 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 22:57:22 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 29/04/2015 07:54 AM, scott wrote:
>> And if they were clever they would put something in the license of the
>> $10/month version that prevented the huge companies using it, thus
>> keeping the 10 people paying $1.2 million at the same time :-)
>
> Might I suggest that when you spend $1.2 million licensing the thing,
> you're probably also paying for consultation services and developer time
> to tweak the engine how you want it and optimise your game to run better
> than your competitor's games...
You might be, but then again, you might not be. Lots of companies don't
include consultation services in licensing services - that's an
additional cost.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/04/2015 23:34, Jim Henderson wrote:
> You might be, but then again, you might not be. Lots of companies don't
> include consultation services in licensing services - that's an
> additional cost.
Shhh! ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> And if they were clever they would put something in the license of the
>>>> $10/month version that prevented the huge companies using it, thus
>>>> keeping the 10 people paying $1.2 million at the same time :-)
>>>
>>> I would be surprised if they did, actually - in the long run, the
>>> monthly subscription would generally net them more than a perpetual
>>> license would.
>>
>> There's a lot of $10's in $1.2m :-)
>
> Yes, but that's the beauty of subscription pricing - it builds because
> you have recurring revenue.
>
> $120 per year per user. Over the long haul, that can net you more than a
> perpetual license - and from a business standpoint, the revenue stream is
> more predictable, which makes the business more stable.
And there's still a lot of $120's in $1.2m. Even if a company has 100
developers all needing a license, that's 100 years until you get to
£1.2m in revenue. Which is why I would be surprised there is nothing in
the £10/month version that prevents large companies (who are
willing/able to pay $1.2m straight off) from using it.
> With a subscription - particularly in a SaaS environment - you always
> have your customers on the latest version -
Only if you force them to upgrade, I imagine many companies wouldn't be
too happy about that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 10:08:11 +0100, scott wrote:
>>>>> And if they were clever they would put something in the license of
>>>>> the $10/month version that prevented the huge companies using it,
>>>>> thus keeping the 10 people paying $1.2 million at the same time :-)
>>>>
>>>> I would be surprised if they did, actually - in the long run, the
>>>> monthly subscription would generally net them more than a perpetual
>>>> license would.
>>>
>>> There's a lot of $10's in $1.2m :-)
>>
>> Yes, but that's the beauty of subscription pricing - it builds because
>> you have recurring revenue.
>>
>> $120 per year per user. Over the long haul, that can net you more than
>> a perpetual license - and from a business standpoint, the revenue
>> stream is more predictable, which makes the business more stable.
>
> And there's still a lot of $120's in $1.2m. Even if a company has 100
> developers all needing a license, that's 100 years until you get to
> £1.2m in revenue. Which is why I would be surprised there is nothing in
> the £10/month version that prevents large companies (who are
> willing/able to pay $1.2m straight off) from using it.
Of course I *can* do the math on this. I work for a software company
that recently did the math and made the change from perpetual to
subscription.
>> With a subscription - particularly in a SaaS environment - you always
>> have your customers on the latest version -
>
> Only if you force them to upgrade, I imagine many companies wouldn't be
> too happy about that.
A lot of SaaS implementations use a continuous release process, which
means that you are (by definition) always on the latest version.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 06:13:32 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 29/04/2015 23:34, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> You might be, but then again, you might not be. Lots of companies
>> don't include consultation services in licensing services - that's an
>> additional cost.
>
>
> Shhh! ;-)
;)
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 10:08:11 +0100, scott wrote:
> And there's still a lot of $120's in $1.2m. Even if a company has 100
> developers all needing a license, that's 100 years until you get to
> £1.2m in revenue. Which is why I would be surprised there is nothing in
> the £10/month version that prevents large companies (who are
> willing/able to pay $1.2m straight off) from using it.
You also have to consider the addition of all the companies that would
never pay $1.2 million but are willing to pay for 100 licenses at $10/
month per developer.
I'm sure CryTek did the math.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/04/2015 10:26 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I imagine for the CryTek, the subscription model is more lucrative than
> licensing to a few people - you get hobbyists who want to play with it
> who could never afford to pay the $1.2 million (yes, I looked it up -
> that was the cost reported in 2012 - so I owe you an apology, because
> while it's not "millions" it is> 1 million. So my apologies for coming
> down quite as hard as I did.) licensing fee now have a professional level
> tool they can access for a reasonable price. Lower price, larger market,
> increases revenue. Instead of 10 people paying $1.2 million (netting $12
> million in perpetual licensing fees), they can get, say, 100,000 people
> paying $10/month - or $120/year - which is a net of $12 million.
Sounds to me like it *was* a couple of million to licence it, and then
they decided maybe getting everybody to use it for a smaller fee would
be way more profitable. AND THEY'RE PROBABLY RIGHT! :-D
IIRC, Oracle did a similar thing. To *buy* the cheapest edition of the
Oracle database engine is £8,000 - far more than an individual can
afford. The "full" edition (with hot-failover support, clustering, and
so on) is £80,000. You could almost buy a *house* for that price. BUT...
then they suddenly decided that you can actually download not just the
full edition, but the premium one, free of charge, "for personal use".
You're just not licensed to use it commercially. (I'm sure they must
have some way of actually *enforcing* that, though...) Which means
everybody gets to know and love your product, and there are therefore
lots of hireable people who know it, which makes it more likely that
companies will choose it. Which makes more money for Oracle.
In a similar way, there used to be a free edition of VisualStudio.
Presumably if all your developers are used to using it, they will nag
their employers to buy it for them...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30/04/2015 19:02, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> £80,000. You could almost buy a *house* for that price
And get change. :-)
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatching.html?prop=46365031&sale=53335772&country=england
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 19:02:15 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 28/04/2015 10:26 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I imagine for the CryTek, the subscription model is more lucrative than
>> licensing to a few people - you get hobbyists who want to play with it
>> who could never afford to pay the $1.2 million (yes, I looked it up -
>> that was the cost reported in 2012 - so I owe you an apology, because
>> while it's not "millions" it is> 1 million. So my apologies for
>> coming down quite as hard as I did.) licensing fee now have a
>> professional level tool they can access for a reasonable price. Lower
>> price, larger market,
>> increases revenue. Instead of 10 people paying $1.2 million (netting
>> $12 million in perpetual licensing fees), they can get, say, 100,000
>> people paying $10/month - or $120/year - which is a net of $12 million.
>
> Sounds to me like it *was* a couple of million to licence it, and then
> they decided maybe getting everybody to use it for a smaller fee would
> be way more profitable. AND THEY'RE PROBABLY RIGHT! :-D
Which is what I said. :)
> IIRC, Oracle did a similar thing. To *buy* the cheapest edition of the
> Oracle database engine is £8,000 - far more than an individual can
> afford. The "full" edition (with hot-failover support, clustering, and
> so on) is £80,000. You could almost buy a *house* for that price. BUT...
> then they suddenly decided that you can actually download not just the
> full edition, but the premium one, free of charge, "for personal use".
> You're just not licensed to use it commercially. (I'm sure they must
> have some way of actually *enforcing* that, though...) Which means
> everybody gets to know and love your product, and there are therefore
> lots of hireable people who know it, which makes it more likely that
> companies will choose it. Which makes more money for Oracle.
Yep.
> In a similar way, there used to be a free edition of VisualStudio.
> Presumably if all your developers are used to using it, they will nag
> their employers to buy it for them...
And yep. In fact, there is a free cross-platform version of Visual
Studio now, just saw the announcement yesterday. :)
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> You also have to consider the addition of all the companies that would
> never pay $1.2 million but are willing to pay for 100 licenses at $10/
> month per developer.
Exactly, the clever bit is how to get them to pay 100x$10/month at the
same time as the ones paying $1.2m :-)
> I'm sure CryTek did the math.
Me too!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
