Hi...
 
Just to let you know I have just told a set of triangle samples to Cakewalk for $750,000.00.
Sorry about that 

Doktor Avalanche
Hi...
 
Just to let you know I have just told a set of triangle samples to Cakewalk for $750,000.00.
Sorry about that 

And that will be included in the next release - free of charge.

Andrew Rossa [Cakewalk]

RD9
I must agree with the original premise that the add-ins shouldn't be the main reason for upgrade $$.  Many users are asking for better functionality of the core program (Sonar); in my case, I would like to see improvements in Midi editing.
 
In terms of AD, it is actually my go-to drum processor with Sonar and has been for a long time.  However, I purchased AD1 long before it was included in Sonar and upgraded to AD2 well before this version was included in the latest Sonar.  I find it works well with my Roland kit and is easy to program but would defer to other, more expert users wrt to the quality of the sounds.
 
Regarding Midi editing, I have been in the game since the Commodore 64 and Atari ST were around.  Since then I have used a couple of very good midi editors in Windows that, unfortunately, are no longer supported.   My perception is that some of these had much better editing functionality.  That said, I think Sonar is a great product!
 
R

We've made improvements to the MIDI engine, PRV and general MIDI workflow (like the Pattern Tool). Also, how much do you think vocal alignment or drum replacement tools would cost? You can check out competitive products and see what they are going for (and they aren't integrated directly into your DAW like they are in SONAR). Also Mix Recall is a pretty cool feature that really improves core program. So you start adding this all up and the price doesn't seem too bad. 
 
Unrelated to your post but a general observation: I think software is often devalued. People don't realize that it takes a lot of time and investment to develop software. For example, LA-2A emulation softwares often give you similar results with sometimes even more flexibility for a fraction of the price. Yet people scoff at paying $99 for a product that has a hardware equivalent of thousands of dollars. Same with DAW software. How much is studio time these days anyway? You can buy a DAW for the price of a few hours of studio time and get very similar tools that studios pay thousands and thousands of dollars in investment. It seems everyone expects apps to be $0.99 or free or whatever. But the reality is these products take time to develop and test. Again, what would a good vocal alignment or drum replacement plugin cost? Console emulation? A good EQ? Quality synths? Addictive Drums 2 is only one part of the price (and a pretty good deal if you ask me). Upgraders pay a fraction of the actual cost to develop. On the plus side of software, there isn't material cost in most cases so you can charge less as it gets absorbed across a larger audience. But the value is still there regardless. 

What? Software ain't free? You don't work for free? Music is free (if you look hard ) so why not music software?

AT

Andrew Rossa [Cakewalk]

RD9
I must agree with the original premise that the add-ins shouldn't be the main reason for upgrade $$.  Many users are asking for better functionality of the core program (Sonar); in my case, I would like to see improvements in Midi editing.
 
In terms of AD, it is actually my go-to drum processor with Sonar and has been for a long time.  However, I purchased AD1 long before it was included in Sonar and upgraded to AD2 well before this version was included in the latest Sonar.  I find it works well with my Roland kit and is easy to program but would defer to other, more expert users wrt to the quality of the sounds.
 
Regarding Midi editing, I have been in the game since the Commodore 64 and Atari ST were around.  Since then I have used a couple of very good midi editors in Windows that, unfortunately, are no longer supported.   My perception is that some of these had much better editing functionality.  That said, I think Sonar is a great product!
 
R

We've made improvements to the MIDI engine, PRV and general MIDI workflow (like the Pattern Tool). Also, how much do you think vocal alignment or drum replacement tools would cost? You can check out competitive products and see what they are going for (and they aren't integrated directly into your DAW like they are in SONAR). Also Mix Recall is a pretty cool feature that really improves core program. So you start adding this all up and the price doesn't seem too bad. 
 
Unrelated to your post but a general observation: I think software is often devalued. People don't realize that it takes a lot of time and investment to develop software. For example, LA-2A emulation softwares often give you similar results with sometimes even more flexibility for a fraction of the price. Yet people scoff at paying $99 for a product that has a hardware equivalent of thousands of dollars. Same with DAW software. How much is studio time these days anyway? You can buy a DAW for the price of a few hours of studio time and get very similar tools that studios pay thousands and thousands of dollars in investment. It seems everyone expects apps to be $0.99 or free or whatever. But the reality is these products take time to develop and test. Again, what would a good vocal alignment or drum replacement plugin cost? Console emulation? A good EQ? Quality synths? Addictive Drums 2 is only one part of the price (and a pretty good deal if you ask me). Upgraders pay a fraction of the actual cost to develop. On the plus side of software, there isn't material cost in most cases so you can charge less as it gets absorbed across a larger audience. But the value is still there regardless. 

What? Software ain't free? You don't work for free? Music is free (if you look hard ) so why not music software?

We do work for free but someone around here keeps buying triangle and cowbell samples for upwards of $500,000 :(

We need more cowbell!!

I'm going to Spain Tues, special offer $300 per cowbell. Buy 20 and I'll throw in the cow as well.

CW has always bundled third party products with Sonar. The very first Sonar, Sonar XL had them. For new users buying their first DAW Sonar is and always has been a great value. Part of this is the added third party products that comes with it. Out of the box a new user has everything they need to record and mix and then create a CD. No other software is needed.
 
For old users some of it is redundant but still useful. We tend to forget that as up-graders we are not missing anything yet the product as a whole is aimed toward the new user. Each release is a new product that wants to entice new users. What CW does is keep our price down even though we get everything the new user gets. Often we don't need some of that stuff. Its not as useful to use as it is to the new user. But imagine if CW stopped giving us the up-grader less than the new user was getting, what would be the reaction? 
 
Sometimes reading this forum it seems as if people try to find something to gripe about. Getting extra stuff from a developer when up-grading should not be cause to find fault. Since when is getting more than you pay for a bad thing?

Fascinating thread! I only read the first and last pages, plus a couple in the middle, but I honestly believed the original post was basically just a plug for BFD disguised as a complaint. Then people took it seriously and we got 8 pages. :)
 
I bought into the Superior Drummer ecosystem some years ago, and so I am sometimes amused when I see the array of drum VSTis I have available now: Superior Drummer 2, Superior Drummer 1, Session Drummer 3, Addictive Drums 2, Stormdrum 2, Studio Drummer (from Komplete) and Battery (also from Komplete). Beyond that there are extra samples from the Drum Replacer, plus probably a few kits buried in Dimension Pro, old-school 808 and 909 samples in one of the various bundled VSTis, etc. And to think that 15 years ago I had to scavenge a handful of samples from downloads and magazine cover CDs just to get anything sounding remotely drum-like. :)
 
So, yeah, I don't need all these bundled drums. Maybe some even get in the way, given how bloated my plugin menu is. But I seriously doubt Cakewalk have to invest much time, effort, or money in pushing these plugins with Sonar. The plugin manufacturers make their money primarily from upgrades and selling add-on packs, so it's unlikely much, if any, of the Sonar price goes towards paying for such a plugin. It could even be the other way around, with XLN Audio basically paying to get their product in front of Sonar customers. (Hard to know, without being aware of the relative market share of each DAW and drum synth.)
 
It's perfectly fair for people to say "the thing Cakewalk are adding... is something I don't need". That's a data point that can be taken into account. But I don't think the price has changed because of this, nor has any other feature suffered.

I have never had an issue with the Alacrity that Cakewalk has fixed bugs.. X3 received the same exact "boatload of bug fixes on an accelerated schedule", as it went from a to e in rapid time, and i have always found the bakers personally to be very interested in a robust product, and have worked with some in detail offline in pursuit of a resolution, so i do not think speed of bug fixes is a valid counterpoint.
 
Contrary to your view, there is a HUGE amount preventing a user from waiting until the 12 months is up and installing the last version.. say this coincides with the introduction of the *easy* button then any and all associated bugs introduced (of course not on purpose Andrew !!!) with the easy button they get to keep, never fixed..... so in this case a user would have made a financial commitment to CW and not been left with a robust release....If you want an example then simply consider a user who theoretically timed out 2 days after Everett was released... 
 
None of this is in any way a slight on the talents or intent of the bakers, and it is pretty obvious that the development & test methodology has improved substantially at CW over the last couple of years, however, while moving to a concept of more regular feature enhancements is a noble idea, I simply have a philosophical problem with combining updates (robustness, performance & bug fixes) with upgrades (new features) on such a regular basis, and personally believe that restricting upgrades to say once a quarter, with the two intervening months being maintenance update releases would be more beneficial to the user base as it would highlight 4 releases in a 12 month term of high confidence & quality status ie an upgrade release plus 2 maintenance updates.
 
azlow3 captures it well in the post above
 

Anderton

Mystic38
At the end of the day, I have absolutely zero interest in a subscription model that drip feeds new features and new bugs along with old bug fixes. This has the byproduct of forcing multiples ongoing updates and reduces both confidence and stability in my studio system.

But you're overlooking that you've also been given a boatload of fixes, on an accelerated schedule. Overall, this has improved core stability. The relatively small (and limited number of) issues that have been introduced during an update have been fixed in the next update. For example, when the virtual controller was introduced, there were some tweaks in the next release. However, any issues in the virtual controller didn't affect the rest of the program. 
 
There will always be bugs introduced with a software update. How Cakewalk is addressing it is one option. The other option is to have all the bugs introduced once a year, then sort them out over several months. I prefer having multiple, regular bug fixes along with some new functionality, with any bugs that result sorted out in a month or less.
 
However nothing prevents you from waiting a year, installing the complete update, and benefiting from the fact that most of the bugs would have already been dealt with over the previous year instead of having them all introduced at once. So even if you wait, it's a better system because most bugs will have already been fixed shortly after they were first discovered.

Mystic38
I have never had an issue with the Alacrity that Cakewalk has fixed bugs.. X3 received the same exact "boatload of bug fixes on an accelerated schedule", as it went from a to e in rapid time, and i have always found the bakers personally to be very interested in a robust product, and have worked with some in detail offline in pursuit of a resolution, so i do not think speed of bug fixes is a valid counterpoint.
 
Contrary to your view, there is a HUGE amount preventing a user from waiting until the 12 months is up and installing the last version.. say this coincides with the introduction of the *easy* button then any and all associated bugs introduced (of course not on purpose Andrew !!!) with the easy button they get to keep, never fixed..... so in this case a user would have made a financial commitment to CW and not been left with a robust release....If you want an example then simply consider a user who theoretically timed out 2 days after Everett was released... 
 
None of this is in any way a slight on the talents or intent of the bakers, and it is pretty obvious that the development & test methodology has improved substantially at CW over the last couple of years, however, while moving to a concept of more regular feature enhancements is a noble idea, I simply have a philosophical problem with combining updates (robustness, performance & bug fixes) with upgrades (new features) on such a regular basis, and personally believe that restricting upgrades to say once a quarter, with the two intervening months being maintenance update releases would be more beneficial to the user base as it would highlight 4 releases in a 12 month term of high confidence & quality status ie an upgrade release plus 2 maintenance updates.
 
azlow3 captures it well in the post above
 

Anderton

Mystic38
At the end of the day, I have absolutely zero interest in a subscription model that drip feeds new features and new bugs along with old bug fixes. This has the byproduct of forcing multiples ongoing updates and reduces both confidence and stability in my studio system.

But you're overlooking that you've also been given a boatload of fixes, on an accelerated schedule. Overall, this has improved core stability. The relatively small (and limited number of) issues that have been introduced during an update have been fixed in the next update. For example, when the virtual controller was introduced, there were some tweaks in the next release. However, any issues in the virtual controller didn't affect the rest of the program. 
 
There will always be bugs introduced with a software update. How Cakewalk is addressing it is one option. The other option is to have all the bugs introduced once a year, then sort them out over several months. I prefer having multiple, regular bug fixes along with some new functionality, with any bugs that result sorted out in a month or less.
 
However nothing prevents you from waiting a year, installing the complete update, and benefiting from the fact that most of the bugs would have already been dealt with over the previous year instead of having them all introduced at once. So even if you wait, it's a better system because most bugs will have already been fixed shortly after they were first discovered.

I think sometimes commonsense needs to dictate policy. So if, in your example, we introduced a major new feature, and it needed some fixes and users had past the 12 months, we would do right by the customer. Don't forget, in this model, we need to make sure users are happier than ever. Bad press like that wouldn't be a good business decision. Nothing in that black and white with us anyway. I think we do a pretty decent job of listening to customers and interacting with them. And let me tell you, the #1 user request we always get is to continue to improve the core program. And that's definitely a big part of the focus here with the monthly releases. 
 
Anyway, we'd definitely evaluate it on a case-by-case basis. And you know our hope, and how this new model works best, is that customers will continue to be happy and upgrade regularly. It's on us on deliver value so you stick with us. That's good business as well.