How do you feel about subscription based plugins?

[WatchTheGuitar]

Its not a sub, its a rent to own or a lease. After you paid in sub the value of plugs, you get perma license for them.
Basically you’re paying for total bundle in installments.

You do realise how that is inherently different?

I am using the word they use themselves.
https://www.meldaproduction.com/subscription/

The pro-sub argument is that developers with a stable source of income can focus their efforts on updating and maintaining their products in terms of stability and compatibility. If a sub developer doesn't even bother to update their products for M1 Macs despite having extra resources funneled to them, then it makes the argument rather shaky and one could definitely call this demeanor corrupt. Developers are obligated to do compatibility updates, especially within a subscription model.

You wouldn't subscribe unless you already have a compatible system. Where is the 'corruption' - insert Princess Bride meme gif of your choice - if the companies are prioritising development for their existing subscriber base, who will have compatible systems?
A customer later buying an incompatible system is a choice they've made to buy hardware that won't currently work with the service they are subscribed to. Are all Mac users this entitled?

[Ploki]

Voxengo uses word subscription but it’s a one time payment for all releases and some future releases.

Dont be so f**king obtuse, you know perfectly well what we are talking about here.
A lease is not a subscription. When you lease a car you don’t pay monthly to not own it in the end, that’s called renting.
Vojtech calling shit wrong doesn’t make your point.

I can call my fart a plugin subscription but it wont make it true

[WatchTheGuitar]

I can call my fart a plugin subscription

unsubscribe

[Ploki]

Hehehe

[Null_Echo]

When you lease a car you don’t pay monthly to not own it in the end, that’s called renting.
Vojtech calling shit wrong doesn’t make your point.

....that's literally what a lease is. You have to turn the car in at the end of the lease period. Some dealerships give you the option to pay off the remainder of the balance on the car and buy it outright, but, that's a whole separate thing, you're buying a used car at that point.

[Ploki]

....that's literally what a lease is. You have to turn the car in at the end of the lease period. Some dealerships give you the option to pay off the remainder of the balance on the car and buy it outright, but, that's a whole separate thing, you're buying a used car at that point.

If you can't buy it off it's called -renting-, and subscription is -renting-. You keep paying and you get nothing when you cancel subscription.

If you're -renting- a car, you're paying monthly and you need to return it, and everything you paid for it is essentially wasted money.
If you're -leasing- a car, the payments go toward purchase if you wish to do so.

One is more like not having a flat and you rent it and you pay your landlord pretty much the amount of what the flat costs eventually, and the other is more like getting a bank loan, buying something and paying it off in instalments. You pay the same monthly fee more or less, but in one case, you get to keep what you're paying, in the other case, you get f**ked

[dreamvoid]

A very important argument against subscriptions for plug ins is the fact that we all have and use many plug ins from several companies. If all or the majority of companies would have a subscription model only, we could have easily subscriptions in the dozens to deal with. This would not only add up financially, but also would add a layer of bookkeeping to the work load to evaluate when you still need which plug ins.

[crickey13]

You wouldn't subscribe unless you already have a compatible system. Where is the 'corruption' - insert Princess Bride meme gif of your choice - if the companies are prioritising development for their existing subscriber base, who will have compatible systems?
A customer later buying an incompatible system is a choice they've made to buy hardware that won't currently work with the service they are subscribed to. Are all Mac users this entitled?

Oh, we can come up with hypotheticals all day and engage in mental gymnastics, tip fedoras at each other to explain all this, but the fact of the matter is that this is a self-repeating pattern we see time and time again from most sub-based developers.

Demanding this kind of recurring payment for this kind of lazy support looks corrupt or lazy. If you pay this kind of money, you would think you would be able to receive the best kind of support there is, yet their support happens to be slower in this regard than in the case of smaller developers who do not demand money from you on a monthly basis. What is the subscription model good for then, what's the point?

Heck, Chris from Airwindows was able do this single-handedly, how many employees Izotope has? Freaking two hundred? You can call it corrupt or just highly unprofessional and extremely lazy. The accumulatively high price tag is not reflected in the quality of the support.

All this is just to illustrate the bigger point which is that subscription models are going to disincentivize sub-based companies from innovating and maintaining their products in a sustainable fashion.

Are all Mac users this entitled?

Nice strawman, lmao.

No, I'm merely a Windows user that sees lazy support for what it is. I use Windows because I find Mac environment to be overpriced and don't like the way they conduct business. I see no appeal in Mac products. That being said, that does not prevent me from seeing the reality of the situation, which is that companies like Izotope want to rest on their laurels and collect checks for the lowest amount of effort. I sympathize with all music makers and don't laugh at them if some company chooses to show a middle finger to them. Yeah, I know, that's so weird of me, I should kick a man when he's down like everybody else, huh.

[enroe]

... This would not only add up financially, but also would add a layer of bookkeeping to the work load to evaluate when you still need which plug ins.

Not only that. Imagine that after years you want to mix your favorite song again:
Many plugins are then not active and have to be reactivated - through subscription
or new purchase. Some companies no longer exist ... so that's where the stress
arises!

[imrae]

Yup. Similar problem with phone-home activation schemes.

[_leras]

except alexey who initially commented that is an audio plugin dev and knows how at least one plugin dev works

He's welcome to throw his opinion of 'subscription = corrupt' around, but it's a very unfair one. His company also probably has much lower costs than many others due to location and number of staff.

Luckily, I think there are just too many companies making products in this area for anyone to pull an Adobe.

I think psuedo subscriptions with paid for updates is probably the limit for many people, or at least people would need to think that a subscription provided suitable value. However, I do think that if done creatively a subscription could be a good option for some people.

[dlandis]

Horrible Idea. As an artist and pro I need access to my many tools all the time. The bookkeeping, which one is active, which one isn't, makes it totally absurd if you have/need a large collection of plug ins.
There may be some tax related circumstances which may be beneficial for a few, but generally it is just a method to milk the users even more.

So well put. If I had to use the subscription model to keep my plug-ins up to speed with updates and upgrades, I'd go broke in a few months. It is an absurd idea that can work only as long as most other plug-in providers do not follow suit and go subscription model as well. If that ever happens, it becomes totally clear that every subscription model plug-in one owns is now in direct competition with every other plug-in that has a similar function and in indirect competition even with those that are not similar at all (unless one possesses a zero-sum budget for music expenditures; I'm not sure that I know anyone like that... ). I'm hoping that those plug-in developers who have adapted the model drop it immediately. I can't help but think that even in the short run, it will be bad even for those companies that have latched onto it and may, in fact, help to drive under.

[Aleksey Vaneev]

Well, "Premium Membership" is not a subscription in Voxengo case, it's technically an one-time "bundle" license fee due to conditions outlined - simply a one-time fee. It's hard to compose binding agreements that cover all world, but the main condition is there: "a one-time fee". So, it's not subscription nor renting nor leasing.

[Scotty]

If I was starting over and money was tight, I'd be looking at subscriptions for sample based products and some plugins. I'd have to change workflow to print the audio to feel comfortable in archiving older projects but I think that would have benefits in longer term. In my opinion Plugin Alliance, Slate and East West Play offer excellent value. I could probably do everything I feel compelled to do with these and perhaps my Arturia collections. I'd put the additional money into speakers, cables and acoustic treatment. I've spent far too much on plugins over the years.

[Harry_HH]

"How do you feel about subscription based plugins?"

In the same way as for the direct-purchase based plugins.

But about the subscription for getting these plugins in use, negatively.