Propellerhead Software

Go Back   Propellerhead Forum > Feature Suggestion Forum

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 2012-11-15, 09:00
jamesmiles jamesmiles is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 49
Lightbulb Rack Extension "Open Only" License

As users begin to share sessions with each other. And ReFill producers begin to (potentially) use Rack Extensions in their ReFills. The collaboration, and market for ReFills, will be challenged with forcing some users into doing without the features of a Rack Extension during their collaborations. Or missing out on some features of patches in a ReFill referencing the RE.

So, I forward this idea:

Could the Rack Extensions (with permission from their developers) include an "Open Only" license?
This would allow someone to open an .RNS file that uses an RE the user does not own.
The RE would be "greyed out" or "ghosted" or "edit crippled" in some fashion where alterations could not be made to the settings, or wiring.... BUT, the RE would perform exactly the functions it was set to when the ReFill was authored, or the .RNS was last saved.

This could be promoted as having the "Open Only Available" as a feature.
Some developers may enjoy allowing users to be continually teased into ownership by seeing that "open only" greyed out device too often. And some devices may become "The Standard" in their field, as they'd be used more often because of the "open only" availability.
This would also allow developers to distribute demo songs showcasing the RE's capabilities, without timing out after the standard demo period expired.

But... Developers who may feel threatened by lost possible lost sales could opt-out of this additional license feature, and continue on selling and demo'ing RE's as we presently have.
  #2  
Old 2012-11-15, 18:59
selig's Avatar
selig selig is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 10,473
This was one of the first suggestions to be made after the release of REs, and is still a good option IMO. Another suggestion was the ability to pay for additional 30 day trials so you could open an important project but wouldn't have to pay full price for that privilege (especially if you didn't want the REs in question, but needed to collaborate).

Not having any control over an RE is the less desirable solution IMO, since an RE could be in a chain of FX and making a change to an early FX could require changing a later "open only" FX. And of course, you'll also still have to download each RE so it can load on your system in "open only" mode.

Plus, there are MANY details that would have to be worked out in the SDK for this to be effectively implemented, yet the "rental" approach requires only a small tweak to the authorization system. :-)
__________________
Giles Reaves, aka 'selig'
Audio Illusionist, Musical Technologist
Selig Audio, LLC
USA
  #3  
Old 2012-11-15, 19:00
DrummahBoy's Avatar
DrummahBoy DrummahBoy is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 49
I agree totally. This is something I thought about recently and I think if this is implemented then it means that Erst would actually be correct when he says that Reason users can collaborate and get their stuff to sound exactly the same. I think this is a great idea and I'd like to see it in Reason 7.
  #4  
Old 2012-11-15, 19:11
bravesfan171 bravesfan171 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1
This is a great idea. Encourages sharing files while people get to see how the REs can be used to create music.
  #5  
Old 2012-11-15, 19:14
rogerlevy rogerlevy is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,899
I was just thinking about this recently... and I think that the more RE's there are, the more this will become a problem, with everyone having different compressors and reverbs and not wanting to have to buy redundant devices that they've already trialed just to be able to collab on tracks properly.

Reason's centralized plugin approach is a unique advantage that should let the Props solve this issue in a way that no other DAW can, making Reason even more attractive. (And I should add, I *am* willing to chuck $5 or so at them every time I want to collab on a track with someone who has RE's I don't.)

If they can make it so that "rented" RE's are locked into specific songs that could help detract people from gaming the system. Maybe some kind of centralized collab system? That seems suspiciously like something they would be working on as we speak...
  #6  
Old 2012-11-15, 23:50
jamesmiles jamesmiles is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 49
The rental option did cross my mind. Good for collaborations. Pain if you have to make an edit to a track a month later though. Also wouldn't address the issue of using RE's in Refills.

In the meantime, I suppose I'll continue my bi-weekly RE shopping habit. :P
  #7  
Old 2012-11-16, 00:22
selig's Avatar
selig selig is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 10,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogerlevy View Post
I was just thinking about this recently... and I think that the more RE's there are, the more this will become a problem, with everyone having different compressors and reverbs and not wanting to have to buy redundant devices that they've already trialed just to be able to collab on tracks properly.

Reason's centralized plugin approach is a unique advantage that should let the Props solve this issue in a way that no other DAW can, making Reason even more attractive. (And I should add, I *am* willing to chuck $5 or so at them every time I want to collab on a track with someone who has RE's I don't.)

If they can make it so that "rented" RE's are locked into specific songs that could help detract people from gaming the system. Maybe some kind of centralized collab system? That seems suspiciously like something they would be working on as we speak...
How would you think the system could possibly be "gamed" in the rental scenario? If you've 'rented' OR trailed the RE, you have the right to use it in any songs you like - why lock it?

Great ideas, BTW. :-)
__________________
Giles Reaves, aka 'selig'
Audio Illusionist, Musical Technologist
Selig Audio, LLC
USA

Last edited by selig; 2012-11-16 at 00:30.
  #8  
Old 2012-11-16, 00:29
selig's Avatar
selig selig is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 10,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesmiles View Post
The rental option did cross my mind. Good for collaborations. Pain if you have to make an edit to a track a month later though. Also wouldn't address the issue of using RE's in Refills.

In the meantime, I suppose I'll continue my bi-weekly RE shopping habit. :P
To me it's more of a pain to NEVER be able to edit a track later, due to your REs being "Open Only".

As for using REs in a ReFill, the exact same rules apply to using them in a Song, right? Either way you need to own the RE in order to use the ReFill. Making an RE "open only" means it CAN be used in a ReFill that is offered for sale, you just can't edit it. I can't imagine RE devs will be too happy with that scenario.

As far as I can see, the "rental" idea is simple to implement and address all situations as well as it possibly can. But the "open only" idea will be complicated to implement (requiring changes to the SDK) and it CAN be used to circumvent the current CP and allow REs to be used (but not edited) in commercial ReFills. There are SO many things that the same resources required to address the SDK COULD be used on instead.

I'm still heavily leaning towards the rental solution since it's simple to implement, generates additional and proportional income to the devs so they don't feel taken advantage of, and there's no way to 'game the system' that I can think of. Am I missing anything here? :-)
__________________
Giles Reaves, aka 'selig'
Audio Illusionist, Musical Technologist
Selig Audio, LLC
USA
  #9  
Old 2012-11-16, 01:06
rogerlevy rogerlevy is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,899
Quote:
Originally Posted by selig View Post
How would you think the system could possibly be "gamed" in the rental scenario? If you've 'rented' OR trailed the RE, you have the right to use it in any songs you like - why lock it?

Great ideas, BTW. :-)
Thanks.

I guess I was assuming that a free or very inexpensive system was on the table when I mentioned "gaming the system" and advocated read-only and was lumping all options under the "rental" term. Because I'm a wordsmith.

I guess I'm against strict "rental" for the sake of temporary use for all your music (indefinite trial extensions so to speak) and more interested in solving the problem of momentary need in a specific collab scenario. I don't like the idea of artists having the possibility of making many songs that use rented RE's because it opens the possibility that someone you are collabing with won't have a particular RE next month or whatever. That's just awkward and complicated. What if a project goes on start-and-stop for months? I'd rather get a license that enables read-only access (with bypass/off/on maybe) for free or a small fee, that would work forever, and is associated with a specific project - or not. I think this is simpler.

If it was readonly, you can see the RE in operation and how it was set up and what it does, but you don't have full access. Maybe this can be the alternative to the cardboard-box system in place, or an "upgrade" to that for a fee, just so you can still export your songs made with trial RE's, and collab.

I guess it's whose life do you want to make simpler, Props, or customers? From the business perspective, yeah, configuring the system for pay-as-you-go trials is easier. But I think that read-only-access-forever is better for customers.

Last edited by rogerlevy; 2012-11-16 at 01:09.
  #10  
Old 2012-11-16, 01:44
selig's Avatar
selig selig is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 10,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogerlevy View Post
Thanks.

I guess I was assuming that a free or very inexpensive system was on the table when I mentioned "gaming the system" and advocated read-only and was lumping all options under the "rental" term. Because I'm a wordsmith.

I guess I'm against strict "rental" for the sake of temporary use for all your music (indefinite trial extensions so to speak) and more interested in solving the problem of momentary need in a specific collab scenario. I don't like the idea of artists having the possibility of making many songs that use rented RE's because it opens the possibility that someone you are collabing with won't have a particular RE next month or whatever. That's just awkward and complicated. What if a project goes on start-and-stop for months? I'd rather get a license that enables read-only access (with bypass/off/on maybe) for free or a small fee, that would work forever, and is associated with a specific project - or not. I think this is simpler.
Substitute TRIAL for RENTAL in the above and you have exactly the same scenario, I would argue - yet I don't hear you expressing the same concerns about the current trial system:
"I don't like the idea of artists having the possibility of making many songs that use trial'ed REs because it opens the possibility that someone you are collaborating with won't have a particular RE next month or whatever."

How do you feel that a second trial is any different than the first in this respect?

If you're going to seriously collab over a period of months, I would suggest you either print the tracks in the case of a synth, or purchase the REs if they really are an integral part of the collab.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogerlevy View Post
If it was readonly, you can see the RE in operation and how it was set up and what it does, but you don't have full access. Maybe this can be the alternative to the cardboard-box system in place, or an "upgrade" to that for a fee, just so you can still export your songs made with trial RE's, and collab.
Understood, but what do you do if the RE in question won't allow "open only" status? Make it mandatory? Would the RE developers really want this method, since it can be partially 'gamed' by including "open only" REs in a commercial ReFill?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogerlevy View Post
I guess it's whose life do you want to make simpler, Props, or customers? From the business perspective, yeah, configuring the system for pay-as-you-go trials is easier. But I think that read-only-access-forever is better for customers.
How difficult is it to trial an RE? ;-)

OTOH, setting up an entirely new system that allows an option to create an "open only" RE, and creates a reasonable solution for how to display an RE so you can still see it and it's controls (but not actually do anything with it) isn't going to happen without devoting some fairly substantial resources to solving the issue. And you could argue that if EVERY RE isn't available in this format, then the whole plan falls apart - you STILL need an alternative, and the ReTrial (remember you heard it here first!) approach solves that.

In the final analysis, each approach seems to have it's advantages and disadvantages IMO. But I sure hope the Props are at least working on improving the current system to allow collabs to be easier now that we have REs.

Great discussion, BTW. :-)
__________________
Giles Reaves, aka 'selig'
Audio Illusionist, Musical Technologist
Selig Audio, LLC
USA
 

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
Rack Extension License Transfer aeigens Phead User Forum (read only) 31 2012-07-05 13:22
Rack Extension Devices In Reason 6, Doesn't That Explain R6 CPU Problems/Issues ? scottym Phead User Forum (read only) 21 2012-03-26 07:14


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:43.