3 ms·

Does per monthly pricing turn off a lot of people? My usage patterns are pretty uneven and - although I know I can unsubscribe/resubscribe - I end up feeling l

Does per monthly pricing turn off a lot of people? My usage patterns are pretty uneven and - although I know I can unsubscribe/resubscribe - I end up feeling like I'm probably wasting my money when I'm not using it (despite the low price) It's irrational but there you go. Does anybody consider a per-usage pricing model? Is there some reason why that is a terrible idea?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
pathartl 8y ago
I wish it was a "If you use it this month, we'll charge you $15". I personally hate having to balance the tools I subscribe to. I mean even if I use something like EAGLE for once in a month, that one time is worth the $15 or whatever it is now. If I don't use it in February though, I don't wanna get charged for it. For as much as reporting home for license checks these programs do, you think they would be a little understanding.
- exodust 8y ago
  > I wish it was "If you use it this month, we'll charge you $15" Yes, or even "if you use it more than 2 hours this month, we'll charge you $15". It's mostly impossible to do anything seriously meaningful in under 2 hours except minor edits and file conversions etc. Subscription models really need to grow up and be more dynamic.
guelo 8y ago
100% agree. If I create 4 documents now I'm stuck paying $108/year forever to keep them on their server. No thanks.
exodust 8y ago
Yes, it's a turn off and disappointing that monthly subscription is the only option for something as simple as saving the 3d model you just created to your computer. Too many of these small time software and web app publishers just default to thinking people are going to subscribe and forget about it. For a 3d modelling program with many free competitors, it's wishful thinking. The problem wouldn't be a problem if there was an option to buy outright. But they sold their investors the promise of monthly revenue.
badsectoracula 8y ago
Yes, i do not mind paying for quality software, but i want to have control over it. This means payment once (...i am ok with buying new major versions as long as the developers aren't releasing a major version every year or whatever to force people repay) and i get an installer .exe (or whatever) that i can keep on my external HDD for as long as i want and there isn't any need for online authentication/DRM (i am ok with key files as used by Total Commander and WinRAR). Sadly, as time goes on this is becoming increasingly less common.
- throwaway34241 8y ago
  I don't like that model for anything I want continued support for (excluding things that are more or less complete like WinRAR or games). The problem with the traditional pay once (with paid upgrades) model is that in order to continue developing the software, developers need to be paid every month. So a hugely variable revenue stream needs to be converted into a monthly one. Maybe by being very conservative about spending on developer resources to leave a big buffer. There's also mismatched incentives, since if all your revenue is from paid upgrades it might make more sense to focus on flashy new features even if the majority of users care more about stability and bug fixes. There's the issue of how much effort to spend back-porting bug fixes to older versions. Users will rightly be annoyed with having to choose between bugs and an upgrade that (they consider to be) not worth it, so the devs probably have to put in some effort. But then with the old model the developers are putting in more work and fewer users have access to new features, and the total amount users are paying still has to be high enough to fund everything. These days I'm happy to pay for things I use on subscription (as long as the total cost is reasonable). Maybe a good middle ground is something like the JetBrains model, where a 1-year subscription also comes with a permanent license for the version at the time of purchase, so you can at least open your old projects.
  - badsectoracula 8y ago
    As a user i do not really care about the developer's business plans and especially i do not care on trying to make my purchasing decisions based on guessing what the developer might end up doing in the future. I prefer to act on what is available for me right now and have control on the software. Hence the preference for pay-once, DRM-free software with an installer i can download and keep myself. And BTW, a developer focusing on flashy new features instead of stability and bug fixes is something that is independent of the monetization scheme. If the users want stability and bug fixes while the developer provides only new broken stuff, then the developer is simply not listening to their users which can happen (and often happens) regardless of if the software is paid once or subscribed to. TBH I think you are looking things a bit too much from the developer's side. FWIW i do not mind 1-year subscriptions with a permanent license, although i'd prefer the permanent license to be for the end of the year, not the start (especially if there is a chance that the files you worked on with the last version wont work with the earlier version). It is essentially "buy once, get free upgrades for a year". Assuming of course the other things i mention (offline installer, no authentication needed, etc) still apply.
mrtweetyhack 8y ago
$108/year is not low price

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

pathartl 8y ago

I wish it was a "If you use it this month, we'll charge you $15". I personally hate having to balance the tools I subscribe to. I mean even if I use something like EAGLE for once in a month, that one time is worth the $15 or whatever it is now. If I don't use it in February though, I don't wanna get charged for it. For as much as reporting home for license checks these programs do, you think they would be a little understanding.

exodust 8y ago
> I wish it was "If you use it this month, we'll charge you $15" Yes, or even "if you use it more than 2 hours this month, we'll charge you $15". It's mostly impossible to do anything seriously meaningful in under 2 hours except minor edits and file conversions etc. Subscription models really need to grow up and be more dynamic.

guelo 8y ago

100% agree. If I create 4 documents now I'm stuck paying $108/year forever to keep them on their server. No thanks.

exodust 8y ago

Yes, it's a turn off and disappointing that monthly subscription is the only option for something as simple as saving the 3d model you just created to your computer. Too many of these small time software and web app publishers just default to thinking people are going to subscribe and forget about it. For a 3d modelling program with many free competitors, it's wishful thinking. The problem wouldn't be a problem if there was an option to buy outright. But they sold their investors the promise of monthly revenue.

badsectoracula 8y ago

Yes, i do not mind paying for quality software, but i want to have control over it. This means payment once (...i am ok with buying new major versions as long as the developers aren't releasing a major version every year or whatever to force people repay) and i get an installer .exe (or whatever) that i can keep on my external HDD for as long as i want and there isn't any need for online authentication/DRM (i am ok with key files as used by Total Commander and WinRAR). Sadly, as time goes on this is becoming increasingly less common.

throwaway34241 8y ago
I don't like that model for anything I want continued support for (excluding things that are more or less complete like WinRAR or games). The problem with the traditional pay once (with paid upgrades) model is that in order to continue developing the software, developers need to be paid every month. So a hugely variable revenue stream needs to be converted into a monthly one. Maybe by being very conservative about spending on developer resources to leave a big buffer. There's also mismatched incentives, since if all your revenue is from paid upgrades it might make more sense to focus on flashy new features even if the majority of users care more about stability and bug fixes. There's the issue of how much effort to spend back-porting bug fixes to older versions. Users will rightly be annoyed with having to choose between bugs and an upgrade that (they consider to be) not worth it, so the devs probably have to put in some effort. But then with the old model the developers are putting in more work and fewer users have access to new features, and the total amount users are paying still has to be high enough to fund everything. These days I'm happy to pay for things I use on subscription (as long as the total cost is reasonable). Maybe a good middle ground is something like the JetBrains model, where a 1-year subscription also comes with a permanent license for the version at the time of purchase, so you can at least open your old projects.
- badsectoracula 8y ago
  As a user i do not really care about the developer's business plans and especially i do not care on trying to make my purchasing decisions based on guessing what the developer might end up doing in the future. I prefer to act on what is available for me right now and have control on the software. Hence the preference for pay-once, DRM-free software with an installer i can download and keep myself. And BTW, a developer focusing on flashy new features instead of stability and bug fixes is something that is independent of the monetization scheme. If the users want stability and bug fixes while the developer provides only new broken stuff, then the developer is simply not listening to their users which can happen (and often happens) regardless of if the software is paid once or subscribed to. TBH I think you are looking things a bit too much from the developer's side. FWIW i do not mind 1-year subscriptions with a permanent license, although i'd prefer the permanent license to be for the end of the year, not the start (especially if there is a chance that the files you worked on with the last version wont work with the earlier version). It is essentially "buy once, get free upgrades for a year". Assuming of course the other things i mention (offline installer, no authentication needed, etc) still apply.

mrtweetyhack 8y ago

$108/year is not low price