I refuse to pay a second time to fix things that were broken by SB themselves.
Supplying a non-working product and then requesting extra money to make it work as advertised is questionable business practice.
I already paid good money for version 6.00 and then grudgingly had to pay $50 extra for 6.50 just to get bugs fixed that were introduced by SB themselves in 6.00. I refuse to do that again!
If I buy a new TV that is faulty right out of the box, I don’t expect to have to pay extra to have the faults fixed. But that’s what I’ve effectively now done with cubase. Now, if the TV repair man that I hire then ruins my carpet while fixing the TV, who should pay for the carpet? Me again? What a joke!
They broke the effing software, they should fix the effing software!
As mentioned, the current issues in 6.5 don’t really affect me, so I wouldn’t pay for bugfixes.
Steinberg never charged for bugfixes though, so I don’t see them do it now.
Just to be clear, I am not talking about paying for bug fixes either. Just talking about paying for some of the features of C7 while keeping the C6.5 basic look.
I agree that bug fixes should never be paid for. Of course, there are some things that aren’t really bugs but more like unpopular design changes. The best example of this is when the comping and lanes changed in one of the early C6 versions and then the new comping tool came out on the paid update to C6.5.
J.L.
.
