Jump to content


Photo

MS pricing


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 mattzart30

mattzart30

    Master Director

  • Members
  • 286 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 04:30 PM

This is really a response to a comment Chris made in another thread, but its a digression from the original thread's topic so I'm just posting it here as a food for thought sort of thing.


QUOTE (Chris Ollis @ Jun 8 2014, 4:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No one wants to pay for these things to exist but everybody wants them.
Such is the way of the Moviestorm world.


I haven't been around MS that long but I've definitely seen that sentiment in the forums in past threads. It baffles me a bit because I think MS pricing is incredibly reasonable. I know that a mob of torch-bearing villagers might hunt me down for saying this, but if a reasonable increase in license fees translated to making a more aggressive development plan sustainable, I would be all for it. I don't think you have to be a programmer to see that this sort of development work requires a huge reserve of creative and labor resources, and it is not reasonable to expect that MS development be its own reward at the expense of the developers having to forgo the luxuries food and shelter.

I have porn website subscriptions that are more expensive than MS per annum, and they aren't nearly as imaginative and engaging. smile.gif

#2 mattzart30

mattzart30

    Master Director

  • Members
  • 286 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 05:13 PM

Sorry for the duplicate post following this. I don't know how that happened. I definitely didn't fill out two posting forms. I must've messed up editing the post.

Topics merged - Community Moderator

#3 LenseOnLife

LenseOnLife

    Novice director

  • Members
  • 68 posts

Posted 15 June 2014 - 09:33 AM

QUOTE (mattzart30 @ Jun 13 2014, 4:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This is really a response to a comment Chris made in another thread, but its a digression from the original thread's topic so I'm just posting it here as a food for thought sort of thing.




I haven't been around MS that long but I've definitely seen that sentiment in the forums in past threads. It baffles me a bit because I think MS pricing is incredibly reasonable. I know that a mob of torch-bearing villagers might hunt me down for saying this, but if a reasonable increase in license fees translated to making a more aggressive development plan sustainable, I would be all for it. I don't think you have to be a programmer to see that this sort of development work requires a huge reserve of creative and labor resources, and it is not reasonable to expect that MS development be its own reward at the expense of the developers having to forgo the luxuries food and shelter.

I have porn website subscriptions that are more expensive than MS per annum, and they aren't nearly as imaginative and engaging. smile.gif


Surprised that this thread didn't elicit any reaction

As far as I'm concerned, the price is reasonable ...

BUT

The current model only provides income to the developers as and when new animators come across MovieStorm. I don't have any objection to there being an ongoing charge to top up the kitty - maybe make the forum subscription based?

Oliver (GeoLocation witheld for obvious reasons) unsure.gif
Oliver

#4 primaveranz

primaveranz

    Master Director

  • Pioneers
  • 5409 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 June 2014 - 09:46 AM

QUOTE (LenseOnLife @ Jun 15 2014, 9:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Oliver (GeoLocation witheld for obvious reasons) unsure.gif


I can smell Guinness at a mile, and I have the little people on my side wink.gif


"If we only use 1/3 of our brain, what's the other 1/3 for?"


#5 kkffoo

kkffoo

    Master Director

  • Pioneers
  • 3288 posts

Posted 15 June 2014 - 02:42 PM

I really miss many of the old staff members, but if the current team can continue developing then prospects are not as grim as I feared.

Moviestorm does work, it is much easier to use than some rivals, and is definitely cheaper.




#6 mattzart30

mattzart30

    Master Director

  • Members
  • 286 posts

Posted 15 June 2014 - 06:15 PM

QUOTE (kkffoo @ Jun 15 2014, 2:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I really miss many of the old staff members, but if the current team can continue developing then prospects are not as grim as I feared.

Moviestorm does work, it is much easier to use than some rivals, and is definitely cheaper.



Absolutely -- no argument there.

#7 primaveranz

primaveranz

    Master Director

  • Pioneers
  • 5409 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 June 2014 - 06:24 AM

I don't think price comes into it much. I think that a very small number of people actually have the staying power to create a decent movie, given the hoops you have to jump through with any of the softwares.
I suspect many people download MS, maybe try it for a bit, and then decide they'd rather watch someone else's movie because it is too hard to achieve what you want. E.g. If there were children actors I could probably have made a career using it for health promotion videos in 3rd world countries and it would have attracted a whole generation of youngsters to animation - some of whom would have stuck with it.
Instead of all us old people wink.gif
If you could animate the gizmo along the timeline you could have spacecraft that turn naturally rather then doing "hand brake" turns. Most things can be worked round but most peeps want it to be easier.
But the MS architecture means that even pros like Chris Ollis have to put in a lot of time and effort to create new animations and props - and of course time is money.

"If we only use 1/3 of our brain, what's the other 1/3 for?"


#8 mattzart30

mattzart30

    Master Director

  • Members
  • 286 posts

Posted 16 June 2014 - 11:27 PM

QUOTE (primaveranz @ Jun 16 2014, 6:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I don't think price comes into it much. I think that a very small number of people actually have the staying power to create a decent movie, given the hoops you have to jump through with any of the softwares.
I suspect many people download MS, maybe try it for a bit, and then decide they'd rather watch someone else's movie because it is too hard to achieve what you want. E.g. If there were children actors I could probably have made a career using it for health promotion videos in 3rd world countries and it would have attracted a whole generation of youngsters to animation - some of whom would have stuck with it.
Instead of all us old people wink.gif
If you could animate the gizmo along the timeline you could have spacecraft that turn naturally rather then doing "hand brake" turns. Most things can be worked round but most peeps want it to be easier.
But the MS architecture means that even pros like Chris Ollis have to put in a lot of time and effort to create new animations and props - and of course time is money.


Yeah I can totally see all that as being case. Its not so much that I think the price is a deterrent, I think its quite low compared to how other services are priced, even massively multiplayer game subscriptions. I'm not really able to offer any solutions as I don't know the full picture. I'm just raising the point that if an adjustment to the price or pricing model meant more time could be put into some of the things you mentioned, for example, that would in no way to deter me from using or supporting the software because I'm not insensible to the reality that such efforts need to make viable fiscal sense, and we all benefit in the end.

And for the record, I'm not an old person just yet wink.gif

#9 LenseOnLife

LenseOnLife

    Novice director

  • Members
  • 68 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 10:34 PM

QUOTE (primaveranz @ Jun 15 2014, 9:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I can smell Guinness at a mile, and I have the little people on my side wink.gif

Guess I can't hide :-(

Oliver

#10 stormy

stormy

    Film Critic

  • Members
  • 14 posts

Posted 22 September 2014 - 05:56 PM

QUOTE (mattzart30 @ Jun 13 2014, 4:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This is really a response to a comment Chris made in another thread, but its a digression from the original thread's topic so I'm just posting it here as a food for thought sort of thing.




I haven't been around MS that long but I've definitely seen that sentiment in the forums in past threads. It baffles me a bit because I think MS pricing is incredibly reasonable. I know that a mob of torch-bearing villagers might hunt me down for saying this, but if a reasonable increase in license fees translated to making a more aggressive development plan sustainable, I would be all for it. I don't think you have to be a programmer to see that this sort of development work requires a huge reserve of creative and labor resources, and it is not reasonable to expect that MS development be its own reward at the expense of the developers having to forgo the luxuries food and shelter.

I have porn website subscriptions that are more expensive than MS per annum, and they aren't nearly as imaginative and engaging. smile.gif



Sounds like the typical coffin mover post!
Hey the Problem is Money.... All Moviestorm needs is more money!!!
Ya right... maybe in Oz

The problem with Moviestorm is willful neglect, Many years back Moviestorm in it's infancy was an animation marvel right out of the starting gate. It should have grown into the easy moviemaking software it's title heralded.
Instead... development took a backseat and focus shifted on an endless menu pricing scheme to get users to endlessly purchase from the same old bare Content pack cupboard.

And so periodically, loyal still starry eyed hopeful coffin movers raise the lack of $$$ issue.
Oh if only the developers were getting 3 square meals... boo hoo! cry me a river!!!

The workings (difficulties) of a company isn't the consumers problem
A company must innovate or evaporate.
A company who wastes years working on endless confusing menu pricing schemes instead of growing the product will probably not survive.

For example:
Imagine buying a glove with only 3 fingers. Oh it might be a fine faux leather glove that shows promise that it could one day manifest itself into "Real leather" but the sad truth is, it has only 3 fingers.
And no matter how many enticing pricing scheme changes the manufacturer makes to the advert the glove is useless for the majority of buyers.
Gee... I wonder what excuses the coffin movers associated with that glove company have come up with.
- oh the company can only afford 3 finger machines
- The guy who staples the fingers to the hand part only works one day a week cuz the company can't afford to pay him.
- blah blah blah

Makes ya wonder.. if they could turn back the clock... would the creators of Moviestorm have invested more time & effort into making Moviestorm eeasier & peeazier with tons & tons of content.

"For we dreamed a lot
And we schemed a lot
And we tried to sing of love before the stage fell apart" (Supertramp)



#11 LenseOnLife

LenseOnLife

    Novice director

  • Members
  • 68 posts

Posted 22 September 2014 - 06:20 PM

Oh dearie me - me thinks I see the folks sharpening up their pitch-forks and lighting their torches.

For starters lets us get beyond the OTT statements and come back to basics.

Having owned a number of companies over the years, it is a simple fact that a company is responsible for its own future - but that does not mean that a company cannot go to its customer base to get a helping hand every now and then. It then becomes more like a co-operative with the customers as members. Is that where MovieStorm wants to go?

The current cost of MovieStorm is far too low and I cannot see how it can be a viable template for the future - and that should be worrying for all of use who are using teh software and becoming dependant on it. If the developers were to come out with a road map to the future as they see it, come up with a timescale and then a costing, maybe it would then be possible for current members / customers to decide whether or not to shell out some more money. In principle, I don't have any problem going down this road. I currently own 2 software seats and am thinking of purchasing a third. MovieStorm as currently packaged has some serious flaws, but it is not dead - it does work and can be used for many scenarios. Yes, it would be brilliant if it had more facilities (not least of which are children, fat / obese, skinny people) - OK, now is not the time to put up a wish list.

What do people think about having some definite road-map, and paying to help define and drive that map?

Oliver
Oliver

#12 stormy

stormy

    Film Critic

  • Members
  • 14 posts

Posted 22 September 2014 - 08:12 PM

[quote name='LenseOnLife' date='Sep 22 2014, 6:20 PM' post='105084'

What do people think about having some definite road-map, and paying to help define and drive that map?

Oliver
[/quote]

Yeah... kinda like paying for a step on the gallows with your name on it!

No I think Moviestorm's creators have milked their herd dry.
Time to sell this company to others with more vision and ability to move forward.
We don't need one more "menu scheme" that flogs the same old moldy jelly sandwich.
Moviestorm needs a fresh start.


#13 mattzart30

mattzart30

    Master Director

  • Members
  • 286 posts

Posted 23 September 2014 - 12:49 AM

Out of curiosity, what is confusing/scheming to you about the pricing model? I haven't been around that long so maybe i don't have the historical perspective you do, but it seems pretty straight forward to me: base license with standard set of packaged content, then some pretty low-priced add-ons for additional content.

If you got your wish and Moviestorm were sold to a new set of developers, what sort of pricing model would you like to see them adopt?


#14 primaveranz

primaveranz

    Master Director

  • Pioneers
  • 5409 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 September 2014 - 05:50 AM

Stormy has been dropping by from time to time to complain about the MS pricing since 2009, I doubt if there is anything any of us can say to change his view now wink.gif

"If we only use 1/3 of our brain, what's the other 1/3 for?"



  • Please log in to reply


1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users