Reason upgrade dealbreaker

[trimph1]

i can't find the old propellerhead timeline but just wanted to say that the upgrade cycle seems to have gotten shorter but the price hasn't gotten lower.  major updates used to come out every 2-3 years before version 6 iirc.  this is largely the cause of the upset as far as i can see.  and since they are apparently making bank on it i can't see them changing.

i'd love to see how much they could expand their market if they had a lower price on the core software, both in terms of unit sales and upgrades.

(probably apple would just buy them then though lol)

NNNOOOOOOO!!!!!! Don't invite them into this!!!!!

They'd start buying up the borg next..... :s0106:

[KEVMOVE02]

 If Reason 8 had been a free upgrade to R7 users, would the reviewers have still gone out of their way to suggest R7 users might not see value in upgrading? Of course not.

Can you really make the assumption that offering R8 as a free upgrade would have changed the tone of the reviews? let's face it: reviews are nothing more than "informed opinions", which require the reader to exercise due diligence before accepting the findings of a critic. In spite of that, I'm not sure that "free upgrade" would have helped, based on two thoughts:

1. Even at no cost, does the addition of the new browser and new REs make learning a new workflow worthwhile (especially if you liked the old browser and never used the Line 6 devices)? Based on some of the disdain for the new features expressed by some users (They broke Reason!), I have a doubt.
2. The underlying resentment among existing customers that items that they think should be features are being packaged as Rack Extensions, which is further exacerbated by the new customer offer (Buy Reason 8, get 4 REs free) and the realization that Propellerhead is attempting to pass off the Softube Amps as additions, when they are really replacements of existing rack devices.

That being said, you make a good argument for the diminishing value of annual updates and whether Propellerhead can justify a standard upgrade fee, when the consumer is not receiving tangible upgrade value in return. But that's a difficult thing to measure, because which statistic has a greater weight: the number of users (and industry reviewers) complaining about the upgrade or the actual number of users who purchased the upgrade? Is it possible that the number of critical reviews and disgruntled users are significantly outnumbered by the existing users who purchased the upgrade? It's not likely that any of us could ever get access to the actual sales data (unless we work for a sales tracking company or Propellerhead), and even if we did, a NDA would prevent us from sharing that info with the public. So all we are left with are our individual opinions and decisions. In my opinion, R8 did not deliver enough value to pay the $129 upgrade fee on release day (September 30, 2014), but was definitely worth spending $99 to upgrade five months later.   

[KEVMOVE02]

I came across this post and thought the scenario it presents is very similar to the discussion about R8 upgrade offer to existing customers:

"Wow, I just bought both guitar refills from "xxxx-xxxx" (name deleted) and with the exchange rate, I spent almost $10 more than this refill's cost. And they're included in this refill. Sorry for my unenlightened post, but I'm venting because this royally sucks."

What (if anything) is owed to this individual? Did they not get what they paid for? Did the value of what they purchased diminish just because it was also available in a different offer?

Before you answer, consider this: it is a common practice to offer different pricing for the same item, based on the channel of distribution. The product creator often trades away profit in exchange for wider distribution and product awareness.

[CharlyCharlzz]

maybe we all too old to anderstand , I know almost everything there is too know about marketing and trading but many companys like apple don't think like most , for exemple I cannot anderstand companys that yearly upgrade there products but only expect peoples to upgrade every 2 or 3 years ?!?!!?
 
I did not buyed R8 but I sayed I would do by summertime , I am waiting on something .

[trimph1]

I came across this post and thought the scenario it presents is very similar to the discussion about R8 upgrade offer to existing customers:

"Wow, I just bought both guitar refills from "xxxx-xxxx" (name deleted) and with the exchange rate, I spent almost $10 more than this refill's cost. And they're included in this refill. Sorry for my unenlightened post, but I'm venting because this royally sucks."

What (if anything) is owed to this individual? Did they not get what they paid for? Did the value of what they purchased diminish just because it was also available in a different offer?

Before you answer, consider this: it is a common practice to offer different pricing for the same item, based on the channel of distribution. The product creator often trades away profit in exchange for wider distribution and product awareness.

I seen that with Sonar's X1/2/3 Pro-Channel devices as well...everytime they put on a sale the complaints became unreal. Everything from the idea that CW were going to dump VST support  to forcing people into buying the PC devices. It was ridiculous...some even complained about how they were overcharged for the same thing when they bought it 3 months before the sale even happened.

OH...and BTW...Sears, with their catalogue sales have different prices sometimes for the same product...I do not recall anyone kvetching about them... :s0106: