Why all this hate on subscriptions?

[guitfnky]

Some people are just concerned that:
1. Reason might be neglected while RS go searching for low hanging fruit by focusing on sound packs and the odd device here and there.
2. Reason standalone being discontinued and R+ being the only option.
3. Not developing VST support any further with the expectation of us all using RRP.
4. The failure of R+ could lead to the Verdane pulling out or discontinuing Reason to focus on something more "profitable".

These sound like scenarios an anxious person would spin up to keep their brain in a constant state of low-level dread. (Ask me how I know. )

Sounding sophisticated and detailed doesn't make a scenario credible which isn't evidence-based.

I mean, any of those scenarios could happen; I'm not ruling them out. But I could spin up positive scenarios as well.

For example, steadier more predictable revenue might enable them to hire more engineers qualified to enhance the DAW.

I'm not saying that will happen either. I'm saying positive or negative speculation of this sort is pointless.

if you’ve read the enormous thread that resulted from the R+ announcement debacle (and I don’t recommend you do #selfcare), you might find that much of the speculation is very much evidence-based. speculation still, to be sure, but if it walks like a whatever, and talks like a whatever, it’s hard not to conclude that it’s a whatever. the fact that they had to come back and tell us “wait, no, it’s not a whatever, that’s not what we meant” doesn’t instill a whole lot of confidence.

[Philup]

Instead of re-investing their capital in the core product to improve the user experience, the are re-investing in more nipples to milk their legacy for an improved wallet experience.

There's really no evidence of anything beyond their adding a stream of sample libraries. It's probably not safe to assume that's taking resources away from engineering.

The company's home page gives a clear indication. As to where their resources are being invested. No assumptions needed.

[R303]

Not to mention, the attempt to limit the permanent license to 12 months update guarantee. The subscription will be financially worthwhile, after all, last year was a record year and yet these major upheavals.

But after the January earthquake (here at Reasontalk), I wouldn't worry about the regular license for now.

[integerpoet]

There's really no evidence of anything beyond their adding a stream of sample libraries. It's probably not safe to assume that's taking resources away from engineering.

The company's home page gives a clear indication. As to where their resources are being invested. No assumptions needed.

Yeah, I've seen the quotes (including the extrapolations from placement of items on the home page) that supposedly indicate doom. I don't buy into the doom, but that aside I'm also not sure what those quotes have to do with the subscription model. I would also point out that the human resources required for making a sound pack are very different from the human resources required to enhance the DAW and, not to put too fine a point on it, but the latter are vastly more expensive. (It's not fair. It's merely true.)

[integerpoet]

if you’ve read the enormous thread that resulted from the R+ announcement debacle (and I don’t recommend you do #selfcare), you might find that much of the speculation is very much evidence-based. speculation still, to be sure, but if it walks like a whatever, and talks like a whatever, it’s hard not to conclude that it’s a whatever. the fact that they had to come back and tell us “wait, no, it’s not a whatever, that’s not what we meant” doesn’t instill a whole lot of confidence.

I confess I avoided that thread because I assumed it would be the usual hand-wringing I see like clockwork whenever any app developer starts to offer a subscription model. This is different and different is always bad so be very frightened! I call this "deltaphobia." But if there's evidence along the lines of RS describing its thinking about what this revenue model change might mean for the software, I'm all ears. Until then, I'm willing to assume they aren't evil or stupid.

[integerpoet]

These sound like scenarios an anxious person would spin up to keep their brain in a constant state of low-level dread. (Ask me how I know. )

Just sounds like you're undermining people's concerns and then trying to mischaracterise them as mentally unstable ‍♂️

I was actually comedically referring to my own anxiety issues and suggesting these scenarios sound like ones my own broken brain might come up with to keep itself in an anxious fog. But undermining? Absolutely I was doing that. These days I'm all about evidence rather than doom-wallowing.

[EdwardKiy]

Here's a nice overview with a focus on restaurant business:

https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcont ... ontext=rtd

"Implications" are on page 61 of the dissertation (page 72 of the file). In, short Psychological Ownership is an effect that must be desired by the managers because it promotes certain behaviors in customers, including 1) an intention of relationship 2) competitive resistance 3) willingness to pay more 4) advertising through word-of-mouth, which is the most effective. This is achieved through 1) allowing customers a form of control 2) customer participation/interaction 3) customer-company identification and 4) giving the customer a sense of belonging. Pretty much all the things opposite of what the RS management is doing now.

I would recommend at least skimming through the whole thing though, because it lightly brushes on the underlying biological need for ownership and "home" with references to some more concrete studies.

[guitfnky]

if you’ve read the enormous thread that resulted from the R+ announcement debacle (and I don’t recommend you do #selfcare), you might find that much of the speculation is very much evidence-based. speculation still, to be sure, but if it walks like a whatever, and talks like a whatever, it’s hard not to conclude that it’s a whatever. the fact that they had to come back and tell us “wait, no, it’s not a whatever, that’s not what we meant” doesn’t instill a whole lot of confidence.

I confess I avoided that thread because I assumed it would be the usual hand-wringing I see like clockwork whenever any app developer starts to offer a subscription model. This is different and different is always bad so be very frightened! I call this "deltaphobia." But if there's evidence along the lines of RS describing its thinking about what this revenue model change might mean for the software, I'm all ears. Until then, I'm willing to assume they aren't evil or stupid.

yeah, it was more about their actions than their words (particularly, stuff like shoving the shop to some hard to find corner of the site, and making it really kind of difficult for people to figure out how to buy licenses outright) made people (IMO, justifiably) question their motivations.

their words came after (they’re committed to continuing work on the core experience, and will keep the option to purchase), and alleviated most of my fears (obviously I can only speak for myself), but I think they did themselves a disservice in how they handled that, and I can’t blame people for being leery, as a result.

[integerpoet]

yeah, it was more about their actions than their words (particularly, stuff like shoving the shop to some hard to find corner of the site, and making it really kind of difficult for people to figure out how to buy licenses outright) made people (IMO, justifiably) question their motivations.

their words came after (they’re committed to continuing work on the core experience, and will keep the option to purchase), and alleviated most of my fears (obviously I can only speak for myself), but I think they did themselves a disservice in how they handled that, and I can’t blame people for being leery, as a result.

Why would people be surprised to see RS flog the subscription model at the expense of everything else for a while? It's the new shiny. Why would one conclude anything other than that being an intro marketing campaign? That's not evidence-based reasoning. That's, like, galaxy-brain stuff. That's QAnon "connect the dots" stuff. That won't get anyone anywhere constructive.

[guitfnky]

yeah, it was more about their actions than their words (particularly, stuff like shoving the shop to some hard to find corner of the site, and making it really kind of difficult for people to figure out how to buy licenses outright) made people (IMO, justifiably) question their motivations.

their words came after (they’re committed to continuing work on the core experience, and will keep the option to purchase), and alleviated most of my fears (obviously I can only speak for myself), but I think they did themselves a disservice in how they handled that, and I can’t blame people for being leery, as a result.

Why would people be surprised to see RS flog the subscription model at the expense of everything else for a while? It's the new shiny. Why would one conclude anything other than that being an intro marketing campaign? That's not evidence-based reasoning. That's, like, galaxy-brain stuff. That's QAnon "connect the dots" stuff. That won't get anyone anywhere constructive.

nah, I think that’s a vast oversimplification. I’m about as far from a conspiracy theorist as you’re likely to find. marketing IS communication. and what does it communicate by making it as hard as it was to purchase a license? it wasn’t just mistakenly missed by a few people. it was actively difficult to find to on the site. users would be forgiven for not realizing they even still offered perpetual licenses. yes, it was that bad.

and I’ll tell you it DID get us someplace constructive. all the (unnecessary) confusion (that RS caused) came out in that thread, and RS were forced to respond to it. if you think the questions and speculation are bad now, I can promise you they’d be far worse had we not been so forceful in asking those questions in the first place.

[cymek74]

I have a subscription, Kilohearts everything bundle, $10 a month, with a $100 voucher to spend after 12 months and a $100 voucher every year you subscribe, eventually, you can own it outright with the vouchers and have only dropped $20 a year, with all updates and new devices covered, that's good value. For me the Reason+ sub isn't a good deal, granted I have a perpetual licence and a fair share of REs, but even so, I think if I started out again and for some reason had to go subscription, Studio One rent to own, (2 years $16.99) along with the Kilohearts everything sub, is still slightly less ($26.99 +$10 = £19.15 Approx.) and you get the chance to own them outright.
Also the timing, they should have waited until they updated, then rolled it out, got their house in order, get the roof on before you put the curtains up.

[Bes]

wtaf @integerpoet Rack Extension devs having they're marketplace devalued is not Q sh*t. stop gaslighting, delete your account

[integerpoet]

wtaf @integerpoet Rack Extension devs having they're marketplace devalued is not Q sh*t. stop gaslighting, delete your account

The shop becoming less visible for even a short period of time undeniably hurts RE developers.

But the question was about subscriptions, and discussion moved to the marketing thereof, and what that marketing meant in the bigger picture.

All I'm hearing about that so far seems to amount to apophenia on the heels of poor communication on RS part.

[integerpoet]

…I’m about as far from a conspiracy theorist as you’re likely to find. marketing IS communication. and what does it communicate by making it as hard as it was to purchase a license? it wasn’t just mistakenly missed by a few people. it was actively difficult to find to on the site. users would be forgiven for not realizing they even still offered perpetual licenses. yes, it was that bad.

I'll buy that. But ascribing damaging intent to it seems to go a bit far.

and I’ll tell you it DID get us someplace constructive. all the (unnecessary) confusion (that RS caused) came out in that thread, and RS were forced to respond to it. if you think the questions and speculation are bad now, I can promise you they’d be far worse had we not been so forceful in asking those questions in the first place.

But is that evidence you alerted them to a miscommunication or do you think they actually changed their minds in some significant way? My guess would have been that if they were truly committed to cutting purchases off at the knees, they'd have anticipated complaints and decided to bull through them. And had they not responded, that still wouldn't mean their plans were ever doom-y; it would just have meant they chose not to respond to a PR issue.

[guitfnky]

…I’m about as far from a conspiracy theorist as you’re likely to find. marketing IS communication. and what does it communicate by making it as hard as it was to purchase a license? it wasn’t just mistakenly missed by a few people. it was actively difficult to find to on the site. users would be forgiven for not realizing they even still offered perpetual licenses. yes, it was that bad.

I'll buy that. But ascribing damaging intent to it seems to go a bit far.

and I’ll tell you it DID get us someplace constructive. all the (unnecessary) confusion (that RS caused) came out in that thread, and RS were forced to respond to it. if you think the questions and speculation are bad now, I can promise you they’d be far worse had we not been so forceful in asking those questions in the first place.

But is that evidence you alerted them to a miscommunication or do you think they actually changed their minds in some significant way? My guess would have been that if they were truly committed to cutting purchases off at the knees, they'd have anticipated complaints and decided to bull through them. And had they not responded, that still wouldn't mean their plans were ever doom-y; it would just have meant they chose not to respond to a PR issue.

I guess that’s the point though...RS are a traditionally very tight-lipped bunch, so, often all that can be done is to try to read between the lines of their actions to see where their intent lies. there’s nothing wrong with their approach, of course, but it has its own downsides, just as being over communication has its downsides. as long as they communicate clearly, when they do so (including their marketing), there’s usually nothing to get prickly about. they didn’t communicate clearly, in this case. at least not initially. their marketing was terrible.

I understand the inclination to suspect that people are just overreacting, but for one, it wasn’t a small chunk of the user base. there was something seriously mishandled over the course of that reveal, and IMO, it’s a stretch to dismiss it with the assumption that a significant percentage of people were just being irrational. to place it all at the feet of the user base for speculating, well, there’s not much to be said there except that to not expect speculation is unrealistic—trying to make sense of the world around us based on incomplete information is a fundamental human trait. speculating is literally a feature—not a bug—of human thinking. marketers know this. RS should know this. and it’s something I tried to communicate to them after the fact—that they really could have avoided a lot of the problems they had with the announcement just by thinking about it from the perspective of both their target user base AND their existing user base (the latter being the part they missed).

I’m not sure what to make of the last question. to my mind, it doesn’t matter whether they corrected a miscommunication or if they decided to alter course at the behest of the community—either of those results would be defined as constructive outcomes, at least for me.

[integerpoet]

RS are a traditionally very tight-lipped bunch, so, often all that can be done is to try to read between the lines of their actions to see where their intent lies.

When you write "all that can be done" I can't help but ask why anyone thought something must be done.

Speculating is literally a feature—not a bug—of human thinking.

The ability to speculate is indeed a feature. But I would characterize being unable to stop oneself from speculating — even when it's the sole cause of suffering — as a bug.

They really could have avoided a lot of the problems they had with the announcement…

PR is indeed tricky and one can reasonably argue RS should have anticipated the anxiety better. But is this a forum to which one comes to read critique of public relations campaigns? (I merely assume such things exist somewhere…) And anyway what does that have to do with whether there was ever any concrete reason to have anticipated doom?

To my mind, it doesn’t matter whether they corrected a miscommunication or if they decided to alter course at the behest of the community—either of those results would be defined as constructive outcomes, at least for me.

Although anxiety about subscriptions did provoke a response, that doesn't mean there was ever any concrete reason to have anticipated doom.

[guitfnky]

RS are a traditionally very tight-lipped bunch, so, often all that can be done is to try to read between the lines of their actions to see where their intent lies.

When you write "all that can be done" I can't help but ask why anyone thought something must be done.

Speculating is literally a feature—not a bug—of human thinking.

The ability to speculate is indeed a feature. But I would characterize being unable to stop oneself from speculating — even when it's the sole cause of suffering — as a bug.

They really could have avoided a lot of the problems they had with the announcement…

PR is indeed tricky and one can reasonably argue RS should have anticipated the anxiety better. But is this a forum to which one comes to read critique of public relations campaigns? (I merely assume such things exist somewhere…) And anyway what does that have to do with whether there was ever any concrete reason to have anticipated doom?

To my mind, it doesn’t matter whether they corrected a miscommunication or if they decided to alter course at the behest of the community—either of those results would be defined as constructive outcomes, at least for me.

Although anxiety about subscriptions did provoke a response, that doesn't mean there was ever any concrete reason to have anticipated doom.

I’ll try an extreme analogy...you see a car speeding toward a cliff. you can speculate what will happen next. it does no one any benefit to assume the driver will turn before going off (this is speculation in and of itself*). it does no one any harm, but could be helpful to shout “hey, bro, maybe find the brake—you’re about to suicide off a cliff!”

*to put a fine point on it, assuming RS have our best financial interests in mind is speculation—and is almost certainly wrong.

I mean, it sounds like you’re suggesting we all become passive consumers, which is a bit bizarre in its own right. why did anyone think there was something to be done? because we are the users of a product we want to continue to purchase and use. we very much have a stake in what direction the company takes. companies require customer feedback. is that not a good enough answer?

[integerpoet]

I’ll try an extreme analogy...you see a car speeding toward a cliff. you can speculate what will happen next. it does no one any benefit to assume the driver will turn before going off (this is speculation in and of itself*). it does no one any harm, but could be helpful to shout “hey, bro, maybe find the brake—you’re about to suicide off a cliff!”

*to put a fine point on it, assuming RS have our best financial interests in mind is speculation—and is almost certainly wrong.

I mean, it sounds like you’re suggesting we all become passive consumers, which is a bit bizarre in its own right. why did anyone think there was something to be done? because we are the users of a product we want to continue to purchase and use. we very much have a stake in what direction the company takes. companies require customer feedback. is that not a good enough answer?

Your analogy makes perfect sense. But caring enough to express an opinion is one thing and predicting doom is another.

All sorts of stuff other than the subscription model has come up in this thread, so I'll take the time to type out that the subscription model is all I'm referring to here since that is after all how the thread started.

[orthodox]

I’ll try an extreme analogy...you see a car speeding toward a cliff. you can speculate what will happen next. it does no one any benefit to assume the driver will turn before going off (this is speculation in and of itself*). it does no one any harm, but could be helpful to shout “hey, bro, maybe find the brake—you’re about to suicide off a cliff!”

Ha, that's just what I was thinking, that's how I see this thread. Hey, bros, maybe find the brake? A worried mind will always find some flaw to grow a tree out of it. I mean, there's nothing really happening with RS and their offers, and unless they suddenly decide to jump off the cliff, nothing is going to happen.

[joeyluck]

Here's a nice overview with a focus on restaurant business:

https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcont ... ontext=rtd

"Implications" are on page 61 of the dissertation (page 72 of the file). In, short Psychological Ownership is an effect that must be desired by the managers because it promotes certain behaviors in customers, including 1) an intention of relationship 2) competitive resistance 3) willingness to pay more 4) advertising through word-of-mouth, which is the most effective. This is achieved through 1) allowing customers a form of control 2) customer participation/interaction 3) customer-company identification and 4) giving the customer a sense of belonging. Pretty much all the things opposite of what the RS management is doing now.

I would recommend at least skimming through the whole thing though, because it lightly brushes on the underlying biological need for ownership and "home" with references to some more concrete studies.

All of your comparisons are not related to the music, audio, or software industries. Try just looking into that and what more and more studios are doing.

I think you'll be surprised to find out that things are starting to flip. I'm a perpetual license purchaser myself, but I also have a specific set of tools I use and look to purchase. I as an individual buy things for projects I work on mostly by myself and based on my own preferences. I can also sit and wait for a sale for as long as I can possibly manage for each individual plugin, etc.

But many studios and individuals now are getting subscriptions instead for things like Pro Tools, McDSP, Slate, Waves, etc. They'd rather pay the several hundred a year, which is often covered by a few studio bookings, instead of paying tens of thousands of dollars up front and then still not having everything and having to buy more. The budgeting makes sense for many of them.

There's this calculator that was done previously and includes a few subscription options: https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/free-p ... calculator There's of course more subscriptions to add to that list, but it gives an idea.

I'm not a big fan of Slate, but they also describe it well:

Yes, developers are in it to make money, so you might argue that they of course are going to try to sell it to you this way. They certainly may lose money on the individual who is ready to fork out a boat load of money in order to buy everything up front and buy everything that is released thereafter... But even though the money over time is less per individual than buying everything outright, the hope is that more people subscribe and the revenue is a more steady stream. They may even make more money off of someone who might've only bought a plugin or two... But for professional studios, subscriptions are becoming the common sense answer now. Having everything and being up to date for a fraction of the cost and being able to budget per year based on that smaller cost, it makes sense. And even if they bought everything up front, they would still spend more on the new plugins and updates the following year than they would for another year of subscribing.

[Philup]

With no prediction, theorizing or implication I'm not happy that subscribers will have access to new v12 features sooner than license holders.

There is no reason to do that, just more teat milking...

[strange_scenery]

With no prediction, theorizing or implication I'm not happy that subscribers will have access to new v12 features sooner than license holders.

There is no reason to do that, just more teat milking...

The only way for them to give Reason 12 features to perpetual license holders ahead of time would be for them to sell Reason 12 before it is done and then deliver the features piece by piece, which would not be impossible to do, as they are doing it for Reason+, but there is no precedent for that that I can think of. If anything I think that would be even more confusing and create even worse PR

[Philup]

With no prediction, theorizing or implication I'm not happy that subscribers will have access to new v12 features sooner than license holders.

There is no reason to do that, just more teat milking...

The only way for them to give Reason 12 features to perpetual license holders ahead of time would be for them to sell Reason 12 before it is done and then deliver the features piece by piece, which would not be impossible to do, as they are doing it for Reason+, but there is no precedent for that that I can think of. If anything I think that would be even more confusing and create even worse PR

As much as I love their software, their marketing team has engaged in some of the most cringeworthy endeavors and roll outs I have ever experienced in a company that I continue to support. I honestly feel sorry for them.

[joeyluck]

With no prediction, theorizing or implication I'm not happy that subscribers will have access to new v12 features sooner than license holders.

There is no reason to do that, just more teat milking...

The only way for them to give Reason 12 features to perpetual license holders ahead of time would be for them to sell Reason 12 before it is done and then deliver the features piece by piece, which would not be impossible to do, as they are doing it for Reason+, but there is no precedent for that that I can think of. If anything I think that would be even more confusing and create even worse PR

Yup, this is very likely why. They can deliver features as they are ready to R+ subscribers. So say just the sampler is ready first...they would then have to release R12 as just including a new sampler and that feels silly. It's also one of the expectations with subscriptions; that new features and plugins are steady.

Now I wonder if the people who haven't tried R+ will use the trial to check out new features... Splice has that 90 day trial promotion that will get you closer to the release of R12. I'd jump on that while it's still available.

[EdwardKiy]

All of your comparisons are not related to the music, audio, or software industries.

My comparisons are based on low-level evidence for a lack of any better ones, yours are based on personal observations of current market states, which is the same as looking at the shapes of clouds. I'm telling you about the biological need for ownership and how it forms us

....
Try just looking into that and what more and more studios are doing.
.....
I think you'll be surprised to find out that things are starting to flip.

the classic "billions of flies eat poo, they can't all be wrong!" non-argument. You are the buyer, you decide what the product is going to be and how and if it survives.

But many studios and individuals now are getting subscriptions instead for things like Pro Tools, McDSP, Slate, Waves, etc. They'd rather pay the several hundred a year, which is often covered by a few studio bookings, instead of paying tens of thousands of dollars up front and then still not having everything and having to buy more. The budgeting makes sense for many of them.

There's this calculator that was done previously and includes a few subscription options: https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/free-p ... calculator There's of course more subscriptions to add to that list, but it gives an idea.

I'm the seller. I sell poo. It's worth $1'000'000'000 because of how good it is (trust me), and it comes in 15 flavors. But we will allow you to rent it for just 14.99/month, for the sole reason of being kind to hobos. Here's a calculator so you can see how much you're saving. 15x12x5 < 1'000'000'000, you are making a clever choice!

But for professional studios, subscriptions are becoming the common sense answer now. Having everything and being up to date for a fraction of the cost and being able to budget per year based on that smaller cost, it makes sense. And even if they bought everything up front, they would still spend more on the new plugins and updates the following year than they would for another year of subscribing.

If owning and updating something for a professional studio made no fiscal sense, the product couldn't have existed in the first place. the price is capped by perceived value. perceived by customers.

This whole subscription thing is the companies' attempt at making the customers surrender their ability to define a product's value.

The OP question is "why the hate for subscription?". My answer is this - it's having your biology used against you (force of habit and reinforcing loops of declining decision-making ability) as opposed to having it used for you (making decisions, investing memory and emotion). Companies no longer want to be responsible for the quality of a product but rather sell you a big shiny box of junk and have your mental capacities degraded so you would buy even more junk. They no longer want a fixed amount, but a slice of your income. It's absolutely disgusting. It turns everything into conveyor garbage serving the lowest common denominator. And to answer the question that's obviously stuck in your head "what happens when everybody does it" - it will all be murdered by a group selling at fixed price under "set yourself free" slogan, with an OPTION of renting the buffet "just in case you are not sure about our product" in small print at the very bottom of the website and make that a pride statement, the marketing fulcrum.

"Everybody does it" is the company's (deceitful) excuse to be doing it, not your reason to endorse it.