why does software cost so much?

[xyyz]

I accidently posted this in the wrong group... sorry so i'll move it here since the moderator didn't do it.




the other day I could have bought a 1.4ghz Tbird with a fairly decent MB from fry's for $139... while thinking about how prices had dropped I waltzed to the software isle and picked up some application that had a price of $500, and was over a year old.

what's the deal here? why the hell does software cost so bloody much? yeah I know alot of time and effort goes into them... and i'm no software developer, but didn't as much time and effort go into the quake and unreal engines? how come you can buy those games for $50?

I mean I buy all my games... but I wait until the price drops to about $30... maybe if the prices for software were ALOT less people would

 

[tweakmm]

I don't know? Maybe you're getting it from the wrong places

 

[TripleJ]

YEAH, WE WANT ANSWERS NOW AND WE'RE NOT LEAVING UNTILL WE GET ONE! :|

Seriously, you've got a damn good point.

 

[kpxgq]

i dunno what youre talking about... i just goto my campus computer store and all software is $5 there.. inc windows xp pro and visual c++..

 

[jjones]

one of the reasons why so much "sharing" goes on. for example, I don't know a single person who owns a copy of photoshop. sure they have a legit copy on their work computer but i don't know anyone with a purchased copy on their home computer although they all have a shared copy on their home computer.

i'm not a big fan of "sharing" but i also think that some of the software prices are completely out of line and force otherwise legit people to resort to sharing. would you buy 3D studio max for your home computer for $3,500.00? i didn't think so.

 

[xyyz]

<< i dunno what youre talking about... i just goto my campus computer store and all software is $5 there.. inc windows xp pro and visual c++.. >>



tweakmm,

see this is why people like you "get it" from those other places... if my assumption is wrong... i appologize... but please tell me where I can get say Adobe After Effects for $50? Even the cheaper places I know sell the retail package for $500.

kpxgq,

which bloody university is this... but I guess MSFT is becomming a bit more wise about the warez problem realizing that most college students are gonna warez everything anways. oh yeah... and next time you go to the bookstore... tell me how much 3d studio max costs... not everyone is MSFT.

it doesn't matter... this might address the students... but what about the general people? I know alot of non-university students who want to learn some application at home on their own... but the primary obstacle is the horribly expensive pricetag for software.



I mean why don't these people adopt Sun's policy... they give licences for Star Office and Solaris for free (depending on certain conditions) this gurantees a loyal follower base. I mean I use Solaris on a Sparc wrkstn... I love it and I don't use Office XP on this system because I can't afford it I use star office... and it's not a lame ass package... it's pretty suite. I gurantee if Sun decides to go a "delux" route and offer some beefed Star Office package for $50, because they gave it for free many people will have NO qualms spending the cash eventhough they can still get a perfectly able version for free... I for one would definately spend the cash.

 

[xyyz]

<< i'm not a big fan of "sharing" but i also think that some of the software prices are completely out of line and force otherwise legit people to resort to sharing. would you buy 3D studio max for your home computer for $3,500.00? i didn't think so. >>



comeon... admit it Adobe software is WAY overpriced... I hope someone can correct me if i'm wrong... but isn't the Quake3 engine more complex than photoshop?

exactly... I mean my mom wanted to take a 3D studio max class... but when I told her that the software costs about $4000 and that there was no way I could get it otherwise she decided to pass on the class...

a perfect example of how Autodesk or whatever the producers of 3D studio max have lost out...

1. less people are knowlegeable on their products... therefore they don't get an upper hand on their competition
2. kills the concept that people who learn their products have the potential to influece their workplace to buy numerous licences.

 

[jjones]

<< a perfect example of how Autodesk or whatever the producers of 3D studio max have lost out... >>


yeah, this is why they don't really pursue piracy on the personal level unless it's really blatant. they go after the companies that are using pirated software for commercial use. i've had lots of conversations with 3D graphic artists about this and we've all come to the conclusion that they don't really care because "sharing" does get their product into more people's hands which will then get more legit copies and licenses into the companies they work for.

 

[xyyz]

I guess that's true in a sense... I haven't read of stories of software companies going after the small guy... although i'm sure it happens... but think about it... if they were to charge very little for private users they could generate revenue that they lose becuase of piracy... charge $50... alot of people will buy your product, you don't need to pffer tech support, require them to purchase a separate tech support contract sorta like what some hardware vendors do.

if there are 10,000,000 people using unlicenced copies because the software costs $500 you're making nothing on the intial investment return... but if you charge say even $20, you'll make $200,000,000 which is a hell of a lot better than $0.

don't be greedy and expect that $5 billion right away... build a loyal userbase and they'll stay loyal to you and buy a delux package that you can sell for more money.

 

[Daniel]

First off I agree entirely that most software is grossly overpriced, that said though...

The thing with most "commercial" software being so expensive, well its so expensive for the very reason that its a standard and companies
will pay the money to use it. As much as people don't want to admit it, most home users don't need Office XP Professional, they could use
something, hell for most things many people could just use MS Works w/ Word. Also Adobe products like Photoshop, its targetted to towards
designers, yet since its warezed so much everyone and their mother thinks you "need" Photoshop for any photo editing, these people could
use any lower end software to do exactly what they want to do.

The same people that justify pirating because of the costs are the same ones that could be using Paint Shop Pro for $40ish instead or
Star Office and could easily afford this apps that would do the job, i'm also not saying i've never used a crack/serial/mp3/etc so don't get
all bent out of shape but its just my theory on software costs.

 

[sinunbeso]

For windows family, I think the price is alright. At least it's affordable. There were really a lot people involved in an implementation of windows. They should get paid for their effort. For stuff like Photoshop or 3D Studio Max, their prices are just rediculus. Does it take so much more to implement a 3D Studio Max than a Windows XP? I don't know but I certainly don't think so.

 

[Jzero]

<< I mean why don't these people adopt Sun's policy... they give licences for Star Office and Solaris for free (depending on certain conditions) this gurantees a loyal follower base. I mean I use Solaris on a Sparc wrkstn... I love it and I don't use Office XP on this system because I can't afford it I use star office... and it's not a lame ass package... it's pretty suite. I gurantee if Sun decides to go a "delux" route and offer some beefed Star Office package for $50, because they gave it for free many people will have NO qualms spending the cash eventhough they can still get a perfectly able version for free... I for one would definately spend the cash. >>



OMFG, it's amazing! Seriously, I just got an SS10 and while i knew you could get Solaris8 for free, I DIDN'T know that they'll let you license up to 99 boxes at a shot as long as they don't have more than 10 processors! It's awesome.

The problem is that they're trying to market "production software" to businesses who can afford to buy many licenses and pay more per license. They set the price purposely to avoid it going to home use. It's pretty stupid. I've paid $50-$100 for software before, and for something like photoshop that I'd use often, I'd even be willing to pay $50-$100/year to use it legally. But they don't want to play. All the more reason to be a linux-head. You get stuff like the Gimp for free....

 

[GasX]

You people have an inflated sense of entitlement, and a retarded knowledge of economics.

Adobe Photoshop costs $500 because it is a low volume product and a customer base able to pay for it.
Quake3 costs $50 because it is a high volume product and customers are NOT able or willing to pay more.

If every college student with a copy of Photoshop had paid for it, the cost would be about $50 for that too.

 

[Nitemare]

If I have to purchase the software I normally try for either OEM or a student edition. If I can't get these I normally will do without or seek much cheaper versions..

 

They charge you that much because they know you need it and because they CAN.

 

[Mitzi]

Had this conversation with xyyz via PM, here are my opinions..

A huge percentage of home users pirate software and those who pay legally for it have to cover that cost.

Productivity - by using a good office suite (i.e. MS Office) you will recover the cost of the software in the long term from the time saved/productivity obtained from using it. The same cannot be said for games so application software houses are charging for the use you'll get from it in the future. With most games you play them all the way though once (if you are lucky) and thats it - is the enjoyment from that worth £250?

In the case of Sun StarOffice and other free software developers they couldn't really charge large amounts of money for their software because of the huge share of the market other companies have (ie Microsoft), and people would prefer to spend £250 on a well known office suite (MS Office) £250 on a relatively unknown StarOffice.

Also, by Sun (and others) offering free software they are establishing a name for themselves in home/student marketplaces, who cannot afford commercial office suites. I guess these students then graduate and go to work for large enterprises so when they see Sun Workstations and the like they think oh yeah these are the guys who make that cool, free office suite.

 

[Amused]

Prices of products are based on what the market will bear. They have little to do with production and R&D costs besides a base line minimum price the company can charge to cover costs.

Charging what the market will bear is the cornerstone of capitalism, and freedom.

If I was to make widgets that cost $5 to make, and sell them for $500, that is my right. If people buy them, I turn a profit and I'm successful. If no one buys them, I either lower my price, or go out of business.

In fact, raising prices combined with creative marketing and in some cases, limited production, can often times result in MORE sales. Take the designer clothing lines as an example. Often times, the overhead costs of designer clothes are no more than off brand clothes. But with effective marketing, and higher prices, these clothing lines become more desirable. Collectors items are an example of how limited production can influence what the market will bear.

In short, the prices on software are set at what the market will bear to maximize profits for the company. They are NOT set by any childish sense of entitlement, or altruism.

 

[gopunk]

i don't think it's overpriced for what it is. granted, i don't buy retail software because it's so expensive, i really think that's just because i'm a poor college student and a cheap bastard to boot. there are bigger fish to fry, like the record companies. 20 bucks for a CD? what kind of insanity is that?

 

[notfred]

Here's the reason no one no pay more than $60 for a game: IT'S A GAME. No one is going to pay $16,000 for a copy of Quake 3, cause it jsut plain isn't worth it.

However, do you think ILM or Pixar has a problem spending $16,000/license for Maya? Well, go look at the amount of money that Toy Story and Star Wars Episode 1 made, and tell me if you wouldn't have invested $16,000 several times over for that.

Why is photoshop $600? Cause it's worth $600 to people who use it professinally.
Sure, you can say "Well, if it was $100, then everyone would buy it, not jsut the professionals, and they'd have 6x as many customers". But that's a load of BS. Anyone who has a pirated copy of photoshop on thier machine - look at your copy of winzip. Did you buy it? no? But it's only $29. They SAY they'd buy it for the $100, but when it comes right down to it, they wouldn't.

 

[Logix]

Autodesk can sell AutoCAD and 3D Studio for thousands of dollars because they HAVE a loyal customer base. They've created a superior product that's become an industry standard and businesses are willing to put an investment in that software.

If Autodesk lowered the price of AutoCAD to $50, would they really sell enough copies to cover huge drop in price? I highly doubt it. And, they sell enough copies at $3000+, so they don't need to drop the price. It takes a lot of programmers to produce and update AutoCAD, and they have to recover their costs somehow. If companies stopped buying it at $3000+, the price would begin to drop. But businesses believe the software is worth that price, so that's why it costs that much.

This goes for Adobe, Microsoft, etc.

 

[rahvin]

Software costs money?????

Man I thought linux, freedos, freewin, and the software on freshmeat was free. Oh wait, it is.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Personally I don't think things like Photoshop, After Effects, or Maya are overpriced. If you know how to use said software to it's full potential you can do amazing things w/them. They are very powerful and flexible products. And like some people have already pointed it these products aren't targeted to the home user. They are targeted to business and professional users. If you paid $600 for Photoshop and another $500 for After Effects, but you make $50,000/year using PS and AE to make visual FX would you consider them overpriced? I'd rather pay $500 for PS than $50 for game. That $50 for the game is gone forever, but I can earn back the $500 I spent on PS.


Lethal

 

[xyyz]

<< You people have an inflated sense of entitlement, and a retarded knowledge of economics.

Adobe Photoshop costs $500 because it is a low volume product and a customer base able to pay for it.
Quake3 costs $50 because it is a high volume product and customers are NOT able or willing to pay more.

If every college student with a copy of Photoshop had paid for it, the cost would be about $50 for that too. >>



this makes no sense... first of all, I bet there are alot more copies of photoshop out there than quake3... someone please confirm this.

next, why not profit from everyone using your product... you know that people will warez it because it's expensive... you are losing revenue because of your high price... if you lower the price so you make what you would selling it for $50 to 10 people instead of selling it to one person. you're more likely to have 1000 people pay $50 than 50 pay $500.

BTW... we're talking about private users, not companies.

 

[xyyz]

OYE!!!!!!!!!

you people are missing the point!!!!! I'm not talking about businesses... i'm talking about your average joe home user.

 

[KevinH]

You can make money with Adobe and StudioMax. I can't speak much for any other programs but for proggies that allow u to make $, it's understandable why they cost so much. The professionals who pay for these titles do so with the full knowledge that it's an investment. In essence, they're not meant for every Tom, Dick and Joe to have at home.

BTW, xyyz, pm me about Studio Max.