People complain that they registered at version X, and bitch about version Y being too big a version jump.
Personally, I’m tired of explaining that maybe they should consider they’ve been getting free updates for half a decade and shouldn’t look at the version numbers as an indicator of anything as each version is huge. It’s starting to get annoying at this point.
Someone mentioned, I think it was a user named Hektic, we should change the upgrade policy. Instead of “one full version” it should be more concrete like “free upgrades for 3 years”. I have to say I’m starting to agree.
Does anyone object to this? And, if not, how can we transition into this? What’s fair?
maybe you could somehow roughly quantify the work (that is, time) that goes into a release, and nudge the version number based on that? if that’s not already what you’re doing, of course.
otherwise you’d have to keep up a steady release pace I guess, and are you really sure this would not lead to MORE bitching? I figure the easiest solution is to ignore the bitching… Renoise is a steal, and who isn’t happy with the price won’t be happy with anything anyway
I like the current upgrade system. When I got Renoise, I was very happy to see that I get a full version’s worth of updates for free; quite a few very useful features were introduced after my purchase. It uses content progression instead of just time, so if there is a slow/fast period in development everyone still gets roughly same amount of content updates. Plus version numbers don’t really seem to jump until a lot of features are added in, so there isn’t really a problem of people feeling like the version jumped without getting anything upgrading.
I would also not be surprised if you got people complaining that you didn’t make a release fast enough and an update came out X days after the license expired on the ‘timed’ method.
I like the idea of having a fixed amount of years, more clear maybe, but on the other hand don’t really care as the current system has had a very good lastability for me .
I remember a long time ago, Taktik mentioning in a thread about faster, ‘smaller’ update cycles. That never happened in the end (I guess Renoise is like a composition that can always be sculpted further), but smaller cycles might take away the feeling in some folks about to big jumps.
The post from Hektic was some time ago, not? Why this thread now, is there something lurking in the horizon?
I bought Renoise in Winter '06 at version 1.8 IIRC… that’s almost four years ago!
That’s too much in my books, so I actually think Renoise ought to increase version numbers a bit faster. And I’m saying that as someone who is currently a bit short, I couldn’t even upgrade right now - but generally speaking I think all that work is worth a bit more than that, especially if you look around at what is perfectly accepted elsewhere. (Just make sure scripting makes it in before 2.8 tee-hee )
If people give you shit, but don’t do it openly (ie. the forums), I would just ignore/block/ban them. Seriously.
If any users feel the need to bitch about a small token to pay every now and then for such a great and very affordable music software application, they really should find another hobby or interest. It’s downright unfair to the developers of Renoise for any users to demand anything for free, except for bug fixes. The current update policy is extremely generous as it stands. I would not change it just to satisfy a couple of malcontents that probably are not going to be happy with anything you do anyway.
It took me over 6 years before I had to upgrade from version 1.0, that was a great bargain and really way over the top.
“free upgrades for 3 years” also sounds very fair, it’s less than 20€ per year.
I think it’s fine the way it is… I’ll gladly update when my time comes.
But with that said I can see how some people could “take offense” with the current system. Say I bought a license at 1.8 and I was told I’d get all the updates up to 2.8. Then 2.5, 2.6 etc comes out all is well and good and the next ver that comes out is 3.0. I can see how someone could get irked by that as they didn’t really get a full versions worth of updates as they were told, they really just got 1.8 to 2.6. But as I said, I got no beef with the current system, I think it works fine. Renoise is a steal i any which way you put it, and it’s and awesome DAW (yes I call it a DAW ).
EDIT: rereading this i see that i go abit off topic. i agree that a set time period is better imo! then it’s clear to everyone when the buy it and the devs can do whatever they want with the version numbers.
about the complaints: yes, i’m quite mad at the attitude people have that software mustn’t cost… and then they go buy expensive hardware produced in sweatshops and don’t think twice. i hope, as people get more knowlegable about puters, that this attitude will change.
just change the price to whatever you think will cover the costs and give you such a margin that you are motivated to continue developing it. if the price is too low then i fear that development might cease or be slowed down in the future… that would be really sad!
Renoise upgrade policy is perfectly fine.
Look at the changes that happened between versions!
I bought my license for 2.5 and I’ll be fine until 3.25, I really can’t see any problem with, I know I’ll see some major updates, then when the time will come, I’ll try the demo version and see if it’s worth the extra money.
Most likely it will.
People would complain anyway if you changed the policy to something like 3 years…
What sucks is that people get the feeling they have to pay for bugfixes or small things they waited a long time for. Changing the update policy from version numbers to a time period actually won’t change anything here.
Version numbers make sense because they should reflect the amount of “new things”. No one here cares how long we need to implant them but just to get and view the result?
So the only way to solve this “pay for bugfixes” problem would be to use lifetime updates. I think this is what we should discuss instead.
Regarding the smaller, more often releases updates policy:
Next release still is 2.6, so we’ve not yet broken this promise. But as usual we’ve started to put too much work, details and features into the original plan, so things simply need a while.
What I never meant with “smaller, more often” releases is spitting out new 0.0.01 bugfix, tiny new features releases every new week like many other software developers do. This IMHO does not help anyone. In contrary, this only helps to give people the “feeling” you would take care about bugs, but is no guarantee for stable software:
Our model is trying to concentrate on getting milestones released, and those milestones should be tanks. This means every new release should be like a brand new and !complete!, stable software on its own. Something you can work with.
From my experience this is the only way to make things as bug free as possible. Every update, the small it might be, adds new stuff; every new stuff is a source for new bugs; every new bug has to be fixed, which then again changes things. The only way to get around this, is to test, test, test and test a version, finalizing it, then going on to the next milestone.
Geez, some people… The upgrade policy and the demo policy (rendering disabled only) is more than fair and the price is… extremely fair when you think of what other DAWs out there costs (and what is costs to upgrade them). I don’t understand the nagging either. I bought Renoise 1.5 in autumn 2005 when I was a student and I don’t know any other software where I’ve gotten this much for the money in all those years. I mean - lots of the stuff I’ve suggested have been added and it’s also a extremely stable software (which can now run on any platform too).
.
)
).