Splice rent to own Serum plan, what do you think?

[Daags]

then of course, you inevitably get the question of ... well, if consumer X is paying the same total in dollars as I am, but being given 18 months to do so via rent-to-own... why don't I get any 'reward' for paying the whole sum upfront, in the 'normal' fashion. the customer who pays the total upfront should be rewarded/incentivised to do so, as far as I'm concerned...

Because both of you are going to pay for it nonetheless, Steve got time, nobody is forcing you to pay all upfront, can't you just be happy that now others can afford it too, no I guess.

Exactly, this is huge win-win for everyone...well except for elitists among us.

don't be such an asshole. you are acting like the 'elitist' you are proposing me to be, for simply having concerns about this scheme on a broader scale. if you can't address those concerns, and prefer instead to make baseless reductions of my character, maybe it is best that you don't say anything at all - since you are only bringing the level of discourse down.

[Compyfox]

as far as renting-to-own goes.... ok, that's better than the subscription model for sure. but, the issue I see if this model would 'take off' so to speak, would be devs pricing the plugin higher as a result. both because it is easier for the consumer to stomach since they are paying in modest installments and since they'll be thinking in terms of monthly costs, and because the dev will simply be motivated to get maximum possible return.

Definitely some really good concerns in this post. So thanks for bringing that up.

There will definitely be a longer debate about "hidden fees" on the long run. And I have the same fear as you. On the other hand, if I look at what plugins are priced these days from bigger companies, and for what they sell (up to 80% off during sales - I just got mail from Plugin Alliance regarding their 299USD Maag EQ4, reduced down by 70% to 89USD - plus VAT!).

It's a two edged blade really. But it's not too uncommon to see electronic stores say "you can buy over a course of several months, and save the VAT on top", but in reality - the price was adjusted to still cover this. As can be clearly seen with both Waves and Plugin Alliance. Or I'm just happy to see that the sales are that low (take your pick).


But considering this... I'd also ask myself "if I invest more money upfront, why I don't get better goodies than a person that takes 19months to pay off what he wants to buy - maybe at least throw in a preset set or something". At least to one end.

The big picture shouldn't be like that - it should be more like "OMG! I can finally buy the tool in question - even if it takes me ages". I've been at this point several times in my life - and honestly, I'm glad that I've got rid of that. Because the interest rates were insane.

In this example however - we don't have an interest rate. So it is still fair I think? I mean, if you can't afford to buy the next rate, then you can't use the tool in question while the other person that had the money upfront, can still use the tool. No harm done, none taken.


But else, yes... food for thought. Especially considering things like "what happens in the xyz amount of months I pay off the software? Will I get upgrades for free and not just the updates? What if there is new content bundled?", etc. Considering that there are companies where longtime users get free bonus goodies throughout the years, while others have to buy "upgrades". But this is a whole different topic and for a separate thread.

I guess we just have to wait and sit this out. Same with the nowadays Subscription Plans.

Another thing I didn't see on your page, is payment options. I think this is a huge topic that needs to be addressed IMO.

What do you have in mind here? We support credit/debit cards and paypal.

The payment options, and the VAT topic, is not mentioned on your page. At least I didn't find it.

I laughed when reading the earlier comment that was suggesting to pay $10 this month and put the extra $30 in a saving account until you can pay off the entire plugin. It's actually not a bad idea.

I hope you get more feedback on this. Not only on KVR, but maybe also on GearSlutz (who are just as active regarding plugins). I understand that there is a risk involved. But if Steve and you want to "change the game" - then I think risks need to be taken.

What about those users that have no online rig, yet still want to use that offer?
Is there an alternative solution in this case?

Yes, the alternative solution is to pay for the plugin upfront, it works 100% offline, no Splice, no internet needed.

Of course this is an option.

But... even then there might be users that don't have the funds, while still using a mostly (or completely) offline rig (yes, that is still a thing! PC in the basement for example, not connected to any web, etc - I know many studios that are still not even connected via WLAN!)

Your system is pretty much a time-limited C/R. Maybe there is a way to use an USB stick and "transport" the license every 3-5 (or just once a week) from a web rig over to a non-web rig.


This all might sound crazy to you, but this is a topic that will be brought up!

plug in alliance does a zero interest payment plan, splice should maybe look into that. And if you don't meet all payments you lose. That would be fair.

That's the first time that I hear about PA doing a installment payment option, Theo.

[winkie00]

Joined up and renting today, some people will moan about anything. I have always wanted it but could not justify paying over £100 for a synth so jumped at the chance. I had to even check that it wasn't a scam and went on Steve Duda's twitter : )) So thanks Splice and thanks Steve Duda. Only question I have is what happens if Splice goes under halfway through, does my payments pass to Steve Duda and Xfer.

[Zexila]

don't be such an asshole. you are acting like the 'elitist' you are proposing me to be, for simply having concerns about this scheme on a broader scale. if you can't address those concerns, and prefer instead to make baseless reductions of my character, maybe it is best that you don't say anything at all - since you are only bringing the level of discourse down.

You said you want to be treated differently for paying up upfront. so cut the crap.

[EnGee]

I don't find any negatives about this plan. The only thing is it to work great, is that Splice should be near transparent regarding its functionality and resources usage.

As I said, I don't need Serum that much 'cause I already have what I need (more than I need actually) but I really want to support this system because it's very flexible! Pay this month, next month oops sorry my wallet is empty, the next month, I can pay $30 .... etc.

You just don't need to be worried. If it succeeds (and I believe it will), then many developers would join and get benefits without their plugs loosing that much of value or even the need to make discount. It is great for developers using simple protection as serial protection. I hope u-he and Tone2 will join next

[ATS]

first of all, i detest contemporary ventures in to 'subscription' models. i will never support such models.

as far as renting-to-own goes.... ok, that's better than the subscription model for sure. but, the issue I see if this model would 'take off' so to speak, would be devs pricing the plugin higher as a result. both because it is easier for the consumer to stomach since they are paying in modest installments and since they'll be thinking in terms of monthly costs, and because the dev will simply be motivated to get maximum possible return.


then of course, you inevitably get the question of ... well, if consumer X is paying the same total in dollars as I am, but being given 18 months to do so via rent-to-own... why don't I get any 'reward' for paying the whole sum upfront, in the 'normal' fashion. the customer who pays the total upfront should be rewarded/incentivised to do so, as far as I'm concerned...

ultimately I see the price of plugins going UP with these kind of schemes. and if they must go UP, i think the price increases should be carried by the rent-to-owners.


ymmv.

prices of plugins will never go up again, they been going WAY down over the last 15 years EVERY year. There is just way too much competition for that to ever happen.

[Daags]

don't be such an asshole. you are acting like the 'elitist' you are proposing me to be, for simply having concerns about this scheme on a broader scale. if you can't address those concerns, and prefer instead to make baseless reductions of my character, maybe it is best that you don't say anything at all - since you are only bringing the level of discourse down.

You said you want to be treated differently for paying up upfront. so cut the crap.

No, not treated differently - treated the same. But ultimately charged a lower price than they guy paying for the same product in dribs and drabs over 19+ months. I'm not sure if you are new to capitalism or economics in general, but this is no elitist concept. My main problem is the people who are paying in full, up front are subsidising the guys who pay over 19 months - because you are fooling yourself if you believe that this is a 'free' service.

It is a nice idea, and much better than subscription models - but it is an imperfect scheme as it currently stands, with obvious shortcomings that should be addressed imo.

[Zexila]

No, not treated differently - treated the same. But ultimately charged a lower price than they guy paying for the same product in dribs and drabs over 19+ months.

So treated differently.

I'm not sure if you are new to capitalism or economics in general, but this is no elitist concept.

Yeah, that's what they say.

My main problem is the people who are paying in full, up front are subsidising the guys who pay over 19 months - because you are fooling yourself if you believe that this is a 'free' service

Exactly, you have problem with others having a chance to have it.

It is a nice idea, and much better than subscription models - but it is an imperfect scheme as it currently stands, with obvious shortcomings that should be addressed imo.

Only shortcoming is folks like you who want to be treated differently, majority is glad to have this opportunity and I'm for sure glad to see someone actually doing something differently.

[OneOfManyPauls]

My main problem is the people who are paying in full, up front are subsidising the guys who pay over 19 months - because you are fooling yourself if you believe that this is a 'free' service.

The alternate view is that these rent-to-own sales will generate more revenue for xfer by way of sales they wouldn't get otherwise - and goodwill for the brand from those who can see the benefits for others, even if it doesn't directly benefit themselves.

I'd say the incremental cost for each rental sale is going to be minimal at best - the real cost being the opportunity cost of people who only pay for a few months and stop whereas they might have bought it outright if this option didn't exist.

[Daags]

@Zexila



paying a lump sum of cash, up front, is different to paying in drabs and drabs over 19 months.

So yes - if I act differently, sure, I expect to be 'treated' differently as a consequence - loathe as I am to entertain your half-witted, bubble-headed notions.

[Guenon]

No, not treated differently - treated the same. But ultimately charged a lower price than they guy paying for the same product in dribs and drabs over 19+ months. I'm not sure if you are new to capitalism or economics in general, but this is no elitist concept. My main problem is the people who are paying in full, up front are subsidising the guys who pay over 19 months - because you are fooling yourself if you believe that this is a 'free' service.

The convenience of not having to install extra software, not having to deal with online activation checks every three days, and not having to pay every month for an activation, is the reward you get when you pay upfront. When you pay it all at once, you simply get the license and it works offline and perpetually, right off the bat.

In other words, it's up to the customer to choose the convenience / inconvenience that suits them best. If you feel like the ones paying in installments are getting a better deal, then you logically choose to pay in installments yourself. If the other way around, you pay upfront yourself. It's fair game for everyone.

If people were "incentivized" to pay upfront any more than that, that would be penalizing the ones who pay in installments. The very nice thing about this payment option is that people aren't being penalized with an interest rate or lesser product bundle or whatever. It's just an alternative way to pay for the same product, the same amount, just having to deal with some extra hassle of activation checks and such. So, personally, I frown upon those noble "I expect to be treated differently" sentiments in this case. The difference in treatment described above is just right, imo.

[Zexila]

@Zexila



paying a lump sum of cash, up front, is different to paying in drabs and drabs over 19 months.

So yes - if I act differently, sure, I expect to be 'treated' differently as a consequence - loathe as I am to entertain your half-witted, bubble-headed notions.

Glad we established that, say hello to my foe list.

[EnGee]

@Zexila



paying a lump sum of cash, up front, is different to paying in drabs and drabs over 19 months.

So yes - if I act differently, sure, I expect to be 'treated' differently as a consequence - loathe as I am to entertain your half-witted, bubble-headed notions.

So, what do you want? A medal?

[Daags]

@Zexila



paying a lump sum of cash, up front, is different to paying in drabs and drabs over 19 months.

So yes - if I act differently, sure, I expect to be 'treated' differently as a consequence - loathe as I am to entertain your half-witted, bubble-headed notions.

So, what do you want? A medal?

Well... first thing I'd appreciate is for you to eventually work towards at least a high school level of comprehension.

Because what I want was clearly stated ... a cheaper price for the customer who pays the full price, upfront - as compared to the customer who (currently) pays the exact same price despite taking his sweey damn time. Which I don't begrudge him btw. But nevertheless, it doesnt make sense that the guy who pays in full and upfront pays the same, effectively subsidising the renter (at least as long as you dont subscribe to the fantastical notion that this is a 'free' service)

[Vintage73]

Hm, this sounds brilliant. But how many payments do i have to achieve to finally own Serum? Not much info on that website...

As many as you need to accumulate the full retail price. They say it's exactly that amount, no more.

19 Payments.