[Poll] Is subscription based licensing for you?

[jancivil]

If it translates to most of the really obvious bugs are fixed in Cubase within the same pay-for cycle, it's worth considering.

I'm using Cubase 5. I chose not to do 6, or 7 and chances are I'm not going to swing for 8. It means directly, I'm not spending money at all during these yrs. I like things simple and clear like this.

[ntom]

So sick of developers treating their customers like they doing their customers a service.

There is no reason - EVER - for sub-based licensing. Firstly: If you're doing it as an anti-piracy measure, it doesn't work. They will still crack it. Ask Adobe and the numerous Creative Cloud torrents available.
Secondly: All this does is hinder the customer. Don't chastise the legitimate customer for the doings of the illegitimate. It's shit like this that DRIVE people to piracy.

[stardustmedia]

I'd need a couple, no, a lot of pros so I'd consider subscription.

I bet some companies would implement that very well and the customer will highly benefit from it. But for sure, the majority will just do it to gain more money

[Gamma-UT]

A major issue with subscriptions is what happens to the licence when you stop paying or the company changes hands or simply disappears.

If the servers go down, you're hosed. If you stop paying, forget access to sessions recorded with that DAW or plugin. If the company changes policies, you're on the hook to keep paying whatever they ask or lose access.

Paying for a perpetual licence + maintenance is the fairest way of doing this for both sides as the customer always has the choice, if they can't afford maintenance or only needing the tool for legacy projects, of putting the tool on a machine they will never update and keep using that until it breaks.

Subscription licences can work in industries where tools evolve rapidly – they are now the norm in chip design - or where it's a service model, such as 3D rendering on a server farm (and even then you'd expect a one-off fee model as well). But this is an area where only a small subset of customers expects to update stuff rapidly and for those working professionally where updating rapidly is a major impediment to productivity. Protecting workflows and legacy projects are far more important than change.

[Gamma-UT]

It's a great model for developer,s a lousy model for the rest of us. I've been watching the Slate thread at GS and it's fascinating how Slate's promotional logic works. "Look, you are going to get all these fantastic but not actually existing yet plugins for twenty dollars a month!"

When I read his pitch for subs on GS, I thought Steven Slate should try his hand at standup because it was comedy gold.

[VariKusBrainZ]

Subs are good in one respect - they will help drive customers to those smaller devs that offer licences for one payment.

[VariKusBrainZ]

Then again it could make warez focus more on those smaller devs who are easier to crack

[hibidy]

It's a great model for developer,s a lousy model for the rest of us. I've been watching the Slate thread at GS and it's fascinating how Slate's promotional logic works. "Look, you are going to get all these fantastic but not actually existing yet plugins for twenty dollars a month!"

When I read his pitch for subs on GS, I thought Steven Slate should try his hand at standup because it was comedy gold.

You know, I bought into the slate model here a little while ago and then this happened. I feel dirty.

[Gamma-UT]

You know, I bought into the slate model here a little while ago and then this happened. I feel dirty.

He is keeping the perpetuals, unlike Avid. The more people who say "I'm sticking with this", the less likely he is to change his mind.

[Compyfox]

Subs are good in one respect - they will help drive customers to those smaller devs that offer licences for one payment.

Actually, they are good for several things:
a) you can demo a plugin (or a complete range for Slate Digital) for an unlimited time - or in our example, the time you pay for it - without any restrictions

b) if sample providers would offer a similar model, you could finally(!!!) test samples within a regular songwriting scenario - and not get access to audio/video demos and demo samples only

c) it's great for musicians and engineers that only need a specific tool for a specific task over a set time frame (i.e. your main work expertise is not audio restoration but you need to cover that area over the course of 2-3 months) - which is (I think) the main idea behind Slate Digital's concept (more in-depth testing and "project limited" studio use), and also SONNOX. Actually, I'd love to see such a route for one company I recently tested a surround tool from. As surround is really not my main work area otherwise.


Else, it is(!) a chastity belt model.

Especially from companies that say "you don't pay for a license anymore, but you actually covered the fees for the tool in question - sucks to be you - no payment, your plugins will stop working". As it is the case i.e. for AXIS Plugins - and was the main reason I did not(!) go for the third incarnation of "Inspektor XL".

Come to think of it, Waves "WUP" scheme is actually a subscription based system. But it's a bit masked, as the "upgrades period" is not fixed, and you can keep on using your current engine version even after the point of your run out WUP.


Just my 2c.

[stardustmedia]

c) it's great for musicians and engineers that only need a specific tool for a specific task over a set time frame (i.e. your main work expertise is not audio restoration but you need to cover that area over the course of 2-3 months) - which is (I think) the main idea behind Slate Digital's concept (more in-depth testing and "project limited" studio use), and also SONNOX. Actually, I'd love to see such a route for one company I recently tested a surround tool from. As surround is really not my main work area otherwise.

For such cases, subscription is perfect. As long as the price is fair too.

[fese]

I'd prefer the classic licensing, too, but Compyfox has some valid points. And for me personally it depends heavily you on the actual pricing and the implementation. That cakewalk model doesn't seem half bad - you pay for one year of updates, you can use the software forever (however long forever is in software world), it is not that different from now where I am with Cubase 6 now. Bought it, never bought any updates so far.

My problems with subscriptions are mainly:
- like Compyfox, when the product stops working if you don't continue the subscription
- all those closed app shops that follow inevitably the subscription model, along with more and more information the vendor collects about me
- resale possibilities or the absence of them.

[Compyfox]

c) it's great for musicians and engineers that only need a specific tool for a specific task over a set time frame (i.e. your main work expertise is not audio restoration but you need to cover that area over the course of 2-3 months) - which is (I think) the main idea behind Slate Digital's concept (more in-depth testing and "project limited" studio use), and also SONNOX. Actually, I'd love to see such a route for one company I recently tested a surround tool from. As surround is really not my main work area otherwise.

For such cases, subscription is perfect. As long as the price is fair too.

Agreed - 10-20USD/month looks like a fair rate (depending on the amount of tools needed/bundled - or sample packs!). Especially if you "stack" tools from various companies. But not if it goes beyond 50USD for one or two tool only.


If a "loan charge" for samples would have existed years ago, I am sure that I wouldn't have wasted my money on crap content that I could never sell in the end. Thankfully, there are more suitable demos these days, but they are still only "scratching the surface", or are not properly sorted/tagged, or the videos are manipulated to show "a highly programmed playback" rather than realtime usage, etc.


I can only repeat myself at this point - subscription is a two edged blade. And not necessarily possible for small-income freelancers (it is adding to your expenses! Which can skyrocket out of control). But if you look at it from a "limited use" viewpoint rather than an "ongoing payment system" (think AVID and Cakewalk, or internet/cable/mobile fees) - then it's an interesting alternative.

[Hink]

c) it's great for musicians and engineers that only need a specific tool for a specific task over a set time frame (i.e. your main work expertise is not audio restoration but you need to cover that area over the course of 2-3 months) - which is (I think) the main idea behind Slate Digital's concept (more in-depth testing and "project limited" studio use), and also SONNOX. Actually, I'd love to see such a route for one company I recently tested a surround tool from. As surround is really not my main work area otherwise.

For such cases, subscription is perfect. As long as the price is fair too.

Agreed - 10-20USD/month looks like a fair rate (depending on the amount of tools needed/bundled - or sample packs!). Especially if you "stack" tools from various companies. But not if it goes beyond 50USD for one or two tool only.


If a "loan charge" for samples would have existed years ago, I am sure that I wouldn't have wasted my money on crap content that I could never sell in the end. Thankfully, there are more suitable demos these days, but they are still only "scratching the surface", or are not properly sorted/tagged, or the videos are manipulated to show "a highly programmed playback" rather than realtime usage, etc.


I can only repeat myself at this point - subscription is a two edged blade. And not necessarily possible for small-income freelancers (it is adding to your expenses! Which can skyrocket out of control). But if you look at it from a "limited use" viewpoint rather than an "ongoing payment system" (think AVID and Cakewalk, or internet/cable/mobile fees) - then it's an interesting alternative.

Hi compy :, that's the concern isn't it? Say your DAW is 10 dollars a month, then a vst company is say 2 dollars a month, then another vst is 2 dollars a month, a sampler is 2 dollars (using two dollars because that is very low imo) and your vsti's are 2 dollars each it could add up up fast. If everyone went with subscription 20 dollars a month would be minor and that would be 240 dollars a year (1 dollar more than Samp Pro X2 upgrade now which the last upgrade was over three years ago).

My concern would be that subscription based services would push the small developers out of business. Sure they could still stay as a buy per product basis but the trend itself could push people more in the direction I am in now myself. That being my 3rd party plugins are less and less used, I love Samp's suite and the fx/dp. Big guys could spark up deals with major DAWs as they do now but the smaller guys might not and those guys could see a loss of sales just because if one's DAW has it all built in under one roof why by more? Good for us ((at least for me), good for the major players but I fear the smaller developers which KvR is really about may be the ones that bare the cost.

[fedexnman]

I could see a rent to own thing pay $10 a month for 2 years and you own a version # that's $240 for a version or out right buy it for $199 . But what if after 1 or 2 months you want to cancel how does the software time out ? I chose the fish option . Weird business models this year and so much focus on hardware apposed to software it seems . Forums closing , campanies closing etc etc weird year .