Older versions. Was "New Pricing".

[Ken Corey]

On 21/08/2012 14:09, Richmond wrote:
>> Why version 4.0 specifically?  Why not version 3.0, or 2.0, or 5.0?
>
> I used the word 'say'.
>
> I would like it if Runrev offered all previous whole-number versions
> from 2.0 onwards with a rider
> that NO SUPPORT is offered

Offered or not people who pay expect (with some justification) to be 
supported.

There's the unwritten implication that version 2.0 is just as good as it 
ever was.

That's true if running on Windows XP SP1 or OSX 10.1, but as these 
operating systems have changed I'd expect things to break.  Therefore, 
releasing old solid number versions would start to consume resources again.

Remember GOG.com?  "Good Old Games"?  They didn't just let you download 
the bits of old games, they rereleased them, suggesting at a minimum 
recompiling, but likely testing and the whole lot again.

> It would bring RunRev some modest revenue from people who have neither
> the money to invest in the latest version, nor the requirements to have it.

I disagree.  While it might bring in money, you'd have to work to 
convince me that there'd be enough revenue to pay for itself, while also 
reducing the numbers of people that pay for the new versions of the 
software.

But, I'm humble enough to admit I can be (and am often) wrong.

Why not propose to runrev that you'll finance the release of older 
versions of software?  If it's a money spinner, you'll do okay out of 
it, and runrev won't have the support issues for old versions of the 
software?

-Ken