Subscription-based models are a trending scam.

I would not call it scam – it does not have an illegal aspect, but I think the trend in making the end user not owning anything is bad.

My only idea if you dislike this: Do not participate not matter what people say. Go without “X”, even if you are interested in “X”… and just wish it would come with traditional one time payment.

After all: You are the one with the wallet.

But in general: It sadly works for the companies! As long as people buy – or better say subscribe to – “services” which were one time payment before this will not go away.
⟹ I am pessimistic: It will most likely stay forever.

I'm missing the point of your blog. Your overall message seems to be "subscription-based models are a trending scam apart from when they're not"??

So give me some better examples of what's acceptable by your standards. The post seems quite specifically targeted at Adobe's Creative Suite, or at least I'm assuming so? But what about Office 365, where you essentially rent Office but have 1tb of online storage? Would that be fine under your rule as you're paying... A continuous payment as a function of time... So a yearly subscription for a year of access?

And what about things like Netflix, Crunchyroll, Hulu etc, where you pay for access? Is this a scam? Are rental services as a whole a scam? Is it a scam to rent a house? Be more specific in your argument, I am genuinely curious as to the extent you believe this.

>can't take valid criticism
Yeah that's definitely a reason to block someone LOL. Gotta get that echo chamber nice and polished bro

@IncredulousP woah
why so harsh?
@Hells Malice your worse than him

I'm confused as to what exactly you're talking about. What service actually does this kinda thing? Gamepass, Netflix, Xbox Live, they all provide a service that you pay for monthly just like a VPN. If you do want to keep the product, you can buy it physically or digitally through another vendor, because options are always nice. Some people like to rent, some people like to keep. It's just modern day blockbuster. So what are you calling a scam? The first comment implies MS Office, so perhaps it's that?

I already explained the difference.
If a good or service requires only fixed manhours to produce (product), like an offline program or offline video game, then there is no reason there should be more than a fixed cost. If something requires man-hours to be sustained (service), such as constant purchasing and use of electricity for servers or tech support to service the failing components, then sustained payment makes sense.

What I am pointing out is shit like Adobe's model of payment. I just want to purchase your Photoshop product. I don't need updates. I don't need internet connection. There are no servers. There is no service, just a product. Please don't try to tell me that a sustained payment towards the use of this product, a product which I will NEVER own and will be UNABLE to use once the payments cease, is justifiable. If you believe it is, you deserve companies like the infamous EA because they sure love taking money from suckers like you.

To respond to the "hurrdurr don't buy it then". I'm not, and I never said I did. I don't support unjustified subscription models, i.e. scams.

Concerning things like Microsoft Office 365, I never asked Microsoft for any of its online capabilities it storage options. They FORCED that functionality into their software. I only want the product of their offline code that they programmed once. I refuse to pay a subscription for software. If there is a service working in conjunction with the software, fully optional, then I will consider subscription a.k.a. sustained payment for the service.

Btw if this blog irritates you or is not to your liking, move on. This is a blog, not a thread. You chose to come here and read someone's opinion, which was given to nobody in particular.

I kinda get where you're coming from. I think what it boils down to is that Adobe is offering a service for this continual fee, it just isn't a service you're interested in, which is fair. I'd say Adobe have definitely been the worst for this kind of thing, but what can you do? I'm glad that if anything, all their shittiness has shined a brown light on the alternatives lol

Chary said:

What service actually does this kinda thing? Gamepass, Netflix, Xbox Live, they all provide a service that you pay for monthly just like a VPN.

Click to expand...

While I disagree with the word scam – there is certainly nothing illegal with these regularly paid services – it still dislike them.

Chary said:

If you do want to keep the product, you can buy it physically or digitally through another vendor, because options are always nice.

Click to expand...

Options are nice! Indeed. What I fear is that the classic option – buying – will disappear sooner or later – the new option “renting”, “service”, “subscription”,… becomes the only remaining choice – besides. If enough people switch to renting option, there is no need to offer a buying option anymore. A nightmare for a person that wants to own. I want things to persist; and the trend goes away from that.
Why press a movie on a disc when most people subscribe to streaming services?
Why offer a lifetime software(game) license when most people are willing to pay monthly?

When it comes to money: For me renting is too expensive. Subscribing to multiple services because I want access to a small subset of each offering… just no.

Looking around in my room: There are so many childhood memories associated with the stuff. If it had been “all digital” and “rented” and “service” back then – there would be nothing. Many people associate their memories with photos. Not me. All of my memories are connected to some stuff.

========
Where is the buying option for NES games on the Nintendo Switch? As far as I followed this : There is none (somebody correct me if I’m wrong). It is an “addition” to the online service. What if somebody never plays online and just wants to play the favorite childhood games every now and then. Paying monthly for that?
You get a complete “package” of services.

It does not irritate me, but I find the logic bland, it lacks good explanations.

It looks more like a rant, where frustration comes out but there is no intent to communicate, people barely understand what the ranter is talking about because the ranter never put effort into it, he doesn't really want to communicate anything, only to rant: and afterwards he feels better.

I guess you feel better now, but it is hard to understand what you "wanted" to say.

Are you irritated because you don't have options? (though you can really buy e.g. MS Office not-365 if you wanted)
Or are you irritated because the alternative of renting/subscription exists? (but if there is a market, what's wrong with providing?)

Hmmm...

That's fine you don't understand. It makes perfect sense to me, I've thrice defined what is and isn't a justifiable payment model. Sure, my explanations aren't as elegant as, say, Chary's (great news articles btw), but to me and those close to me, they are satisfactory.

Yes, it is both a rant and an explanation of where it comes from.


Btw explain to me how "logic" can be "bland"?

I'm not sure that Office is the best example considering that you can buy a copy of Office 2019 outright. It's more expensive than Office 365, but the option is there for those who prefer one-time purchases or need a product that doesn't update.

Ok let me take another stab at it. Edit: I don't know why it's ignoring newline's sometimes and not at other times. Sorry for the bad block structure/lack thereof.

Good:
Company does a thing, doesn't need to do anything else. Customer pays once.
Company keeps doing thing, otherwise thing wouldn't work. Customer keeps paying.

Bad:
Company does thing once. Customer keeps paying.

Company does thing once. Company then keeps doing things that aren't required for first thing to work. Customer has to keep paying for all of it, has no choice in just buying the one thing once.
Ex. Adobe Photoshop.

Analogy:
A plumber comes and fixes your pipes, once, on a particular day. You pay the plumber a one-time fee for the fixing. Fine and dandy. But then a month later the plumber calls and says "remember that time I fixed your pipes? Pay me again". Would you say yes or no?

Another analogy:
You use AWS to host your website. You pay Amazon a fee. Acceptable. A month later, Amazon contacts you, says you owe more money. This is reasonable. Why? Between the last payment and this one, Amazon had to hire people to provide electricity to hardware, to service hardware that stopped working, etc. Amazon is putting in man-hours as a function of time. These man-hours are absolutely required for your website to work and be hosted. Therefore, it is reasonable for Amazon to demand recurring payments.

Analogy 3:
Your pipes break again. The only plumber in town is the one you called last time. This time he says he can fix your pipes, but only if he keeps coming out and adding the newest and greatest pipe material. He says the first pipe he puts on will work fine, but says you can't just pay for the one pipe. He says you must pay for each and every time he comes out and puts the newest pipe on. This is unacceptable, there is no option to simply pay for one single replacement.

To make things worse, if customer keeps paying, customer never gets to own product/service; customer is paying to own temporary access to/use of product/service.

"considering that you can buy a copy of Office 2019 outright."

Ah,
I was unaware they released such a product. Indeed that example is moot.

But they update it, and maintain it do they not?

I do wish that one time buy programs were still a thing, but honestly, it does have upsides.

You don't have to look for tutorials for Xprogram2015 or Xprogram2017, you can just look for a tutorial for the latest version, which is less hassle, Less mess, and easier to maintain. Alot of the time you can switch device to device, since alot of project files are stored in the cloud, and I don't have to worry about keep physical back ups

And

You spent a fixed amount of man hours making the product, so I pay a fixed amount of money. If you spend an additional fixed number of man-hours on new features, I shall consider paying another fixed amount of money for them

Click to expand...

So no updates what so ever? Sure Major bugs should be fixed, but quality of life updates are no longer a thing.


What "Subscription" are you talking about being a scam? You know what you are getting when you buy the subscription, I think the term you are looking for is "waste of money."

"You don't have to look for tutorials for Xprogram2015 or Xprogram2017, you can just look for a tutorial for the latest version, which is less hassle, Less mess,"

I disagree, if your product update changes something, not only are all tutorials at the moment of update for the product incorrect, they are indistinguishable from newer tutorials. Not only are there less applicable tutorials, there's a greater pool of tutorials you must wade through first. I would much prefer looking up the specific version, like Xprogram2015.

"So no updates what so ever? Sure Major bugs should be fixed, but quality of life updates are no longer a thing."

If I want updates, then I'll buy them as they come, at a smaller price than the product itself of course. Think of it like expansions or DLC, optional but supplemental.

I don’t mind subscriptions so long as they remain optional for certain types of products (e.g. single player games) and they don’t take the p*** with pricing.

Thats one reason why I think e.g. Switch online is bad in regards to it’s NES games and why I’d avoid Adobe products where possible but I’m ok with say Office 365 since if I want to stop subscribing I can always switch to a perpetual license.

"3DS MAX $1,545.00 /year"
Makes me so sad