[AequitasOmnibus]

> Speaking at Unreal Fest 2023, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney said Unreal Engine would become “a licensable piece of software like Maya or Photoshop” with a subscription-based pricing model.

SAAS is rent-seeking at its worst. It’s predatory, anti-consumer and downright annoying. I hope this backfires on Epic.

[nonethewiser]

SAAS pays for continued development and support. One upfront license fee returns us to the Microsoft Office 13, 15, 20 etc. world. Marginal differences, little to no support, and new releases for the sake of new revenue. SAAS is far better aligned to customer and business interests.

[cool_dude85]

In other words, the developer has to produce a worthwhile feature to charge me for it? I don't have to pay for Office 20 when it's the same as Office 13 which I already own?

Sign me up.

[zlg_codes]

Which interests are those, and how is a subscription better than a one-time purchase?

I smell dishonesty. SaaS is aligned solely to the business's interest. They control the code, they control whether you even access it after paying, etc. The customer gets no rights or considerations, so it's a one-sided transaction.

Just like Netflix and friends. I only do one subscription service and it's to play online with my niece and nephew. The rest of the subscription world can suck it, they want rent for Internet-bound software that spies and tells on you so they can sell data on top of your subscription.

Business cannot get software sales correct. Game makers did back in the 80s, 90s, and 00s before DLC became a thing.

One purchase, one perpetual license, no phoning home. Too hard to do for the modern commercial developer, it seems.

So, which interests of mine would a SaaS satisfy?

[tomschwiha]

In contrary I like PhpStorm (and other Jetbrains software) which has a nice SAAS license. You always own the old versions or you keep subscribed and pay for upgrades. With evolving software (aka never finished) someone has to pay for the upgrades. In the best case its the existing user base. But true, most SAAS is just cash cow milking.

[pxc]

I'd say that PhpStorm doesn't really qualify as SaaS.

Not all software subscriptions are SaaS. See, e.g., here: https://www.dataversity.net/saas-and-subscription-complement...

SaaS means someone else runs the software and your access to it is mediated by their service (usually a networked service).

Some SaaS tests:

If you can keep running it when your subscription runs out, it's not SaaS. If it runs on your own hardware, it's not SaaS.

This concept creep elides the extraordinary level of alienation inherent in SaaS, which is exceptional even for proprietary software. This overly broad usage of the term can make the tradeoffs involved¹ in actual SaaS seem less severe than they are.

--

1: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...

[tomschwiha]

Makes sense, thank you for clarifying.

[ukd1]

What do you propose? They should continue to allow everyone outside of gaming to use it for free?

[PurpleRamen]

Seems fair to let those pay who make significant money with your product. Especially when they screw over other themselves with their creative accounting. At least as long as there are significant costs for the product, like ongoing development.

[raytopia]

It's only for non gamedevs who were paying $0 for the engine.

[tomcam]

What would you do to allow them to not lose money?

[whimsicalism]

sass is the only business model that works well for continuously developed software