Reason as a DAW - the future

[tobypearce]

Over the years Reason has become more of a DAW but that wasn't where it started from. As capability improved, the experience of using Reason got better; at the same time the differences between Reason and more fully-fledged DAWs became more obvious (because people wanted to use it as a DAW).

With the new leadership at Reason Studios, they may have made a decision to not chase the big DAWs, and to focus more on what makes Reason unique. Sensible market strategy I suppose. As a consequence: under investment in the sequencer and core DAW features.

I believe that this analysis of the market, though, is short-sighted. It could be true that Reason will never compete with Logic or Studio One (although I don't see why not). However, it does not follow that DAW investment can be neglected. If Reason does focus on what makes it unique - rack as VST, rack extensions - then investment in the core sequencer is still of fundamental importance. This is because the competition, if not Logic or Studio One, are the newer breed of music software: Korg Gadget, Maschine, Roland's new environment, and possibly a new environment from Native Instruments next year.

Interoperability is important, but building a stable ecosystem is even more important. Rack as VST is a good way to capture new users, but to keep them buying more rack extensions, the ecosystem must be sound, and must hope to convert a good portion of users into using Reason on its own (otherwise spend will be distributed more widely across other companies). It's also important not to forget that the Reason Mixer is arguably the best of all the DAWS (it's so good that it doesn't get much complaint even here on Reasontalk). Mixing in Reason is fantastic. And to encourage people to mix in Reason you need to have your full track in Reason. And to do that you need a top quality sequencer, and top quality workflow.

I wish I could join a strategy meeting with Reason Studios, just as a guest one time, sign an NDA and put this point of view across as a user.

[nicedevill]

Well said. 10/10

There is no reason for Reason not to improve existing workflow. #sequencerloveplease

[guitfnky]

you may not be able to sit in on a strategy session, but you can always share your thoughts with them using their feedback form.

[ShelLuser]

Sometimes it almost seems to me as if you can't make good music with Reason at all, because it lacks several features. I know that's not what you're saying, don't get me wrong here, but you'd almost get that impression (at least I do).

Reason is not a DAW which follows the common standards and because of that its workflow is also different. In my opinion that's mostly what you're seeing here, it doesn't follow or use "common" features because the whole thing isn't common in the first place.

For the record... I see many parallels with Live when reading threads like these. Live too isn't a DAW in the traditional sense of the word. Although it has a more traditional sequencer the usual approach is to record your material using the so called 'session view' (=a spreadsheet like interface, tracks are now displayed vertically) which you can then play and record into the arrangement view (=the traditional sequencer). Because of that Live 'lacks' features which are common in other DAW's and although some features can be useful (for example, it already supports curved automation) there are also features which in my opinion don't serve as much purpose, other than making the DAW more like others. And I don't always see the point in that because if I wanted it to be like something else I wouldn't have bought this product in the first place. This applies to both Reason and Live for me.

[avasopht]

I'm fine as things are.

Reason is good enough to use exclusively as a DAW, but if I want to I can now load the rack as a VST (much more convenient than ReWire).

It could be better in some ways, but we're getting a hell of a lot more for our money.

Just 10 years ago £1,000 would have got you a keyboard workstation with production quality sounds (but you'd still need to fork out £500 for a DAW, and another £1,000 for quality plugs).

Today £1,000 could net you a capable DAW (either Reason, Studio One or Logic), a midi controller, more sounds than you can fathom (Komplete Ultimate), maaaasive loop libraries, and all those quality plugs (if you're price savvy).

[selig]

Sometimes it almost seems to me as if you can't make good music with Reason at all, because it lacks several features. I know that's not what you're saying, don't get me wrong here, but you'd almost get that impression (at least I do).

Reason is not a DAW which follows the common standards and because of that its workflow is also different. In my opinion that's mostly what you're seeing here, it doesn't follow or use "common" features because the whole thing isn't common in the first place.

For the record... I see many parallels with Live when reading threads like these. Live too isn't a DAW in the traditional sense of the word. Although it has a more traditional sequencer the usual approach is to record your material using the so called 'session view' (=a spreadsheet like interface, tracks are now displayed vertically) which you can then play and record into the arrangement view (=the traditional sequencer). Because of that Live 'lacks' features which are common in other DAW's and although some features can be useful (for example, it already supports curved automation) there are also features which in my opinion don't serve as much purpose, other than making the DAW more like others. And I don't always see the point in that because if I wanted it to be like something else I wouldn't have bought this product in the first place. This applies to both Reason and Live for me.

There is a fine line between asking for something to be more like everything else, and asking for common features. For example, why have a transport with "play" "stop", "record" buttons etc? Because they are common features, and if your goal is to make music without having to jump through additional hoops then you probably want common features for common tasks - even if the overall workflow IS totally different.

IMO it is Reason's rack is where it differentiates itself from the other DAWs out there. The sequencer, not so much. To that end, with Reason you basically have a stripped down sequencer compared to most others out there (even Live), with some common features missing. Most of the features I see being requested for the sequencer have been around for many decades, such as markers, track show/hide, auto punch, edit groups, note chase, mirrored clips, etc. These are "common" because they have proven to be incredibly useful over time. I would want these features whether working with a clip launching app like Live, or a more linear sequencer like Reason. They are not dependent on the chosen workflow, and much like the transport they are useful because they are well known and all but expected in a sequencer (or any timeline based editor, including video editing, animation, and screen capture software).

I guess the question then becomes "where is the line between common features and esoteric requests?", which is a valid question. But to say Reason shouldn't be like other similar software makes no sense to me in this context, as I see so many examples of why it SHOULD be (and already IS) like other software. There's still plenty of places for Reason to innovate and lead the pack, while also catching up with some of the basic useful features (even if done in a typically "Reason" way).

[tobypearce]

I'm with Selig. No need to follow the herd but there are certain features that would incontestably improve the experience. Many forum users have their own favourites. Mine? It's crazy that on a fast iMac I have to run Reason in low resolution graphics mode to prevent audio glitches whenever I scroll around the rack. I love Reason, finish plenty of tracks using it alone and look at it for hours every day. And right now it looks blurry!!!!

[guitfnky]

Sometimes it almost seems to me as if you can't make good music with Reason at all, because it lacks several features. I know that's not what you're saying, don't get me wrong here, but you'd almost get that impression (at least I do).

Reason is not a DAW which follows the common standards and because of that its workflow is also different. In my opinion that's mostly what you're seeing here, it doesn't follow or use "common" features because the whole thing isn't common in the first place.

For the record... I see many parallels with Live when reading threads like these. Live too isn't a DAW in the traditional sense of the word. Although it has a more traditional sequencer the usual approach is to record your material using the so called 'session view' (=a spreadsheet like interface, tracks are now displayed vertically) which you can then play and record into the arrangement view (=the traditional sequencer). Because of that Live 'lacks' features which are common in other DAW's and although some features can be useful (for example, it already supports curved automation) there are also features which in my opinion don't serve as much purpose, other than making the DAW more like others. And I don't always see the point in that because if I wanted it to be like something else I wouldn't have bought this product in the first place. This applies to both Reason and Live for me.

There is a fine line between asking for something to be more like everything else, and asking for common features. For example, why have a transport with "play" "stop", "record" buttons etc? Because they are common features, and if your goal is to make music without having to jump through additional hoops then you probably want common features for common tasks - even if the overall workflow IS totally different.

IMO it is Reason's rack is where it differentiates itself from the other DAWs out there. The sequencer, not so much. To that end, with Reason you basically have a stripped down sequencer compared to most others out there (even Live), with some common features missing. Most of the features I see being requested for the sequencer have been around for many decades, such as markers, track show/hide, auto punch, edit groups, note chase, mirrored clips, etc. These are "common" because they have proven to be incredibly useful over time. I would want these features whether working with a clip launching app like Live, or a more linear sequencer like Reason. They are not dependent on the chosen workflow, and much like the transport they are useful because they are well known and all but expected in a sequencer (or any timeline based editor, including video editing, animation, and screen capture software).

I guess the question then becomes "where is the line between common features and esoteric requests?", which is a valid question. But to say Reason shouldn't be like other similar software makes no sense to me in this context, as I see so many examples of why it SHOULD be (and already IS) like other software. There's still plenty of places for Reason to innovate and lead the pack, while also catching up with some of the basic useful features (even if done in a typically "Reason" way).

you've summed up in this one post everything I've been trying to convey in my (apparently 87) posts in the Announcing Reason 11 thread.

[Reasonable man]

I guess i'm old fashioned. When it comes to things like music, production , a trade , a profession. a product........life in general.
My Philosophy is simple........figure out where your short and improve/ fix it.
What your good at....... what makes you unique will alwauys be there ... its not going anywhere but its not going to help you much if your lacking...... found seriously wanting in other areas where most others are strong...in fact its just going to hold you back and eventually drag into complete irrelevence....... or worse...mediocrity. Almost like a football team who ignores the fact that .....even though they have a great attack or midfield ; .they have the equivilant of a group of lads from the local pub to playing in defence.

I thought this philosophy worked in business like in everyting else but apparantly not. Apparantly the new business model today is to keep playing to your strengths (like a guitar player who only knows how to play one guitar solo) and completely ignore the glaring flaws and incompentcies and pretend that thet A/they're not there or B/ they're not important.

I hate they're business strategy and yes i think they've made a massive mistake going down this (defeatest road) ...a road where you simply give up on self improvement and competitivity as an actual Daw... and no i fail to see how this is going to be sustainable long term .how could it?
As long as there are a few big cheques comming in short term to pay those top and i'm guessing large inflated saleries.

I dont know why i've wasted 5 mins of my life even typing that. This is only my opinion i dont take if anyone else agrees or disagrees,

[KEVMOVE02]

At Reason Studios we’re turning the world’s music dreamers into music makers, and inspiring them to keep dreaming.
As developers of the Reason platform of instruments, plugins, music production software and mobile app, we’ve inspired millions of users all over the world to create. Whether you’re making your first beat, producing the next hit song, crafting your own sound, playing around with an idea, or just figuring stuff out—we’ll empower you to do it.

https://www.reasonstudios.com/about

There is quite a difference between what Reason Studios leadership says they want to do and what the Reasontalk.com forum members perceive it should do. It just might come down to that fact that many refuse to accept the stone cold fact that the collective that creates the apps associated with Reason Studios are not that interested in making software that predominately passes muster as a DAW, especially if that results in discouraging a person from chasing the dream. Now if you say that you are not happy with Reason as a platform because it doesn't share enough of the characteristics with other products that classify as a digital audio workstation, then your problem isn't with Reason Studios, its with your choice. If I approach a person that I consider having most of the features that I find attractive in a mate, but ask them to make additional modifications to reach full compatibility, then they are no longer the person I initially met.

Wanting more from Reason is not a crime. Asking them to make a bunch of modifications that significantly alters their self image should be a crime. Or maybe something closer to home, it is never okay for a parent to say, "why can't you be more like your brother?"

[reggie1979]

Just so you know they did give the sequencer some love.

I'm particularly excited about the track height adjustment. You can't believe what a huge one that is (for me anyways)

Curves are cool, and the crossfade works nicely. Yeah, I'd like more but it's not like they are ignoring it.

[KEVMOVE02]

I will say one more thing--I can't recall any version of Reason having this large of a download (of course, its the Suite I am referring to at the moment). Now it may not be data plan killing 60 gig download, but I'm loving what I'm seeing with the included Rack Extensions. Before the whining begins (again), you early adopters had fair use of your purchases all this time so stop complaining. As my daddy would say, "there's nothing better than the feeling you get when delayed gratification comes with the added bonus of looking at the sour faces of those who realize there is quite a reward for those who don't mind waiting!).

[scadh]

Among the many missing features in the sequencer, there are none - NONE - that aggravate me more than the transport / playhead not returning to the starting point on stop!

[guitfnky]

At Reason Studios we’re turning the world’s music dreamers into music makers, and inspiring them to keep dreaming.
As developers of the Reason platform of instruments, plugins, music production software and mobile app, we’ve inspired millions of users all over the world to create. Whether you’re making your first beat, producing the next hit song, crafting your own sound, playing around with an idea, or just figuring stuff out—we’ll empower you to do it.

https://www.reasonstudios.com/about

There is quite a difference between what Reason Studios leadership says they want to do and what the Reasontalk.com forum members perceive it should do. It just might come down to that fact that many refuse to accept the stone cold fact that the collective that creates the apps associated with Reason Studios are not that interested in making software that predominately passes muster as a DAW, especially if that results in discouraging a person from chasing the dream. Now if you say that you are not happy with Reason as a platform because it doesn't share enough of the characteristics with other products that classify as a digital audio workstation, then your problem isn't with Reason Studios, its with your choice. If I approach a person that I consider having most of the features that I find attractive in a mate, but ask them to make additional modifications to reach full compatibility, then they are no longer the person I initially met.

Wanting more from Reason is not a crime. Asking them to make a bunch of modifications that significantly alters their self image should be a crime. Or maybe something closer to home, it is never okay for a parent to say, "why can't you be more like your brother?"

I don’t think the RS statement and what many of us want are at odds at all. it seems like you’re giving Reason short shrift as a DAW. most of us think it’s very capable, and love how streamlined it is compared to other DAWs. as Selig says, we’re not asking for them to make Reason something fundamentally at odds with what it is. we’re asking for basic quality-of-life functionality that’s available in nearly every other major DAW.

your dating and family analogies makes no sense—we’re talking about software, not people. no one should ever ask for software improvements, by that logic.

[KEVMOVE02]

I don’t think the RS statement and what many of us want are at odds at all. it seems like you’re giving Reason short shrift as a DAW. most of us think it’s very capable, and love how streamlined it is compared to other DAWs. as Selig says, we’re not asking for them to make Reason something fundamentally at odds with what it is. we’re asking for basic quality-of-life functionality that’s available in nearly every other major DAW.

See, that’s the thing: it doesn’t matter that the quality of life changes seem reasonable, they are feature requests to make Reason work like the other DAWs on the market. Why not just use the Reason VST3 on another platform? BTW, the dating analogy absolutely applies, so much so that your reply makes my point.

[tobypearce]

Among the many missing features in the sequencer, there are none - NONE - that aggravate me more than the transport / playhead not returning to the starting point on stop!

The I can make your day. Alt left arrow!

[jappe]

My guess is that we'll see plenty new low hanging fruit features for the sequencer in the near future, and a fundamental sequencer rehaul in the distant future.

The Reason Rack VST is a genius move imo.
It's like a virus to the other DAWS...buys time, buys marketing, sits there in the users VST toolbox gradually improving and hopefully becoming something that users will eventually migrate to.

Effort on an expensive big-bang rehaul of the sequencer can now be avoided and spent on exciting new features we don't know about yet.
Personally, I'd love to see spectrum aware REs through a Reason Spectral Bus. To be used for AI mixing and mastering for example.

[antic604]

Among the many missing features in the sequencer, there are none - NONE - that aggravate me more than the transport / playhead not returning to the starting point on stop!

That was added in 10.2. Check the preferences

[Reasonable man]

I don’t think the RS statement and what many of us want are at odds at all. it seems like you’re giving Reason short shrift as a DAW. most of us think it’s very capable, and love how streamlined it is compared to other DAWs. as Selig says, we’re not asking for them to make Reason something fundamentally at odds with what it is. we’re asking for basic quality-of-life functionality that’s available in nearly every other major DAW.

See, that’s the thing: it doesn’t matter that the quality of life changes seem reasonable, they are feature requests to make Reason work like the other DAWs on the market. Why not just use the Reason VST3 on another platform? BTW, the dating analogy absolutely applies, so much so that your reply makes my point.

Have you even read the title of this thread ? What does it say?

Now go along and fire up Protools or whatever .. thats what 'Reason studios' is tellng you to do

[guitfnky]

I don’t think the RS statement and what many of us want are at odds at all. it seems like you’re giving Reason short shrift as a DAW. most of us think it’s very capable, and love how streamlined it is compared to other DAWs. as Selig says, we’re not asking for them to make Reason something fundamentally at odds with what it is. we’re asking for basic quality-of-life functionality that’s available in nearly every other major DAW.

See, that’s the thing: it doesn’t matter that the quality of life changes seem reasonable, they are feature requests to make Reason work like the other DAWs on the market. Why not just use the Reason VST3 on another platform? BTW, the dating analogy absolutely applies, so much so that your reply makes my point.

“they are feature requests to make Reason work like the other DAWs on the market.”

the implication you’re making is that we shouldn’t be able to request features unless they’re completely original and don’t exist in other software. that’s the silliest thing I’ve heard in a long time.

“Why not just use the Reason VST3 on another platform?”

did you not read all of what I wrote?

btw, your dating analogy still makes no sense.

[Proboscis]

At Reason Studios we’re turning the world’s music dreamers into music makers, and inspiring them to keep dreaming.

There is quite a difference between what Reason Studios leadership says they want to do and what the Reasontalk.com forum members perceive it should do.

Pity it's all a load of feelgood garbage. While there once might have been a passion for developing software for musicians, by musicians (and I truly believe the founders were once passionate about the software), the majority stakeholders of Reason studios have ONE GOAL, and that's to maximize profit. They are only holding Reason Studios as an asset because they see potential to make a significant return on investment. They are not a music company. Their other holdings include bovine sperm distribution, heavy industry earthmoving, polystyrene beads, alarm systems for geriatric patients and car tires.

Are they as emotionally invested in these other companies as Reason users like to hope they are about the music software we all love ? Of course not. To the owners of Reason Studios, it's only numbers that matter. If it turns a profit, then they have done their job. If it doesn't, they'll liquidate the company in a fire sale.

It is my view that they have established a 'lifetime value' analysis of current and potential clients (us), and determined that there just isn't any profit to be made from existing users anymore. Let's face it, anyone who's needed a Chorus Rack Extension will already have one, or more. There are multiple in the shop. Same goes for modulation tools.

The money is in NEW Reason users, buying into a unique ecosystem that promotes expansion by future Rack Extension sales, and to me it seems pretty obvious that's the direction they have taken. Opening Reason up to a whole new audience as a super-plugin is a very good strategy, and if they market it right, they will achieve what they want to do - make their money back several times over, then sell the business off as a profitable asset.

While that probably means that we won't see too much in the way of sequencer improvements, when they eventually release a free empty 'shell' VST that allows people to buy any Rack Extension of their choosing, that's going to re-invigorate the sale of third party Reason-Only products, which is an easy profit stream. They already have the infrastructure, and make a sizeable commission on plugins that they haven;t put any work into, but for a rudimentary QA check. It wouldn't surprise me if they outsourced all future stock devices to other parties as well. The precedent for this has already been set with the likes of Line6, Softube & more recently Robotic Bean. And from a commercial point of view, it makes sense, since they don't need to employ in-house developers.

The big question that should be speculated upon, is who will own Reason by the time version 12 is released. Those passionate OG's will be long gone, the staff will be downsized or replaced by new blood, vetted by the parent company to realize their goals, which has as much to do about making music as it does selling cow semen to farmers. I'm quite certain that almost all of the executives of Reason Studios couldn't tell you the first thing about punch-in, automation curves or control voltage.

Does any of this make a difference to how we make music ? Not to me. This is a long-game business transaction that is out of my control. Welcome to Capitalism.

[JiggeryPokery]

Their other holdings include bovine sperm distribution, heavy industry earthmoving, polystyrene beads, alarm systems for geriatric patients and car tires.

Ironically there's a lot of synergy there for producing some unique and actually original sound samples for Scenic!

TremStrings + Bull masturbation. Who'd not want that combo?!

[antic604]

The money is in NEW Reason users, buying into a unique ecosystem that promotes expansion by future Rack Extension sales, and to me it seems pretty obvious that's the direction they have taken. Opening Reason up to a whole new audience as a super-plugin is a very good strategy, and if they market it right, they will achieve what they want to do - make their money back several times over, then sell the business off as a profitable asset.

Well said, however there are at least 4 risks involved here:

1) Are their calculations overly optimistic? I've not seen a lot of people that use differet DAWs exclusively expressing their interest in getting Reason for it's native and RE devices. I'm in a lot of FB groups for other DAWs and I maybe have seen few such posts. There's so many VSTs now and they're cheaper than ever. Many DAWs have the possiblity to chain stuff in creative ways (Live, Bitwig, FL Studio, even Studio One since v3) so the rack cables aren't that new and exciting as they were few years ago. There are software modular environments far surpassing what Reason's rack can do.

2) By introducing Rack VST they've finally given the green light to leave to the existing users that were on the edge - they wanted to move DAWs, but were imprisoned by the invstment they did in Reason and REs. Now they're free to go.

3) They tried to make good to the existing users by giving us cheap way to get 16 REs in the Suite, but in reality many of us already had those tools which led to even bigger frustration. I got 5 or 6 of those in the last May Madness for 2-3x the Suite cost. How should I feel about it?? I'm sure I'm not alone feeling angry and disappointed.

4) The points 1-3 are one-trick-ponies to make more money short-term, but they're not sustainable business strategy which is crucial for Verdane to sell with profit. To achieve long-term stable cash flow they should:
- give Rack VST for free (or very cheaply) as a gateway to RE shop, where they should also put all the native devices as REs to buy,
- work on Reason DAW to entice those people who flirted with other DAWs to return, or at least use Reason too - there's really not that much missing,
- offer some tiered path to upgrade to Suite - I already paid for 11 of the REs included and while I'm not expecting to only pay 5 x EUR120/16 = EUR37,5 for the remaining 5, some discount would be appreciated.

[JiggeryPokery]

It is my view that they have established a 'lifetime value' analysis of current and potential clients (us), and determined that there just isn't any profit to be made from existing users anymore. Let's face it, anyone who's needed a Chorus Rack Extension will already have one, or more. There are multiple in the shop. Same goes for modulation tools.

The money is in NEW Reason users, buying into a unique ecosystem that promotes expansion by future Rack Extension sales, and to me it seems pretty obvious that's the direction they have taken. Opening Reason up to a whole new audience as a super-plugin is a very good strategy, and if they market it right, they will achieve what they want to do - make their money back several times over, then sell the business off as a profitable asset.

While that probably means that we won't see too much in the way of sequencer improvements, when they eventually release a free empty 'shell' VST that allows people to buy any Rack Extension of their choosing, that's going to re-invigorate the sale of third party Reason-Only products, which is an easy profit stream. They already have the infrastructure, and make a sizeable commission on plugins that they haven;t put any work into, but for a rudimentary QA check. It wouldn't surprise me if they outsourced all future stock devices to other parties as well. The precedent for this has already been set with the likes of Line6, Softube & more recently Robotic Bean. And from a commercial point of view, it makes sense, since they don't need to employ in-house developers.

The big question that should be speculated upon, is who will own Reason by the time version 12 is released. Those passionate OG's will be long gone, the staff will be downsized or replaced by new blood, vetted by the parent company to realize their goals, which has as much to do about making music as it does selling cow semen to farmers. I'm quite certain that almost all of the executives of Reason Studios couldn't tell you the first thing about punch-in, automation curves or control voltage.

Does any of this make a difference to how we make music ? Not to me. This is a long-game business transaction that is out of my control. Welcome to Capitalism.

Lots of good points, but one thing I will disagree with, and someone else posted the following on another thread along the same line, but I feel the response is probably better here.

it makes complete sense in the age of modular VSTs that RS release the reason Rack. Its now potentially the best modular VST engine (if not one of them) on the market and as I said before they know how to make really useful instruments and effects so when people talk about lack of revenue streams, I think this move indicates the opposite. More users for RS, higher demands and expectations, and hopefully a bigger brighter future for the Reason DAW!

Modular is popular right now, so it's not out of the question the VST3 Rack Plugin move could be a great strategic move. But sadly I fear that's wishful thinking, because that's unlikely to be the driving reason behind the decision.

A number of people have independently come to the conclusion this was primarily a rush-job to screw a final $130 from those users leaving Reason, as indicated by several YT vloggers, who have talked about upgrading one last time in order to use Reason as a Rack plugin elsewhere. This does have benefits: those who already left but had money invested in RE ecosystem can re-access them again if needed in their alt DAW, while those thinking of leaving can do so safe in the knowledge that at least RE investments will still have some value to them after they leave and they can continue using their favourite REs. Everyone's happy! Right? Yes?

Well, yeah, sure, that's a really good thing in the short term. RS gets a boost in upgrades to—of all people!—ex-users, and also those who are about to quit who probably wouldn't otherwise have bothered upgrading, you've got money out of them too. But unless they refresh those leavers with an equally sized pool of new entrants buying the full product (right after it's actually been advertised as "go use a DAW that has a better sequencer!"), it risks creating a huge bloody revenue hole for them down the line. Here's why.

Assuming that the market of those people who have already gone and those seriously thinking of jumping ship probably isn't dangerously high, then clearly it's enough now that it's concerning to RS they had to do something about it as a priority to maximise revenue from that segment. Let's say over a period of three years they've lost or will lose 10% of those who might normally upgrade, that right there is potentially a million bucks lost of upgrade revenue. The number of owners of other DAWs who pick up the full price R11 Standard or R11 Suite is going to be so low as to be negligable, so ignore those, they have a DAW, they don't need the expensive version with the sequencer and mixer. They're not buying the full versions just to get Grain and the 18-year old Malstrom and Scenic's suspected-repackaged FSB samples.

So the only likely revenue from the excited KVR crowd of significance will be mostly limited to Reason 11 Intro alone. After tax that's like a ~€70 payment, not ~€100. They might sell at least 14,000, and get a million revenue. They might easily do double, even treble that, and 2019 YE balance sheet suddenly looks very, very good compared to ... 2017 say. You know what I mean, nudge nudge, nod's as good as a to a blind bat etc.

But actually it gets worse. That's a one-off payment.

Users of Reason as a DAW, most of us here, do have some incentive to upgrade Reason [Standard] provided there's a least some new features in the DAW we're happy to pay $130 for every time. For users of the Rack Plugin alone in another DAW they may already be paying upgrade fees for, what exactly can RS really do here in future that those guys would ever pay for a Rack Plugin upgrade? The Rack itself is just a fairly dumb host of other devices. And RS have already provided a lot of devices in it. There's been no significant change in the Rack since 2000. Really, it's only multiple columns (removed from the Rack plugin?), drag-device-from-anywhere (the bane of Reason video tutorial-makers everywhere), mix/audio channel devices, and shift-reordering that's changed or been added. So if those users aren't buying a fucking shit-ton of REs from the shop, then as a revenue stream it's a financial dead-end, it's a one-off purchase. They're not seriously going to charge those guys another $99 to upgrade just for HiDPI, which is arguably the only thing missing, unless they're intending to do some kind of Reaktor or VCV variant within the Rack, which wouldn't surprise me. Otherwise the only way they could convince people to upgrade, is just to include more and more and more devices! But include more devices, it further reduces the likelihood of people making RE purchases of any worthwhile value to developers in the shop!

So ARPU is going to be way lower at program level, even if actual total revenue increases in the short term, and they can't based forward revenue projections on the likelihood of lots of those guys buying a lot of REs. Most older Reason users have pretty much all the REs they're ever going to buy, it takes something fairly dramatic now, an exciting Player device perhaps to shift a lot of units and RS being genuinely unwilling—from bitter and deeply upsetting experience to the point where it feels like RS are actively punishing developers, and it's why I'm pissed off and depressed again these days—to help point users at older devices that still offer value. And frankly, new users now get so much content in R11 even at Intro level it's probably just overwhelming, so they've less need to go hunting for additional stuff, at least in the short to medium term. It can be two or three years before new users, especially those who are young, students, low income etc, need or can afford to add content; there's no piracy growth in Reason, so there's been zero conversion of pirate users to paid-up users since Reason 5. We used think that was an issue, it turns out it that that pirate-to-paid-up customer arc may be surprisingly important.

If every owner of every VST3 compatible DAW bought R11 Intro, RS will do really well out of it but that alone will have bugger all affect on the RE market. My predication, they'll certainly sell enough R11 Intros they will do pretty well out of it and it'll have been worth the effort doing it, but demonstrably there's no forward planning to link it to the products in the shop so that's therefore clearly not their true intention. At best it would be a positive side effect based on hope and unicorns.

I think PH got caught out with just how fast the VST format developed around them in the mid 2010s. It moved to cross-platform development, it can have hiDPI displays running off the GPU with high refresh rates, they often have one-click multi-plugin installers. Ex-Users that now have access to the Rack in a different DAW have that with all the freebies and high profile VSTs that get thrown at them. So those guys, they're rarely going to be moving back to Reason standalone at this point, it can't host VST3. But now RS have got that extra $130 out of them. What's the upgrade price to, say, R12 Intro in a year or two. What are they ever going to pay anything to upgrade for? To grow the business they need to find more new users willing to buy Reason Intro every bloody year. In reality, the revenue will shrink pretty quickly back to the 8-10m a year mark. That's probably enough for Reason Studios as a standalone company.

And RS know all this. They are not stupid. This is all a play to grab all available possible revenue regardless of the long-term implications, preparing the company for sale so Verdane can exit. They need 2019/2020 revenue to look really, really damn good like it's a growing business. And I think they'll achieve that, and they'll all pat themselves on the back for a job well done. But at what cost to the long-term viabilty of Reason as a DAW and damage to reputation. People have short memories, I suppose. As far as Reason DAW users are concerned, anyone who wanted a better filter or chorus, or phaser than was in Stock, has already got them, thus in R11 RS are charging $130 for half-a-dozen sequencer tweaks, one of which doesn't even work properly, because attention to detail and functionality wasn't the objective, it was how little they think they can get away with adding to quality as an upgrade-level feature set. The answer as we all see, is very, very little. It's deeply saddening and disappointing to see. Maybe 11.4 will be a worthwhile jump from R10, but that's gamblers' fallacy for those wishing to make that leap now.

[MrBlue]

Among the many missing features in the sequencer, there are none - NONE - that aggravate me more than the transport / playhead not returning to the starting point on stop!

That was added in 10.2. Check the preferences

Look at the manuel p. 1278

reason 10 preferences.JPG (140.58 KiB) Viewed 3368 times