I think you missed the point entirely.
With a Soft-eLicenser it was not possible to transfer a license to a new system. It never was.
It always needed a reissue of a new license, that was a customer support task or it needed a real dongle to move the license on it.
“Just stop”
How rude. Have you considered that it might be you that’s wrong. It might be you that’s missing the point.
Literally years of warnings about the change. Plenty of time to do something, example move licence to a dongle.
The software is now over seven years old that’s massive in computer years.
Even after all this, to upgrade is less than 50 euros. New licence, many new features.
I’ve got hardware that’s not supported anymore..I had to throw and replace 8x8 midi interface not so long ago.
Computer stuff going out of date is a very common thing.
This feels like the third topic within a week where a bunch of users start to bang their heads at each other.
Is this really the kind of forum you want to have?
It’s not. Just accepting the obsoleting of software that we’ve paid for due to a licensing system change isn’t a status quo that anyone should accept. Steinberg should have built an offramp and I believe the OP has a valid, ethical point that I think even the EU would agree with. Some people on here just seem to be constantly “defending” Steinberg when no one asked them to and just excoriate users who I believe have strong cases because they somehow seem to like or at least tolerate a pretty anti-consumer status quo.
I can’t think of any other software in any other category recently that was entirely bricked, made totally unusable due to a licensing system change. That is the point the OP is making and I see no reason to see this as not valid. Forcing someone to pay an “upgrade” fee in this case is, I believe, unethical.
Simple as that. I’m not going to budge on my opinion here. I am very much convinced that some of these people on this forum would proudly welcome a very business-friendly authoritarian regime into their countries that would just keep tightening the screws on consumers and they’d reflexively keep rushing to its defense. I think it’s an idealogical sickness, so of course I’m going to call it out to try and keep it from spreading.
It costs Steinberg literally nothing to plan a suitable offramp for these users such that their investment isn’t rendered worthless. Sounds like they didn’t do that and thought advance warnings were enough. They are not. This is anti-consumer behaviour on their part, and it seems to be part of a concerning pattern the last several years, especially.
I’ve invested thousands, THOUSANDS in this company but to this day I find the performance problems in both Cubase 13 and 14 far outside the range of acceptable, but still they will not seem to prioritize addressing these. I feel strongly it’s time for new leadership at this point. Something’s just not working and their “defenders” are consistently making it worse.
Maybe this helps (?)
Steinberg program releases still supporting eLicenser technology – Steinberg Support
They did. It has been years in the works at this point.
You never have and never will. You are strong and mighty. Some day I hope to be so powerful in mind.
I thought you were going away. Do you want me to pay that subscription fee for you or not?
Is there a reason you discontinued the personal attacks on me through PM?
I never trust the software to work,
I never trust the hardware to work,
I’ve never trusted anything out of the blue.
Steinberg knew the OP’s issue would be an issue and addressed it. The OP was seemingly unconcerned with Steinberg’s advance notices (let’s call them warnings) until it affected him. And for 50 euros/dollars whatever, he can benefit from 4 major updates? Steinberg did its due diligence, the OP did not.
The argument I’ve heard most often is ‘I paid for this software once and I don’t need any additional functionality so why should I ever have to upgrade it’?
But is this realistic? Let’s say your rig crashes and you’re forced to reinstall Windows. But since you last installed it, MSFT has changed (your version of) Windows in such a way that only later versions of the program in question will work. That’s not the software maker’s fault. There have to be other examples.
Also, your statement that you’re ‘not going to budge in your opinion’ was (likely unintentionally) very instructive in terms of how online interactions go nowadays.
Your software should show up in “My Steinberg”:when you log in. I have elements 11 which I’ve used several times to reinstall on my pc and my Mac as well.
Then you are likely using a dongle, which is what Steinberg advised everyone to move their licenses too like a year ago (at least).
With a dongle it doesn’t matter, but if you use software licensing and blow your PC/Mac away, there goes your license and there is no creating a new one.
Not necessarily; it could simply also mean that I’ve really thought this through. This exact type of scenario, actually, for many years. That’s why I’m not going to budge: I’m convinced I am actually right here, very convinced after playing devil’s advocate in my mind from every angle I could come up with, and the idea that the modern software development ecosystem is often consumer-predatory.
I’m not going to tell you where or how, but I’ve seen it from the inside. I have seen how the sausage is made, and I’m not sure I like it.
We have a serious, fundamental problem in that software that has been perfected can’t just be left alone: so many companies are paranoid about their income streams so they just keep tacking on new features and accidentally (?) introducing new bugs on a regular, scheduled cadence.
In some cases, this is totally unnecessary, even insulting to anyone who has been really paying attention. Cyberlink PowerDVD, anyone? Sometimes, we just want software that will play our optical media, and anything outside that is a cash grab–one that can result in there being an absurd “version 24” that we’re not supposed to question, just upgrade to.
I think this is the wrong approach and I think there should be pushback from consumers.
Further, if anyone is in the situation where both they have paid for a full version of the software in question AND the company making it changes their licensing schema in a way that truly renders the software totally inoperable on the same OS version, leaving the only recourse a paid upgrade, I think that someone has a very strong case against the developers.
If that’s not actually the case and there is a workaround like pushing their license off to an elicenser physical dongle, I think their case is weakened considerably, but still may have some validity in that they had a convenient method before that is no longer convenient.
Therefore, I think the developer should, as a concession, offer a free update to, say, the lowest non-bricked version number to all those caught in such a bind, if it truly exists.
I’m not going to budge not because I’m intractable in general–quite the opposite–I’m not going to budge simply because I’ve worked out this exact kind of scenario from every angle in my head over years and I’m really satisfied with my conclusion and believe it is worth fighting for: corporations get away with far, far too much and often end up believing themselves entitled. I think it’s fundamentally important for us to say, “No, you’re not entitled to more of my money in this situation, Company X.”
It has been suggested that the OP get in touch with Steinberg. Have they? Has Steinberg been given the opportunity to redeem themselves? They can’t do a thing if the OP doesn’t reach out to them.
And I think that until those questions are answered, we’re wasting our time.
resurrected_by_self
It has been very interesting reading the different viewpoints the forum members have on this topic. deleted_by_self shares the exact belief I do. It is the bigger picture that needs to be focussed which affects us all as consumers. There has been a very clear shift in recent years involving all retail services which is anti consumer. My example with Steinberg is just a simple isolated case.
Since it was asked for I will provide some detail regarding my communications with Steinberg on this matter but first some background on my original purchase of Cubase Elements 10.5
I had a very simple requirement for a piece of software which would allow me to use VST plugins and control some basic parameter changes with a MIDI footswitch. I found this at the right price with Cubase Elements 10.5. Although its feature set was 99.9% more than I needed, it still met my requirements at the right price. I purchased it and used 0.1% of its feature set for a few months. The software then sat completely untouched on my PC for several years. As I had no interest in Steinberg’s products during this period any emails received from Steinberg were deleted unread. I will pause here and make it clear that as the consumer it has got absolutely nothing to do with Steinberg how I use (or in this case do not use) the software I purchased. Also, If the community here considers that I purchased the wrong product (overkill) for my needs that is their opinion but again is completely irrelevant. If I own a duck and need to buy something to fill with water so it can paddle about in and be happy I cannot be judged poorly if I choose to have an Olympic sized swimming pool built in my garden rather than buying a cheap inflatable pool from a toy shop. If my duck is happy and I am happy then the purchase is the right one for me.
So that explains why I purchased Cubase Elements 10.5 and why it was the product which met 100% of my needs.
A short while ago my PC completely crashed and needed to have everything reinstalled starting with the operating system (Windows 11). I had a good deal on some new VST plugins and decided to reinstall my copy of Cubase Elements 10.5 as I still had the activation details in an email. I logged in to my Steinberg account and saw that Cubase Elements 10.5 was still available. I downloaded and installed it with no issues on Windows 11. The first time I realised something was wrong was when I tried to activate it. Searching online I quickly discovered that Steinberg had killed off the licensing mechanism attached to Cubase Elements 10.5. I will pause again here as this is where many of the forum members started confidently shouting that Steinberg had been giving warning for a very long time that this change was coming so it was my fault for ignoring those warnings. I was aware of no warnings from Steinberg as I was not using the software nor reading any of their emails. I will repeat an earlier statement I made concerning “purchasing” and “using” a product. It is of no concern of anyone but the purchaser how they use (or do not use) a product they purchase. If my PC had not crashed then the originally installed version of Cubase Elements 10.5 would still be functioning perfectly for me (even if Steinberg say that Cubase Elements 10.5 is not officially supported on Windows 11). Officially supported does not mean “does not work”.
To summarise then: I bought software which met my needs. I used it for a few months then didn’t use it for years. If my PC had not crashed necessitating a full reinstall the software would still be 100% functional and still meeting my needs. The software doesn’t need support of any kind from Steinberg. The software doesn’t need updates of any kind from Steinberg. The software doesn’t need any cloud backup integration from Steinberg. It was a standalone piece of software which met my needs and ran happily on my PC until Steinberg decided to prevent it from being activated after reinstalling. At no point does the age of a product necessitate an upgrade if it still meets requirements.
Consumers are continuously being persuaded to keep throwing away last years latest and greatest “thing” as company “X” has a new latest and greatest “thing” they need to sell. Consumers are convinced that this years latest and greatest “thing” will make their life better.
Now to the present day. When I first realised that I could not activate the software which I had purchased I contacted Steinberg support. They responded with an explanation of the licensing change and advised that I should pay to upgrade to Cubase 14. I declined. After reading comments on this thread about USB dongles as a licensing mechanism I reached out again to Steinberg support to request that I get a USB dongle so I could continue to use the software which I purchased. They said this was not possible and that I should pay to upgrade to Cubase 14. I declined. I asked to have my request elevated to someone who could provide a consumer focussed solution. I described to this person the story above about how and why I purchased the software, how I had not been using the software and that I had been unaware of licensing changes. I highlighted section 5.6 of their EULA which describes how Steinberg will handle changes they make to their licensing mechanism and that nowhere does it mention the consumer will pay them more money. I proposed that Steinberg should offer to effectively delicense old applications that they no longer wish to support (this puts the choice on to the consumer if they wish to continue to use what Steinberg consider to be old and out of date software if it still meets their requirements and is stable on their PC) rather than Steinberg telling them what to do. This proposal was rejected. I asked if they would provide me with a free upgrade to the minimum revision number of Cubase Elements which is compatible with the new licensing mechanism. This would still be an old and outdated piece of software in the eyes of Steinberg but it would still far exceed my requirements. This was rejected by Steinberg. Finally I asked if they would give me an activation key for Cubase LE which is normally bundled free with pieces of hardware. This solution was accepted by Steinberg.
So the solution left to me is to use software which is a downgrade to the version I purchased.
We live in a world of planned obsolescence. Consumer rights need to be protected.
You got the product you paid for years ago at this point. It’s not Steinberg’s fault you only used it a handful of times and then didn’t need it anymore. It’s also not Steinberg’s job to make sure you maintain the hardware and keep it working as it should. It’s also not Steinberg’s fault you chose not to be interested and disregarded the emails they’ve been sending out for 4 years now warning everyone of what was coming. None of this is Steinberg’s fault. Take some responsibility for your own lack of action and quit blaming everyone else for your faults and short-sightedness.
What was it $100? Buy some other ‘lite’ version of something new or pay the $50 to upgrade. How much time have you spent whining about losing a 5-6 year old piece of outdated/unsupported software when you could’ve just moved on already?
To be fair though we buy perpetual licenses with the understanding that the license will be perpetual. It’s exactly the same with the current version of Cubendo under the new system.
Some of us argued against a software-only authorization system exactly because it takes part of the control of authorizations out of the hands of the user. That’s why we liked the older USB dongle and a hardware-based authorization system. I for one would have preferred an iLok-style dongle to this but here we are.
So anyway, I don’t disagree that in the grand scheme of things this is a minor inconvenience and not monetarily a big deal and I agree that it makes sense to stay up to date on things you invested in, but I do think it is reasonable to be upset that you bought something and now it isn’t working if at the time of purchase the understanding was that the rights to use the software, the license, would be perpetual. There was no fear that all of a sudden an unexpected hardware failure could kill that investment.
Wow. What a combative, angry, and aggressive tone to take in response to a very well-reasoned, well-laid out argument. No wonder this forum has developed a reputation around the audio world–and not a particularly charming one.
Yes, agreed. I truly, truly believe that Steinberg is in the wrong here and the correct, ethical approach would’ve been to offer a free upgrade to the minimum supported version if they are the ones unilaterally deciding to disable older versions effectively through no fault of the consumer.
It is correct that we are under no obligation to read their emails or warnings for software that we purchased a license for. You can’t just take away a license to use a piece of software that you paid for, effectively. That isn’t right.
OK, You did read the contract between Steinberg and you?
Then you are aware, that reinstalling the software on another system needs interaction with the support.
But you didn’t purchase any hardware from them.
So isn’t it friendly to provide you software?
I think it is.
But nobody did this at Steinberg.
The OP destroyed it by itself.