NFR - but why?!

[enCiphered]

What could be the reason why a number of plugins cannot be resell after you buy them?
I don´t really get it, what could be the benefits of such a business strategy?
I will never buy a software licence from a plugin developer who does not allow resale.
What about you?

[Russell Grand]

Agreed!

[wagtunes]

I've only resold one plugin that I've ever bought and only because it didn't work. So a NFR policy doesn't really bother me. If I buy something I pretty much intend to keep it.

[chk071]

Managing license transfers, and potentially giving the same kind of support to different owners is a expenditure for the companies. As simple as that really. Even those allowing multiple license transfers, like u-he or NI, have certain restrictions. E.g., you have to own a u-he plugin for 9 months, otherwise you'll have to buy a transfer token from them. And, NI won't allow a license transfer until you owned a plugin for 2 months.

[Dasheesh]

As I’ve had it explained to me. That software isn’t yours and you don’t own it.

If a person wants to buy a license to use a specific software and it is available for half the price on the used market why would they buy it from the developer? Then the dev is put out having to transfer and keep track of the License and support that the customer didn’t pay for.

[enCiphered]

Thanks for your replies, good points so far.

[Michael L]

I choose carefully (demo twice, etc) and thus have no regrets, so a resale policy has no effect on my decision. It is fair for a developer to ask customers to be responsible for their decisions.

Also, users get real value from using a plugin, particularly if it is complex software that requires support, so NFR can be a fair policy for everyone.

A far bigger problem is software that is not updated. Updating software takes a lot of time, so if a developer has a business model that will ensure updates I am pleased to support it.

[chk071]

I choose carefully (demo twice, etc) and thus have no regrets, so a resale policy has no effect on my decision. It is fair for a developer to ask customers to be responsible for their decisions.

Even though i sold and bought quite a bit on this forum, i agree with that. Especially as i always reserve a certain, limited budget for this hobby, as i know i will never do it even semi-professionally.

[Michael L]

Even though i sold and bought quite a bit on this forum , i agree with that.

I have noticed a curious pattern: most plugins I use constantly were bought from the developer, while many of those I bought on the forum are used less often. I'm not sure why. Perhaps if something is inexpensive, I don't consider the purchase as deeply?

[Dillinger]

As I’ve had it explained to me. That software isn’t yours and you don’t own it.

If a person wants to buy a license to use a specific software and it is available for half the price on the used market why would they buy it from the developer...

This is where hardware is a better investment.

[Burillo]

As I’ve had it explained to me. That software isn’t yours and you don’t own it.

which is another way of saying "just because". it's literally a developer power tripping.

If a person wants to buy a license to use a specific software and it is available for half the price on the used market why would they buy it from the developer?

same can be said about buying used physical items. yet, somehow i don't see anything i buy at the store carrying a license agreement that says "not for resale". although, this day is coming - there's a number of manufacturers of various stuff already prohibiting resale by tying hardware to software and abusing copyright law on software to prohibit resale of hardware.

Then the dev is put out having to transfer and keep track of the License and support that the customer didn’t pay for.

i own a lot of stuff. in the entire totality of my experience, i've only contacted support twice for matters other than license transfer. i'm not alone in that - the great majority of people never actually contact support (unless the software is buggy, in which case boo hoo, fix your bugs), so this "support burden" for second-hand licenses is greatly overstated.

as for support required to transfer licenses - there's no reason why developer has to manually do license transfers. all of this can be automated, it's not that hard to do. so that being an expense is not really a justification for not allowing resale either, because it can be avoided. it's not the buyer's fault that developer refuses to make his own life easier.

truth is, developers don't allow resale because that's what people tend to do given the option - because it's easier to deny an obviously beneficial service unless you're forced not to.

[twitewhite]

What could be the reason why a number of plugins cannot be resell after you buy them?
I don´t really get it, what could be the benefits of such a business strategy?
I will never buy a software licence from a plugin developer who does not allow resale.
What about you?

I don't mind NFR if the company has a decent demo so that I can check for compatibility. Unfortunately, a lot of plugins (mainly sample libraries) don't have one and are NFR, and I refuse to buy them for that reason. Hopefully they lose business as a result of their consumer antagonistic policies.

On the other hand, we wouldn't be in this mess if people were honest and deleted the plugin after selling it. But then again, in a world of rampant piracy, I suppose that's quite a minor problem.

[antic604]

I don´t really get it, what could be the benefits of such a business strategy?

Really? If I buy a plugin and then sell it to you, the developer will get their money once, even though the price was paid twice. For NFR plugins, revenue always goes to the developer, even though the overall sales might be smaller due to that restriction.

A middle road solution is a license transfer fee, that some developers have which is a nice solution as long as it's reasonable.

[chk071]

As I’ve had it explained to me. That software isn’t yours and you don’t own it.

which is another way of saying "just because". it's literally a developer power tripping.

Wah? If the software was yours, you could do with the source code what you want.

[enCiphered]

I don´t really get it, what could be the benefits of such a business strategy?

Really? If I buy a plugin and then sell it to you, the developer will get their money once, even though the price was paid twice. For NFR plugins, revenue always goes to the developer, even though the overall sales might be smaller due to that restriction.

A middle road solution is a license transfer fee, that some developers have which is a nice solution as long as it's reasonable.

I have no problem to pay a transfer fee and agree with you. But again, a company which does not allow resale will never see my money. Best example from twitewhite are the sample libraries.