Own" scheme. If someone can't qualify for a Credit Card or doesn't have the discipline to save up for what they want then they should probably find a less expensive form of expression. I'm of the opinion that if you need a Rent to Own scheme for a ~$200 plugin then the least of your worries are the plugins in your folder.

But having said that if it could be done without any ill effect on existing customers (no new C/P method etc) and without one second being taken away from development of new and improved software then....ehhh why not. I understand that more sales could result in more development if it allows the hiring of new personnel but I question whether the additional sales from a RTO plan could cover the costs of new employees.

In my opinion a company it's asking for a lot of headaches getting into the Credit Business but I guess it's worked for Serum.

[OreoSplitter]

At least it isn't a physical product like a tv or couch where you would lose money when someone stops paying. If someone is given an option of rent to own vs buy, I am guessing most people who can afford the software (and it's reasonably priced) they would choose to buy it. So I doubt any sales would be lost even for those who eventually stop paying a few months in. After the initial work has been put in this could be seen as strait profit from a customer who wouldn't have bought the product otherwise. I refuse to buy omnisphere at it's insane asking price but as a payment plan at $50 a month, I could see me doing that. I wonder how well sweetwater does?

As far as taking away from development time, if version 3 is still years away, does it really matter?

[JJ_Jettflow]

Please do not spend valuable development time on a "Rent to Own" scheme. If someone can't qualify for a Credit Card or doesn't have the discipline to save up for what they want then they should probably find a less expensive form of expression. I'm of the opinion that if you need a Rent to Own scheme for a ~$200 plugin then the least of your worries are the plugins in your folder.

But having said that if it could be done without any ill effect on existing customers (no new C/P method etc) and without one second being taken away from development of new and improved software then....ehhh why not. I understand that more sales could result in more development if it allows the hiring of new personnel but I question whether the additional sales from a RTO plan could cover the costs of new employees.

In my opinion a company it's asking for a lot of headaches getting into the Credit Business but I guess it's worked for Serum.

And for Lennart Digital as well since Sylenth 1 is also available as a rent to own as well.

If you slap it on a CC and do not pay it off before the due date you get hit with intrest and the longer you take to pay, the more it will cost you in the end. Neither Xfer or Lenard Digital charge a penny intrest so unless you intend to pay it off quickly or pay cash outright, the rent to own scheme makes sense.

[Russell Grand]

I'm guessing a u-he rent-to-own plan will never materialize, but mark me down as another for rent-to-own. I'm currently paying for Serum that way and I absolutely love it. I wish more developers had a rent-to-own plan available.

[antic604]

FWIW, my opinion is that profit margins against development time are so slim for VSTs (vs. most of the non-music software and hardware industry) that I'd rather see the man-hours that would take to make this a viable approach not be spent by the developer for the few users that want this, but by the few users that want this at work to earn the money to purchase the program. Then the developer takes that time to produce new products that could benefit everyone. Everyone wins (although the win for a few is delayed).

Well, consider this:
- the profits are low, because over 90% of plugins is pirated (that's coming from S. Duda / Xfer),
- to combat that, plugins are actually quite expensive - many will cost similarly to real hardware synthesizer, that needs to be manufactured, shipped, retailed, etc.,
- if spreading the cost of plugin over time would encourage even a small portion of that 90% of users to get legal, then it could maybe double the actual profits for some of the developers - that's huge,
- the investment to build the challenge/response system to validate the license would be a one time expense and could be implemented to all new plugins and over time added to the old ones; I actually wouldn't be surprised if such solutions are already available for purchase / license from 3rd parties

Please do not spend valuable development time on a "Rent to Own" scheme. If someone can't qualify for a Credit Card or doesn't have the discipline to save up for what they want then they should probably find a less expensive form of expression. I'm of the opinion that if you need a Rent to Own scheme for a ~$200 plugin then the least of your worries are the plugins in your folder.

Just go to the Facebook groups for DAWs or music styles and every day there are requests for cracks for plugins. Some do it because they don't care (so f**k them!), but a lot of them genuinely can't afford to spend $200 because they're either in a 3rd world country where it's month's salary, are students with no income, etc. If those guys were given other way to purchase their plugins, they would.

And there are others who can afford it, but music is just a hobby and it's difficult to justify spending $200+ monthly on a new plugin(s). It's much easier to swallow if its $10/month, which makes it an impulse purchase kind of thing.

[CRAFTMATIX]

http://www.pluginplay.co/

[Urs]

- to combat that, plugins are actually quite expensive

That isn't really true, at least not for us. For instance, we have a product that is only pirated on one platform, but not on the other. If it was true, we would need to compensate for losses on the pirated platform. But the sales are 60% this platform, 40% the other platform with a 10% margin of error, just like every other product.

Therefore, our experience is similar to most serious studies about software piracy. The effects are there, but they're nowhere near 20%. By accepting this, and by not going all paranoid with expensive/intrusive copy protection, we manage to keep prices low.