Propellerhead Forum

Propellerhead Forum (https://www.propellerheads.se/forum/index.php)
-   Feature Suggestion Forum (https://www.propellerheads.se/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Should developers be able to rent out Rack Extensions? (https://www.propellerheads.se/forum/showthread.php?t=168768)

joeyluck 2012-10-11 09:06

Should developers be able to rent out Rack Extensions?
 
This would function exactly the same as the free 30 day trial—this being an additional 30 days for a price tag set by the developer. It would not change any of the other functions of the store. =)

I have presented this idea in the past, but now that I have the ability to create a poll, I thought I'd see how it fares when voted upon. I've presented my viewpoints here only as a way to better convey my idea. You are free to offer other ideas to support as well as disagree.

First, it's important to note that this option would be up to each individual developer to decide on (per each RE). They would decide whether or not to allow for a particular RE to be rented as well as what the rental price would be. I do think that the 30 day trial that is in place is an awesome feature. It's because of that feature that brings about this idea—The basic framework is already there. This idea is in no way an attempt to say that users are owed something more. Again, this would be up to the individual developers and it would cost the user money. Onto the reasoning...

Benefit #1

This would give users the ability to re-try a Rack Extension for an additional 30 days.

Why?

1. Perhaps in the past you tried a RE and it ended up that you didn't get much time to spend with it. Maybe your computer had to be repaired or something came up.

2. Maybe now you've realized that you might have a use for a particular RE that you had not realized before and you'd like to see how it works in your new or old project.

3. There is a new RE out that compliments the RE you have already tried.

4. The RE has been updated—giving users new options.

Benefit #2

In a pinch (both time-wise or money-wise) you'd like to use a RE to complete a project.

Why?

1. You may never be able to afford a particular RE (or simply can't afford it at the moment), but would be willing to pay for an additional 30 days to complete a project.

2. You are collaborating with someone who is using a RE that you have already tried and may not particularly wish to own/can't afford to own. They are insistent you and her/him don't substitute that RE.

Benefit #3

It would perceivably be extra money in the pockets of the developers and Propellerhead for transactions they may otherwise not have seen.

Why?

I don't know what to put here other than—extra money going through the store. Yay!

Benefit #4

Another chance for Propellerhead to make a play on "Re" with REnting! Lol.

Drulian 2012-10-11 09:34

Quote:

First, it's important to note that this option would be up to each individual developer to decide on (per each RE). They would decide whether or not to allow for a particular RE to be rented as well as what the rental price would be.
Oops. See - There's your problem right there :)

the whole idea of being in the Props Shop is that the users are presented with a uniform, regular experience. If you start giving developers options in the shop, that opens the door to an inconsistent experience, which reflects on Reason's reputation. For a rental scheme to work, no developer should opt out of the program.

The model has existed in the real world. Even now, producers will rent out mics or equipment to bands, studios or movie makers. Users pay for them, use them, and they give them back.

The real question isn't the cost: honestly, if you in the renting game, you've got the money to pay for the RE. Renting makes sense if app is about $600+, but REs are about a tenth that. The real question is: how to implement?

You can't charge on 'time spent with RE': some people take different times to learn the gear. Other REs are FAR more complex in function and design than others. Quantifying that is tricky. A closer method might be based on Export to Song registrations: you can have an RE as long as you like, but if you try exporting a song from Reason with a rented RE, you get pinged via credit card. I would suggest that this also gets messy, especially if you're the type of person that exports, then makes a minor adjustment and re-exports, etc

TheodoreM 2012-10-11 09:40

Sure, why not. I voted yes.

something 2012-10-11 10:28

I would definitely say NO.

Why?
I prefer one-time fees instead of subscriptions and recurring fees.
I buy a Reason license and i own a license for life.
Use it whenever i want and where i want.
No extra or recurring fees!

joeyluck 2012-10-11 10:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drulian (Post 1153315)
Oops. See - There's your problem right there :)

the whole idea of being in the Props Shop is that the users are presented with a uniform, regular experience. If you start giving developers options in the shop, that opens the door to an inconsistent experience, which reflects on Reason's reputation. For a rental scheme to work, no developer should opt out of the program.

The model has existed in the real world. Even now, producers will rent out mics or equipment to bands, studios or movie makers. Users pay for them, use them, and they give them back.

The real question isn't the cost: honestly, if you in the renting game, you've got the money to pay for the RE. Renting makes sense if app is about $600+, but REs are about a tenth that. The real question is: how to implement?

Thanks for voicing your opinion!

As it stands now, developers can offer a RE for free or for a price. Some of them offer an intro price for varying timespans and varying percentages of the actual price, while others do not offer intro prices. So, I don't think there would be a problem with inconsistencies. I made this note because before, when the idea was presented, it seemed many people were concerned that the option would be forced upon developers—whereas, it seems best to allow them them option to make the decision.

While renting might not make sense for a $9 or even $40 RE, it could make sense for a $100 RE. But again, it would be up to the developer to decide that. Obviously, with a base price currently of $9 to purchase, there would be no rental price beneath that to offer.

Again, just my opinion on the idea. Thanks again for entertaining it and offering your ideas =)

joeyluck 2012-10-11 10:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by something (Post 1153332)
I would definitely say NO.

Why?
I prefer one-time fees instead of subscriptions and recurring fees.
I buy a Reason license and i own a license for life.
Use it whenever i want and where i want.
No extra or recurring fees!

Huh? I said nothing about subscription or recurring fees...?
This would be a one-time charge to have a RE for an additional 30 days.
The 30 days would not have to immediately precede your free 30 day trial. It could be months down the road that you are enticed to try or use it again.

Example:

The TSAR-1 cost $199. Let's say a user has already used the free 30 day trial. They could then rent the RE (no recurring fees) for an additional 30 days for a price set by the developer (we'll say $15). You pay that and get the 30 days. When the 30 days is up, your rental is no longer available (just the same as that first 30 day trial). If you want to rent it again, you make another transaction. Or, maybe then you decide to buy it. It would be a completely flexible system with no hidden agendas—only in place to help the developer and the user.

byteatern 2012-10-11 11:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeyluck (Post 1153307)
4. The RE has been updated—giving users new options.

I voted yes, as some extensions are not feature complete at v1.0... and how could people tell if the problems they had during trial are fixed by now?

joeyluck 2012-10-11 11:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by byteatern (Post 1153351)
I voted yes, as some extensions are not feature complete at v1.0... and how could people tell if the problems they had during trial are fixed by now?

Great point!

I think Propellerhead is aware of this problem—particularly with updates being made days after the first release of a RE. As it stands now, users are stuck with the first version that they download and try (even if the update comes hours after). In those cases, I don't think the user should have to worry about paying to try the update. But instead, they should be able to download the update while still within the free 30 day trial.

But, when updates are made months down the line that add features or fix problems, it would be good to have something in place that allows users to try it. Some have suggested that developers should be able to offer a new 30 day trial for big updates. That should certainly be an option for developers to be able to make. But also, if that is something that doesn't interest them, perhaps having the option to rent out an additional 30 day trial (for a small price) will be more enticing.

BonezMcCoy 2012-10-11 12:24

I haven't voted at all and won't since I am not for the renting system or against extended trial periods. I think 30 days is fair enough however, IMHO:
1. Updating should be allowed during this period
2. When a major update or an upgrade is released, the counter should be brought down to zero, as for a new product

Mate 2012-10-11 13:52

I voted yes, nice suggestion, I like it!


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 21:53.