NI is now part of Soundwide with plugin alliance etc! Lots of free stuff...

[j wazza]

well its not that overpriced, you end up paying like 10 or 20 quid more than the normal price

If you're paying more than a subscription but getting only the features of a subscription then that is the definition of overpriced.

do what you want im not trying to convince you to do rent to own, i dont care,

I'm not just talking to you, this is a conversation in a forum. I am trying to convince people not to use rent to own and/or subscription models, I think that it is a problem just like excessive consumer credit is a problem.

but a subscription lasts forever so youd end up paying more, of course if you cancel the rent to own it ends up being wasted money like a sub but less wasted money than paying full price for a plugin you dont use

sure try to convince people of whatever you want but dont put words in my mouth

we can definitely agree that we hate subs and i hope people dont go for them as it will mean more companies switch to sub only, thats a far bigger problem

[ghettosynth]

SketchUp, took less than a minute to find.

https://www.solidsmack.com/cad/its-happ ... scription/

If you can't see it then you've got your head in the sand. The model is clear, the goal is to eventually not sell new perpetual licenses. Promises of an option to keep perpetual licenses are made to keep you engaged. They will remain only as long as it benefits the company to do so.

So, as soon as firm X announces a subscription, I start looking for replacements so that I'm not dependent on them.

Another example that isn't an audio developer.

You're moving the goalposts. Of course it will start with firms that have a stronger hold on their customers. It may never happen with many audio tools because I imagine the majority of the customer base of many firms is comprised of hobbyists.

That doesn't mean that the trend doesn't cause damage along the way. Nor does it mean that we shouldn't discuss it when we see the trend taking steps forward, as we do with this announcement.

Pioneer Rekordbox has gone subscription and because many DJs, even hobbyists, view Pioneer as essential and view it more as a potential source of income, it is easier to lock customers in.

Up to version 5 one could buy a perpetual license, version 6 is subscription only unless you have a hardware controller and only want "core" features. As can be seen in this discussion, this means that some previously purchased features will no longer work without a subscription.

Again, only took about a minute to find all of this.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Rekordbox/comm ... _its_on_a/

https://rekordbox.com/en/plan/

UAD never had native plugins that were available for purchase on a perpetual license, but they now have a subscription. Yes, at the moment, if you've spent a ton of money on their DSP plugins you can get a perpetual license.

What do Avid, UAD, and Pioneer all have in common? Their customers skew more towards professional/pseudo-professional and are, consequently, more locked in to their products.

[ghettosynth]

well its not that overpriced, you end up paying like 10 or 20 quid more than the normal price

If you're paying more than a subscription but getting only the features of a subscription then that is the definition of overpriced.

do what you want im not trying to convince you to do rent to own, i dont care,

I'm not just talking to you, this is a conversation in a forum. I am trying to convince people not to use rent to own and/or subscription models, I think that it is a problem just like excessive consumer credit is a problem.

but a subscription lasts forever so youd end up paying more

Try to follow.

1) You rent to own for two months to try something out. You pay more than a subscription for those two months because the plan is almost always based on paying for the software over a short period of time.

2) You subscribe for two months and then cancel. The monthly charge will be lower, or, you will get more features, e.g., more software to use, hence greater value, because subscription pricing is based on trying to sell you on value.

Hence, a canceled rent to own agreement is the same as an overpriced subscription.

[j wazza]

Try to follow.

1) You rent to own for two months to try something out. You pay more than a subscription for those two months because the plan is almost always based on paying for the software over a short period of time.

2) You subscribe for two months and then cancel. The monthly charge will be lower, or, you will get more features, e.g., more software to use, hence greater value, because subscription pricing is based on trying to sell you on value.

Hence, a canceled rent to own agreement is the same as an overpriced subscription.

i already said 'of course if you cancel the rent to own it ends up being wasted money like a sub', try to follow

[ghettosynth]

Try to follow.

1) You rent to own for two months to try something out. You pay more than a subscription for those two months because the plan is almost always based on paying for the software over a short period of time.

2) You subscribe for two months and then cancel. The monthly charge will be lower, or, you will get more features, e.g., more software to use, hence greater value, because subscription pricing is based on trying to sell you on value.

Hence, a canceled rent to own agreement is the same as an overpriced subscription.

i already said 'of course if you cancel the rent to own it ends up being wasted money like a sub', try to follow.

You specifically said "it's not overpriced" and seemed to need some convincing.

All of this is, of course, window dressing because I've seen the posts. I've seen the arguments that "I can't get such and such till I get paid next month." That's what all of this bullshit is targeting. Consumers desperate to consume shit that they don't need.

In the dark days of pre-internet it was "layaway." Anything to separate consumers from their money works here.

[j wazza]

You specifically said "it's not overpriced" and seemed to need some convincing.

not that overpriced long term compared to buying
cheaper short term compared to buying
when compared to a sub in short term, sure its overpriced
cheaper than a sub long term

[noiseboyuk]

You're moving the goalposts.

Nope. I've always made the exact same point. Here and on many other threads, for many years. There is no trend for audio developers to move from perpetual, to optional subs, to subs-only. There IS a trend to offer subs as an option. Great. Everything else is hysteria.

[AdvancedFollower]

well its not that overpriced, you end up paying like 10 or 20 quid more than the normal price

If you're paying more than a subscription but getting only the features of a subscription then that is the definition of overpriced.

do what you want im not trying to convince you to do rent to own, i dont care,

I'm not just talking to you, this is a conversation in a forum. I am trying to convince people not to use rent to own and/or subscription models, I think that it is a problem just like excessive consumer credit is a problem.

but a subscription lasts forever so youd end up paying more

Try to follow.

1) You rent to own for two months to try something out. You pay more than a subscription for those two months because the plan is almost always based on paying for the software over a short period of time.

2) You subscribe for two months and then cancel. The monthly charge will be lower, or, you will get more features, e.g., more software to use, hence greater value, because subscription pricing is based on trying to sell you on value.

Hence, a canceled rent to own agreement is the same as an overpriced subscription.

3. You start a subscription to try something out. You pay the subscription for two months, then decide you like the software enough that you want to purchase a perpetual license (either outright or rent-to-own). So you cancel the subscription after two months and buy the software - you have now wasted 2 months of subscription fees when you could just have started the rent-to-own period or bought the software immediately.

The fact is, if you pay for something and then change your mind, you almost always lose out - cancellation fees, restocking fees, losing money when selling second hand etc. With a subscription however, you lose everything you've been paying for all this time. They shouldn't even really be called subscriptions. When you subscribe to magazines or book clubs for example, you get to keep everything you have received up to the cancellation. No one comes to collect all your back issues when you cancel.

[noiseboyuk]

Incidentally, as a measure of showing how great the hysteria is, this thread has now been almost entirely dominated by the subject, even though there's no subscription option even being hinted at in the Soundwide announcement. Maybe it'll happen in time, but such is the paranoia here that it's all anyone can think about. Bizarre. Just download the freebies and look out for good sales.

[0degree]

You're moving the goalposts.

Nope. I've always made the exact same point. Here and on many other threads, for many years. There is no trend for audio developers to move from perpetual, to optional subs, to subs-only. There IS a trend to offer subs as an option. Great. Everything else is hysteria.

I'll actually save this post for the future. Pretty sure it won't age well

[DrGonzo]

but such is the paranoia here that it's all anyone can think about. Bizarre.

Not bizarre. It's the nature of Kvr.
In my heart all these years later, I'm still asking myself, does it sound like a Virus?

[ghettosynth]

Incidentally, as a measure of showing how great the hysteria is, this thread has now been almost entirely dominated by the subject, even though there's no subscription option even being hinted at in the Soundwide announcement. Maybe it'll happen in time, but such is the paranoia here that it's all anyone can think about. Bizarre. Just download the freebies and look out for good sales.

From the linked Gearspace post below:

"Dirk already confirmed a "super subscription" was "very possible" on their Facebook group today."

Oh, the hint didn't take long to emerge from the stink, now did it?

https://gearspace.com/board/new-product ... dwide.html

[noiseboyuk]

ghetto - you will also cut out and keep my sentence "Of course it might happen tomorrow", won't you? Or are you just being selective about your quotes?

Anyway, piece said, I shall gracelessly bow out of this particular over-familiar debate. These are fantastic times for music-makers, so much terrific stuff for free, so many great deals around. Anyone is perfectly free to prophecy doom and gloom about literally everything of course. But for me there's more than enough real problems to worry about in the world rather than inventing them here.

[soulata]

Didn't know this forum was full of financial experts.

[soulata]

see what you mean about it becoming a monopoly/maybe subscription, but they cant make what we already own subscription, and none of these are high end in terms of sound quality, theres better sounding stuff than these companies, so dont think they could do that, id just get better sounding non sub stuff elsewhere

Well, they can just release new products as subscription only and don't update existing ones. There will be still smaller devs unless the whole industry decides to go that route then we're kinda screwed.

thats what i was getting at about only new products being sub only, does anyone actually know they plan to do this or just speculation? and its not just these 3 devs or small devs, lots of other big ones

It's pure speculation - I'm fine with subs as long as there's an option for normal purchases. But I can also imagine artificial inflation of perpetual licenses' price just to "convince" people to move to subs (see PA)

PA has just unveiled 29$ +1 sub where you get to pick one plugin a month and get a perpetual license. Waves pricing without the WUP.

Can't be fairer than this, right?

k