I understand why vendors are all moving to rental once they reach a critical market share. The problem for customers is that if you stop paying (or if for any reason ChaosGroup decides to stop offering the software, or to massively raise rents), you don't just lose access to a service, you lose access to your entire library of assets.
One way to make the deal a little less unappealing would be for rental customers to accrue rights to a permanent license over time, à la Substance3D. If that's not lucrative enough, you could even offer the option to convert a rental into a permanent license in exchange for a lump payment that would be smaller than the price of a full new license. All this would offer an exit and an insurance policy. The way the model is designed now, the risk of renting is too high and it will rise over time as you build your asset library.
The sad truth is that software isn't a service, even if you call it that.
One way to make the deal a little less unappealing would be for rental customers to accrue rights to a permanent license over time, à la Substance3D. If that's not lucrative enough, you could even offer the option to convert a rental into a permanent license in exchange for a lump payment that would be smaller than the price of a full new license. All this would offer an exit and an insurance policy. The way the model is designed now, the risk of renting is too high and it will rise over time as you build your asset library.
The sad truth is that software isn't a service, even if you call it that.
Comment