Subscription for Cubase/Nuendo (future)

Cubase
#21

if it ever goes to subscription im out …i have enough bills to pay i dont need another one .
id rather just buy my updates when i can afford it .
subscription models never work just look at avid,i dont know anybody who pays for that there all on older versions or theyve moved onto other daws.
ive spent alot of money over the years buying steinberg products and ive been using it ever since pro 24 back on the atari 1040 so i think ive paid my dues.
but if i ever thought id not bother doing music i know i could either give my dongle with all my products to my son or sell it and let someone else enjoy it…but if its subscription then id lose all my work and products the second i didnt pay…

so im out if subs come in ill keep what i have and no longer buy steinberg gear.

#22

You said the right thing!

Another example for Magix (I don’t criticize this company, I’m just saying I’m one of their customers and don’t like their model): they have recently decided to put most of the effects and objects (cliparts…) for one of their graphics software in the cloud. That seems to be a good idea! But in fact it is linked to your subscription. After one year, you can keep your software but not access anymore to the cloud… no more effects, cliparts, etc. To keep access to that, you have to subscribe for another year. That’s one of the dangers of subscription: you’ve got a basic software that you can keep, but the rest is linked to your annual payment.

I have a really good image of Steinberg since I am now a fan, and I don’t want this image to be changed. I regularly buy some of their products, for my pleasure and also to support them. And I want to continue, at my own pace. Thank you for the awesome programs :slight_smile:

#23

I wouldn’t do that.
I have just set up a new PC with Windows 10 20h2 and made an image after installing and authorising everything.
I can work with this setup until something breaks seriously.

#24

I am also against subscription models. Rent-To-Own is something different, I would not mind that as an alternative in addition to regular purchase / upgrades. It would allow to split the cost to smaller monthly chunks, but you eventually OWN the software as if you just bought it.

However, a pure subscription that robs you of everything once you stop paying… hell, no. Imagine being subscribed for years, paying hundreds of money$ and then you stop paying - you got literally NOTHING in your hands, except for all the project files you can’t open anymore. That’s why I am so shocked to see the recent Reason+ subscription model. They have a great Rent-To-Own model for plugins in their shop for years now, and yes, they still allow to just purchase Reason. But Reason+… what a anti-consumer bull excrement.

#25

Depends what they offer in the subscription though. If they bundle in their collection of products, or something like the Absolute collection plus some premium libraries - there’s a lot of potential added value to be gained.

At the end of the day, you never ‘own’ software anyway - you simply pay for the right to use it - as seen in every end user agreement we accept at install. Cubase has a paid update once a year, so any active user is usually following that cycle, or very closely behind it too.

But most crucially - My love is music, and the DAW is a vehicle to realise that passion. If i sit 3 years down the road and judge what i have ‘in my hands’ it will be the music as the indicator, not which DAW i have a perpetual license for. The day i look into my hands and think i have NOTHING, then i’m done with music altogether as what is the point of spending a penny on a DAW if you feel like that anyway?

But for me, the biggest factor in this debate is, as per many other software companies, the subscription model sits as an option, for people who it will suit more. It’s not designed for current users who are sat running Cubase 8 on a Win 7 machine - for them the same perpetual license as today should, and i’m sure would, exist.

#26

“Potential added value” is not a gift - you are paying for it one way or the other. Therefore, to me the idea is a false one, and I would prefer NOT to pay for that added value with a loss of ‘ownership’ as in the subscription model. Yes, software is a license, but for practical purposes, it IS ownership, especially when compared to a subscription model.

My love is music as well, therefore, I don’t want someone else to control when I can make it and if I stop paying, I lose access to my work.

1 Like
#27

Yes, that’s the risk. And also, you are dependent of the choices or the problems of the company. For example with SONAR, it was a rent-to-own model. When they stopped the development of the software, I was able to keep it (but lost 100 € paid in advance to obtain a “lifetime update”!). It it had been a pure subscription model, I would have lost my software forever and my projects!
I don’t think that Steinberg will be in the same case, I hope that Steinberg and Yamaha are solid companies, but who knows, really…
Furthermore, when you subscribe, you don’t know for what. You pay for one year of use of the software and for updates that are not announced… For example with SONAR, the first year was incredible with plenty of new tools, then we all took one year more, then we took the lifetime model (you pay in advance for the equivalent of 2 years… and it’s a lifetime license) ant there it was the scam. The new updates were weak, then they abandoned the software.