KVR Audio

Vertion · Post by **Vertion** » Sat Nov 05, 2016 1:35 am

These are a few thoughts of a regular plugin customer about subscriptions, plugin marketing, and package configurations.

I won't buy or invest in a plugin that I don't immediately own afterwards, so I will not do subscriptions. I am far more likely to buy a plugin that is the cost of a lunch, with the exception of it clearly being a true-value high-quality plugin (which is easy to see based on how it's marketed and sounds). I never buy dongle or resident copy protection based software that complicates my process or my system, and again, I will never do subscription based products, if I don't own it, I'm not interested. I never use any cracked or illegitimate software, but I expect that once I buy a piece of software, I can personally work with it in my own way without any hassle. Audio Damage is great, the software I get from them is ready to go, no hassle. Companies obsessed with copy protection and subscription are ripping themselves off in the end, because they push away some of their normal customers with such nonsense. Most copy protections can be averted or easily broken by anyone armed with a little knowledge.

To me, subscription implies that there is a need for such a subscription to exist, which I find redundant and insulting given it's software. The only packaging construct that would work for me is a payment plan to own, not a glorified rental. Somewhat related, another annoying thing is when you buy a plugin and they release a slightly updated version a couple weeks later but they want you to pay for the upgrade, which is why I won't buy 'all plugins' packages any more, as I did for Tone2, Sugar Bytes, etc. I personally buy all plugins I use routinely, which is pretty much all top end plugins that are on the market.

koolkeys · Post by **koolkeys** » Sat Nov 05, 2016 2:05 am

Vertion wrote:Companies obsessed with copy protection and subscription are ripping themselves off in the end, because they push away some of their normal customers with such nonsense.

This is quite assumptive, but can't possibly be based on reality because in truth, none of us KNOW the reality of each dev's circumstances.

Subscription models, while they might seem underwhelming to traditionalists, have proven successful for many developers. According to official company financials, Adobe has grown in revenue each year since 2013, when they announced their Creative Cloud subscription service. Companies like EastWest/SoundsOnline have had a lot of success as well. You see more and more companies moving to the model across various industries. Electronic Arts lets you play loads of their best games for $5 per month. Companies like Amazon and Microsoft also utilize subscription services for various products, along with dozens of other major players.

Why would companies be doing this if it wasn't beneficial?

I know what you might be thinking; but what about the user? And to that, I say that as somebody who subscribes to Creative Cloud, I could never afford to keep up with Adobe prices and updates before the subscription. Would I like to own the software permanently? Sure. But without the subscription, I wouldn't HAVE many of the tools in the first place.

Many users can't pay the price of admission for professional tools. So the companies are providing them a way to get them without the huge up front cost. This bothers many hard-nosed professionals who like the elite status of owning high-end tools, but this factor is irrelevant. This is just the way things go.

The good news is that most audio companies who offer subscriptions, if not all, also still offer perpetual licenses. Nobody is missing out or harmed in any way. Some people love to get upset about the whole idea of a subscription. But from personal experience, most of the companies who have gone to subscription models, even just partly, have been wonderful at adding value regularly. I would even venture a bet that users are happier since these changes as a whole.

Now, not all companies CAN go to subscriptions. You have to have a large enough library of products to sustain such a model, and you have to have a constant stream of new value. And some companies will probably try and fail. So I say if a company wants to try it, they should. It is good to also offer perpetual licenses as well, but the subscription model is proving to be a very good one for many companies. And if a company has to use subscriptions to help sustain it and continue pumping out great products, I say go ahead. We all benefit in the end when that happens.

Brent

Orbit-50 · Post by **Orbit-50** » Sat Nov 05, 2016 2:29 am

Good point KoolKeys.

Vertion · Post by **Vertion** » Sat Nov 05, 2016 3:24 am

As I stated, this is my opinion, but over many years, based on conversations with others, looking over many forums and postings, I believe I am not alone in my opinion. I am not a business, nor a part of any audio business, I am a general consumer. Over witnessing the endless references to serial generators and crackers throughout plugin history, it gives an interesting notion and contrast of value. I would even conjecture, that it seems the difference of simply using a piece of audio software and buying it, is in the pride of ownership, the locus of control given to the user. Whether or not the EULA states it's 'technically' owned, we still perform all the attributes of ownership, we continue to use it after buying it without paying a cent at a later date, and use it to it's limit as long as we want. By contrast, in subscriptions, the idea of losing choice and power once you decide to stop paying, means giving up something, and all the money is lost, which is easily cured by ownership. What smarter marketing idea is one that has the owner's name in glittering lights over the name of the plugin itself. To give power to the user, who keeps the food on the developer's table, instead of indefinitely taxing the user for using the software. I'm happy for all the people who want to rent their software but not own it, and similarly to all the happy subscribers of all those lovely pc technical support advertisements who benefit from their subscription model. I have never resold or transferred any software I've ever bought, and as I said, I routinely use all that I buy, and buy all that I use routinely. When Adobe went subscription, I stopped using their later products, I went with alternatives instead, and for me it proved beneficial to chose the alternatives. I'm happy for those that subscriptions work for, but I know there are many others who share my feelings on this, and those people will not be buying subscriptions. I am also a software developer, but not for the audio world, but it gives me an interesting perspective indeed. ImageLine has a superior model for it's users, release one product of value, and keep adding to it, releasing new features and value, for free, for life. Perhaps I'm just making an assumption, but I'm guessing FL is a popular product. When they release a quality sub product, like Harmor, I don't know what the reality is since I don't have their numbers, but I'll assume it was a popular product upon release.

elxsound · Post by **elxsound** » Sat Nov 05, 2016 3:58 am

Meh... too much to read to join what doesn't look like fun.

Anyone know if volume 1 include the additional (pay-for add-on) modules for Modular? I guess not, but still thought it'd be worth asking.

koolkeys · Post by **koolkeys** » Sat Nov 05, 2016 4:33 am

Vertion wrote:As I stated, this is my opinion, but over many years, based on conversations with others, looking over many forums and postings, I believe I am not alone in my opinion. I am not a business, nor a part of any audio business, I am a general consumer. Over witnessing the endless references to serial generators and crackers throughout plugin history, it gives an interesting notion and contrast of value. I would even conjecture, that it seems the difference of simply using a piece of audio software and buying it, is in the pride of ownership, the locus of control given to the user. Whether or not the EULA states it's 'technically' owned, we still perform all the attributes of ownership, we continue to use it after buying it without paying a cent at a later date, and use it to it's limit as long as we want. By contrast, in subscriptions, the idea of losing choice and power once you decide to stop paying, means giving up something, and all the money is lost, which is easily cured by ownership. What smarter marketing idea is one that has the owner's name in glittering lights over the name of the plugin itself. To give power to the user, who keeps the food on the developer's table, instead of indefinitely taxing the user for using the software. I'm happy for all the people who want to rent their software but not own it, and similarly to all the happy subscribers of all those lovely pc technical support advertisements who benefit from their subscription model. I have never resold or transferred any software I've ever bought, and as I said, I routinely use all that I buy, and buy all that I use routinely. When Adobe went subscription, I stopped using their later products, I went with alternatives instead, and for me it proved beneficial to chose the alternatives. I'm happy for those that subscriptions work for, but I know there are many others who share my feelings on this, and those people will not be buying subscriptions. I am also a software developer, but not for the audio world, but it gives me an interesting perspective indeed. ImageLine has a superior model for it's users, release one product of value, and keep adding to it, releasing new features and value, for free, for life. Perhaps I'm just making an assumption, but I'm guessing FL is a popular product. When they release a quality sub product, like Harmor, I don't know what the reality is since I don't have their numbers, but I'll assume it was a popular product upon release.

Of course it is all opinion. But there are some facts to think about, which I mentioned above. This is a new world of software development, like it or not. The whole subscription model isn't anything new, but it is newer to software. So people naturally won't all like it. And that is fine. People have leased cars for years and remained happy. I wouldn't lease a car, but that doesn't mean it isn't beneficial for those who would, or for the car company.

Like it or not, many developers have struggled to keep up. They aren't a bunch of millionaires running around from beach to beach with their earnings. They aren't making decisions based on how they can screw anyone over. They have to stay in business. And simply put, in this new world of software development, the subscription model has been perfect for many.

I used Adobe products before Creative Cloud through the company I worked with at the time, but I never had the full suite on my own. And I'm one of many who actually use nearly all the programs in the suite. Are there alternatives? Sure. Is there a better suite of products with more features out there? No. Not for me. Obviously, this comes down to what you need. But the subscription model is obviously working, and the number of users have gone up significantly for Adobe.

Don't get me wrong. I understand the whole ownership thing. In the past two weeks I've spent around $700 on new audio software, which is a larger chunk than normal. One of those costs was upgrading to the lifetime Sonar Platinum, even though I use Cubase as my primary DAW at the moment. I did that so I wouldn't HAVE to pay any more subscription costs. But that doesn't mean I don't understand and support the subscription model.

You claim the perpetual users are the ones putting food on the table of developers, but for many companies, the numbers haven't been in their favor. While perpetual users may feel they are entitled to something beyond their purchase, the company is also entitled to do WHATEVER they need to grow, and to continue putting food on the table. You view it as taxing the user, but to the developer, it is doing what is necessary to continue as a company. Like it or not, the software world has generally suffered in the past few years. Whether it be piracy, more alternative options available, or whatever, a lot of great developers have seen losses. I say do what you gotta do to survive.

The good news is that almost every subscription-based software in the audio world also has the option to purchase as always. People got so mad when Cakewalk decided to offer subscriptions, when they never lost their right to purchase the software. If both options are offered, it certainly isn't a bad thing.

I'm not saying that it is a perfect, or even ideal system for everyone. And I'm not claiming that you are alone in your thinking. I even GET your thinking. But there are loads of people who are happy for subscription options. Very few companies survive solely on existing customers. They need new users if they want to grow. And a subscription model allows companies to do that as long as they have the products to support it. And again, anything that ensures a company continues to thrive and create great software is a good thing to me. I've been around for quite some time and worked with many developers first hand across multiple industries (I am a web designer/developer by trade, so that also stretches into the webdev world). And I know plenty of people who have embraced all sides of the spectrum. But I'm of the mentality that if you create great tools that help me do my job (such as the Adobe CC suite, which has improved in huge ways since CC was started), I'll put my money forward to support whatever model is available. Others won't, or will disagree, and that is absolutely fine with me. Just trying to offer an alternative perspective.

Brent

Vertion · Post by **Vertion** » Sat Nov 05, 2016 6:42 am

Brent: Agreed. I've seen the issues with the audio industry over the past few years.

I believe the key in bringing the value is unification of the developers across the board, and set a common goal that would create value for the users. Most users are pretty simple in terms of perceived value, give them a pretty and detailed GUI for visual-sound association (Serum, FL, etc), or an overly dry-looking GUI for visual-sound contrast (Ableton, Valhalla). For controls, give users few options/knobs with some noticeable character for those who want it quickly and sensationally (invest a little for a lot), and many options for those who want it slowly and detailed (invest a lot for a little). The goal is for users to make sounds or songs with great ease, but with the ability to dig in and customize as desired. With a tiny learning curve and basic visual candy.

If when I had started, if could have churned out the songs I like to hear with only a few easy to understand clicks, entry into buying in this market would have been more enjoyable and got my money much faster. Newbies want it quick and easy, they love presets and have no idea what geometric waves, filters, or adsrs do, they just hear it and feel it. If you shorten this gap to making music and fit it with the existing DAWs/processes, it will bring more interest into the community for all developers to share in the pie. If one developer is using subscriptions, that's money away from other companies, and if everyone goes subscription, there is no money to go around. The key is making the pie bigger, not in hogging the existing pie. To make the pie bigger, you need to make it easier and easier to make songs for the newbie and get the results with less energy for new users. The latest innovations to capture the imagination of the intermediates. Capture the vintage for the experts so they can reminisce.

Price accordingly. Newbies are normal folks and the younger audiencce. Intermediates are hobbyists who tend to be a little older. Experts tend to be audio profressionals, studios, or 'old guys' =)

incubus · Post by **incubus** » Sat Nov 05, 2016 6:59 am

There stuff always isn't worth it. Here are a few things:

First, the vst3 stuff doesn't work for me. Certainly doesn't work in Tracktion or FL studio here (two different computers). They go in circles with tech support. Pretty sure they are aware of people having issues but have no idea how to solve it, so keep that in mind. Not sure (certainly with no help from them) if vst2 is good enough anyways.

Second, most of it doesn't even have presets in vst. I don't care about PT, my belief (even though it's dismissed by the borg crowd) is that presets should be available to all/any hosts.

But, just in case someone wants to troll, they are EXCELLENT in reason/RE. Good products, not universally awesome. DEMO, DEMO DEMO! (I know, how awful of my to suggest!)

secretkillerofnames · Post by **secretkillerofnames** » Sat Nov 05, 2016 9:58 am

Does Volume 1 include the additional Intellijel Modules?

everyPlugin.com · Post by **everyPlugin.com** » Sat Nov 05, 2016 11:16 am

elxsound wrote: Anyone know if volume 1 include the additional (pay-for add-on) modules for Modular? I guess not, but still thought it'd be worth asking.

secretkillerofnames wrote: Does Volume 1 include the additional Intellijel Modules?

It doesn't. (However the core modules are included).

Shalotta · Post by **Shalotta** » Sat Nov 05, 2016 11:43 am

Aside the fact shops are cheaper,
there definitely is something wrong with the upgrade models per se
and it looks more like one needs to have the "right" plugin to benefit best.

For example (as of now, Nov 5th):

Summit Audio Grand Channel equals with the entire Studio Collection on upgrade,
any other plugin/bundle goes higher.

TSAR-1 Reverb upgrade is cheaper than upgrade from Mix Bundle.

Upgrade from FET Compressor equals with upgrade from Mix Bundle
(FET Compressor is just a part of the Mix Bundle).

And so on.

Not taken into account as well is the sum of plugins a user has invested into
and there are other disparities when looking closer.

I am not sure if Softube was aware of this lottery game in advance
but I am sure they are getting aware something is wrong
when mailed/contacted by enough users
even if they block and refuse change in the first place.

Ryan99 · Post by **Ryan99** » Sat Nov 05, 2016 11:54 am

I think the FET compressor is the only plugin from the Mix bundle that is included in the Collection. That must be why it's the same upgrade price than the FET compressor, and a higher price than TSAR-1 Reverb that is more expensive.

I own the Mix Bundle and I can upgrade to the collection for 249$ on their website or 205$ from Everyplugin.com. I think 205$ for a dozen plugins I don't own, including Modular and Heartbeat is a very nice deal.

fmr · Post by **fmr** » Sat Nov 05, 2016 12:01 pm

Omkar wrote: I am not sure if Softube was aware of this lottery game in advance
but I am sure they are getting aware something is wrong
when mailed/contacted by enough users
even if they block and refuse change in the first place.

Seems like Softube is not really thinking things very wisely as of late. They should rethink what they are doing. For me, having the Mix Bundle and the Grand Channel bundle, and also Modular, this is not a fair upgrade price. They should pricing the upgrade according to what someone already has.

woodsdenis · Post by **woodsdenis** » Sat Nov 05, 2016 2:30 pm

I think I get the reasoning behind the upgrade discount, your discount is calculated by the most expensive plugin you have that is included in Vol 1. For example if you have the Summit grand channel you get the maximum discount where as if you multiples of the other plugins you don't regardless of what that total is. Make sense.

Gamma-UT · Post by **Gamma-UT** » Sat Nov 05, 2016 2:43 pm

woodsdenis wrote:I think I get the reasoning behind the upgrade discount, your discount is calculated by the most expensive plugin you have that is included in Vol 1. For example if you have the Summit grand channel you get the maximum discount where as if you multiples of the other plugins you don't regardless of what that total is. Make sense.

Except the automatic discount seems to be based on randomly selecting what you have no matter how much it contributes and generating a number based on that. You can have FET Compressor as part of the Studio Collection bundle and still get offered the FET Compressor upgrade price, which is practically double that for Studio Collection if you go through to the shop (or a dealer) and do it manually.

There's probably someone out there with Grand Channel and Tube Delay wondering why they're getting quoted €300.

They also haven't factored in the possibility/probability that people will have maybe half the bundle in different purchases but can only use one product to upgrade. It doesn't work out at all well for them.

Softube goes subscription