One thing:
maybe not “versions” but “large updates”.
Generally you should know what I mean by now. It means cutting me off from the upgrades one or two numbers before my licence ceases to be valid.
Why not switch from 2.7 to 3.8 after one month? Make the suckers pay every month for the application.
You know what? There would be no problem if this “2.7 - 3.7” was erased from the website.
There would be no problem if they had updates instead of 2.7.1 switching to 2.8 and then 2.9 (regarldess of the changes).
It’s just about THE RULES. The rule here is that I get 3.7. You skip 3.7 - you break the rules.
If you can’t understand the image, then you might need a doctor.
Bye and farewell, fanboys.
@Conner_Bw: isn’t that whole ‘full version upgrade’ thing a major selling point? it was for me when i decided to buy.
once every year we get someone bitching and moaning about being ‘ripped off’. i don’t think it is worth it to change this just for those couple of guys. if they don’t want to upgrade anymore, fine. it’s their decision. loads of other users here know about this ‘version jumping’ and are perfectly fine with it, because it is not a big deal.
imo, you don’t go around and change something good just because 1 or 2 people are not happy with it.
edit: and the laughing in this thread is probably also because of all the ‘Renoise businessmen’ talk, as if 4 guys are scraping in major amounts of money over the backs of other people. i know i laughed. if laughing at exaggeration makes me a fanboy, i’ll be that.
difference 1: if you buy the software at, say, 4.2.3, you will have to pay again when 5.0 arrives (and, as far as I can tell, there is no reference about this on the site).
difference 2: road from 4.0 to 4.2.3 is essentially made of bugfixes => no new features
difference 3: differences between 3.0 and 4.0 were almost minimal in terms of features, expecially if you don’t use Kontakt as a loop machine
difference 4: Kontakt 4 was released 2 years after Kontakt 3
difference 5: Kontakt costs about 5 times more than Renoise
difference 6: each Kontakt license upgrade, not taking in count special offers such as Christmas ones, costs way more than Renoise itself does
difference 7: Kontakt 3 release cycle started with a big features boost in respect to Kontakt 2, then a big bunch of bugfixes until 3.2.something, then 3.5 (essentially a performance boost release), then 4 arrived.
(don’t take my words bad: I am a Kontakt user and I heavily use it, despite of their upgrade policy. I acutally bought Kontakt 4 only after a very special offer was made, probably because lots of people sticked to Kontakt3 because, like me, didn’t see any valid reason to switch to 4)
resuming: I would be surprised if you Sponsi are a Kontakt user, because if so, you would probably be knocking at their door on a daily basis asking for your money back
personally, I don’t see any logic in expecting a serie of 0.1 steps in Renoise releases; on the contrary, today fashion seems to be the contrary: softwares such as Chrome or Firefox browsers seem to take 1.0 steps like breeze, while Renoise keeps on going on its own fair path of smaller updates. If some bigger step is made (as for 2.1 to 2.5), it’s because there are much more features in 2.5 than there were in 2.1, and if we released them in small steps, the whole developing cycle would have taken ages more, and we probably would be still developing 2.5 instead of 2.8.
How many complaints regarding the upgrade policy have we got so far? I personally know of two cases so far.
Compared to the grand total of registered users i’d say this is absolutely negligible and not even worth the thought of changing anything about it.
An estimate of 99,999% can’t be wrong with their impression of being served satisfactorily.
Besides that, and that’s most important, the two guys didn’t even have comprehensible arguments concerning their issue, nor would they be able to evaluate the individual updates correctly by the added amount of value.
Referring to the logic of user “Sponsi”, the authors of Renoise would not be allowed to use anything else than a 0.1 increment, even if Renoise was totally rewritten from scratch and would unite all the features and advantages a DAW can possibly and theoretically have under one hood.
Maybe he would feel treated better if for every single feature or addition a 0.1 version increment would take place. But if that was the case, we’d probably already hit version 46.9.
You still rip numbers out of the context and forget all about the possible timeline of two to four years that you didn’t pasted below the versioning.
Please go buy Live or Cubase or any other DAW that lets you shell around ten times the Renoise Price. Perhaps it would make you a much happier man if you knew you had to cash out a lot of money.
And when those guys skip a few versions, then come back and tell us how fair their world is to you.
Trust me the other DAW developers do skip and trust me, they even skip promised versions like Steinberg did with Cubase 3.1.2 SX, folks had to upgrade to 4.0 and shell out again.
Just found this thread, fun reading. And there was me contemplating starting a thread to ask the devs to add a ‘donate’ button cause I’m annoyed I can’t thank them enough (no, I’m serious). Maybe I could just buy another copy…
there have been essential additions in 2.7.0 and it was just a jump from 2.6 to 2.7, i think that makes up for the 2.1 to 2.5 jump to all people who feel fooled, they shouldn’t complain either. in cubase you have to pay for every little update afaik.
And there was me contemplating starting a thread to ask the devs to add a ‘donate’ button cause I’m annoyed I can’t thank them enough (no, I’m serious). Maybe I could just buy another copy…