# Which developer(s) and at what price-level would 'force your hand' towards subscription?



## el-bo (Jun 18, 2021)

I'm the last person who should be seeking to deter thread-derailment, but if 'we' could at least avoid discussing the pros and cons of the subscription model, itself, the conversation might be easier to navigate.

So, Who?...Which?...How much?

Personally, aside from my frustration that they've (thus far) largely ignored MPE, I think Native Instruments could almost be my one-stop-shop for synths, drum-machines, cinematic 'curiosities' and FX. It seems to be the easiest 'sell', given how many people already spend a certain amount a year for Komplete upgrades. If they staggered the prices and took a chance on volume-of-subscribers, rather than the highest price, I reckon they'd 'clean up'. Something a little like this:

'Standard' - $11.99
'Ultimate' - $19.99
'CE' - $26.99

I also think that both Spitfire and Orchestral Tools would be hard to refuse @ $30, per-month (I doubt either would entertain such a low price, however).

Personally, I could see trying to plan my musical life around the possibility of renting/subscribing from multiple developers, but not at the same time. I've also thought this about Izotope, in the sense that I could save a handful of projects and take out a sub to do the final mastering. Just the same, I could dedicate a concentrated mount of time to create field-recordings and take a month's worth of RX to clean 'em all up.

Thoughts?


----------



## kvmorgan (Jun 18, 2021)

None. I will always seek alternatives to subscriptions.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Jun 18, 2021)

I tend to agree. NI would be an obvious choice at those prices as a lot of the stuff they do now is quick "hit'n'run" (loops, samples, "play series") and it all rolls into Komplete Kontrol.

Spitfire? Apart from the price (which would be significant?) you'd also need to invest in some serious hardware and storage to use all that bounty. Also, Spitfire stuff requires a serious "dig in" to get the most of out of it, especially if you're templating and setting up articulations etc. I'd be very reticent to dive in on all of that work if I was paying for it via a sub, even if it was fairly affordable. I could say the same for VSL, OT etc.

There you go. I managed to stay OT!


----------



## rrichard63 (Jun 18, 2021)

For me, the question in the thread title is a relatively easy one. What "forces my hand" is Plugin Alliance's policy that your annual subscription fee is returned to you as a voucher that you can apply toward the perpetual licenses of your choice; the only major restriction is that you have to use the voucher all at once rather than piecemeal.


----------



## rrichard63 (Jun 18, 2021)

el-bo said:


> It seems to be the easiest 'sell', given how many people already spend a certain amount a year for Komplete upgrades


I think the opposite is true for many users. The more of a developer's products I already have perpetual licenses for, the less likely it that converting to a subscription model makes any sense.


----------



## kvmorgan (Jun 18, 2021)

Apologies for not “staying on topic”, but I’m uncomfortable with the premise of the question and its underlying consequences. I simply cannot instruct those who might be inclined to take advantage in how they might use my desires to drain my wallet. As I’ve indicated in my previous message, I am ready to abandon any desire in order to maintain financial freedom and freedom of choice.

I’ll just leave it at that. I’m normally an easy-going person, and speaking out like this is difficult. But some things are just too important to remain silent.


----------



## Trash Panda (Jun 18, 2021)

If NI offered a subscription at those prices AND threw in the same products from Izotope’s subscription, I’d be tempted if I didn’t have perpetual licenses already.


----------



## el-bo (Jun 18, 2021)

Alex Fraser said:


> I tend to agree. NI would be an obvious choice at those prices as a lot of the stuff they do now is quick "hit'n'run" (loops, samples, "play series") and it all rolls into Komplete Kontrol.
> 
> Spitfire? Apart from the price (which would be significant?) you'd also need to invest in some serious hardware and storage to use all that bounty. Also, Spitfire stuff requires a serious "dig in" to get the most of out of it, especially if you're templating and setting up articulations etc. I'd be very reticent to dive in on all of that work if I was paying for it via a sub, even if it was fairly affordable. I could say the same for VSL, OT etc.
> 
> There you go. I managed to stay OT!


But there's no reason that having a sub means having to download everything all at once, and for all time. I guess it's up to each person to work out how they'd navigate it all.

Ultimately, in it's simplest form, I think it just comes down to each person auditing how much they currently spend, per year, per company, and see how it matches agains the price of the sub. Of course, there's the small issue of dealing with the concept of ownership etc, but that's hopefully not going to be really part of this discussion


----------



## allen-garvey (Jun 18, 2021)

If Spitfire had a $30 a month subscription I would subscribe for 1-2 months a year as a kind of extended demo and to create a few tracks with things I don't intend to buy. Though even yearly that would be a pretty good deal, as $360 a year is roughly the price of one of their libraries.


----------



## el-bo (Jun 18, 2021)

rrichard63 said:


> For me, the question in the thread title is a relatively easy one. What "forces my hand" is Plugin Alliance's policy that your annual subscription fee is returned to you as a voucher that you can apply toward the perpetual licenses of your choice; the only major restriction is that you have to use the voucher all at once rather than piecemeal.


But you can use that voucher in a sale. 

But yes, I've also applauded this elsewhere. it is an incredible offer, though I would never expect that it should be the metric by which other subscriptions be judged; more so when we consider that one of the prime motivations for subscriptions might be because of a general race-to-the-bottom, within the industry


----------



## el-bo (Jun 18, 2021)

rrichard63 said:


> I think the opposite is true for many users. The more of a developer's products I already have perpetual licenses for, the less likely it that converting to a subscription model makes any sense.


Yes, but assuming perpetual licenses would still be part of their model, it should be possible to recoup some of the cost by selling off licenses.


----------



## el-bo (Jun 18, 2021)

allen-garvey said:


> a pretty good deal, as $360 a year is roughly the price of one of their libraries.


This is exactly. How much of their catalogue do you want and how much do you normally spend with them. It certainly won't work out for everyone.


----------



## el-bo (Jun 18, 2021)

kvmorgan said:


> But some things are just too important to remain silent.


I say this as someone who has been traditionally against subscriptions (often vocally so), but there are many threads where people will agree with you. And if not, then maybe you could start your own. This little thread is nothing more than a thought-experiment


----------



## doctoremmet (Jun 18, 2021)

Strictly on topic, from the perspective of samples I wouldn’t want to miss anymore:

- Xsample
- 8Dio

Synths and fx: none. There are always alternatives and I already own MCompleteBundle, so ultimately my collection would include MSoundFactory and an ever growing collection of really useful mixing and mastering tools.

Well, come to think of it. Maybe there are a few Waves effects I wouldn’t ever want to miss, but I am an occasional WUPper so I guess in a way already subscribe


----------



## doctoremmet (Jun 18, 2021)

As for price levels: $15-25 / month tops. I can totally see myself going back to stock Ableton effects and instruments even. Get the old Ableton Push off of the shelf. And get inspired “by overcoming restrictions and pushing limits” like in the old days.


----------



## kvmorgan (Jun 18, 2021)

el-bo said:


> I say this as someone who has been traditionally against subscriptions (often vocally so), but there are many threads where people will agree with you. And if not, then maybe you could start your own. This little thread is nothing more than a thought-experiment


The purpose of this “thought experiment” is what, exactly? Dubious, at best.


----------



## Stringtree (Jun 18, 2021)

So Photoshop is $9.99 a month (with Lightroom.) Like any photographer, I also do video and audio. $52.99 a month if I want to use Premiere and Audition, too. A ghoulish plan that encourages spending.

Golly, no thanks. I have no intention of dropping the anchor through the center of the rowboat. I can use a combination of outright-paid and free applications. I do like the idea of subscription as a paid demo period. But I'd quickly get off that constant drain, speaking for myself.


----------



## el-bo (Jun 18, 2021)

kvmorgan said:


> The purpose of this “thought experiment” is what, exactly? Dubious, at best.


If it helps you to perhaps find some other thread in which to cast your aspersions, then imagine the worst about my motivations that you possibly can


----------



## el-bo (Jun 18, 2021)

doctoremmet said:


> get inspired “by overcoming restrictions and pushing limits” like in the old days.


I only have to look at my computer with the wrong expression, these days, for it to crash. It's only 4pm and it's already happened thrice. It's taking all I have not to combine velocity and momentum with it's mass, to make a laptop-shaped hole in my wall.

Suffice to say, I'm likely to be making music with a combination of two underpowered, 9-year-old iPads and an iPhone. I need not seek much more in terms of limitation than that Frankenstein's-monster of a setup


----------



## jbuhler (Jun 18, 2021)

It depends of course on the size of the catalog and the terms of being able to turn it on and off. But few sample companies have a large enough catalog to make it tempting. NI/Izotope, SF, VSL, and such at $10/month, maybe $15, but I can’t see going higher than that. Most others would need to be less than $5/month. More than that, and I’d prefer to buy. I’m not saying it makes sense for the companies to offer subscriptions at those prices, but I generally prefer to buy my tools and subscriptions displace purchases. So a routine subscription would have to be an exceptionally good deal. If you could rent a library a month at a time with no commitment, I’d be willing to pay higher for that.


----------



## youngpokie (Jun 18, 2021)

el-bo said:


> I also think that both Spitfire and Orchestral Tools would be hard to refuse @ $30, per-month (I doubt either would entertain such a low price, however).


That's low price? For content that's been developed ages ago?


----------



## el-bo (Jun 18, 2021)

jbuhler said:


> If you could rent a library a month at a time with no commitment, I’d be willing to pay higher for that.


This is generally where my own thoughts are going. But I'm not a working, professional musician/composer. I'm also starting to think about music in as a more 'destructive' process (In the committing sense e.g like the ol' days of bouncing tracks on 4-track machines, or ripping all the cables from an unsaved Eurorack patch). As such, I'm not going to need to always have the instruments and fx at hand, ready to fix an errant velocity etc. But this might be difficult for a working composer who needs a consistent template, along with the ability to totally recall all project source material.


----------



## el-bo (Jun 18, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> That's low price? For content that's been developed ages ago?


Personally, I'm not using age-of-library as a metric. It's about current RRP, sales' patterns and how the yearly total compares to what a user may already be paying, per year. 

It's also a guess at a price-level I doubt them going under, as well as a suspicion that EastWest aren't doing too badly despite their largely 'mature' library


----------



## Alex Fraser (Jun 18, 2021)

el-bo said:


> But there's no reason that having a sub means having to download everything all at once, and for all time. I guess it's up to each person to work out how they'd navigate it all.


That's a fair point. 👍
But to play devils advocate, if I suddenly decided I wanted to use BBCSO Pro (as part of my fictional Spitfire sub) I'd want it there and then.

I think half the appeal of having an all-in sub is having everything at one's fingertips in a gluttonous orgy of sonic choices. But maybe that's my personal greed, coupled with very mild OCD about such things.


----------



## kvmorgan (Jun 18, 2021)

el-bo said:


> If it helps you to perhaps find some other thread in which to cast your aspersions, then imagine the worst about my motivations that you possibly can


I have nothing personal against you. However, I am leaving this thread not because you wish me to, but because I've said all I have to say. It's uncomfortable, unhealthy, and a waste of time imagining how a company might choose to take advantage of their customers. 

Have a good day!


----------



## youngpokie (Jun 18, 2021)

el-bo said:


> Personally, I'm not using age-of-library as a metric. It's about current RRP, sales' patterns and how the yearly total compares to what a user may already be paying, per year.


I agree totally that the age of the library should not be related to its price. However, this view also eliminates the argument about R&D costs being passed on to consumers. Or that the copy protection costs should be passed on to users of legal product. 

When you look at it from this perspective, then yes - Berlin Woodwinds (for example) is a great, magnificent library despite its age. 

But I will bet money it has now paid for itself several times over for them and at this point it is simply a cash cow. How should a cash cow be priced for subscription? That would have nothing to do with actual sales data and will be all about product marketing to further maximize profit potential.

The most obvious step is to signal to consumers that this library is better than EastWest by pricing above it. The second most obvious step is to maintain or even increase the already highly exaggerated price on full library, which would magnify the incentive of the subscription - especially to people who cannot afford to pay full price in one step. 

It's next to impossible have an objective metric, but I doubt very much a monthly subscription that's twice the price of Netflix or HBO is reasonable by any measure.


----------



## el-bo (Jun 18, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> I agree totally that the age of the library should not be related to its price. However, this view also eliminates the argument about R&D costs being passed on to consumers. Or that the copy protection costs should be passed on to users of legal product.
> 
> When you look at it from this perspective, then yes - Berlin Woodwinds (for example) is a great, magnificent library despite its age.
> 
> ...


At the risk of confirming to kvmorgan that I perhaps do have nefarious motivations for this thread (just call me 'King Shill'), and perhaps making some enemies, I'm going to say that sample-library developers, sound-designers, loop sellers - Whomever - should have the right to maximise their profits, regardless of the age of their wares, or how quickly they recouped their costs.

We aren't talking about huge industry giants or conglomerates, vending necessary (for life) physical products. On the whole, these developers are artists, making products for other artists. What you call "cash cow" is also, perhaps less insultingly, known as passive-income; again, which any business owner has the right to generate. 

And what of this passive income? Is it being siphoned off to pay for luxury-yachts and the high-life, or is it being re-invested (and risked) on the next run of R&D and wildly-expensive sampling sessions?

And for what? So that a percentage of their user-base will just add it to their "When it's under 50%" spread-sheets, or that others will decide at which point their profit over-and-above investment is just no longer within acceptable boundaries.

I'm not against sales, or people that patiently wait for them. I've certainly done the same, and to my benefit. But even though most are grateful, there are a minority who now have the expectation that sales (especially the crazy flash-sales) are the new baseline by which all other prices and potential earnings be judged.

If a company is looking to the subscription-model to ensure the monthly bills are met, or to make never-before-seen profits, that is their right; as is it our right as consumers to judge the inherent value (or not). 

[ / RANT]


In starting this thread, I was curious to see if there was a threshold at which a normally anti-sub member would be persuaded to 'bite'. You've yet to name your price


----------



## el-bo (Jun 18, 2021)

Alex Fraser said:


> That's a fair point. 👍
> But to play devils advocate, if I suddenly decided I wanted to use BBCSO Pro (as part of my fictional Spitfire sub) I'd want it there and then.
> 
> I think half the appeal of having an all-in sub is having everything at one's fingertips in a gluttonous orgy of sonic choices. But maybe that's my personal greed, coupled with very mild OCD about such things.


Well, I'm gonna guess you aren't the only hoarder on these boards 

But, in either case (Permanent license or sub), your sudden need for BBCSO would necessitate space. Or am I missing something?


----------



## Pappaus (Jun 18, 2021)

There are as many answers as there are reasons for a sub. I am a hobbyist so I would go for a sub to have a real tryout of libraries. Having a sub at $30 per month even for 3 months would be gambling a sure loss of $90 versus the losses I have had of getting a library and finding out it wasn’t for me. (much more). Or finding which one of the various similar products was the best for me. (Albion Series or AROOF) Walkthroughs aren’t the same as trying something out.

For a pro, I imagine that it is an easy way to get an entire catalog of options for a lower up front cost. If you are successful, you can easily keep up payments as a business expense such as Adobe’s products. If you aren’t, you didn’t lose too much. 

I don’t like subs and would much rather own but I can see the advantages.


----------



## youngpokie (Jun 18, 2021)

el-bo said:


> You've yet to name your price


I think I would consider $5 to $10 reasonable, with the mandatory "rent to own" provision; depending on the library anything above $14.99 (to quote a popular price point) would be a non-starter for me. 

And by the way - during my years in business, a "cash cow" was an object of admiration and not insult. They are rare, exceedingly hard to create but keep on giving. Every product manager dreams of creating something that can become a cash cow, since it's basically printing money for the company. Where I worked, cash cow creators were legends.

There is nothing wrong with profit motive. But it takes two to tango...


----------



## el-bo (Jun 18, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> And by the way - during my years in business, a "cash cow" was an object of admiration and not insult.


In the context of profit being seen as a good thing, maybe so. But in what I felt was the general context of your post, it didn't have quite the same sheen.


----------



## youngpokie (Jun 18, 2021)

el-bo said:


> In the context of profit being seen as a good thing, maybe so. But in what I felt was the general context of your post, it didn't have quite the same sheen.


First, I didn't say profit is a "good" thing; and second, there's often quite a difference where consumers and managers believe profit ends and ripoff starts. I happen to have experience in both camps and know how easily they become antagonistic to each other. No matter, I don't want to derail the thread with nitpicking and bickering, so I'll just sit quietly in my corner and watch how it unfolds...


----------



## Alex Fraser (Jun 18, 2021)

el-bo said:


> Well, I'm gonna guess you aren't the only hoarder on these boards
> 
> But, in either case (Permanent license or sub), your sudden need for BBCSO would necessitate space. Or am I missing something?


Very true.


----------



## river angler (Jun 18, 2021)

Even if a company offered a years subscription for a single $ I would never be interested.

From a pro's persective, unless you are a general media/library composer having access to endless collections of libraries like EastWest for example is from my experience counter productive to finding ones own style as a film composer. It's the same thing as hoarding lots of libraries on ones hard drive instead of really making the very best use of a select few and in turn keeping your musical imagination turning over. When I really need something specific for a project it's easy to source it indeed because it is very specific!

I also find it counter productive having too much choice a bit like a TV producer having to sift through endless library music catalogs to find something that fits the scenes: a time consuming and often frustrating practice!


----------



## babylonwaves (Jun 18, 2021)

river angler said:


> I also find it counter productive having too much choice a bit like a TV producer having to sift through endless library music catalogs to find something that fits the scenes: a time consuming and often frustrating practice!


all that really depends on how well you know your libraries. and that's true for sample libs too.


----------



## river angler (Jun 18, 2021)

babylonwaves said:


> all that really depends on how well you know your libraries. and that's true for sample libs too.


That's the whole point: I know each and every library I own as well as the physical instruments I play and most pro composers are the same- they have orchestral instruments they "go to" for example whenever they need all be it chamber/symphonic or quar/quin/sex/tet sections.

...i think you are confusing "sample libraries" with music library publishers which is what I was referring to here.


----------



## babylonwaves (Jun 18, 2021)

river angler said:


> ...i think you are confusing "sample libraries" with music library publishers which is what I was referring to here.


I don't, I think it's true for both.


----------



## timprebble (Jun 20, 2021)

Unlike Adobe, there is no one single instrument or sound library company I rely on that I could ever be convinced of a 'need' to opt into a subscription. So my short answer would be, none, thanks!

But is there any worth in considering it from the developers perspective? For example over the last few years I have likely given Spitfire $1k each year (more some years, less others). So that works out at $83/month for perpetual licenses. For Spitfire to continue to exist & develop, I expect they need their income (or would have to scale down to remain viable) and the incentive to save enough $$ to buy more of their products stems from not otherwise having access to them. So I really don't see how subs work for an existing company, without being a huge risk for their existing business.

While I generally consider subscription models to be a 'race to the bottom' it is also worth considering who uses a subscription model & why (again from a developers perspective) - why would a business adopt a subscription model?

- For older products that dont sell much any more (nothing to lose)

- A company who has very little market share (for some perceived/hoped for competitive advantage)

- A new company who has a business model based on subscription from the outset and who can attempt to sustain competing with perpetual licensing.

- A company based on venture capital, who do not need to make a profit and can sustain loss in the name of growth and eventual sale of company/exit.

- A company more concerned with commodity than anything else ( I regularly get emails from music library companies saying they wish to expand into sound FX for their music library sub model. They never express any interest in the field of sound design whatsoever, or anything at all. Its just a commodity.)

I'd love to hear of other reasons?


----------



## pinki (Jun 20, 2021)

I have no beef in either camp. 

I am a Presonus Sphere subscriber at $9.99 which is fine. Studio One is my DAW, I use it continuously, I will always upgrade it, therefore Sphere is a no brainer. If you go down the Komplete route is there really any difference between subscription and update? (again I'm talking about tools we use everyday and will always update immediately). 

But anything over $15 is going to be problematic if continuous, as there are so many other things I subscribe to in life these days! And it all suddenly adds up to a huge monthly expense and I don't feel in control of my finances any more.

As a composer, as river angler said, each project has very specific needs and I do not necessarily look towards subscriptions to find them.


----------



## CATDAD (Jun 20, 2021)

rrichard63 said:


> For me, the question in the thread title is a relatively easy one. What "forces my hand" is Plugin Alliance's policy that your annual subscription fee is returned to you as a voucher that you can apply toward the perpetual licenses of your choice; the only major restriction is that you have to use the voucher all at once rather than piecemeal.


This is really the only model I feel comfortable with as well, because it's pretty much a super fancy rent-to-own, a built in demo system. Really takes away that feeling of "well at the end of the day I don't own anything?" and keeps the customer feeling like they are paying for something of real value. It's also a promise of "well if the subscription price goes up 5 years from now, you can leave without feeling forced like you're stuck" and it'll entice customers that maybe wouldn't have bought in because there are only one or two products they're interested in. 

It's also just good marketing for enticing customers to try it, many of which would probably just stick around to see what else comes out in the future. Everybody wins here.


----------



## wilifordmusic (Jun 20, 2021)

none X 2


----------



## fourier (Jun 20, 2021)

I wouldn't mind a subscription plan at all, if it was a company that is also pushing a good chunk of good content yearly - I'd reckon $30/mo being inexpensive. 

Seems like I might be the odd man out here, though.


----------



## TinderC (Jun 20, 2021)

I'm against software subscription in general because unlike your electric utility it is something you need to consciously and proactivly use to get the continuous ROI. If you get distracted for months on end the money goes down the tube. However, if I could pay a low rental fee to get access to the entire VSL catalog for a few months it would be worth it. That would be more of a check-out service where I could find out how much better the full is than the standard and the standard is from the Special edition. Yes I know you can buy and return on a product-by-product basis with VSL but I'm talking about something simple and audacious where a user could say check out the entire Dimension series with a single transaction. Just a thought.


----------



## Arbee (Jun 21, 2021)

If I had the discipline or will to bounce everything to audio then I might be tempted with a few developers (VSL and Spectrasonics are the only two that immediately and comfortably come to mind). But otherwise subscription could surely become a nightmare with backward compatibility/version control when opening older sessions. Kontakt upgrades alone have blown up a number of my UIs.


----------



## reutunes (Jun 21, 2021)

kvmorgan said:


> The purpose of this “thought experiment” is what, exactly? Dubious, at best.


Heaven forbid that an internet forum was ever used to discuss ideas!


----------



## AllanH (Jun 21, 2021)

As much as I'd like to say that I do not like subscriptions, it's hard to avoid. Cubase Pro, for instance, is about $75/year to stay current. Given the value of Cubase, I feel that is a "fair" number and something I renew without thinking much about. 

Some developers release annual or bi-annual upgrades of their products and coax you into upgrading. For instance, the iZotope "production bundles" cost about $100 to $150 a year to keep current. That's marginal for me, and I've stopped always upgrading as the older versions work just fine. 

I have yet to buy into anything that is a true subscription, i.e. that stops working when I stop paying. I have yet to see a product worth a subscription risk.


----------



## TinderC (Jun 22, 2021)

Arbee said:


> backward compatibility/version control when opening older sessions


Good point. If the subscription means you only have access to the latest improved version of a library you run the risk that older projects will not sound the same.


----------



## LordOfTheStrings (Jun 22, 2021)

5$ a month for EastWest etc. Okay, I'll do it then xD
I know that's not realistic, but no thank you to subscriptions.
I'll do it sometimes when I don't have other better options.
I just bought a sub this month for melodics (piano game/lesson software) and I haven't used it much. It's pretty cool, but after playing with it a bit, I figured I wasn't really in the mood for it this month.
That have happened to me before with MMORPG subs and stuff like that.

Then I will either:
1. Having to force myself to use it to feel like I get my money's worth
If that doesn't work out
2. Be sad I wasted money xD

I want to own it.


----------



## Ray Toler (Jun 23, 2021)

I have been vocal enough about this in other threads to have inspired meme generation ("I'll rent a backhoe, I'll never rent a hammer.)" The bottom line for me is that I don't rent my tools unless one of the following is true:

It is a mission-critical tool that has no competition (very rare these days).
It is a specialty tool that would be prohibitively expensive otherwise, or is a single-use need, and is required for a paying gig (e.g., renting a vintage high-end compressor or microphone for a recording gig, or a backhoe to dig a swimming pool)
The rental price over 5-7 years is actually lower than the perpetual license/upgrade costs from before the extortion model being implemented (I have yet to see this happen, other than in "Everything" bundles that include many products I'll never use, but to provide the illusion of value).
The vendor has to spend money every time the basic functionality of the product is used (streaming services, cloud storage)
It has been my experience that nearly every company going this route does it for one of these reasons: 

to hide massive price increases (Adobe)
to generate/extort an ongoing revenue stream for a mature product that they can't really innovate anymore, especially if it's a de-facto standard (Adobe, Avid)
to mask the fact that they're really bad at running a business, forecasting, and/or product development (too many to mention)
to take pressure off of software developers by eliminating "big" deadlines and instead moving to a biweekly / monthly update cycle
The extortion model showing up at the same time as agile/scrum methodology has been *terrible* for software quality and actually providing me, the customer, with true value. Instead, I get forced (often unwanted) updates, required telemetry, insane licensing BS (e.g., Roland "perpetual" licenses requiring a phone-home authorization check every two weeks), and rarely get a new feature that I actually care about and that would make me get my wallet out.

It used to be that Adobe had to come up with a feature set that was good enough to make me want to buy an upgrade. Now they say "all of your work will be inaccessible unless you keep paying us." Roland is, sadly, going a similar route. They also use all-too-common psychological pricing and marketing tricks like "starting at just $3/month" but putting the product people actually want in the "Premium" $24.99/month tier, or the "$15,000 worth of software for just $19.99/month."

I am no longer the target demographic for these companies. I actually want to own my tools and am willing to pay money for that. I'm also one of those people that will "freeze" systems at certain points (e.g., I have a Mac G4 frozen on OS9, and all of my software from back in those days still works and is useful to me, even if the developers decided to abandon the product and not move to OS X).

If I were just starting out and didn't already have a lot invested, I might be more amenable to the subscription schemes, but I also would never become a loyal customer of any of them.

I will buy anything Sean Costello (Valhalla) releases without even downloading the demo. Same with Klanghelm and Spectrasonics. These developers make good products, with excellent prices, and are incentivized to continue doing so. I have spent a lot more money with Spitfire than I ever expected to and, for the most part, have been very happy with my purchases. Because of that, I'm typically willing to give positive consideration to their future products. These companies have built a level of trust that I no longer have with any company that's gone subscription, especially subscription-only.

I was pretty brand-loyal to iZotope, but they're about to get the last dollars from me that they likely ever will. I'll use my perpetual licenses as long as they work, while I search for and purchase replacements (and there are plenty out there).

What incentive does Native Instruments have to improve Kontakt? Or Absynth? Or Reaktor? What incentives do Roland or NI now have to do anything much beyond putting out "expansion packs" to provide the illusion of value? Is Avid really working hard to make Pro Tools fundamentally better, knowing that the major industries are already standardized on it and willing to pay money every month?

I refuse to subscribe to software tools unless there is no other choice. And there is almost _always_ another choice.

To answer the original post's question:

1. iZotope Everything @ $5-$10/month.
2. NI Komplete @ $5/month (I only use Kontakt these days, even though I have Complete 12 Ultimate)

That's about it. Everything else I would simply ditch and find a replacement. And with the exception of Kontakt (for now), I'm moving away from NI and iZotope. But I'm also extremely reluctant to buy any new products that use Kontakt as their platform.


----------



## 667 (Jun 23, 2021)

My schedule has a lot of volitlity and I might go months without touching my DAW. So no, I will not buy subscriptions, because I don't want to be paying those months that I don't use them, and I don't want to micromanage (cancel/re-subscribe) a bunch of them depending on my schedule.

This is why I own every Output VST (and most of their effects) but will never be an Arcade customer. Ditto Kush, I have a bunch of their plugins but no sub, ditto Slate, I bought their plugins when they sold them, no longer a customer of their current subscription stuff, ditto East West, although I still have old licenses of course, but I'll never be a composer cloud customer.

If it works for you then great but I do wish that companies in general would chill a little bit and remember that for 10,000 years people have done trade without subscriptions and maybe even though it's easier to forecast your revenue on a SaaS model that doesn't mean it's the only way for everybody buying every single thing on the planet.


----------



## janila (Jun 23, 2021)

Exactly my thoughts. Subscriptions from all the companies whose products I use could be my greatest monthly expense. Which means that it won’t be. Absolutely no subscriptions for me.


----------



## Nico5 (Jun 23, 2021)

This ended up being a more interesting thought experiment for me, than I initially expected. But I think I've come to an answer to the original question.

The short answer is: 

For NI Komplete I'd be willing to spend (USD):

For rent-to-own subscription: $ 10 / month
For a pure subscription: $ 5 / month

And here is why:

Buying stuff is not only for using it, but also motivated by a human desire to have collections of stuff. I'm definitely not immune to collecting things. If I'm honest with myself, the reason I have so much music software and soundware is much more driven by collecting than actually using (How many reverbs do I really need?)

Software, soundware and all of the different hybrids between them are much less costly and space consuming to collect than guitars, synths etc. So now I have lots of software and soundware and a relatively modest collection of hardware (which has stopped growing since many years ago).

Subscriptions don't serve the "collection" instinct, so I would spend significantly less unless the subscription is effectively a rent-to-own or similar model, where I end up with the same amount of stuff for the same money.

Pure subscriptions would be highly temporary for me. I'd be much more motivated by using (rather than collecting) and be much more ruthless about price/performance.

The end effect being that I might only be willing to spend about half or less in subscription money compared to my current spending habits.


For example, NI just got USD 100 from me for the latest update for Komplete -- pretty much my only annual purchase (on sale) from NI. At that price I've been getting it almost every year.

As a pure subscription (not rent-to-own), and thus not serving my collecting instinct, I would probably only be willing to spend about half as much, so maybe only about USD 5 per month for NI Komplete.

With rent-to-own (ownership after 12 months rental, thus adding to my collection) I might be willing to spend twice as much (a little more than my current spend, since in the long term I would presumably save money on things I try, but decide against having in my collection), so USD 10 per month for NI Komplete.


----------



## veranad (Jun 23, 2021)

I do not like suscriptions either, because I am an amateur that doesn´t need most of this stuff every month (just some months).

That said, I would pay 5€ a month (rent to own only) for Cubase Pro, VSL, and maybe Native Instruments.

The rest, I would simply skip. Having too many tools is distracting and goes against productivity, in my opinion. Having a few nice ones and knowing them inside out is the way for me.

But I insist in that I would possibly not suscribe to anything.


----------



## Chris Harper (Jun 23, 2021)

Something about subscription models just feels wrong to me also, but when I try hard to set aside my biases they can actually make a lot of sense. If I think about the amount of money I have spent on sample libraries, even as a very opportunistic buyer who almost always waits for sales, I would have come out well ahead with 2 or 3 Composer Cloud-style subscriptions instead of buying the libraries I bought.

Libraries tend to have high up front costs. If you buy a single $500 library, that’s a couple of years in subscription fees right there. Libraries depreciate quickly, and many of us buy new ones pretty often. Maybe some people are using only one library for 8 years like an old Toyota Corolla, but that’s not the sense I get from most people here.

With a subscription model, there is no risk of buyer’s remorse after a huge purchase. I can just cancel my subscription. I’m also less likely to buy libraries I won’t ever use. If I have a variety of products available all the time, I might download that niche “underwater operatic textures” library and realize I will never use it, instead of buying it and wondering why it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Perhaps the biggest benefit is that a subscription creates a business relationship. It creates an incentive for library creators to regularly fix and update their products, while also developing new ones. With a pay up front model, if you buy a library and the vendor decides to phone it in and never fix bugs or provide support, you are pretty much SOL. They already made back their development costs when you purchased the library. They have a natural incentive to spend time working on the next library at the expense of the last one, as long as they feel they won’t have long term damage to their brand. If they have subscribers, they have more pressure to fix problems because they rely on subscribers constantly paying in. The customer hasn’t already pushed all their chips onto the table.

With all that said, I still buy libraries, and I have a personal preference for avoiding paying subscriptions, but I don’t necessarily think it’s rational on my part. Probably, like Nico5 said above, it is part of an innate desire to own and collect things. But there’s not really any rational benefit of owning an old piece of software I never use.


----------



## fourier (Jun 24, 2021)

Maybe I am missing something in this discussion, in my head I expect the value of a product to decrease over time, but perhaps this is more limited for VST's than I'm aware of (having never sold one). 

A subscription plan that offers all products - and instant access to new products - from a major company is interesting, if the other choice is buying high-end products that will lose value over time. Companies could perhaps even pre-release products in late beta-stage to subscribers, that in turn could give a better end product on official release?

I have no clue about what such business models mean for the companies and how this impacts the varied end consumer uses, but somewhat flexible subscription deals with some added incentives just doesn't strike me as purely bad.


----------



## rrichard63 (Jun 24, 2021)

Subscription models have advantages as well as disadvantages. And perpetual licenses have disadvantages as well as advantages. What rarely (if ever) makes sense is paying for a subscription when you already own most of the developer's products -- just to get future updates and new products.

Earlier in this thread I wrote that the only subscription plan that appeals to me is Plugin Alliance. I should amend that to add that I would consider a subscription if I don't already have perpetual licenses for any of the included products. I would compare total cost over time pretty carefully, but I would consider both options if I were starting from scratch.


----------



## Arbee (Jun 24, 2021)

Ray Toler said:


> I have been vocal enough about this in other threads to have inspired meme generation ("I'll rent a backhoe, I'll never rent a hammer.)" The bottom line for me is that I don't rent my tools unless one of the following is true:
> 
> It is a mission-critical tool that has no competition (very rare these days).
> It is a specialty tool that would be prohibitively expensive otherwise, or is a single-use need, and is required for a paying gig (e.g., renting a vintage high-end compressor or microphone for a recording gig, or a backhoe to dig a swimming pool)
> ...


Thanks for this post, lots of worldy wisdom and truth 👍


----------



## webs (Jun 24, 2021)

Prefer not to have any subscriptions. What point would bring me in? I'm confident that any number I would throw out would be significantly less than any company/developer whose tools I would want to use would consider acceptable.


----------

