New Vengeance synth in the works

[chk071]

I have a feeling that for many nowadays companies should have a "moral responsibility" towards the customers. That's kind of a dead end thinking though, because without the moral responsibility to make money, and expand the company, and care for the employees, your company could well go downhill, so that noone benefits from that. In the end it's all bogus anyway, and you vote with your wallet.

[tristan-]

with unprotected synths, AT LEAST we'd have here a discussion about features of the synth, instead of having a discussion about protection

[chk071]

Yeah, it's always the same generally with software. It's a known psychological thing that at some point, every discussion about a software on the internet will be minimized to a discussion about the copy protection.

[basslinemaster]

No, I mean they reduce the price to sell more copies, and thus make more money...

Yes. No salesman would ever do that. It would be totally contradictory to lower the prices for something which sells well.

Yes, but who says it's selling 'well'? And what constitutes 'well'? (For Cubase or Nexus.)

As somebody else said above, companies are always telling us how much piracy hurts them, therefore those companies that have uncrackable protection, like Steinberg and ReFX, should be selling more copies (all things being equal - i.e. the quality of their synths/DAWs) than their competitors, shouldn't they?

[chk071]

Rule of thumb: The product is expensive - it sells well. The product is cheap - it's either niche, or doesn't sell very well. Take Arturia's synth e.g. They were sold for 229 € once, and had eLicenser protection. One day, they cut the price to less than half, sold them for 99 € and dropped the eLicenser protection in favor of their own system. Guess why. And also guess why Cubase raised their prices over the last years. Or guess why an iPhone costs 600 €. Or guess why Samsung is more expensive than Motorola. Or...

You'd have to be very stupid not to take more for your product if it sells well. Obviously there's a lot of demand, or the price is too low.

[basslinemaster]

No, I mean they reduce the price to sell more copies, and thus make more money...

And that logic is based on what? A thin wallet?

So they sell their stuff cheap and collect an overwehlmingly huge amount of new customers that their team can't handle and their customer service quality plummits.

God... the old "they get 'too many' customers, and in spite of making more profit due to higher numbers of sales, they can't afford to support their new customers" canard...

They will have to deal with an unreasonably high number of unhappy impulse buyers,

Source? You're making up fantasies and using them to back up your 'argument'. Why would there be ANY "unhappy impulse buyers"? What "impulse" buyers are you talking about? Did I even state a price that I was thinking of? What if Cubase were sold for the same price as FL Studio? Would Steinberg face "an unreasonably high number of unhappy impulse buyers"? WTF?

leading to lots of license transfers that keep the support guys too busy to help the customers with "real" issues.

Again, more laughable fantasies. See my previous response. That's what happens when you set up strawman arguments, you have to defend something that is nonsensical...

This leads to long response times, automated replies, and ultimately a bad rep in public. Which makes the company try to find ways to keep people from transferring licenses, maybe by punishing transfers with unreasonably high fees or disallowing transfers in general. Which, obviously, will lead to an even worse rep in public. The impulse buyers are unhappy, the convinced buyers are unhappy, the developer is unhappy, everybody rants and nobody buys anymore. So jobs have to be cut to stay afloat, leaving less manpower to do the same amount of work as before, everything takes longer and quality has to be compromised, leaving users with unfinished and buggy software with paid yearly bugfix updates. "Creative" ways of keeping the buzz alive have to be found, like monthly subscription models and aggressive marketing, both of which chew up even more money just to organize and handle, which will lead to more price reductions and sales. And in return an even more overwhelmingly huge amount of new customers, most of which will be pre-programmedly unhappy impulse buyers. And so it repeats.

WTF?
How does your mind work...
You come up with a load of fantasy and then proceed to try to use it as a reason for companies which have zero piracy charging more than companies which have masses of piracy...

Ring a bell?

No, actually it doesn't. But please enlighten us all. I suspect it 'rang a bell' in your imagination, and nowhere else...

Nothing good will come to anyone, creators and users, if devs start selling their products for less than they're worth. In this industry, every price tag keeps a family alive. Or a dog fed.

And whoever said that devs should "selling their products for less than they're worth"? WTF? Maybe if you could read English and understand basic ideas properly, you wouldn't have to go attacking things which nobody on this thread has actually said...

What would you say if your boss told you "Hey, you've been doing well around here, you're one of my most versatile and reliable employees. Unfortunately though, I have no use for your sharp eyes, your huge belly and your well-trimmed beard. I don't use those features of you, so I can't be paying for them just because they come with you. But I could pay you less so I can still afford you." ... ?

WTF? This is all totally irrelevant to anything that's been discussed or suggested in this thread...

[basslinemaster]

Rule of thumb: The product is expensive - it sells well. The product is cheap - it's either niche, or doesn't sell very well. Take Arturia's synth e.g. They were sold for 229 € once, and had eLicenser protection. One day, they cut the price to less than half, sold them for 99 € and dropped the eLicenser protection in favor of their own system. Guess why. And also guess why Cubase raised their prices over the last years. Or guess why an iPhone costs 600 €. Or guess why Samsung is more expensive than Motorola. Or...

You'd have to be very stupid not to take more for your product if it sells well. Obviously there's a lot of demand, or the price is too low.

What do you mean by "sells well"?
What is the yearly number of sales of FL Studio compared to Cubase?
FL Studio is heavily, massively pirated, judging by the results you get from Google for it, yet it costs a lot less than Cubase. So FL Studio isn't "selling well" because it's cheap? What about Synthmaster?

[2ZrgE]

No, I mean they reduce the price to sell more copies, and thus make more money...

Yes. No salesman would ever do that. It would be totally contradictory to lower the prices for something which sells well.

Yes, but who says it's selling 'well'? And what constitutes 'well'? (For Cubase or Nexus.)

As somebody else said above, companies are always telling us how much piracy hurts them, therefore those companies that have uncrackable protection, like Steinberg and ReFX, should be selling more copies (all things being equal - i.e. the quality of their synths/DAWs) than their competitors, shouldn't they?

What companies are complaining? Just curious.

[AcidMoon]

I want to get some more information about the VPS Avenger with screenshot.

[2ZrgE]

What do you mean by "sells well"?
What is the yearly number of sales of FL Studio compared to Cubase?
FL Studio is heavily, massively pirated, judging by the results you get from Google for it, yet it costs a lot less than Cubase. So FL Studio isn't "selling well" because it's cheap? What about Synthmaster?

The reason for this was explained before.

BTW I'm pretty sure Steinberg has a much bigger team then FL Studio, so their costs may be much higher also.

Cubase is targeted at professionals - people who can/will pay those prices (and finally people do have to pay as there is no cracked version beyond Cubase 5 because of the unbreakable copy protection). Same goes for Vengeance.

FL Studio is targeted at Bedroom producers, people who cannot/won't pay Steinberg prices. Maybe cracks are even tolerated because of all the kids producing tutorials on YT (=Marketing). Even Ableton tolerates cracks.

Maybe even the high price for Cubase is appealing to the pros, a kind of psychological marketing (cheap products=average products). Compare that to Apple. Apple does not want to produce yet another 100 bucks mobile, they want their customers to belive to have bought sth special.

[Raddler1]

Wasn't this thread about a new synth?

[Phorous]

Wasn't this thread about a new synth?

It was, but copy protection on the new synth is far more important than the new synth itself

[basslinemaster]

As somebody else said above, companies are always telling us how much piracy hurts them, therefore those companies that have uncrackable protection, like Steinberg and ReFX, should be selling more copies (all things being equal - i.e. the quality of their synths/DAWs) than their competitors, shouldn't they?

What companies are complaining? Just curious.

I presume all the companies whose software has been cracked are complaining. Do you think no companies are complaining about piracy?

[basslinemaster]

What do you mean by "sells well"?
What is the yearly number of sales of FL Studio compared to Cubase?
FL Studio is heavily, massively pirated, judging by the results you get from Google for it, yet it costs a lot less than Cubase. So FL Studio isn't "selling well" because it's cheap? What about Synthmaster?

The reason for this was explained before.

BTW I'm pretty sure Steinberg has a much bigger team then FL Studio, so their costs may be much higher also.

Cubase is targeted at professionals - people who can/will pay those prices (and finally people do have to pay as there is no cracked version beyond Cubase 5 because of the unbreakable copy protection). Same goes for Vengeance.

FL Studio is targeted at Bedroom producers, people who cannot/won't pay Steinberg prices. Maybe cracks are even tolerated because of all the kids producing tutorials on YT (=Marketing). Even Ableton tolerates cracks.

Maybe even the high price for Cubase is appealing to the pros, a kind of psychological marketing (cheap products=average products). Compare that to Apple. Apple does not want to produce yet another 100 bucks mobile, they want their customers to belive to have bought sth special.

It's "bigger THAN".
So FL Studio isn't "targeted at professionals" then? LOL. Please show me (apart from the price difference) exactly how Cubase is targetted at 'professionals', and how FL Studio isn't.
I only asked why Cubase is so much more expensive than most other DAWs, when it can't be pirated. Companies complain about piracy and how it 'loses them sales', yet the companies who don't suffer from any piracy at all are the ones charging the most for their products. (Well, Nexus isn't ridiculously overpriced, to be honest, although that depends on whether you like it or not, I suppose!)

[frizzbee]

It was, but copy protection on the new synth is far more important than the new synth itself

Especially if it is from vengeance or refx. There are plenty of threads about how they ripped off and deal with their customers. So who cares about their new synth? Tons of synths have been and will be released this year... Btw lets remember the last product they released after 2 years of work. Customers who bought it were paid beta tester! And I doubt they got a working release till now.