Pro Tools is Now Subscription Only

[zvenx]

That would be the last nail in their coffin

Why?
I don't think Pro Tools 'succeeds' because it uses its own proprietary plugin format.
It does because, it is the industry standard for film and for mixing and for larger studios.. whether deservedly so or not.
rsp

They are no longer a "standard" as they used to be (there were times where Pro Tools alone had like more than 70% of the market). IMO they survive only because audio people are too conservative and don't change habits easily. Once they learn to work with something, they hardly change to something else. Other than that, I can't see anything to justify that "standard" statement.

That said, Pro Tools adopting AU/VST would be the implicit recognition they have nothing in advantage regarding other platforms, /(like Cubase and Logic) which offer a lot more to the user for way less.

I think its the history/habits and the workflow why it is still the number one choice in the fields I mentioned above... opening to new formats will not change that.

anyway, we can agree to disagree. I just wondered why you thought so.

rsp

[jamcat]

The reality is the global economy is being privatised.
What were once PRODUCTS, will become SERVICES.
The days of single payment perpetual licences are over, and soon will be for for any consumable product under the sun.
Apparently, unlimited agency over your electronic toolbox doesn't work in the brave new world...
This "Subscription" model in pro audio is an effect of this radical systemic change.

Remember WEF's 'Great Reset' honcho Klaus Schwab?
"You'll own nothing and be happy"

You are correct, but I don’t think “privatised” is the right word for it.

[Teksonik]

Buy Cubase for 579 €, and upgrade it every year, and you're in similar dimensions. Not quite as expensive, but, in the end, you pay and pay and pay as well.

The difference being you're not forced to upgrade Cubase to keep using the previous version.

Arguable.

If there are known issues with your version of Cubase which aren't fixed, or it's not tested/supported on Windows 11, or a newer Mac OS version, you might be forced to upgrade.

Only arguable if you're really reaching.

Sure you might have to invest in an upgrade to Cubase but you'll definitely be forced to pay the rental fee for Pro Tools or you'll lose it and access to all the projects you've created with it.....

[chk071]

Yeah.

The reality is that most people here seem to upgrade to a new version of Cubase when it's being released though. And their business model definitely favors that kind of behavior, because, the cost of upgrades increases the older the upgraded version of Cubase is. Might be a bit exaggerated, but, I sometimes refer to it as a quasi subscription.

Yes, I know that you don't have to upgrade. But, a lot of people seem to do anyway. Companies surely know how to keep the engine running.

[seangm]

Yeah.

The reality is that most people here seem to upgrade to a new version of Cubase when it's being released though. And their business model definitely favors that kind of behavior, because, the cost of upgrades increases the older the upgraded version of Cubase is. Might be a bit exaggerated, but, I sometimes refer to it as a quasi subscription.

Yes, I know that you don't have to upgrade. But, a lot of people seem to do anyway. Companies surely know how to keep the engine running.

I'd rather have the choice to upgrade rather than being required to pay a monthly fee to use a DAW. I stayed on Cubase 7 for years (Windows) and was fine and upgraded cheaply during a sale. So I prefer the choice to upgrade or not.

[CrystalWizard]

Yeah.

The reality is that most people here seem to upgrade to a new version of Cubase when it's being released though. And their business model definitely favors that kind of behavior, because, the cost of upgrades increases the older the upgraded version of Cubase is. Might be a bit exaggerated, but, I sometimes refer to it as a quasi subscription.

Yes, I know that you don't have to upgrade. But, a lot of people seem to do anyway. Companies surely know how to keep the engine running.

As pointed out already the difference is that if you cancel a sub you have nothing, whereas if you Choose not to upgrade then you still have something.

[chk071]

Yeah.

The reality is that most people here seem to upgrade to a new version of Cubase when it's being released though. And their business model definitely favors that kind of behavior, because, the cost of upgrades increases the older the upgraded version of Cubase is. Might be a bit exaggerated, but, I sometimes refer to it as a quasi subscription.

Yes, I know that you don't have to upgrade. But, a lot of people seem to do anyway. Companies surely know how to keep the engine running.

I'd rather have the choice to upgrade rather than being required to pay a monthly fee to use a DAW. I stayed on Cubase 7 for years (Windows) and was fine and upgraded cheaply during a sale. So I prefer the choice to upgrade or not.

Me too, but then, I also get the appeal of subscriptions, especially when they include lots of stuff.

Ultimately, it's often for the companies to get more money than from one time payments, of course. As a use, in the case of software, you always get the latest version, which could be a plus for some. Microstf 365 is such a case: You always get the latest version of the software, and you get the option to use it on 5 or more computers, which is great really.

Again, if you are a power user. If you use the software once a month, you are MUCH better off with a perpetual license.

Bottom line is, I wouldn't really condemn it. There are definitely use cases which could justify going subscription, if the advantages which come with it fit your use case. E.g., I had an Amazon Prime sub multiple times, and I got a lot of content out of it (watched half of The Walking Dead that way, for very little money), or a Xbox Game Pass Ultimate subscription for a special price of 1 €, which let me play through The Outer Worlds...

If you're a power user, and might make use of new features in Pro Tools, I could well imagine the sub being a good idea, if you always want to keep up to date with new versions and stuff.

[seangm]

Yeah.

The reality is that most people here seem to upgrade to a new version of Cubase when it's being released though. And their business model definitely favors that kind of behavior, because, the cost of upgrades increases the older the upgraded version of Cubase is. Might be a bit exaggerated, but, I sometimes refer to it as a quasi subscription.

Yes, I know that you don't have to upgrade. But, a lot of people seem to do anyway. Companies surely know how to keep the engine running.

I'd rather have the choice to upgrade rather than being required to pay a monthly fee to use a DAW. I stayed on Cubase 7 for years (Windows) and was fine and upgraded cheaply during a sale. So I prefer the choice to upgrade or not.

Me too, but then, I also get the appeal of subscriptions, especially when they include lots of stuff.

Ultimately, it's often for the companies to get more money than from one time payments, of course. As a use, in the case of software, you always get the latest version, which could be a plus for some. Microstf 365 is such a case: You always get the latest version of the software, and you get the option to use it on 5 or more computers, which is great really.

Again, if you are a power user. If you use the software once a month, you are MUCH better off with a perpetual license.

Bottom line is, I wouldn't really condemn it. There are definitely use cases which could justify going subscription, if the advantages which come with it fit your use case. E.g., I had an Amazon Prime sub multiple times, and I got a lot of content out of it (watched half of The Walking Dead that way, for very little money), or a Xbox Game Pass Ultimate subscription for a special price of 1 €, which let me play through The Outer Worlds...

If you're a power user, and might make use of new features in Pro Tools, I could well imagine the sub being a good idea, if you always want to keep up to date with new versions and stuff.

I don't have a problem with a subscription option alongside the perpetual license but in the case of PT there is no option for anything other than sub. So that kind of ruins it for those use cases that don't benefit from sub.

[BONES]

Yes, there is a substantial difference between maintenance and subscription actually.

Yes, of course there are qualitative differences but in terms of certainty of expense, one is much the same as the other. i.e. You can choose not to subscribe and pay for upgrades as they appear, just as you can choose not to pay for a maintenance subscription (look, even the word is the same) and get your updates more regularly. But that way they are taking your money twice - once up front and then a second time for your maintenance subscription. That works way better for them than it does for us.

Under the subscription model, once you stop paying your monthly/annual fee, you have no way of using the software.

That's not necessarily true. e.g. I stopped paying my Arcade subscription two years ago but I can still load any song that uses it and it will still play. I can't load it into anything that didn't have it when my sub was active and I can't edit it any more but it still works where it always worked.

And that is why subscriptions do not benefit customers.

Until it does. e.g. As a freelancer, I had to pay several grand for Adobe CS4, and then another grand to upgrade to CS6 a few years later, even though I very rarely actually needed my own license. It was a huge expense for comparatively little benefit. These days I can just pay for a month when I need it and ignore Adobe the rest of the time. As much as I hated the idea at the time, the reality is that it works really, really well in my favour. I'd estimate I have probably only had to spend one-tenth as much over the last 10 years as I'd spent in the 10 years before that and well less than half what I'd have spent in upgrades under the old system.

In addition, companies are charging more for subscriptions than they would annual maintenance. Sometimes 10%-15% more. Its ridiculous.

I'd suggest that's a bargain. e.g. If you have to pay $1,000 up front for a perpetual license, then $100 per year in maintenance, you'll have paid $2,000 over 10 years. OTOH, if a subscription is $115 per year, then over 10 years you will only pay $1,150, saving you $85 per year.

Of course, we're sort of caught in the middle, having bought our software before subscriptions, so we don't cop it so sweet but further down the line, users who never had to pay for a perpetual license will be better off.

We actually migrated totally off of all Autodesk products (almost 400 licenses) when they moved to subscription only, and moved wholly to Solidworks.

What a write-off that must have been, followed by a big initial investment that you won't want to walk away from if it doesn't work out. OTOH, if you'd had subscriptions, you could just walk away at any time without having to take that hit. It would have been as easy as letting Netflix lapse and signing up for Paramount+.

Your experience has been different for sure, but I have yet to talk to one customer that likes the idea of subscriptions. Businesses just don't like them.

If businesses didn't like them, Autodesk and Adobe would have gone broke 10 years ago. And the situation since the company I worked for moved to subscription is that we are always on the very latest versions, not 3 or 4 versions behind, as was common in the days before subscriptions.

[BONES]

and secondly, you don't have to upgrade Cubendo to keep using it (unless of course you buy a new computer with a new OS and architecture, but that doesn't happen that often)... but you have to keep paying for the subscription to use it.

That's one scenario but how about my own experience? I paid for Cubase in 2018 and used it for one album before moving to Studio One. So now I have this application I spent $500 on that I no longer use. And before that I spent $400 on Bitwig, which I only used for about 6 months. OK, I can sell those licenses if I'm absolutely certain I'll never need them again, which is what I did with Bitwig, but under a subscription model I could have just stopped paying, and I'd be able to reactivate either or both when/if I might need them again. I'd have been hundreds of dollars better off over just a couple of years.

That's certainly how it worked out with my Arcade subscription - I used it through that one album in Cubase but decided after that that we'd got all we were likely to get from it, so I cancelled the subscription, having only paid about $90 over a year, as opposed to Output's usual product price of $199, plus Dog knows what I'd have had to pay in expansions for all the extra content they dropped regularly during the time we used it. I thought about reactivating it for a month when I moved to Studio One but decided it was easier to either replace it or, in two places, to render the audio out of Cubase. It worked really well in my favour.

The difference being you're not forced to upgrade Cubase to keep using the previous version. Stop paying the subscription fee and you lose access to Pro Tools.

OTOH, you are not being forced to pay a large up-front fee to use something you might only need for a project, here and there. And remember, too, that the longer you put off upgrading Cubase, the more it costs, so you don't save money by skipping a version or two.

In the end it comes down to how the subscription works and how you use the product. I'd be OK with an annual subscription to Studio One but I'd prefer a monthly sub to Cubase. Plugin subscriptions would have to be like PA, where you get access to absolutely everything for a single fee. They would also have to work like Arcade, where instances you had used in a song would keep working after the sub lapses. In fact, I think I will start a separate thread about subscriptions in general, when I can find the time. It hasn't been discussed for a while and, through first-hand experience, my attitude towards it has completely changed in the last few years.

[BONES]

IMO they survive only because audio people are too conservative and don't change habits easily. Once they learn to work with something, they hardly change to something else. Other than that, I can't see anything to justify that "standard" statement.

You misunderstand what it means to be the "Industry Standard". It may not be the thing everyone uses every day but it is the one thing that everyone knows how to use, which means you can set up your whole your studio around it and everyone who books time will be able to work with it. And if you are looking to hire people, or looking to get hired, it's the one tool you need to be proficient at to get work and to find good workers.

It's how my life works - I don't use any industry-standard tools for work I do at home but when I apply for jobs, I only talk about and show work I have done with Industry-standard tools, because that's all that an employer cares about. It took me two years of unemployment to work this out - you can't fight the industry-standard, it is what it is and if you want to eat, you just have to suck it up.

I don't have a problem with a subscription option alongside the perpetual license but in the case of PT there is no option for anything other than sub. So that kind of ruins it for those use cases that don't benefit from sub.

OTOH, I'd never pay what Avid were asking for a perpetual license, but I might be tempted to subscribe for a few months and have a good look at what PT has to offer. Who knows, I could end up thinking it was worth $20 a month?

[machinesworking]

OTOH, I'd never pay what Avid were asking for a perpetual license, but I might be tempted to subscribe for a few months and have a good look at what PT has to offer. Who knows, I could end up thinking it was worth $20 a month?

This is a good point, an industry standard that isn't hardly anyones choice for writing in the box, but is the de facto standard in large studios is a good choice for subscription. The one caveat IMO is the hardcore hardware owners are getting a stiff upkeep fee, but they made an out for existing customers to upgrade yearly etc. if they want to.

I would chalk this up to the "hardly affects me or anyone I know that can't pay for it with no issues." category. Most small time Studios I know are using Luna with UAD or other solutions for low latency plug ins during the recording process, and large studios can afford and do keep up their Pro Tools rigs. Any migration away from Pro Tools has been happening already, if you're locked in still in 2022 to PT, you're not going anywhere.

Anyway I hardly see the point of the hate, Pro Tools was of little interest to me back in the day because it wasn't a sequencer, it's still not sold as one, it's not my market.

[pixel85]

About Cubase: I spent about £300 to get Cubase Pro. Then I updated maybe once or twice for the regular price. Then mostly I've been waiting for annual discount, several month after update release. In about 10 years I didn't spend even £1000 on Cubase Pro. Why? Because besides working professionally in audio, I also have a brain and I'm not spending money just because I can. Just because you're professional, it doesn't mean that you can't spend money wisely.

- Cubase is mostly solid on Windows. We can download other older versions if newest is problematic or keep several versions at the same time. In 10 years if I had issues, it was because of x.0x release - no biggie to jump back to previous x.Ox release like eg. from 10.0.2 to 10.0.1.

- only amateurs are updating right away after new update is released. Especially in case of C12 where new licensing system could mess up license on eLicenser.

- if somebody buy Cubase and has issues, then keep getting issues with minor updates and will buy next major update and still has issues that are keeping him from working, then is buying another and another update still having huge issues... Well, maybe it's time to look in the mirror and think where is the real problem? Cubase is not the only DAW for music on the market you know.

I feel like people here are trying to explain their bad spending habits by saying that Steinberg's purchase model is exactly the same as subscriptions. No it's not. But keep telling yourself that it's the same thing and continue to support subscriptions this way just because you're unable to take care of your spendings. You deserve to have 100s of subscriptions and live in a world where you own nothing. It's only sad that you'll make younger generations to live in a such world just because of your ignorance.

[machinesworking]

- if somebody buy Cubase and has issues, then keep getting issues with minor updates and will buy next major update and still has issues that are keeping him from working, then is buying another and another update still having huge issues... Well, maybe it's time to look in the mirror and think where is the real problem? Cubase is not the only DAW for music on the market you know.

I feel like people here are trying to explain their bad spending habits by saying that Steinberg's purchase model is exactly the same as subscriptions. No it's not. But keep telling yourself that it's the same thing and continue to support subscriptions this way just because you're unable to take care of your spendings. You deserve to have 100s of subscriptions and live in a world where you own nothing. It's only sad that you'll make younger generations to live in a such world just because of your ignorance.

These two paragraphs read like contradictions. Years ago I decided against Cubase when looking at DAWs, because updates were buggy, and they literally left bugs in a version they promised to fix.

Plus any paid upgrade no matter how "frugally" you spend, paints and bares witness to the fact that almost none of us are using DAW versions 10 years old. You're already more or less in a subscription model if you don't consider the software baked when you buy it. This is the cold reality of it. I'm not in favor of subscription models for composer DAWs like Cubase, Logic,Live, DP etc. but the fact is Pro Tools is distinctly a different market, if you're operating a 200K recording studio with 100-200$ hr. rooms then less than $2K a year for Pro tools is nothing. That's all there is to it, it's a different market than game, film, commercial, electronic music composers and home studio musicians.

[noiseboyuk]

- only amateurs are updating right away after new update is released. Especially in case of C12 where new licensing system could mess up license on eLicenser.

BWAH!

Shame cos you made other good points. Just for fun, consider this scenario:

1. You are a pro. A new version of a DAW is released that has a feature that would REALLY help you out.
2. You still have access to the older version you know works.
3. er, that's it.

You can argue "but the new license system" - it was clear to me in a few days that no-one had an unsolvable problem with that.