9 ms·

Man, if there is one thing I hate about the tech industry is how everything becomes a subscription. A dollar here, two dollars elsewhere, and at the end of the

by koluna 6y ago

Man, if there is one thing I hate about the tech industry is how everything becomes a subscription. A dollar here, two dollars elsewhere, and at the end of the day you own nothing and gave full control of your work to FAANG. Games, Adobe with their Creative Cloud (not even an option to buy their suite), password managers, etc. I just want to buy version X and use it for years, I don’t care if I don’t get the latest AI-infused update for it.

JadeNB 6y ago
Exactly, and producers (of all stripes—it's just easiest in tech) hate customers like us, and try to position their hatred and sidelining of us as for our benefit. I just got an ad from a reputable publisher touting as an advantage the fact that their newest digital textbook would not be sold, and could only be rented.
- disposekinetics 6y ago
  It is at least a little mutual though. I cannot stand the X as a service business model, because I cannot stand recurring bills, and to the degree I can prevent it I want things I use to be difficult to revoke.
moltar 6y ago
Would you rather the service not exist? Some business models just don’t work without a subscription.
- cmbuck 6y ago
  Sure it is necessary for some business models but the parent comments example, Adobe, has successfully used the non-SaaS model for decades.
  - itake 6y ago
    I don’t know if the previous model was actually that good foe users. Because the releases were static every time there was a breaking software or hardware change you would need to buy a new version of the software. It also reduces accessibility for lower income people. Not everyone can force over $1000 for Photoshop software but paying $30 a month is a much easier pill to swallow.
    - ThrowawayR2 6y ago
      > "It also reduces accessibility for lower income people. Not everyone can force over $1000 for Photoshop software but paying $30 a month is a much easier pill to swallow." Companies didn't switch to SaaS out of the goodness of their hearts or out of concern for low income people. If the old pay-per-version model were making them more money, they would have stuck to it like a barnacle on a ship. The SaaS model has always been more profitable than pay-per-version because it took control of when to do a version upgrade out of the hands of the end-user.
    - desine 6y ago
      >It also reduces accessibility for lower income people. Not everyone can force over $1000 for Photoshop software but paying $30 a month is a much easier pill to swallow. Hard disagree. Pirating was easier, but even legal avenues were cheaper. Whenever a new version rolled out, you could pick up a license for the old version dirt cheap. I bought Photoshop outright for the price of 2 months of subscription, and had full access to a very usable program for years. I see the above justification a lot from the same companies pushing this obviously more profitable model.
  - moltar 6y ago
    I think you are undervaluing the global market. Photoshop was $500+ one time fee. In many countries that’s a monthly salary. Most of those countries pirated Adobe products. By switching to subscription they made the barrier to entry lower and unlocked a greater market. I was very happy with that switch, even though I have a subscription fatigue and general dislike of subscription model misapplication. But we can’t run away from it. This model is here to stay and more and more businesses will switch if they can. Best is to adapt your own processes, budgets than to fight or reject.
- vinger 6y ago
  Yes.. because a need would exist for someone to tackle.
throwaway13337 6y ago
Services align motivations of the developer and the customer most closely. Other business models would either work by addiction mechanics and whale chasing or by marketing blitz with a big sticker price to entice you to buy but not hold your interest. Subscription games, to make money, require that you continue to want to pay monthly to continue to play. A developer that wants to hold my interest is one I'd like to invest my time in. I'm disappointed that subscriptions have fallen out of favor for games. They're replaced by more predatory business models. There are many games that would have been a much better purchase on a 15 dollars a month or even 5 dollars a week model. Most games don't last me more than an couple hours before I realize I have no interest in playing.
- mangglee 6y ago
  Aren't individual subscription games equally prone to "working by addiction mechanics"? There's a fine line between "hold my interest" and "maximize my 'engagement'", and the big subscription-based games (looter-shooters, MMOs) absolutely use "illegitimate" methods to retain their playerbase month after month, by creating endless progression treadmills and gating progression milestones behind daily/weekly limits. Are progression systems "legitimate" at all if they only change the numbers instead of the mechanics? On the other hand, there are the non-subscription games that captivate players for months or years, like Civilization or Street Fighter. These are the Photoshops of gaming - they hold player interest over long spans in "legitimate" ways, yet they would face an enormous backlash if they were to move to the subscription model that they "deserve" for achieving such high longevity without sacrificing product integrity. It seems services like Games Pass discussed in the article best address your gripes over individually purchasing short-lived games better, though it also introduces the issue of games having to compete for limited spots in the subscription service's roster. Games with shorter lifespans can offer a wider pallet of experiences than those designed with longevity in mind, and it would be a shame to abandon them.
- fakedang 6y ago
  > There are many games that would have been a much better purchase on a 15 dollars a month or even 5 dollars a week model. Most games don't last me more than an couple hours before I realize I have no interest in playing. Are you sure? I'd say there is a very limited number of games that works on subscription, with the vast majority of games easily under the buy model instead. Personally, I would prefer subscriptions for constantly patched and upgraded games (Hello EU4/Paradox games) but for games that aren't updated that often (AoE series) I would run away from a subscription unless they can show a history of constant free updates first.
elijaht 6y ago
One area where this is good for the consumer (IMO) is music. Before Spotify et al it was extremely expensive for me to discover music. Now I listen to new artists nearly every day
- desine 6y ago
  This is, of course, at the costs of the artists, who make close to nothing on streaming, if they're not in the very top. The last year has pretty much killed the viability of independent musicians being able to survive off their passion.
  - twicetwice 6y ago
    I'm sure that (read: I'm very hopeful that) that will change once pandemic restrictions lift because there will be a surge of demand for live music, public entertainment, and so on -- a pretty extreme sort of rubber band effect.
    - maroonblazer 6y ago
      In most cases a consumer of live music first needs to be aware of the artist before paying money to see them live. That is/was one of the benefits of making and marketing music - building awareness that then drives ticket sales, merch, etc.
  - chii 6y ago
    > who make close to nothing on streaming, if they're not in the very top. if they are a small artist, i think they would prefer that they get some listen time and discovery, even if they're not paid much from it. It's better than zero discovery and noone knowing about them. They would get an opportunity to play live gigs if they get an audience from streaming music.
  - elijaht 6y ago
    That is something that bothers me about Spotify, realizing that a small artist is making pennies off of me. Genuinely asking- is there a better business model for them? I would imagine that (pandemic aside) discovery via streams leads to merch / tours / album sales they wouldn't have otherwise gotten.
juanuys 6y ago
I would like to be given both choices: rent or buy. E.g. I would not mind renting TV, because I like getting fresh stuff every month. But I would like to buy Photoshop, since it's not a core piece of my life, and I'd be content with the same version for the next 5 years because all I need is the basic functionality that's been around since the nineties (Aldus Photostyler, anyone?)

by koluna 6y ago

JadeNB 6y ago

Exactly, and producers (of all stripes—it's just easiest in tech) hate customers like us, and try to position their hatred and sidelining of us as for our benefit. I just got an ad from a reputable publisher touting as an advantage the fact that their newest digital textbook would not be sold, and could only be rented.

disposekinetics 6y ago
It is at least a little mutual though. I cannot stand the X as a service business model, because I cannot stand recurring bills, and to the degree I can prevent it I want things I use to be difficult to revoke.

moltar 6y ago

Would you rather the service not exist? Some business models just don’t work without a subscription.

cmbuck 6y ago
Sure it is necessary for some business models but the parent comments example, Adobe, has successfully used the non-SaaS model for decades.
- itake 6y ago
  I don’t know if the previous model was actually that good foe users. Because the releases were static every time there was a breaking software or hardware change you would need to buy a new version of the software. It also reduces accessibility for lower income people. Not everyone can force over $1000 for Photoshop software but paying $30 a month is a much easier pill to swallow.
  - ThrowawayR2 6y ago
    > "It also reduces accessibility for lower income people. Not everyone can force over $1000 for Photoshop software but paying $30 a month is a much easier pill to swallow." Companies didn't switch to SaaS out of the goodness of their hearts or out of concern for low income people. If the old pay-per-version model were making them more money, they would have stuck to it like a barnacle on a ship. The SaaS model has always been more profitable than pay-per-version because it took control of when to do a version upgrade out of the hands of the end-user.
  - desine 6y ago
    >It also reduces accessibility for lower income people. Not everyone can force over $1000 for Photoshop software but paying $30 a month is a much easier pill to swallow. Hard disagree. Pirating was easier, but even legal avenues were cheaper. Whenever a new version rolled out, you could pick up a license for the old version dirt cheap. I bought Photoshop outright for the price of 2 months of subscription, and had full access to a very usable program for years. I see the above justification a lot from the same companies pushing this obviously more profitable model.
- moltar 6y ago
  I think you are undervaluing the global market. Photoshop was $500+ one time fee. In many countries that’s a monthly salary. Most of those countries pirated Adobe products. By switching to subscription they made the barrier to entry lower and unlocked a greater market. I was very happy with that switch, even though I have a subscription fatigue and general dislike of subscription model misapplication. But we can’t run away from it. This model is here to stay and more and more businesses will switch if they can. Best is to adapt your own processes, budgets than to fight or reject.
vinger 6y ago
Yes.. because a need would exist for someone to tackle.

throwaway13337 6y ago

Services align motivations of the developer and the customer most closely. Other business models would either work by addiction mechanics and whale chasing or by marketing blitz with a big sticker price to entice you to buy but not hold your interest. Subscription games, to make money, require that you continue to want to pay monthly to continue to play. A developer that wants to hold my interest is one I'd like to invest my time in. I'm disappointed that subscriptions have fallen out of favor for games. They're replaced by more predatory business models. There are many games that would have been a much better purchase on a 15 dollars a month or even 5 dollars a week model. Most games don't last me more than an couple hours before I realize I have no interest in playing.

mangglee 6y ago
Aren't individual subscription games equally prone to "working by addiction mechanics"? There's a fine line between "hold my interest" and "maximize my 'engagement'", and the big subscription-based games (looter-shooters, MMOs) absolutely use "illegitimate" methods to retain their playerbase month after month, by creating endless progression treadmills and gating progression milestones behind daily/weekly limits. Are progression systems "legitimate" at all if they only change the numbers instead of the mechanics? On the other hand, there are the non-subscription games that captivate players for months or years, like Civilization or Street Fighter. These are the Photoshops of gaming - they hold player interest over long spans in "legitimate" ways, yet they would face an enormous backlash if they were to move to the subscription model that they "deserve" for achieving such high longevity without sacrificing product integrity. It seems services like Games Pass discussed in the article best address your gripes over individually purchasing short-lived games better, though it also introduces the issue of games having to compete for limited spots in the subscription service's roster. Games with shorter lifespans can offer a wider pallet of experiences than those designed with longevity in mind, and it would be a shame to abandon them.
fakedang 6y ago
> There are many games that would have been a much better purchase on a 15 dollars a month or even 5 dollars a week model. Most games don't last me more than an couple hours before I realize I have no interest in playing. Are you sure? I'd say there is a very limited number of games that works on subscription, with the vast majority of games easily under the buy model instead. Personally, I would prefer subscriptions for constantly patched and upgraded games (Hello EU4/Paradox games) but for games that aren't updated that often (AoE series) I would run away from a subscription unless they can show a history of constant free updates first.

elijaht 6y ago

One area where this is good for the consumer (IMO) is music. Before Spotify et al it was extremely expensive for me to discover music. Now I listen to new artists nearly every day

desine 6y ago
This is, of course, at the costs of the artists, who make close to nothing on streaming, if they're not in the very top. The last year has pretty much killed the viability of independent musicians being able to survive off their passion.
- twicetwice 6y ago
  I'm sure that (read: I'm very hopeful that) that will change once pandemic restrictions lift because there will be a surge of demand for live music, public entertainment, and so on -- a pretty extreme sort of rubber band effect.
  - maroonblazer 6y ago
    In most cases a consumer of live music first needs to be aware of the artist before paying money to see them live. That is/was one of the benefits of making and marketing music - building awareness that then drives ticket sales, merch, etc.
- chii 6y ago
  > who make close to nothing on streaming, if they're not in the very top. if they are a small artist, i think they would prefer that they get some listen time and discovery, even if they're not paid much from it. It's better than zero discovery and noone knowing about them. They would get an opportunity to play live gigs if they get an audience from streaming music.
- elijaht 6y ago
  That is something that bothers me about Spotify, realizing that a small artist is making pennies off of me. Genuinely asking- is there a better business model for them? I would imagine that (pandemic aside) discovery via streams leads to merch / tours / album sales they wouldn't have otherwise gotten.

juanuys 6y ago

I would like to be given both choices: rent or buy. E.g. I would not mind renting TV, because I like getting fresh stuff every month. But I would like to buy Photoshop, since it's not a core piece of my life, and I'd be content with the same version for the next 5 years because all I need is the basic functionality that's been around since the nineties (Aldus Photostyler, anyone?)