I’m using Cubase professionally in my studio day in and day out, and just wanted to share my perspective on pricing. I’ve spent about ten times as much just on cables as I have on Cubase, which is the centerpiece of my studio operations, so it’s an insanely good value proposition.
Yet I see a tension between this professional target market (which is reliability and efficiency-driven) and the consumer-oriented versions for a market that is very price-sensitive (and feature-driven). This is why I often see discussions here flare up about “we need more features” vs. “we need more bug fixes”. Both perspectives are correct, since they come from very different market needs!
I know that the Cubase product line is already split between the Pro version and the various non-Pro versions, and that’s fine. But I wish that the investments in product evolution would be split similarly as well! Having managed development teams working on some of the largest software products and services in the world, I am all too familiar with that tension between features vs. bug fixes, yet I’m thinking there’s got to be a better way.
Perhaps there’s a way to fund additional investment in bug fixes, reliability, performance, and quality-of-life “features” for the professional market? I, for one, would gladly pay something like $10-$20 per month if that resulted in a steady stream of improvements to Cubase in those areas (in addition to brand-new features funded out of a different investment pot). This is less than what most people are paying for their streaming services, yet it would go towards funding a product area that would have a direct impact on our daily professional lives (and work efficiency).
Well say it was $12.50/month, that’s 150 per year. Add that to current prices and it is probably pretty tough to get that accepted by the users. The trend is lower prices, not higher.
Right, for the consumer/hobbyist segment of the Cubase user population, that might very well be an issue, hence my suggestion to have this as something for professional users only.
If you mean raising prices for the pro userbase then I think they might complain, simply because the pro version of Cubase is already low enough I think for many people to actually not be using it to make a living, making it harder for them to swallow. That train may already have ‘left the station’.
I mean, I don’t entirely disagree with you, I just think it’s tricky, strategically.
Indeed. But, to @Timo00 's point, the suggestion is to do this for pro (commercial) users, while non-pro users continue with current practice. I really would pay more if I thought it would fund additional dev resources for product support and maintenance.
The reason I think this would be a customer relations headache is to just imagine how the ‘non-pro’ users would react if they know that bug fixes or features are available for their software but they can’t get at them without paying extra.
It may seem logical but it wouldn’t take long to start a firestorm, and a vendor’s online reputation can be seriously damaged in a wink these days, whether justified or not.
I think it would also be a challenge for Steinberg to manage the multiple classes of product.
There would presumably be a ‘Pro Plus’ option for each major product. How would Steinberg roll out the updates for the ‘pro’ folks and how would those updates finally make their way into the ‘non-pro’ stream? It’s (potentially) complicated.
Yeah, the messaging of “if you have bug fixes available for the people who pay extra, why don’t give them to everybody” is tricky for sure, but you could do something like just roll those out on, say, a yearly cadence for everybody else in one big batch. The “Pro Plus” users would then essentially be paying for early access.
I’m not saying that that is a good way to go, but it would be one potential option.
I’m also not saying that this is easy, but it seems like there’s a subset of customers who would be happy to give Steinberg more money to get more bugs fixed, so that seems like a win-win if that can be done in a way that’s palatable to everybody.
I think we agree. I’m not saying it’s impossible but there are certainly quite a few questions to be answered before rolling something like this out.
The potential for bite-back is high…
This may work for pros whose jobs/reputations are on the line, as a kind of sub. If the support was quick, of course. It needs to N O W ! Not tomorrow or next week. Us hobbyists can come here for help and a shoulder to cry upon.
Bug fixes, on the other hand, should be for everyone.
I’ve said it for years,the most expensive items in the studio are the cables. Peeps laugh at me when i pick them, coil them carefully, and shout at them when they WALK ON THEM!
And “Whats the problem, mate? There’s another one hanging over there”
To them it’s just a piece of wire covered in plastic with some metal bits at each end but to me it’s a lifelong investment of £100s.
** You are an individual, and REAPER is only for your personal use, or*
** You are an individual or business using REAPER commercially, and yearly gross revenue does not exceed USD $20,000, or*
** You are an educational or non-profit organization.*
Program is identical and bugfixes are very very fast.
For Cubase you could do the same lets say $100 discounted with $50 updates perpetual licence and $600 for a full commercial licence yearly.
I think there was another thread about this in the past.
My two cents was and is that a two tier service would be unfair to those who have been loyal costumers to Steinberg for the last 40 years.
This goes for professionals who can’t afford the price tag and those who are hobbyists.
I rather Steinberg make an announcement that no further upgrades will be made to the next version, but those which are needed for stability and to finally solve some ancient bugs. I would be more than happy with that approach than giving away compressors and other effects (although truth be told, the upgrades on 12 and 13 were incredible).
In any case, any major problems can be looked into/solved here as staff from Steinberg, and other veterans seem to be in this forum and very kindly helping out.
Right. And between cables for the studio, and another set of cables for your live setup, you’re looking at a significant investment.
But for a good reason - I can’t count the number of hours wasted dealing with problems that ended up being due to a faulty/bad/cheaply made cable (when dealing with other peoples’ cables of course )
Cables are literal hardware. I have XLR cables that I bought in the 70s and still work just as good as a new one would. Software requires updates and maintenance. Imagine if you could still be using software from the 70s just as robustly as you were in the 70s. Computer hardware and software is constantly “improving”. Your analogy of Software and cables is comparing donuts to images. Imagine if a Cubase license was good for the extent of a professional career.
Cables are cheap compared to computers, video and studio monitors, special purpose expansion cards, work stations, microphones, keyboards, guitars, and lastly real estate. Cables are the least of my concerns.
)