Plug-in (mostly FX) prices: lost in a devalued world

[nineofkings]

The value of a plugin is in how well it does what you want it to do, and how much you're willing to pay for that ability. If you want to eat soup efficiently, a $2 spoon will do better than a $200 blender. Yes, it's annoying to have to sift, and the classical economic idea of price as an indicator of quality goes out the window. But it's not so much a cultural thing. It's just the result of the realities that
1) Music software is a niche industry and there's no dominant company that sets the standard for prices
2) Software has no marginal cost so its price is entirely based on perceived value
3) Piracy means that more music software gets used than sold, which devalues the product and motivates these crazy sales

#3 is a cultural issue that's very familiar to musicians. But I'd argue that the nature of the industry makes it so that these general effects would be felt even without piracy.

[Lotuzia]

What is the real value of a plug-in?

zero.

you cant judge the quality of software based on price...its nonsense. one thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

these arent real things and they have no value whatsoever beyond what people are willing to pay for them. software isnt a commodity (nor is it comprised of any commodities), it is intrinsically worthless. you cant point to a component of software and say "oh thats quality right there...that surely makes it worth more".

no. software is completely without value beyond what we assign to it. the worst software and the best could easily be priced the same with no real reasoning behind it. its not like an item made with higher quality materials which obviously justifies a higher price over a similar item with lower quality materials.

ill stop here before we bleed into the realm of drms and eulas and any number of other ridiculous entirely manufactured concepts about the "worth" of software and people start getting their panties all in a bunch.

101% false. Software is simply : Tools, and can now be found anywhere, including in cars.

Simple example : If you can point to a *feature* in a software that can't be found in any other competitor program, then it has been invented Inventing things takes time, a certain kind of mind/brain, most of time expertise in a certain domain AND a lot more time and work to translate it into a somewhat bugless reality, i.e a part of a 'program'. This is called 'work', knowledge, and an entrepreneurial mind. You probably wouldn't think your own work, knowledge, and possible entrepreneurial abilities are worthless, and have zero value. it should be noted that in every other branch, hardware of software, there's not a single valid reason for why it would be different.

As for an item, or a software having only the value you give it, it's true for everything, in the material, or virtual, world : If you're not collecting zeppelins, then zeppelins have effectively no value for you.( except to populate a big empty garden)

[chaosWyrM]

What is the real value of a plug-in?

zero.

you cant judge the quality of software based on price...its nonsense. one thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

these arent real things and they have no value whatsoever beyond what people are willing to pay for them. software isnt a commodity (nor is it comprised of any commodities), it is intrinsically worthless. you cant point to a component of software and say "oh thats quality right there...that surely makes it worth more".

no. software is completely without value beyond what we assign to it. the worst software and the best could easily be priced the same with no real reasoning behind it. its not like an item made with higher quality materials which obviously justifies a higher price over a similar item with lower quality materials.

ill stop here before we bleed into the realm of drms and eulas and any number of other ridiculous entirely manufactured concepts about the "worth" of software and people start getting their panties all in a bunch.

what if someone were to replace every time you said said software with music or song?

what if?

i dont understand the question. are you asking me what the intrinsic value of art is?

[chaosWyrM]

What is the real value of a plug-in?

zero.

you cant judge the quality of software based on price...its nonsense. one thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

these arent real things and they have no value whatsoever beyond what people are willing to pay for them. software isnt a commodity (nor is it comprised of any commodities), it is intrinsically worthless. you cant point to a component of software and say "oh thats quality right there...that surely makes it worth more".

no. software is completely without value beyond what we assign to it. the worst software and the best could easily be priced the same with no real reasoning behind it. its not like an item made with higher quality materials which obviously justifies a higher price over a similar item with lower quality materials.

ill stop here before we bleed into the realm of drms and eulas and any number of other ridiculous entirely manufactured concepts about the "worth" of software and people start getting their panties all in a bunch.

101% false. Software is simply : Tools, and can now be found anywhere, including in cars.

Simple example : If you can point to a *feature* in a software that can't be found in any other competitor program, then it has been invented Inventing things takes time, a certain kind of mind/brain, most of time expertise in a certain domain AND a lot more time and work to translate it into a somewhat bugless reality, i.e a part of a 'program'. This is called 'work', knowledge, and an entrepreneurial mind. You probably wouldn't think your own work, knowledge, and possible entrepreneurial abilities are worthless, and have zero value. it should be noted that in every other branch, hardware of software, there's not a single valid reason for why it would be different.

As for an item, or a software having only the value you give it, it's true for everything, in the material, or virtual, world : If you're not collecting zeppelins, then zeppelins have effectively no value for you.( except to populate a big empty garden)

lol. so according to that logic: something takes a long time to make is inherently worth more than something that takes a short time to make, regardless of its comparative quality or usefulness.

i think you misunderstand the initial question. op is asking how to determine quality using price as an indicator. the reality of that is that that is entirely impossible in the realm of software. price doenst have any relation whatsoever to the manufacturing process. there is no way at all to glean relative quality based on price in the software world, it simply is not possible.

the cost of a house is generally a decent indicator as to the quality of the house. while not entirely accurate...its generally the case that a $10,000,000 house will be nicer and of higher quality than a $10,000 house. whereas a $200 reverb might be just awful and a $0 freebie reverb might be phenomenal.

there is absolutely no price to quality correlation in software...there just isnt.

[robotmonkey]

lol. so according to that logic: something takes a long time to make is inherently worth more than something that takes a short time to make, regardless of its comparative quality or usefulness.

i think you misunderstand the initial question. op is asking how to determine quality using price as an indicator. the reality of that is that that is entirely impossible in the realm of software. price doenst have any relation whatsoever to the manufacturing process. there is no way at all to glean relative quality based on price in the software world, it simply is not possible.

there is absolutely no price to quality correlation in software...there just isnt.

Actually you're wrong and I must side with Lotuzia here. You are mixing up the "value", use value and exchange value of software. Software like every other commodity produced has inherit value that consist of the labor time used to make it and the materials used to produced it. Every piece of software coded needs a certain amount of time spent in coding. It also depends on all kinds of external factors like later support, and means of production like computers or hardware (when we are speaking of modelling plugins, for example). A piece of software made by a two programmers and a GUI designer working in a rented office has a bigger value eg is more expensive to produce than piece of software made by a single programmer working in home.

The perceived quality of the software is completely different matter and more related to the exchange and use value.

Problems start when the exchange value becomes less than the value of the software.

[chaosWyrM]

lol. so according to that logic: something takes a long time to make is inherently worth more than something that takes a short time to make, regardless of its comparative quality or usefulness.

i think you misunderstand the initial question. op is asking how to determine quality using price as an indicator. the reality of that is that that is entirely impossible in the realm of software. price doenst have any relation whatsoever to the manufacturing process. there is no way at all to glean relative quality based on price in the software world, it simply is not possible.

there is absolutely no price to quality correlation in software...there just isnt.

Actually you're wrong and I must side with Lotuzia here. You are mixing up the "value", use value and exchange value of software. Software like every other commodity produced has inherit value that consist of the labor time used to make it and the materials used to produced it. Every piece of software coded needs a certain amount of time spent in coding. It also depends on all kinds of external factors like later support, and means of production like computers or hardware (when we are speaking of modelling plugins, for example). A piece of software made by a two programmers and a GUI designer working in a rented office has a bigger value eg is more expensive to produce than piece of software made by a single programmer working in home.

The perceived quality of the software is completely different matter and more related to the exchange and use value.

Problems start when the exchange value becomes less than the value of the software.

actually im not wrong...factually. you are confusing cost with value.

software is by definition not a commodity...nor is it comprised of any commodities. it has no inherent value whatsoever...its not an actual "thing". the amount of time and money it takes to make it is irrelevant...example:

if i spend 2 years and a million bucks to make a soup bowl with holes in it out of feces and cat urine...is it automatically more valuable than a soup bowl made out of clay that doesnt have holes in it that someone else made in 3 hours for $20?

obviously not...the time and money it takes to create a product ONLY factors into the price for the seller. buyers dont give a crap how long it took or how much it cost...those things do not increase the value of the item one single bit. it may increase the cost...but not he value. cost and value are unrelated and its quite common that the cost of an item is higher than the value thus making the item not a viable product to manufacture.

the bottom line is cost to produce ≠ value in any way shape or form.

[Hink]

What is the real value of a plug-in?

zero.

you cant judge the quality of software based on price...its nonsense. one thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

these arent real things and they have no value whatsoever beyond what people are willing to pay for them. software isnt a commodity (nor is it comprised of any commodities), it is intrinsically worthless. you cant point to a component of software and say "oh thats quality right there...that surely makes it worth more".

no. software is completely without value beyond what we assign to it. the worst software and the best could easily be priced the same with no real reasoning behind it. its not like an item made with higher quality materials which obviously justifies a higher price over a similar item with lower quality materials.

ill stop here before we bleed into the realm of drms and eulas and any number of other ridiculous entirely manufactured concepts about the "worth" of software and people start getting their panties all in a bunch.

what if someone were to replace every time you said said software with music or song?

what if?

i dont understand the question. are you asking me what the intrinsic value of art is?

sort of but not exactly, but first keep in mind that this guy is not about making money from my music. In these times we have heard many times the artist saying they deserve to be paid for their work right? But face it over the years the cost of reproducing music for distribution has become cheaper (I remember when if an artist wanted a vinyl 45 with two songs you could expect to pay around 1,000 dollars and this was late 70's early 80's so increase that number to fit the times), tapes cost money as well and CD's but once people had CD players the cost went down. Now we have downloads and streaming which means no physical product, but still a lot of time, manhours and equipment are required to create the product. Then of course there is marketing. So the artist deserves to get paid and many people make money along the way, but has cost gone up or down? TBH I think that line is a bit blurry.

Hardware FX units (DSP) is costly, lots of physical needs in parts, lots of work, time and of course marketing. Software is of course a lot cheaper, but you still need the tools, manhours and skills to create it plus you need to market it. There are simillarities here, not precise similarities but it still begs the question for me that I asked. Though tbh the line is not quite so blurry so the industry finds a way to blur the line.

So I am asking as an artist if the same point were put to you that you put to the developers who make your tools what would your response be? The developer is going to say he's just trying to make a living, while those who make free plugins will have different answers just like if someone asked me why Taylor Swift doesn't allow free downloads of her music like many of us. I ave asked myself the same question you are asking many times and I think KvR can back this up though I have probably never worded it that way.

I'm known for not buying brand names and going for value and what works for me, I remember one very respected member explaining to me that he would not respect someone on stage as much if they were not playing a "pro" guitar. (I found this offensive tbh and it's well known I did). On the other side of the coin some artists might not want to go into a studio and lay out cash to record their next hit and not have that studio using Waves or UAD instead opting to use freebies or cheap plugins, sadly (and I do mean sadly) it may not look as professional. The ripple effect is people who have their own studios want to look professional so they go out and buy the same gear as the "big guys" so they look pro too. As much as I try and avoid this I myself fall victim to it as well, it's pretty much human nature. The industry has found it's way to blur that line, the name has value.

As long as people are willing to pay the price they will charge it, the truth is I have been lucky. Samplitude has been known for being costly but I got in on it on a great crossgrade deal and saved money along the way on upgrades. Now Samp has been reduced by a lot in price and thankfully the plugins are extremely good, I'm not trying to impress anyone with my gear so Samp in a way saves me time and money. With that said, guitars, amps, pedals,software, computers, synths, keyboard controllers, soundcards, yada, yada...I'm sure I'm in it for well over 25k. But the truth is it has been worth every penny for me and I'm a tightwad.

But you cant judge the quality of music based on it's price, it isn't a commodity, "quality" is subjective and if you make it with better gear does not mean it will be worth more money.

[chaosWyrM]

But you cant judge the quality of music based on it's price, it isn't a commodity, "quality" is subjective and if you make it with better gear does not mean it will be worth more money.

it all boils down to that.

i will rephrase my analogy a second time.

if i took 10 years and spent thousands upon thousands of dollars to produce one song, i used the most elaborate hardware synthesizers, i recorded in the most advanced studio, i went all the way to antarctica so i could record authentic sounds of glaciers cracking using the most expensive field recorders known to man...does that automatically mean the song is good? or that its "better" than a song someone made up in their bedroom in a half an hour with nothing but a $10 garage sale ukulele?

obviously not.

the same holds true for software. remember...this discussion is about using the price of software to determine its quality...an absolutely preposterous notion. there is no correlation whatsoever.

effort, time, and cost are only important to the producer of a thing...the consumer doesnt give a rats ass about it...nor should they. all they care about is the final product and how much does it cost to buy it. if the cost is too high they wont buy it, its as simple as that...regardless of how difficult, expensive, or time consuming it was to produce.

its a disconnect that many many creators are guilty of...thinking other people care about their time and costs. if you cant make something fast enough and cheap enough to be able to profit from its sale because people refuse to pay the price youre asking...then your price is too high, your product is no good, or both.

[Hink]

But you cant judge the quality of music based on it's price, it isn't a commodity, "quality" is subjective and if you make it with better gear does not mean it will be worth more money.

it all boils down to that.

i will rephrase my analogy a second time.

if i took 10 years and spent thousands upon thousands of dollars to produce one song, i used the most elaborate hardware synthesizers, i recorded in the most advanced studio, i went all the way to antarctica so i could record authentic sounds of glaciers cracking using the most expensive field recorders known to man...does that automatically mean the song is good? or that its "better" than a song someone made up in their bedroom in a half an hour with nothing but a $10 garage sale ukulele?

obviously not.

the same holds true for software. remember...this discussion is about using the price of software to determine its quality...an absolutely preposterous notion. there is no correlation whatsoever.

and exactly the point I was making (and really have been for almost 13 years at KvR and 45 years of guitar playing)

[chaosWyrM]

But you cant judge the quality of music based on it's price, it isn't a commodity, "quality" is subjective and if you make it with better gear does not mean it will be worth more money.

it all boils down to that.

i will rephrase my analogy a second time.

if i took 10 years and spent thousands upon thousands of dollars to produce one song, i used the most elaborate hardware synthesizers, i recorded in the most advanced studio, i went all the way to antarctica so i could record authentic sounds of glaciers cracking using the most expensive field recorders known to man...does that automatically mean the song is good? or that its "better" than a song someone made up in their bedroom in a half an hour with nothing but a $10 garage sale ukulele?

obviously not.

the same holds true for software. remember...this discussion is about using the price of software to determine its quality...an absolutely preposterous notion. there is no correlation whatsoever.

and exactly the point I was making (and really have been for almost 13 years at KvR and 45 years of guitar playing)

well then we are on the same side of this discussion.

sorry i was adding some bits to the end of my previous comment...so now the quotes are off.

[Hink]

But you cant judge the quality of music based on it's price, it isn't a commodity, "quality" is subjective and if you make it with better gear does not mean it will be worth more money.

it all boils down to that.

i will rephrase my analogy a second time.

if i took 10 years and spent thousands upon thousands of dollars to produce one song, i used the most elaborate hardware synthesizers, i recorded in the most advanced studio, i went all the way to antarctica so i could record authentic sounds of glaciers cracking using the most expensive field recorders known to man...does that automatically mean the song is good? or that its "better" than a song someone made up in their bedroom in a half an hour with nothing but a $10 garage sale ukulele?

obviously not.

the same holds true for software. remember...this discussion is about using the price of software to determine its quality...an absolutely preposterous notion. there is no correlation whatsoever.

and exactly the point I was making (and really have been for almost 13 years at KvR and 45 years of guitar playing)

well then we are on the same side of this discussion.

sorry i was adding some bits to the end of my previous comment...so now the quotes are off.

there's no reason to apologize, my first post was a bit vague...but it's still appreciated

[xoxos]

if i spend 2 years and a million bucks to make a soup bowl with holes in it out of feces and cat urine...

is this wond'rous bowl available for purchase for me now? course i'd probably buy one then find out that's what they use for everyone at the freemason lodges i'm such a silly ignorant bastard me.

[DJ Warmonger]

no. software is completely without value beyond what we assign to it. the worst software and the best could easily be priced the same with no real reasoning behind it. its not like an item made with higher quality materials which obviously justifies a higher price over a similar item with lower quality materials.

Fun fact: programming software takes time and skill. Good programming skills are somewhat pricy, you know? Sometimes the sheer amount of presets adds value (Omnisphere). And they take a lot of work to make.

Then comes customer service and updates, which don't come for free either.

[xoxos]

Fun fact: programming software takes time and skill. Good programming skills are somewhat pricy, you know? Sometimes the sheer amount of presets adds value (Omnisphere). And they take a lot of work to make.

Then comes customer service and updates, which don't come for free either.

what am i, chopped liver?

alright, i'm chopped liver. have some free vsts.

and you can pee all over me to boot.

[xoxos]

i'll tell you what mate, the history of free vst is like, well, history

no one wants to know because people are moronically programmed to worship the goaldone crown and only worship goaled as their won desire.

like paul kellett (ok not oversampeld but at the time manna from heaven) destroy fx, ambience reverb, crystal vst, all of this great stuff for absolute free, it's all forgotten except the only reason why people talk about dfx is because it's so out there compared to what goaled loving people do that if people didn't mention dfx their friends would make fun of them, otherwise it's forgotten in lieu of praise for payware. the only reason people talk about xhip is because that thread has been getting bumped since forever. it's a continual contemporary event.. if xhip were released in perfection and never changed it would also be history.

these them folks are right, money has nothing to do with quality or labor or ability or worth, it's entirely volatile. but no one cares about all the people that helped them out for free whan they want to talk about how proud they are of spending bloody money like a smart person.