Propellerhead Software

Go Back   Propellerhead Forum > Feature Suggestion Forum

View Poll Results: Should developers be able to rent out Rack Extensions?
Yes 23 48.94%
No 24 51.06%
Voters: 47. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 2012-10-11, 09:06
joeyluck's Avatar
joeyluck joeyluck is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,523
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.

Last edited by joeyluck; 2012-10-11 at 11:06.
  #2  
Old 2012-10-11, 09:34
Drulian's Avatar
Drulian Drulian is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 57
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
  #3  
Old 2012-10-11, 09:40
TheodoreM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Sure, why not. I voted yes.
  #4  
Old 2012-10-11, 10:47
joeyluck's Avatar
joeyluck joeyluck is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drulian View Post
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 =)
  #5  
Old 2012-10-11, 10:28
something something is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 211
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!
  #6  
Old 2012-10-11, 10:54
joeyluck's Avatar
joeyluck joeyluck is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by something View Post
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.

Last edited by joeyluck; 2012-10-11 at 10:56.
  #7  
Old 2012-10-11, 14:02
something something is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeyluck View Post
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.
Ok i see what you mean now.
But personally i rather pay a one-time fee instead of "rental".
  #8  
Old 2012-10-11, 14:31
omshanti20 omshanti20 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 755
*********************

Last edited by omshanti20; 2013-05-11 at 20:07.
  #9  
Old 2012-10-11, 18:22
joeyluck's Avatar
joeyluck joeyluck is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by omshanti20 View Post
Personally I prefer to own stuff for convenience/simplicity rather than ownership per se; however, I don't like the idea of general rental (all sectors) and IMO we consumers need to control and 'have ownership' of what we pay for.

There are currently rumours of corporations lobbying for legislation that makes it illegal to re-sell (physical and virtual) products without express permission...which could be refused. Of course, there might be advantages to 'deferred ownership' too.

So beyond the context of RE's there is a political battle for ownership of goods/products between corporation and consumer, but in the RE context it could be very useful for specific projects, budget studios, and extended trials and I'm pro anything that makes life easier for people to make music (or anything else).

I didn't vote in the poll as there was no option for 'Yes, as long as it doesn't affect me adversely.'
Thank you. I would say that the current 'Yes' option carries with it the assumption that it would not affect anyone adversely. While I didn't word it exactly as that, I tried to make clear that the option to rent would not affect how anything else functions in the store. And, that it would be up to each individual developer to decided (whether or not to allow a particular RE to be rented). Then of course, the ability to try, buy, or rent for an additional 30 days, would all still be left up to the user. So, theoretically, it would have no adverse affects on users.

I suppose the big question here is whether or not folks feel it would help sales or hurt sales. Of course, I've presented it in a way that says I think it would help sales. Some folks not willing or able to buy the more expensive REs might be sending money to those developers and Propellerhead if they could rent the RE for an additional month. Other folks might say that since folks can rent, then that might take away impulse buys. But would it? Since collectors or enthusiasts will want to feel they "own" it anyways.

The next question then would be, do they allow a "pay as you go" system (with what you pay to rent going towards the purchase price)? Or, would RE rental transactions be separate? I'm leaning more towards the latter—seeing it as an option for users to really decide, "Do I want to rent this RE for $15, or do I go ahead and throw down the full price now (since it won't go towards ownership purchase)?" Whereas, a rental price towards an ownership purchase might keep those customers coming back for more and ultimately buying the RE. That's what I was figuring the big dilemma would be. Thoughts on that?
  #10  
Old 2012-10-11, 18:39
joeyluck's Avatar
joeyluck joeyluck is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by something View Post
Ok i see what you mean now.
But personally i rather pay a one-time fee instead of "rental".
Thank you. I suppose I should have added more options when creating this:

Yes—and I would rent REs (developer and user)
Yes—but I wouldn't be interested in renting (developer and user)
No—I wouldn't be interested in renting (developer and user)
...perhaps even more options.

When creating this, I was trying to make it more geared toward the option and benefit to developers (with the inherent benefit and options for users). Thus, why the question is worded as "should developers be able to do this?" vs "Should users be able to do this?" Anyways, sometimes polls with more cut/dry answers yield more definitive results, but sometimes more options serve as a better survey. It's my first poll =) Thanks everyone for your input!
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A Positive Look At Rack Extensions TheShaggyFreak Phead User Forum (read only) 17 2012-06-14 22:07
Two Rack Extensions questions... WrighTrax Phead User Forum (read only) 25 2012-03-30 13:29
External DSP and rack extensions? jaeppel Phead User Forum (read only) 7 2012-03-29 16:51
Preliminary list of Rack Extensions Developers kultan Phead User Forum (read only) 20 2012-03-20 20:28


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:19.