Wow, Rack Extensions are expensive

[chuck death]

if im not mistaken magnus from sonic charge even commented that he had ported his code {bitspeak?} in something like 15 minutes

He used to work with propellerheads so I'm not sure he can be taken as an accurate example of how long it would take to convert code. He's one of the very few people who have ever created a native Reason synth so he probably had quite a big head start over just about anyone else on the planet!

[valhallasound]

if im not mistaken magnus from sonic charge even commented that he had ported his code {bitspeak?} in something like 15 minutes

He used to work with propellerheads so I'm not sure he can be taken as an accurate example of how long it would take to convert code. He's one of the very few people who have ever created a native Reason synth so he probably had quite a big head start over just about anyone else on the planet!

U-he wasn't able to make the initial launch, despite having demos at Musikmesse using the alpha SDK. And Urs is pretty darned smart (and has some smart folks working for him). So I am inclined to believe that the 15 minute figure is not accurate.

Chris Randall, of Audio Damage, posted this on the Propellerhead forum:

I feel obligated to chime in here, since we're taking a bit of heat for charging for a plug-in that is free to normal DAW users.

To put the pricing in perspective, Rough Rider VST/AU, which we give away free in lieu of advertisement (we could easily charge for it) took us about 2 days to make. The Rack Extension took us, all told, a month. This is two highly educated, highly trained professional people that bill out at over $100/hr each for contract work, working full time for a month to make this. While I'd like nothing more than to offer it for free just like the VST, the simple fact of the matter is that we price something by what we expect to make from it over time versus our cost to make it.

That month we spent we could have made a new VST3/VST/AU product, which would have _DEFINITELY_ made us a hundred thousand dollars over the course of a couple years, including a huge dump of money on its first day of release due to our lack of demos. With the 30 day demo policy, plus the 45 day turn-around on payment from Props, plus their 30% cut, we're making US$19 per unit, some day a couple months from now.

But all that is just inside baseball. The simple fact of the matter is that we didn't know how this would do. Neither did Props, and neither did any of the other 3rd party devs. Every single one of the devs in the store (with the possible exception of Peff) knows plug-ins. We're all professionals who do this full time. We know what our time is worth, and what we can reasonably expect to get as a return on investment of resources. We have all priced our products accordingly. The App Store pricing model simply doesn't work here because there are a hundred million iOS users, and let's just say there are less Reason users. A lot less. If you sold an app to 0.01% of iOS users at $0.99, you'd make a pretty good living. If you sold a Rack Extension to 1% of Reason users (which is 100 times the percentage of iOS users in my analogy) at $0.99, you'd make enough for dinner and a movie.

That, my friends, is pretty simple math.

Sean Costello

[hibidy]

But here's the thing. What was the one thing reason users wanted more than anything else? Vst/i use. So what did propellerhead do? Created their own system. As it turns out, it really has absolutely nothing to do with what people wanted in the first place

So now, you can buy rack extensions at imho high prices for reason and dent your wallet instead of being able to use the vst/i's you desperately wanted to use in the first place

For those that are on board, groovy, but it sounds like they've created an issue vs fixing the one that existed in the first place.

[djanthonyw]

I wouldn't be one bit surprised if the main reason for not wanting to support third party plugins involved the dimensions of plugins not fitting in the rack, and if this reason was in fact more prevalent than stability concerns.

[liquidsound]

Even if possible, how do you solve the discount process. How you submit a proof to the PH and how you get one?
The developer needs to give it to the customers and needs to be a special format not easy to duplicate and then submit it to the PH and they in turn need to verify the certificate and then if they one day they allow the resell of the RE plugin what do you do with the discounted plugins? How about bundles if they ever propose one?

One thing no one has spoked about is upgrades for the RE plugins. Do we pay again?
Which version you need to have from the developer in order to get a RE discount? The lates one? Maybe the RE has less feature then the latest VST version but you still need the latest to get a discount?

Do you know how many issues are hidden in this new RE business model?
If I buy a RE plugin do I get a discount for the VST version? That would not be restricted by the PH.
What's going to be?

[braj]

Its a good time to not be a Reason user.

[Urs]

Hey Sean, our demos were done with an early SDK that supported filmstrips and static variables. Plus, we forgot the tape labels, hence we have to redo all layouts

Unfortunately my code is drained in static stuff for stupid reasons. Not an overly big issue, but I need to find the time to comb through it. And we just lately hired graphics gurus to replace filmstrips and add tape. Should've done that ealier, but was too busy with changes in office/staff and Diva update

[ChiTown24]

Question is, how can the developers verify that you bought the RE plugin? A receipt can be faked, if it comes from some unknown customer. Propellerhead could provide this info to the developer, but my guess is that they don't provide the customer names or email addresses to the developer in the current model.

As far as reimbursement, apparently the payments to the developers from Propellerhead happen 45 days of the sale (or maybe every 45 days). So a developer who reimburses the customer for a Propellerhead RE sale would either have to wait up to 45 days for the money to come through before paying out the reimbursement, or would have to pay the reimbursement out of pocket.

Sean Costello

first of all my apologies to readers
i watched the promo vid again and Magnus said 4 hrs, not 15 mins

regarding your question Sean all I can say is that it is the 21st century, 2012
cross referencing one database against another has to be possibly one of the easiest things to ask a computer to do.
Sure the propheads are intentionally refusing to identify to developers who is buying their plugins in RE format. at least thats the official blurb. that boils down to WON'T , not CAN't. im sick of reading the word 'impossible' on this issue, trying to push the idea that the devs hands are tied re: discounts so suck it up and accept the pricing. its not impossible in the true sense of the word, so lets just put that to bed!

now i know this mostly falls on the propheads shoulders, but the comments ive read from devs are coming across to me as mealy mouthed with no talk of trying to work around it on their end, everyone seems happy to pass the buck and say "oh its impossible to give you a discount, see: propheads". quite convenient for all parties who are making money on it.

FOR INSTANCE, and this is just off the top of my head, what about buying the rack extensions through the dev (baring in mind you can still demo them through the prophead ecosystem) ? pay the dev the full RE price+whatever extra charges might arise through money transfer, and give him your reason account details. Dev then transfers full payment for the RE to propheads telling them what account to deposit the RE into. Now the dev knows exactly who is buying their plugins in RE format, and if they already own the plugin, and can discount/credit/reimburse them accordingly.

i gotta say once more this is the 21st century and whats being asked of the devs/propheads re: discounts is nowhere near impossible. nowhere!. it boils down to refusal imnsho.

regarding 45 day turn around, im sure no one would mind if you simply passed the delay on to the end user and only reimbursed them when you in fact received the money from propheads.

going back to the promo video, the devs interviewed and the jist of the first few minutes is all about saying how rack extensions equate to less development overhead in the long run. taking them at their word it's cross platform and upgrade proof, your RE code wont be effected by os updates or reason updates.
Dave Spiers (gforce) said its so simple its genius.


and about the work that goes into the rack extensions well i am certainly only commenting on whats already been released and the price being asked, i'm sure theres plenty of plugins that for one reason or another arent as readily ported. perhaps due to conceptual challenges, perhaps the coding challenge, or both.

so the fact uhe plugs haven't already been ported doesnt really do much to alter my perception on this. chris randall's comments dont do much for that cause either. not to say his comments are invalid, just that im desensitized to his comment and opinions from reading some of his other posts in the past.


long story short discounts could be easily implemented if the desire was there to offer them, sorry but i'm not buying the ifs buts & impossibles and consequently im not buying reason or the rack extensions until some meaningful consideration is given to me when purchasing plugins i already own, in RE format

But it's early days and a great time to nip things in the bud and hopefully change the model to something more considerate of existing patrons and future patrons who might want to buy the vsts of their RE plugs.

can i get an amen ?!?

[valhallasound]

regarding your question Sean all I can say is that it is the 21st century, 2012
cross referencing one database against another has to be possibly one of the easiest things to ask a computer to do.
Sure the propheads are intentionally refusing to identify to developers who is buying their plugins in RE format. at least thats the official blurb. that boils down to WON'T , not CAN't. im sick of reading the word 'impossible' on this issue, trying to push the idea that the devs hands are tied re: discounts so suck it up and accept the pricing. its not impossible in the true sense of the word, so lets just put that to bed!

True, but if Propellerhead stays obstinate on this issue, WON'T is essentially the same as CAN'T. I doubt that there are any significant technical issues involved here, just as there wouldn't be any significant technical issues to allowing license transfers for the RE plugins.

As far as working around it, it is probably the same system as trying to work around the restrictions in the iOS App Store. Sure, a developer can give it a try, but they run the risk of having their apps pulled from the App Store. This is what can happen when you have a single point of sale for a product.

Sean Costello

[bmrzycki]

I personally think REs are priced fairly. What I don't like is when developers aren't allowed to give crossgrade discounts to users if a product lives in both the VST and RE world. Case in point, the u-he Uhbiks are a perfect solution for the Reason rack -- but I have to buy them all over again and Urs said Propellerhead isn't allowing for any kind of discount vouchers. Probably because cuts into their 30% profit margin.

[ChiTown24]

regarding your question Sean all I can say is that it is the 21st century, 2012
cross referencing one database against another has to be possibly one of the easiest things to ask a computer to do.
Sure the propheads are intentionally refusing to identify to developers who is buying their plugins in RE format. at least thats the official blurb. that boils down to WON'T , not CAN't. im sick of reading the word 'impossible' on this issue, trying to push the idea that the devs hands are tied re: discounts so suck it up and accept the pricing. its not impossible in the true sense of the word, so lets just put that to bed!

True, but if Propellerhead stays obstinate on this issue, WON'T is essentially the same as CAN'T. I doubt that there are any significant technical issues involved here, just as there wouldn't be any significant technical issues to allowing license transfers for the RE plugins.

i disagree Sean, the end result might be the same but there is a huge difference between won't & can't as you know. i'm only being so insistent on recognizing the distinction because passing won't off as can't completely alters the issue at hand and thus any arguments or suggestions made that might be contrary to the propheads way of thinking.
when it comes to refusing license transfers, that's not exactly great but imo is less fundamentally offensive than doggedly trying to obstruct reasonable discounts being offered to existing patrons or trying to push the idea that it's impossible. refusing license transfers i could see as trying to stop a certain type of behaviour or possible improprieties, refusing discounts when they could so easily be given & accurately controlled amounts to greed and little {actually nothing} more {imo}

As far as working around it, it is probably the same system as trying to work around the restrictions in the iOS App Store. Sure, a developer can give it a try, but they run the risk of having their apps pulled from the App Store. This is what can happen when you have a single point of sale for a product.

Sean Costello

ive bought from the ios store but cant claim to know all the ins & outs, but with the workaround i suggested the propheads would still get their 30% share without it being eaten into at all. my suggestion wouldn't change the money propheads received, it would simply give the devs the complete knowledge of who owns what so that the onus could just as easily be on them to facilitate reasonable discounts or prices for their loyal patrons.
if propheads would boot a dev out from the store for doing that, it would be out of mindless counter productive spite.

which brings me to my next point, surely all the devs involved so far {who all seem to be on friendly communicative terms with each other} could collectively say together "allow us to offer discounts or vouchers to our existing patrons who are buying a plugin they already own in RE format or we simply wont develop for your platform"

Or is that impossible too ?

[LeVzi]

It's hardly a good advert to get other developers to create RE plugs, this isn't going to do Reasons reputation any good. 1st they bring out Record then end up putting it together with reason, now they use "3rd party plugins" but they have to be written in their specific code that isn't anything like the VST equivalent.

They really shouldn't have bothered, hardly seems worth it.

[liquidsound]

They should have spent time improving Rewire for audio instead. That would have been another successful stepping stone .

[hibidy]

It's hardly a good advert to get other developers to create RE plugs, this isn't going to do Reasons reputation any good. 1st they bring out Record then end up putting it together with reason, now they use "3rd party plugins" but they have to be written in their specific code that isn't anything like the VST equivalent.

They really shouldn't have bothered, hardly seems worth it.

Exactamundo.

[Aiynzahev]

All I wish is that we could re-sell the RE's, even if its just back to Props for 50% of what we paid. My production style and mixing skills are changing so rapidly that I am always trying out new things and realizing I don't need certain other things.

I think it's only fair to be able to re-sell what you once paid for just like we do with physical equipment.