Let them bitch. Keep the upgrade system the same. Honestly, I don’t really understand why anyone has a problem with it. Seriously, this just sounds like people complaining for the sake of complaining.
Hey - since my name was mentioned I’ll throw in my 2 cents! =)
My point was based upon this - there are complaints because users have little control over upgrade version changes (skipping decimals with larger updates), and it could come to be that some users could last 6 years without having to update while others could have to update in the course of a year or two. What was really needed was a clarification of policy.
My suggestion was:
Users receive free upgrades for one whole version number. Major version updates have historically occured over a period of about 3 to 4 years. However, the Renoise team is growing with significant development being invested into the software which could substantiate more frequent major version number updates. For this reason, all users are guaranteed free upgrades for a period of at least X years from their date of purchase.
I think that makes it pretty clear. Keep the old system, but give your customers reassurance. That way users can have peace of mind knowing that they are good for at least a specific block of time. I personally think 3 years is too long and would set it to 2 years. Most users should realize that most companies do not post in forums to ask for their customers opinions on pricing and TOS. If that is not customer service I really don’t know what is.
Sounds absolutely sensible.
I bought Renoise 1.9 when the 2.0 betas were out (I actually wanted a bunch of 2.0 features really hard), and the fact that people were using the same license since 1.2 or 1.3 which was years ago kinda made me think: Nice! That’ll serve me plenty.
Now, a good 1.5 years later, there’s 0.6 from my “one major version” vanished, most of it coming from the huge leap 2.1->2.5, and the next minor version 2.6 right around the corner. At that speed, I wouldn’t even get to three years support, whereas earlier buyers easily have twice that.
if you think on the basis of what earlier customers got and you didn’t, you will of course think you have been framed, but I think this point of view is really unfair. In the past, we made several mistakes with versioning: for example, the serie of little jumps which lead Renoise from 1.2 to 1.281 would have easily justified a whole 0.5 step for any standard software. We of course don’t want to behave like mainstream companies do, but still cannot behave that way again, if we want the project to survive.
On the other hand, the application got more and more complex with time, so for example what in the end counts as a 0.09 jump, from 1.91 to 2.0, has required an almost complete redesign/rewriting of the application. This itself could justify the adoption of a time-based free upgrading policy.
just a last note: in your post, you used the word “support”, saying that you got three years of support for your payment. You of course didn’t mean exactly that, but for the record I have to specify that we offer complete forum support to everyone, either registered or unregistered users. Registered users get more features and bonus content, but we hardly make any difference in terms of support
As a fairly new user and one that will be paying for an update a lot quicker than long time users i would say the current policy is fine
It is probably going to be a relatively short period before i need to update but there have been some huge updates
I admit the only one that was majorly important for me was Rewire but there have been massive updates all over the app that most users have wanted
So i don’t see any issues here at all other than maybe over zealous emailers which you will get whatever you develop
B
It’s true that current upgrade policy can be a little confusing, but it is definitely fair. I wouldn’t mind having a three year period either, it would be still great value.
It would be nice though, if strictly bugfix updates would be free also after three year period. Just to prevent bad mood if someone gets stuck at some buggy release, because hes licence expired a week to early.
I licensed Renoise at 2.1, and at first I was a bit flabbergasted to see the jump to 2.5, but after seeing what actually happened to it, I would be glad to pay again if you decided to release 3.1 tomorrow.
What IT-alien said is true, there were also massive updates back then that could have warranted a charge, I just consider it great promotion or maybe Taktik is simply too kind, anyway it sounds like we should not get used to it, so great work naggers, you just shot yourselves in the foot 
Now, let’s get back to achieving world peace.
I agree with Taktik. But Hektik, well Hektik’s screen name reminds me of Taktik, so if someone were to ask me what I thought about this whole discussion, I would point out the striking similarities between Taktik and Hektik. Now if they make sure to let me know that they know it’s really Hektic with a c and the end, and not a k, then my reply will be that the similarities a still stunning.
People, let us read Taktik’s fist reply to this thread and treat it how a southern baptist treats a king james version bible. This man obviously cares about our congregation and literally hangs himself upside down on a cross for us so that we can make music with our computers. So look down and decide which side of the line do we want to be on. Are we Romans or are we Jews?! Lift up your hearts all of you and lets burn the trolls at the stake!
I’m perfectly happy with things just the way they are. Whatever system you have somebody will always complain.
- Should We Change The Renoise Upgrade Policy?
- NO!
-
Would lifetime updates earn the developers less money (ppl then only pay once?)?
If yes, then i say no ( money is needed for development ). -
2/3 year free updates/fixes?
Do you want to keep track of when everyone purchased/paid and needs to pay again? -
Faster version updates?
Yes, i need version 2.6, if it helps me with some problems
The price i paid for Renoise is a steal, i would gladly pay again for a milestone release.
I don’t earn a lot, but this program is worth the money.
I dont believe in lifetime updates. Since it will get the developer less money.
What has happened to FL studio, is that instead of releasing things as updates they release it as addon plugins. Since this will earn them more money. Ofcourse it can also be wise since some users perhaps dont
need a certain feature and dont want to pay for it.
But I still think that its fine the way it is today.
And to new users complaining that they will not get 5-6 years of free updates whatever! Rubbish!
They should understand that today the old users have allready had to upgrade and will also not get that again.
I think the proposed suggestion of updates for 1 version number with the added: Or atleast two years of free updates would be the best.
I dont belive in changing it into a year based policy at all.
Since some users will than complain that the development is going to slow. To get them to pay for another X years.
As it is Renoise is a steal.
Still competition in the music software business is hard.
[center]Please don’t. PLEASE! I’m due for another subscription and am getting this for fathers day. I would not like this any other way. I’m COMPLETLY satisfied with renoise as it is!
_o0m [/center]
I think the only problem some people could have is that the people who bought the license around 1.2 got LUDICROUS value for their money.
Someone who bought Renoise at 2.1 will only get amazing value for his money, hence the complaining.
In all seriousness though, “leaps” in version numbers allows the team to get more money and hopefully hire more staff or dedicate more time to the project and this can only be a good thing for all of us.
cheers!
It’s good the verbal majority is backing the Dev Team, but it’s not like this thing is just going to fall of the rails at any second.
i think the system is fine the way it is,… its pretty damn generous actually. i got 1.8 i think and that was 4 years ago!
and a timed subscription is basically the same thing, with different markers so it would be the same.
also i dont get the “boo we have to pay for little bugfixes” crowd,…
when you purchase something, you purchase it for what it does now. who the hell buys something for what it might be in the future? thats like buying an apple because you want an apple orchard, wtf?
i’m surprised the renoise crew has managed to keep up and stay sane, and still function as a company, its way too generous.
personally i would be happy with a version to version license upgrade if that will put more money and resources at taktik’s disposal.
the occasional beer and hooker is fine too, dude deserves it 
I personally think it’s fine the way it is.
A little comment saying “minimum of X years” wouldn’t hurt though, and may help put some heads to rest.
Possibly an option for a lifetime subscription for 2-3 times the usual cost of a licence?
I think the current system is great, but I can understand why you would want to change it, and I wouldn’t really mind if you did. Version numbers are always going to be arbitrary, and some people will always use this as a reason to complain. A time-based system is clear and unambiguous. It probably won’t stop people from complaining (“If I had bought Renoise one day later, I wouldn’t have to pay for this upgrade”), but at least you won’t have to defend your decisions. Buyers get exactly what they agree to pay for. And I trust the Renoise team that a new system will be just as fair as the current one.
I don’t think lifetime subscription is healthy in the long run, but it would be a clever option if the developers plans to quit 
But I agree the policy should be changed, they should figure out how to get paid sooner… just saying
“backfire greedy moaners” – My next song title