Reason 7.1 and Rack Extension...

[EnGee]

^

For what neverenough was getting at though, that is my concern.

But I don't think it is that expensive really to upgrade. It is not only the updated SDK that we get. We also get new free racks and nice enhancements as well.
I don't think also they would oblige users to upgrade every time they update the SDK. This would piss off many users I guess.

The (unfair?) upgrade is used by most companies. Cubase and Cakewalk did it not so long time ago and people were shouting about it. Apple is also another example that has their policy and doesn't care if you can afford to upgrade or not! So, it is not only Propellerhead (damn! why they chose such difficult name to spell!).

In the end, if I'm in the OP's situation, and need badly the new Racks, then I would upgrade (but I am not and I don't need any additional Rack )

[Trancit]

The (unfair?) upgrade is used by most companies. Cubase and Cakewalk did it not so long time ago and people were shouting about it. Apple is also another example that has their policy and doesn't care if you can afford to upgrade or not! So, it is not only Propellerhead (damn! why they chose such difficult name to spell!).

And not to forget: these companies and some others did charge money for upgrade version, which had bugfixes, which is even worse... do you want to get this bug fixed...upgrade/pay...here we are talking about getting new features...

And not to forget: the new SDK was free for all R7 users... isn´t it comon, that one has to upgrade to get the latest features???
Reason 5 users could claim for not being able to use RE´s as well...

[ezelkow1]

You only get the free racks if you upgrade within a certain time period, they are not free forever. Since I jumped on the reason bandwagon late I dont have polar even though it was free at one point

Also the point was not about previous versions, but quick 'upgrades' to recently added features in current products. R5 has never had RE, my point was that R6.5 does (you couldnt expect a host to backport vst support if it never had it), and then was quickly obsoleted. So who's to say now we have R7, upgraded to R7.1 to add some new gui features for RE in the sdk that within a year R8 will be out and be a forced upgrade to get more new SDK features that are not backwards compatible with R7.

its a worry of the spastic pace and forced upgrades of this sdk. Compared to vst you can go back and forth on any host that has had vst2.4 support for the past 8 years without worry of whether or not your vst will run on it or if you should or shouldnt buy it. Now with RE's you gotta compare sdk version, host version, re version. Because of this it also points to the tight reigns props holds on RE's and their development. Look at how much vst's have evolved since '06, in capabilities, gui, etc, and all without a single change to a host or sdk necessary to make any of that happen. Compare that to the RE sdk where it seems to be able to progress at all requires an sdk update, a host update, new RE releases. It is a fundamentally different process, and definitely not one for the better Id argue, just shows me there was a huge lack of forethought (or maybe it was intentional) when coming up with the features of the sdk

[neverenoughfunk]

You only get the free racks if you upgrade within a certain time period, they are not free forever. Since I jumped on the reason bandwagon late I dont have polar even though it was free at one point

Also the point was not about previous versions, but quick 'upgrades' to recently added features in current products. R5 has never had RE, my point was that R6.5 does (you couldnt expect a host to backport vst support if it never had it), and then was quickly obsoleted. So who's to say now we have R7, upgraded to R7.1 to add some new gui features for RE in the sdk that within a year R8 will be out and be a forced upgrade to get more new SDK features that are not backwards compatible with R7.

its a worry of the spastic pace and forced upgrades of this sdk. Compared to vst you can go back and forth on any host that has had vst2.4 support for the past 8 years without worry of whether or not your vst will run on it or if you should or shouldnt buy it. Now with RE's you gotta compare sdk version, host version, re version. Because of this it also points to the tight reigns props holds on RE's and their development. Look at how much vst's have evolved since '06, in capabilities, gui, etc, and all without a single change to a host or sdk necessary to make any of that happen. Compare that to the RE sdk where it seems to be able to progress at all requires an sdk update, a host update, new RE releases. It is a fundamentally different process, and definitely not one for the better Id argue, just shows me there was a huge lack of forethought (or maybe it was intentional) when coming up with the features of the sdk

thank you!!!

[tonkatodd]

Cripes I didn't know you couldn't use the RE's that were brought in 6.5 anymore. That sucks. Is VST 2.4 still supported by Steinberg anymore? I remember reading somewhere that they were discontinuing it.

Edit:

Oh ok I get it you want to use 6.5 but use RE's using the new SDK without having to pay for the upgrade to 7.1 like using a old host that supports VST 2.4 without having to upgrade to a newer host to use the latest 2.4 plugins. I can understand that. The market was very different pre GFC for technology companies and it's very hard for larger and smaller companies to stay afloat these days, Just look at Bitwig pricing. Steinberg is a major competitor to Apple, Avid and Propellerheads etc with both consumer and professional markets with Cubase/Nuendo. Steinberg can essentially dictate the development of VST to their liking, Just look at VST3 which is ingrained into Cubase and Nuendo with note expression etc and for the hosts to support VST3 features like that would entail almost complete rewrites to there structure which would cost a fortune, All the while Steinberg is just laughing at them trying to keep up. Why would any company continue being dependent on there main competitors software when Steinberg can just hold back and introduce features on a whim for thir own benefit, It's insane. So Apple make AU and propellerheads make RE so they can dictate their own products development.

[stockholm808]

What do you guys think, can i install 7.1 demo if i already have a 5? Does it overwrite something (favourites folder). I would like to try it but i want to keep my good old 5 with a well organized folder system. Can i import the favourites into 7.1 if i buy it ?

[krucial]

What do you guys think, can i install 7.1 demo if i already have a 5? Does it overwrite something (favourites folder). I would like to try it but i want to keep my good old 5 with a well organized folder system. Can i import the favourites into 7.1 if i buy it ?

On mac I just rename the Reason folder. Or you can rename the reason demo folder as well. Now it sounds like you are storing data in your R5 folder, refills etc. I suggest you stop doing that there is no need or benefit putting data there. Find another location, I can't tell you the amount of time I see users in the PUF complaining after installing an update that all their refills are missing. Don't put anything in the Reason folder. Just don't do it.