Subscribe to Own Plan

VidMus wrote on 4/21/2016, 9:03 AM
Subscribe to Own Plan

Instead of paying full price for software or just plain subscribing to get it, I suggest a “Subscribe to Own” model instead.

The way it might work is as follows:

There would be a “Super Suite” of applications that consists of everything SCS sells related to pro NLE work as well as a number of other vendors related applications. It would be a whole bowl of wax type of suite.

The total price of all the applications would be divided into monthly payments according to the “Subscribe to Own” plan that one chooses with a nominal amount (according to the plan chosen) added each month for accounting and other costs.

There would be plans ranging from one to six years. The total number of payments and their monthly amounts would depend on how many months there are in the “Subscribe to Own” plan chosen.

The person subscribing would have a subscription license during the payment period and would receive a full license once they have finished their “Subscribe to Own” plan. They would receive updates and upgrades during their plan period.

After they have completed their plan and have a full license, they could then subscribe to a maintenance plan that includes updates and upgrades to all of the applications. They can also opt not to subscribe to the maintenance plan but then they would then be required to pay the full amount for upgrades and not receive any discounts. The maintenance plan would be somewhat less than the “Subscribe to Own” plan. How much less would depend on the “Subscribe to Own” plan that was originally chosen.

If during the “Subscribe to Own” period a person should miss three payments in a row, then they would not only lose their subscription, they would also loose credit for all funds paid. Also, if a person misses a total of three separate payments during the entire “Subscribe to Own” period, they would also lose their subscription and the funds paid. This is to help prevent problems from those who do not make consistent payments but to also allow for those situations where a person might miss a payment because of illness or something else that might come-up. The only exception is if a person contacts SCS and makes special arrangements that SCS in their sole discretion approves of.

There would be a number of other terms applied as well.

The main goal is a subscription model where one can make easy payments to get all of the applications they want and need without breaking their budget and to allow for a steady cash-flow for SCS and support companies. Also allowing one to subscribe and eventually owning the applications and not having the applications shut-off as is the case with other subscription models.

I am open to suggestions as to how this should work.

So please be nice and share what you think.

Thanks in advance to all,


altarvic wrote on 4/21/2016, 10:08 AM
I agree that SCS should use more flexible kinds of subscriptions.
For example, perpetual fallback license, like some other companies.
VidMus wrote on 4/26/2016, 10:26 PM
I guess it is too late to suggest ideas on how to continue Vegas and make it profitable?

monoparadox wrote on 4/27/2016, 12:33 AM
BTW, thanks for the update to Vegasaur. Wish Sony were as responsive. Keep up the good work and fwiw I think it would be great to have someone such as you continue Vegas development. But I'm sure it's much more complex than we could begin to grasp.

-- tom
videoITguy wrote on 4/27/2016, 9:02 AM
If subscribe to own was a workable plan for Software industry, it would have already been implemented years ago. Take a look at markets such as houses rent to own until paid, OR take a look at car leases toward own. These are similar pay models but with one big difference - the latter involves hard physical assets, while the former is about using some intellectual properties.

Given how different software development and cost amortization is for the developer, I am sorry to say, no go.
John222 wrote on 4/27/2016, 9:46 AM
I think the idea of subscription software is excellent,, however the costing models are terrible. Remindes of satallite TV / Comcast where they bundle a bunch of crap you don't need, to get what you want. No matter how you juggle your plan, your still paying way to much. Adobe is a good example.
Tech Diver wrote on 4/27/2016, 11:29 AM

Nuke, the well-respected compositing software application by The Foundry, does have a subscribe-to-own plan. On their website they state "12 monthly payments and own the software at the end".

videoITguy wrote on 4/27/2016, 11:50 AM
Tech Driver, and how much does NUKE cost after 12 monthly payments? How much would it cost if you paid up front for perpetual ownership? How much should it cost to be competitive in its marketplace (note that is a very different calc from the first two scenarios).

How much revisioning is required to keep Nuke operational?

All of this and more goes to into creating a competitive product price model.
VidMus wrote on 4/27/2016, 12:39 PM
@ videoITguy

I think it is best to make it optional. Up front for those who can afford/want it and subscribe to own for those who cannot afford it, or just simply want it.

For some, subscribe to own is a great idea and helps a lot with investment financing when acquiring equipment. For others it is either best for upfront or limited plans on subscriptions.

There is no one size that fits all. I do not have most of the applications SCS sells because I could never afford the up-front price needed to get them. I do not want to endlessly subscribe either. So a subscribe to own plan would work great for my needs. I do volunteer video work for Church. I am on SSI disability and cannot afford the upfront expenses. And yet I want to create quality videos for the Church. At least the best I can considering my disabilities.

So what works great for one person might not work at all or not very well for another person.

What has been needed for a long time is flexibility that meets the needs for all of SCS's customers.

I 100% agree with a previous post that way too much is being lumped together in subscription plans. There are those who have photography needs and not video needs and so on.

The BIG problem with the cable/satellite ways of doing things is that they make-up the channel packages and tell their customers to like it or lump it. And they put the most desired channels in the top package. I do not think it is possible for SCS to offer a 100% customized package but I think they can offer a reasonable amount of flexibility.

The more ways SCS provides for a customer to buy the more they can sell and still make a profit. This benefits full fledged businesses as well as people like me who are volunteers and just want to do quality work.

Adobe would have a 'like it or lump it' subscription plan while SCS could have a flexible/workable subscribe to own plan, plus a buy upfront plan. A win win thing for SCS. And once they are winning, THEN they will have the needed resources to re-do the Vegas code as well as fix the old bugs. As things are now, it is no-where!
Tech Diver wrote on 4/27/2016, 4:35 PM

Whoa there videoITguy! Why are you responding in such an adversarial manner? I was merely stating that there exists a precedent for a software subscribe-to-own plan. I am neither in favor nor against the idea. I originally had no intention of performing a financial analysis, but since you asked...

In the case of Nuke, a full purchase would be $4,274, while the 12-month installment plan totals $4,380. This results in a finance charge of 2.5%. Since the yield of most investment funds is greater than the Nuke finance charge, a deferred payment plan looks like a reasonable way to go, providing that you invest the money that you would have spent for purchase in one sum. Anyway, this is all a moot point with regard to myself, since I cannot justify spending that amount of money on a tool upon which my career does not depend.

videoITguy wrote on 4/27/2016, 6:28 PM
The Nuke software deferred payment loan of 12 months is not unlike a lot of other merchandise you can buy, examples include furniture and appliances.

The market and dollar value there is much different than the comparison to paying $499 for a perpetual license to SCS for VegasPro. Just use the credit card and then you as the consumer have the abiliity to stretch the payment cycle.

Several financial trends that have occurred over the last 30 years are relevant.

1) Before wide ranging credit card use, banks were in the habit of making $2500.00 loans for customers to make purchases of small items. NOT anymore!

2) Many businesses such as department stores were once in the habit of taking in customer installment towards their own accounts within store. This is the practice of the past - now either a store installment account is handled by a separate entity known as a financial lending agency, or even more common, credit cards are facilitated by the store alliance with a major credit card company like American Express. All because of the cost and risk of financial accounting.
farss wrote on 4/27/2016, 6:46 PM
I'm with videoITguy on this.
If nothing else if there was a better way it's hard to imagine someone wouldn't have found it already.
Personally I think SCS's mistake was making the upgrade price too low and making it just one price regardless of from how far back you were upgrading. I paid for every upgrade but in reality went from using V9 to using V13. Nothing in between had anything I could use and TBH had "features" that were quite off putting. In the end I paid for a new licence to go from V9 to V13 but I could have avoided that if it wasn't for my sense of justice.

PixelStuff wrote on 4/28/2016, 12:12 AM
farss (or Bob),

If you skipped over versions because they didn't have useful features, why did you decide to pay for a new license at v13? That's almost like back paying for those features you didn't want instead of just paying the upgrade price for the new v13 features you did want.

I have upgraded every version of Vegas since v3, but I like the fact that they don't kick you out of the upgraders club even if you decide to skip a few versions.