I like the way U-He shares their betas, publicly. Don't understand why Vital's beta is for customers and VIP's only (like famous live streamers,) as if no valuable feedback would be gained from a public beta.

I think this is a job for the sister site, not that anybody asked my opinion.

 

They create an artificial exclusivity.
The fact that you are annoyed shows that they achieve what they want:
Some will upgrade to Pro just to be able to participate in the beta and to belong to the VIPs.

But the idea with the sister is good. However, you should better make a request, otherwise this thread is gone quite fast.

 

When it was released I paid 25$ for Vital - Plus, to support the developer, it doesn´t give you get early access to 1.5.
For now it's only available to Pro users and subscribers.
Apart for some bugs on version 1.0.8, I don't mind waiting.

 

crap, i wasn't aware that i asked that question about the beta being not public. but i believe you. sometimes it feels like nobody listens but it's good to know that they do. I am definitely not trying to conflate the function of this website with the other one, which I'm not even a member at. I didn't even search for it there so I am agnostic about those kind of actions. I've never made a request for any software ever as a matter of fact. I limit all my software related activity to asking for support from software developers websites and occassionally submitting bug reports to developers. But in this case I'm legitimately curious about why some developers keep beta releases under wraps, because I wanted some reasons that come to mind from people who are not me. But I can see how the last sentence in my topic could be considered a dry hump, or even maybe a hand job in terms of audio sexual activity.

 

U-he is a paid software. Vital is freeware with nice subscription model. It's easy. You are supporting Matt, Matt gives you early access to some stuff.

I have VST3 version of Serum and Serum Fx. Wanna ask where did i get it and why you don't have access for it?

 

I wouldn't have much trouble getting ahold of it. What I want is the logic behind a closed beta. I fail to see how it is helpful to a project that will inevitably have perhaps dozens of bug reports once the release is official.

 

From his posts on various sites, I got the impression that about a month after releasing Vital, Matt really, really regretted making it freeware. So I imagine that the closed beta is in fact to incentivize people to subscribe to the $5/mo option for the beta and then forget they're paying him when 1.5 is released.

edit: in fact, I note the following two items have recently been added ONLY to the subscription tier:

• First access to new features
• First access to new plugins

Implying that future betas will be locked out even from the 'pro' tier

 

Last edited: Jul 6, 2022

sorry I even bought the non pro version...

 

I like how people are blindly just subscribing, just because they're used to subscribing to things nowadays. Can't even blame the developer. If people are that ignorant, you might as well use that ignorance to your advantage. I sure miss the times where you could buy a product once and get updates for it, indefinitely. Personally, I have never paid for any sort of subscription and never will because I HATE the concept. I like paying for software ONCE and then use it forever, independently and WITHOUT an internet connection.

 

Yesss. I've bought ZBrush 3 in June 2007 and got every update for free ever since (>20 updates).

Never say never.
Let's say you need an expensive software title for only one project. An annual subscription can make much more sense.

 

Last edited: Jul 7, 2022

I like how people start to throw filth onto something they are misinformed. You are paying 5$ for monthly presets and infinite text to table. All your money accumulating in your account and you are free to spend them for purchasing "pro" version and/or preset packs. Everyone was happy about "rent to own". So this is it. Exact the same. What is the problem?

 

I think Vital is really great. The developer is clearly a genius, or at least very competent. Vital could end up being the greatest thing he'll ever do, but I doubt it. One way to look at life is you make one good thing and live off the royalty of it if you're lucky and not have to do anything ever again except buy and sell real estate or hide out and do drugs. But I don't think the developer is that kind of person.

Also if he regretted making it freeware, then it is weird that he made it open source on top of that. I think he's experimenting with ideas in general. Since Vital is so obviously influenced by other big name synths, it was probably an easier path than to borderline plagiarize and then claim such methods and concepts as his own. And the thing about reality is that it could have been done another way but it wasn't.

Use it or don't use it. Also as far as supporting the dev, people who have the money to spare do, and there's a lot of broke ass producers in the world, and between them and the mere hobbyists, they make up a fair share of the user base of just about all the software that's been tried. Vital made a huge dent in the business of software synths, nobody can deny that, and the future now belongs to people like Tytel. He's on a first name basis with the giants in the business. I think he's going to be ok.

 

Vital V1.5.1 is available on the sister site.

 

Loads of issiues with both v1.08 and v1.5.1 - I went back to 1.07!

 

The 'open source' isn't entirely correct either, while he did open source it, everything in the repo is 17 months old, and stuck on v1.0.4 or something, so it's essentially a worthless gesture, not even up to date with the latest released version, never mind the betas.

The act of open sourcing it, appeared to come at the same rough time as his regrets started, and he appeared to be considering leaving it for others to develop further, rather than fixing the early bugs himself.

All part of that weird 'I wish I hadn't released it' vibe that he gave off in the early versions

 

True ... Neither freeware nor open source is completly the case here.
But as said before, the main contributer seems to be experimenting if and how to monetize on the product.

If I could give him some advice: Take enough money from the beginning so that the desire to program doesn't fade away.
Money is also a kind of compensation for pain when the desire to work is not so great anymore.
I have seen too many good products fail because the owner didn't know what he wanted.

 

Last edited: Jul 8, 2022

hindsight is 20/20

anyone should have been able to see to buy a few shares of microsoft in 1980, but not even warren buffet did. if we could all see the future or predict future performance based on past results, we'd be living in a different reality. we learn by trying stuff, and tech is changing so fast who knows if we will still use computers in 10 years there could be a totally new paradigm.