Sorry man I had no idea they promised 64-bit support. If that's the case then I am RIGHT THERE with you. They need to live up to those promises and iron out bugs before releasing new products. But that seems like standard practice unfortunately for a lot of software companies.chokehold wrote:I'm not mad because I purchased a 32-bit plugin and now it doesn't magically become 64-bit because I want it to.AudioGuy720 wrote:Don't get made because you purchased a 32-bit plugin and now want it to magically become 64-bit.
I didn't just download and read somewhere that "if you copy the x86 installer on a flash drive and put it under a growing light, it will mature to x64", but I paid for the promise that I will receive an x64 version.
I am mad because I PAID FOR a 32-bit plugin under the official promise that "there will be a 64-bit plugin" - yet there isn't one after all this time (not for OSX there isn't).
My own bloody fault, I guess.
"Never believe what is written on the Internet", they said.
That'll teach me.
There is no demo for SSD4.
It's a library, so not a big problem not having a demo.
I bought it anyway, everybody said it was so good.
Could I sell it?
No, FFS, because Slate didn't allow SSD4 licenses to be transfered.
So instead I had to get AudioMIDI (from where I bought the license) to claim the money back from Slate and reimburse me.
You have NO IDEA what a mess that was. It took WEEKS to make this "you'll get your money back instead" come true. Apparently, I wasn't the only one who the Slate team let wait.
The last thing I wanted to know, whether or not I could sell my Trigger license, took them first about two weeks to answer, I replied the same day and it took them 8 more days to answer again.
Asking a total of $55 transfer fees for a product that costs $69 new is RIDICULOUS.
Especially if their work morale condones 8-day waiting periods for paying customers.
Not even the so-much-hated Waves do that.
I'm not sending any money in Slate's direction ever again, not even if they call it Eiosis instead.
And yeah, not being able to sell your software without license fees is in my opinion illegal and something we as consumers need to start contacting our lawmakers about. They've been pulling this crap in the videogame industry now for a bit by disabling certain elements of the game (mainly multiplayer support) for people who buy used copies.
Car dealers don't collect a fee from your used car sale. The previous home buyer doesn't collect a fee if you sell your home. And don't give me that "you're paying for a service" because oh hell no I already paid for the iLok. In fact companies who produce unprotected (dongle-less) software are in a worse position. Because you can sell your software and technically still use it, albeit illegally. At least with iLok you can't use it anymore once the license is transferred.
Once you transfer your license then you cease the ability to receive support from that company as well.
That's the argument that people are making anyway. That, "Oh once you sell your game the game companies have to support one more user on their servers." No actually they have one less user and then one new user because you aren't able to get on that game server anymore. And also whose fault is that that companies code games that HAVE TO run off official servers? It's all a greedy money grab and software buyers might want to band together and start contacting Congress (if you live in the USA).
Software companies can't have it both ways. I am a strict believer in copyright/intellectual property law and I hate music/software/book/movie piracy. But they can't have it both ways. If a data copy cannot be copied then we as buyers have a right to sell that copy without restriction. For all these reasons I refuse to buy digital downloads of music, TV, games, etc. Ever try to sell an mp3?