Some are expensive, some are free

[jmh]

I have to assume that an intuitive interface makes one plug-in more useful than an equally good or even better plug-in (technically) that makes one struggle to get things to work. Would someone pay more for a well-designed interface that isn't the typical jumble of controls in a multitude of sections or panels?

It seems to depend. Some people prefer more control, as it makes them feel... 'more in control'. Other prefer simpler interfaces that help them get the job done without spending a lot of time tweaking all the controls to hear all the possibilities that are on offer. Personally I think that interfaces that offer both, a "Quick edit" for the most common tasks and a "Deep edit" for accessing the rest would be an ideal solution, as long as it's executed nicely. Some developers are offering this, and for me it's great - just check out something like DigitalFishPhones plugins with their 'hidden' parameters for extra control. That's they way I'd love to see plugins behave.

...I'd like to point out that just because something is "software only", it doesn't mean that it automatically has had lower manufacturing costs...

I have to disagree if we're talking hardware versus software equivalents instead of software to software comparisons. The costs for components, assembly, quality control, shipping and so on are vastly greater than coding software that can be fixed or modified fairly easily and then manufactured by simply making copies to download.

I was just trying to point out an exception to the rule. Contrary to popular belief, when a big company produces for example a new version of a product, there isn't as much r&d to be done, manufacturing lines exist, component costs per unit go really down due to mass purchases, etc. On the other extreme side, a new plugin might employ several people for a year, doing research on all aspects of it - algorithms, interfaces, marketing channels, advertising, beta testing and so on... not to mention that people always add everything possible related to producing hardware and yet always leave out the same when talking about software development. Just recently one starting developer shared his experience in working on his first real commercial plugins. Two pieces of software alone cost thousands to him. Now, consider a team of 7-8 people working on a project for a year, calculate all costs (salaries, rent for possible locations, computers, all necessary software, manufacturing for store distribution, distribution itself, advertising... you know the drill) and the result isn't exactly peanuts.

And I'm quite sure a lot of people are dying to point out that 'you shouldn't calculate it like that' when it comes to software, but at the same time they're still calculating it like that when it's about hardware...

I know, I'm going to extremes with this, but I just finished reading an article from some years back about TC Works - setting up a dedicated company for producing audio software. Most people still probably think TC plugins just magically appeared, being watered down versions of their high end algorithms, but that would be a false assumption.

Developing software MAY cost a lot. A lot more than most people are prepared to think. I guess that was what I was trying to say Or put another way... sometimes it might be a big initial investment, relatively bigger than for a big hardware company to introduce a new model of something they've produced before and thus have all the aspects required for manufacturing already available.

At the same time, I can easily see how more complicated, innovative plug-ins could cost more to develop than other simpler plug-ins in the same category. And uniqueness that adds value can justify a higher selling price if the added value is perceived as worth the extra cost.

Yep. Normally these expensive products have more effort put into them, be it the interface, how it works across different applications, how efficient the product is, and so on. People are quick to slag NI products for their apparently high prices, but just how many freeware / really cheap equivalents are there with as functional patch handling methods?

And yes, offering something unique normally adds value. A good example of added value would be the interface on ArtsAcoustic reverb. It's so well thought out that when combined with the quality of the reverb itself, the price for such a plugin starts to look cheap to me. Yet, I'm quite sure a lot of people are thinking "it's too expensive, let's wait for a group buy".

Of course, price is an important factor in competing with another products. But I still wish people understood the amount of work behind a product instead of blindly begging for groupbuys all the time. Not to mention that groupbuys on some level might devalue a product, yet another albeit not so important factor to consider before going for it.

I suppose one could make an argument for or against group buys, but I simply can't see a downside to them. Although there may be exceptions, I would contend that overall, group buys generate far more revenue for developers than they would ever see selling one at a time for twice or three times the price. And I don't get how this would devalue the product given that the group buy is a limited time offer. And as I've already noted, increasing the installed base has got to be a good thing for developers, who are competing for market share.

Well... a well executed group buy does good, in general. But if it's a phenomenon everybody starts taking for granted, pretty soon nobody's able to ask a reasonable compensation for their work, when all the possible customers are just waiting for a group buy to happen. Not to mention that after one group buy, there's still possible customers around, who've seen the product go at a discount price right from the beginning - so they'll be expecting another discount opportunity before making a purchase.

It would be fun to get some statistics, even vague ones, from developers who have done group buys. I'd especially like to hear how group buys have helped their sales afterwards, how their product has been selling before and after, how much sales a group buy generated compared to regular sales, etc. I only have limited information on this, but from what I've read on KVR, there are strong indications that group buys have side effects.

I am very curious about this, and have long wondered how so many plug-ins from the same building blocks can have any significant differencs in the kinds of sounds they produce or how they modify them. It almost seems like the interface might be the most unique aspect. Or is it how the building blocks are combined?

It's partially about how one combines the building blocks. It's about whether also custom modules are used. Mostly it's about the SE user's skills in doing something other than just slapping together some basic components, whipping up a GUI and calling it a day. Like it has already been said, there are some wonderful SE creations available. But they're in a majority, most SE creations are... to put it politely, I wonder why most of them have been put online and advertised. Sadly, pointing this out often turns into 'why are you bashing SE, it's just a tool' even though that's the point to begin with - it's not the tool but the the hundreds, if not thousands, of users polluting the amount of offerings with mediocre products.

Regards,

JMH

[eduardo_b]

eduardo_b

How many hours did you put into this thread?
Why do you do it?

Well, I don't get paid for it, obviously, so I'm doing it to learn from others. Lots of very smart people on this forum.

As far as the cost of plugs I will say that the smart developers will charge as much as they can get away with.
The real pros are here to make money and hopefully lots of it.
They don't know or care about expressions such as "fair value" they are here to make money not justice to the music world.

That would seem a cynical view, but perhaps you more correct than I would wish. In the end the user gets to decide if fair value exists with expensive plugs -- expensive being relative to one's financial resources and obligations. So you don't think a love of music has any part in why developers and others code plug-ins?

If all the plugs in the world would have been free then there wouldn't be any argument here, everybody would have just used what they liked and I believe most of today's expensive plugs would have made it to the top of the list of most people.

So you're really saying that the most expensive plugs are also the best. That doesn't seem to be the concensus from what I read in many posts here.

--eduardo

[eduardo_b]

Personally I think that interfaces that offer both, a "Quick edit" for the most common tasks and a "Deep edit" for accessing the rest would be an ideal solution, as long as it's executed nicely.

I like some semblance of “order” with synths, sort of a signal path from left to right that makes it obvious what is modifying what. I have a number of synths that use deeper editing panels to access increased control if and when it’s needed or wanted. There were negative comments on another thread in Instruments about a synth with an interface too large to fit many, perhaps most, displays. It was a free synth, but not likely to be usable to many.

Just recently one starting developer shared his experience in working on his first real commercial plugins. Two pieces of software alone cost thousands to him.

Did he say what his goals were, what made him decide to develop plug-ins? And why did he need these two pieces of software? Maybe _they_ were overpriced. It seems unlikely that more than one or two developers out of every 10 are going to make a good living doing plugs unless they have truly come up with something both unique and of real value to those willing to pay for it.

I know, I'm going to extremes with this, but I just finished reading an article from some years back about TC Works - setting up a dedicated company for producing audio software. Most people still probably think TC plugins just magically appeared, being watered down versions of their high end algorithms, but that would be a false assumption.

I grant you that there are exceptions, such as this one, but I see plug-ins listed in KVR that are from seemingly unknown companies and are priced at or above what many commercial versions sell for in retail stores or online. I can’t know what it cost them to create their products, but I see nothing to indicate that they aren’t just seeing what the market will bear from those willing to easily part with their money.

Normally these expensive products have more effort put into them, be it the interface, how it works across different applications, how efficient the product is, and so on. People are quick to slag NI products for their apparently high prices, but just how many freeware / really cheap equivalents are there with as functional patch handling methods? :)

I think NI is one of a rather small number of companies that can justify their pricing. The detail and features, and interface usability, are really quite good, and many of their products can take the place of several individual ones at a time. I do think they are heavy handed with required registration and logging in for even simple documentation, but their products are of uniformly high quality.

And yes, offering something unique normally adds value. A good example of added value would be the interface on ArtsAcoustic reverb. It's so well thought out that when combined with the quality of the reverb itself, the price for such a plugin starts to look cheap to me. Yet, I'm quite sure a lot of people are thinking "it's too expensive, let's wait for a group buy".

I think $189 is definitely expensive – although it could have been worse had they not priced it the same for euros and dollars (the first time I’ve seen this done). If this is going to be the only reverb someone is buying, and they will use it in their work, it might be justified in price, but I certainly don’t thing there’s anything wrong with waiting for a group buy. Whose to say that the price wasn’t simply set to avoid the $200 price point rather than because that’s what they need to charge in order to make a profit. I’ve tried the plug-in, and it’s nice, but I don’t see myself being able to justify spending that much money on it when that would mean not buying a couple of other very good plugs that I think will be more useful to me. I think there are many of us who have to make these choices -– we can’t simply pay what the developer wants because he thinks that’s what it should cost.

Well... a well executed group buy does good, in general. But if it's a phenomenon everybody starts taking for granted, pretty soon nobody's able to ask a reasonable compensation for their work, when all the possible customers are just waiting for a group buy to happen…It would be fun to get some statistics, even vague ones, from developers who have done group buys. I'd especially like to hear how group buys have helped their sales afterwards, how their product has been selling before and after, how much sales a group buy generated compared to regular sales, etc.

Taking group buys for granted is really no different than taking sales at Bloomingdale’s or Best Buy for granted. The developer gets to choose between higher margins or higher volume, deciding that the overall value of a group buy is either very good or not worth it. There are a few plug-ins that I will definitely buy, but not at “list” price because I both think the prices are too high (particularly when euros are converted to dollars) and it would prevent me from being able to buy the others. With group buys, I win and, in my opinion, they win because they all get more business than if I only bought one plug-in.

--eduardo

[jmh]

Did he say what his goals were, what made him decide to develop plug-ins? And why did he need these two pieces of software? Maybe _they_ were overpriced. It seems unlikely that more than one or two developers out of every 10 are going to make a good living doing plugs unless they have truly come up with something both unique and of real value to those willing to pay for it.

His goal with that plugin was turning a well received free plugin into a commercial one, since people expressed interest in a bigger, even better one and were willing to pay for it. Information provided by another developer lead to purchasing the necessary tools for it. I wouldn't necessarily call PhotoShop and MS Visual Studio overpriced (although development in Photoshop every since V5 has gone downhill in my eyes and for me doesn't justify upgrading to a newer version... but that's Adobe trying to cater for the masses instead of keeping PhotoShop as it used to be - an image editing application for professional use...)

As for the developer's intentions about how much he was going to gain moneywise from it, that part wasn't clear. It was to be a good product though, rivalling its main commercial competitor in quality as stated by a lot of users, and with a proper price tag it would have been a success, no doubt about it.

If you want more information, I can dig up the particular thread, as it is interesting reading and reveals a side of things most people likely aren't familiar with.

I think there are many of us who have to make these choices -– we can’t simply pay what the developer wants because he thinks that’s what it should cost.

I think that about sums up the whole topic / discussion. While I'm not directly disagreeing with this, I still have to say that's the main problem - people wanting and pretty soon EXPECTING to get anything at a price that suits them, without regard to what the value of the product just might be. (According to a lot of people, that particular reverb equals hardware several times more expensive, and pretty much wipes the floor with competiting VST reverbs... which more than justifies its asking price as it is a reverb of great quality)

To put this another way... should developers start discounting products simply because people WANT things cheaper? In the end, they might be forced to do it - but as long as there are people who appreciate good quality and understand that it might come at a cost, these developers are somewhat safe. But for how long?

I've seen a few products that would be in my arsenal if they met my current price point - my budget is really limited to tell you the truth. But I don't try rationalizing why products should be cheap enough for me to afford them, I see the situation as it is - there's something out there that offers great quality, but at a price I can't afford. If I can't, I'll live without it, as I have access to cheaper alternatives that are good enough for me to use.

To put it in even more blunt fashion... most reasoning I've seen for "too expensive" plugins being available at a cheaper price is people WANTING them. Wanting something for cheap isn't necessarily a deadly sin, but it ain't exactly solid reasoning either. Expanding this further, there's a lot of things in our lives we want but can't afford, yet most of the time people don't reason it should be cheaper just because they want it and can't afford it... hence I have difficulty understanding why it would be a valid reason for claiming cheaper prices for VST plugins or audio software in general, and why constant discount and group buys should become standard practice.

Pricing a plugin is always a difficult task, and I respect companies like ArtsAcoustic who are offering something of this quality to us home musos at such a price. They could have aimed for a different segment of the market, make their marketing accordingly and most likely would have succeeded - quite possibly make even more profit. Witness the threads where people are comparing their reverb favorably to high end hardware reverbs. Yet they priced their product so that even people like me can afford it if I really want it (and I do, it's just not possible currently with no steady income )

Taking group buys for granted is really no different than taking sales at Bloomingdale’s or Best Buy for granted. The developer gets to choose between higher margins or higher volume, deciding that the overall value of a group buy is either very good or not worth it. There are a few plug-ins that I will definitely buy, but not at “list” price because I both think the prices are too high (particularly when euros are converted to dollars) and it would prevent me from being able to buy the others. With group buys, I win and, in my opinion, they win because they all get more business than if I only bought one plug-in.

First, to get it out of the way... a group buy is in so many ways different to a sale at a store that's there's really no comparison - or have you seen any sales where brand new, just released products are sold at big discount prices at Macy's? If so, must be a big difference to where I live, as sales here are mostly about clearing stock and storage space for new products. So, in my opinion, a big difference between a sale and a group buy (as it applies to what group buys on our little software market have been so far).

But to claim "they win" you need statistics to prove it. Until it's shown out with clear numbers, it'll be just speculation (as of course a lot of what we're both saying is). While it might seem that selling a plugin at a group buy for 50 dollars to 200 people brings in a "pile" of cash, the same plugin marketed to a different level of users at 200 dollars requires only 50 sales to bring in the same amount of money - and if the plugin is of decent quality, it will sell enough at the higher price to bring in as much as a group buy. If it's constantly sold on discount prices, it does really reflect at some level that even the developers think it's not really worth the initial asking price... yet one more thing to consider before jumping in on the group buy phenomenon.

I could add that I'm glad I'm not a developer. Trying to choose which part of the market to aim for, should I go for volume sales instead of aiming for those users who are willing to pay what I consider proper compensation for the product, am I willing to take the complaints if it's too expensive for hobbyists/consumers here on KVR, am I going to lose sales to pros because my product appears cheap...

Well, I do hope some developers take a look at this thread, perhaps even comment. We're hopefully both sharing valuable opinions and I'm really glad this thread hasn't suffered from the "KVR effect" yet =)

Regards,

JMH

[eduardo_b]

His goal with that plugin was turning a well received free plugin into a commercial one, since people expressed interest in a bigger, even better one and were willing to pay for it. Information provided by another developer lead to purchasing the necessary tools for it. I wouldn't necessarily call PhotoShop and MS Visual Studio overpriced (although development in Photoshop every since V5 has gone downhill in my eyes and for me doesn't justify upgrading to a newer version... but that's Adobe trying to cater for the masses instead of keeping PhotoShop as it used to be - an image editing application for professional use...)…If you want more information, I can dig up the particular thread, as it is interesting reading and reveals a side of things most people likely aren't familiar with.

I would be most interested in the thread. I wonder when people said they’d pay for a bigger, better version, if they indicated what that amount might be. In regards to the two programs, I know what MS Visual Studio is and have seen it used, but never used it myself. I’ve been upgrading PS since version 3.0 (missing only CS) and have bought but not yet installed CS2. I think the program is still a professional level one with the same steep learning curve it’s always had -– they’ve used the basic engine for products such as Photo Elements that sell for far less.

I still have to say that's the main problem - people wanting and pretty soon EXPECTING to get anything at a price that suits them, without regard to what the value of the product just might be. (According to a lot of people, that particular reverb equals hardware several times more expensive, and pretty much wipes the floor with competiting VST reverbs... which more than justifies its asking price as it is a reverb of great quality)

There’s a lot of psychological stuff in these buying decisions. If someone is going to make money using software, then it’s reasonable to assume they pay the market value for professional tools -– professional in the qualities of reliability and brand name credibility that others have noted. And these customers will probably feel justified in spending the money. But for a hobbyist, spending the same amount of money may not feel right and could be difficult to justify to one’s self, let alone a significant other.

If the reverb is perceived by the buyer as being better than anything at any price either because of his or her own evaluation or on the recommendation of others who seem to know what’s good, then the money is probably well spent. This leads to your next comment.

To put this another way... should developers start discounting products simply because people WANT things cheaper? In the end, they might be forced to do it - but as long as there are people who appreciate good quality and understand that it might come at a cost, these developers are somewhat safe. But for how long?

The wanting part is certainly a valid point. I might want a really great reverb, but how much can I justify spending. Will I notice the difference from other reverbs that are also considered good, and is this difference actually material to the music being created. Knowing what one needs to realize a certain sound quality, and believing that there is no plug that will achieve the same quality, is different than simply wanting a plug-in that others say is better than all the others.

I've seen a few products that would be in my arsenal if they met my current price point - my budget is really limited to tell you the truth. But I don't try rationalizing why products should be cheap enough for me to afford them, I see the situation as it is - there's something out there that offers great quality, but at a price I can't afford. If I can't, I'll live without it, as I have access to cheaper alternatives that are good enough for me to use.

So, you have decided that you can live without these because they are not within your financial resources. Now one or more of these developers does a group buy at half the price. Will you not participate because you feel group buys perpetuate a group buy mentality? Or will you buy it as fast as your fingers can type. :-)

To put it in even more blunt fashion... most reasoning I've seen for "too expensive" plugins being available at a cheaper price is people WANTING them. Wanting something for cheap isn't necessarily a deadly sin, but it ain't exactly solid reasoning either. Expanding this further, there's a lot of things in our lives we want but can't afford, yet most of the time people don't reason it should be cheaper just because they want it and can't afford it... hence I have difficulty understanding why it would be a valid reason for claiming cheaper prices for VST plugins or audio software in general, and why constant discount and group buys should become standard practice.

Software, in general, has been unique in this because there are lots of people with the talent and knowledge to write programs and utils. As a result, there are commercial products, shareware software and freeware in almost every category. And there’s the open software aspect that has been around since personal computers came into being. So I don’t find it odd that many people are very price conscious when it comes to VSTs, particularly when there are so many free or low-priced versions to be had. This sets the bar much higher for commercial versions that sell for $200, $400 or $800. This creates an expectation of value for money that is really bottom up, which is not the case for many other product categories that do not have any free versions.

Pricing a plugin is always a difficult task, and I respect companies like ArtsAcoustic who are offering something of this quality to us home musos at such a price. They could have aimed for a different segment of the market, make their marketing accordingly and most likely would have succeeded - quite possibly make even more profit. Witness the threads where people are comparing their reverb favorably to high end hardware reverbs. Yet they priced their product so that even people like me can afford it if I really want it (and I do, it's just not possible currently with no steady income :P)

If you were talking about a price under $100, I might agree, but at almost twice that amount, I’m not at all convinced their pricing will attract all that many buyers. The hardcore will take the money from somewhere else to buy this plug, but most will not or cannot. I bet a group buy that brings the price under $100 will result in a very large number of buyers -– many of whom could not justify paying the list price.

First, to get it out of the way... a group buy is in so many ways different to a sale at a store that's there's really no comparison…

Actually, I think the analogy is accurate in principle, not logistics. A sale is a sale is a sale. A group buy is simply a way of ensuring enough participants at each pricing tier to justify the reduced prices. We live in a culture in which sales are a large part of retailing, and reduced prices are meant to lower inventory and boost overall revenues. I see a group buy in the same way.

But to claim "they win" you need statistics to prove it….If it's constantly sold on discount prices, it does really reflect at some level that even the developers think it's not really worth the initial asking price... yet one more thing to consider before jumping in on the group buy phenomenon.

But a group buy is no more than a limited time sale. I mean, if we didn’t refer to it as a group buy, and instead a VST was on sale for the month of (fill in the blank), what would the difference be? It’s not on permanent discount, and the initial asking price remains where it was.

I could add that I'm glad I'm not a developer. Trying to choose which part of the market to aim for, should I go for volume sales instead of aiming for those users who are willing to pay what I consider proper compensation for the product, am I willing to take the complaints if it's too expensive for hobbyists/consumers here on KVR, am I going to lose sales to pros because my product appears cheap...

Perhaps the one-size-fits-all approach is the problem. If a VST were offered that had 80 percent of the features that most hobbyist/consumers need, and it sold for half the price of the full-featured version, both the buyer and seller would benefit. Choosing the market segment to price for has to be a puzzle, but there are lots of ways to work this out. You’re right about professionals simply assuming that a low price means corners were cut, but more important is knowing how many people are in the universe of VST buyers. Does anyone know how many active members are on KVR?

--eduardo

[Alex@ProgressAudio]

I agree with what you said JMH, I think that's a realistic view of the situation. You make a good point about the meaning of "over-priced", I think people use that phrase a lot but what they really mean is "I can't afford it". The two are very different ideas, but people seem to mix them up.

eduardo_b, in response to your previous comments, my thinking is its highly unlikely I will hold a group-buy for Soup any time within the next 6 months, if at all. As JMH says its hard to draw solid conclusions about group-buys without having some statistics to look at, but my instincts tell me that they're for a product in the short term, but would have side effects in the longer term. Sure you offer the synth at a discount rate and get a boost in sales from the group-buy, but then who's going to pay full price afterwards? I think many would simply hold out in the hope that another group-buy would come along. So effectively, you've lowered the value of the software.

Of course each product is different and you need to have a strategy accordingly. For Soup, I feel the best strategy is to raise the profile of it so that customers considering buying something like Cameleon or Cube will also demo Soup as an option. Soup is very powerful and great sounding, and costs half or a third as much as these competing products. So, for what it is, its actually cheap.

I think the point I'm trying to make is that I'm not going to try and make a profit by targetting customers that don't actually have any money and trying to collect their loose change. Its a powerful, quality product, with clear and detailed documentation. If you play with the demo in detail, and read the manual to find out all those features you never even knew existed, you'll soon see its $85 well spent. Sure, you could buy 2 cheaper plug-ins for that money, but when Soup is something unique that sounds different, why would you want to? You don't need tons of new plug-ins, you just need a few that are good enough and unique enough to contribute something useful to your music.

Alex

[eduardo_b]

I agree with what you said JMH, I think that's a realistic view of the situation. You make a good point about the meaning of "over-priced", I think people use that phrase a lot but what they really mean is "I can't afford it". The two are very different ideas, but people seem to mix them up.

Yes, that's probably quite true for some, but I would tend to assume that many who say a plug-in is overpriced are referring to prices closer to $200 and above. There aren't many who would look at Soup and think $85 is overpriced, although they still might not be able to afford it. It's a most unique and interesting synth.

eduardo_b, in response to your previous comments, my thinking is its highly unlikely I will hold a group-buy for Soup any time within the next 6 months, if at all. As JMH says its hard to draw solid conclusions about group-buys without having some statistics to look at, but my instincts tell me that they're for a product in the short term, but would have side effects in the longer term. Sure you offer the synth at a discount rate and get a boost in sales from the group-buy, but then who's going to pay full price afterwards?

I think it's good to have made a decision that makes sense for you regarding this. I'm sure you will find plenty of interest at $85, and those who find it a useful synth will not complain about the price. At the same time, I don't think a group buy would have any long-term negative effect because the list price isn't anywhere close to prohibitive, so even after a group buy has ended you will still find that users will buy it, and the more people who own and use Soup, the more word of mouth referrals you can expect.

Of course each product is different and you need to have a strategy accordingly. For Soup, I feel the best strategy is to raise the profile of it so that customers considering buying something like Cameleon or Cube will also demo Soup as an option. Soup is very powerful and great sounding, and costs half or a third as much as these competing products. So, for what it is, its actually cheap.

I guess I didn't really think of Soup as being in competition with either Cameleon or Cube, both of which I own. That certainly makes Soup much less expensive, but I'm not sure how many will recognize that these two synths are the ones you're competing with. In fact, I was thinking how much more one gets for their money in comparison with other synths in the $69 to $89 range.

I think the point I'm trying to make is that I'm not going to try and make a profit by targetting customers that don't actually have any money and trying to collect their loose change. Its a powerful, quality product, with clear and detailed documentation.

I just don't know that this is about targeting those who don't have money. It's more about those who want the fairly unique and well-executed qualities of synths like Cameleon and Cube, but can't afford them. So, really, you're thinking you are competing with these synths, whereas I might be thinking that Soup offers so much more than other synths in its price range. Both sides of the same coin, but very different views.

[projectdan]

Yes, that's probably quite true for some, but I would tend to assume that many who say a plug-in is overpriced are referring to prices closer to $200 and above. There aren't many who would look at Soup and think $85 is overpriced, although they still might not be able to afford it. It's a most unique and interesting synth.

Id agree with that, I dont think many people would think of a synth under $100 as overpriced, unless it was very very simple. With synths in the less than $100 price range the factors that make a buy or not will be other synths the person has and what extra abilities and qualities the new synth has that would make the purchase worthwhile for them, along with the other standard factors.
So value wont just be decided on total capabilities, but on extra capabilities and character over currently owned stuff, this obviously reduces any VSTs overall value to a person than if they were buying whilst having no other Vsts. And with a lot of very good free stuff out there, most things are being judged on what extra it gives on top of what a user already has. Discounts and groupbuys will make a difference in these cases even though the product is normally cheap. It certainly has with me.
If you feel you "need" something $150> doesnt sound so bad, but if you just want it for some extra bonus icing on an already lovely cake, then it can look too expensive.

[eduardo_b]

So value wont just be decided on total capabilities, but on extra capabilities and character over currently owned stuff, this obviously reduces any VSTs overall value to a person than if they were buying whilst having no other Vsts. And with a lot of very good free stuff out there, most things are being judged on what extra it gives on top of what a user already has. Discounts and groupbuys will make a difference in these cases even though the product is normally cheap. It certainly has with me.
If you feel you "need" something $150> doesnt sound so bad, but if you just want it for some extra bonus icing on an already lovely cake, then it can look too expensive.

I think you've described it exactly. I have so many synths now -- free, shareware and commercial -- that I have to wonder why I should spend any more money on another one. It's the incremental addition of different features and possibly unique sounds that makes me ponder if adding just one more might not make me that much more creative. Probably not, but it's fun to play with synths that are not in the typical mold. So maybe $85 isn't too much for a synth that may have limited added value for me, but anything above $125 or so is "too much." If Soup were $50, I'd likely already have purchased it. And I think this is the issue for many of us who already have lots of synths, and thus the definition of "overpriced" is lower for us. And this could also apply to reverbs, flangers or whatever.

--eduardo