BFD3 DRM/authorization process is not reliable at all. I have more hours trying to get BFD3 to work than playing/using BFD3.
So…
I would like to see a DRM/authorization process for BFD4 that is simple to use and does not penalize users that paid good money for it (Software gets cracked, but the majority of users have paid for the product).
A revamped simple GUI - I dislike the photo realistic drum GUI in other programs (AD2, EZD3, SD3 etc) The GUI is what attracted me to BFD3.
A upfront easy way to see what pack/kit is loaded. Combine the BDF2 & BFD3 presets and kits and release them with BFD4.
Apple silicon support
A good product implements everything well. I hope BFD4 gets BFD back on track. I’ll be waiting.
InMusic don’t respond to anything, I think you’ve been around long enough to know that. All I want is my money back and I’ll happily go away. As it is I’ll keep banging on about this in every forum I can.
They haven’t even responded to my data access request, which is illegal btw, but I think we know that inMusic think they’re above the law.
I guess they’re worried if two people get a refund then the floodgates will open.
Inmusic doesnt owe anyone any refunds. Its typical that digital goods are not refundable, but most companies are reasonable. If the purchase was made within 30 days, then I guess someone has a right to a refund, but if its been months or years, I dont think so. Even if the software is busted up bad. Look, I bought BFD3 back in the day from Fxpansion. Who the hell am I going to ask to refund me, and how? I dont have the original payment method from years ago. Lets be reasonable here. Everyone who wants a refund because the software doesnt work, will have to wait just like everyone else. It seems as though they are working on it, and doing some internal beta testing.
the issue is the relaunch which rendered all prior investment in BFD/expansions useless as the result of a poorly implemented drm and the utter lack of transparency wrt a fundamental expectation by existing users based on the original license agreement. despite the neglect under Roli, what we had still worked and we were able to carry on with existing projects.
ya, you could lawyer up and claim there might have been some mention of a significant change buried in the bowels of an installer, but you can bet most of us assumed, in good faith, that this was an update like all previous experiences with BFD. I sure don’t recall anything of the sort, and perhaps that’s what InMusic was counting on. Or just incredibly poor execution which seems to be more likely.
it’s sorta like being told you’re getting 10 liters for free at the filling station only it turned out to be sugar in the tank. it’s not the end of the world, but it hit hardest for those with the greatest appreciation for it’s value. just saying…
Is there going to be a BFD4? Obviously an easier interface and more detailed manual. I don’t know if this is possible now; but I’d like to see the ability to create an output template to match my DAW so I don’t have to set it up for each kit. Thanks for the help. - George
I have bought sd3, the extended sound is beyond my expectation, their maintenance of the product is much better than inmusic, don’t worry about the version, I will never expect lazy developers again, even if you are in front of outsiders How hard you work, but the result is that you have let most consumers down, $280 is equivalent to buying a lesson, goodbye and no longer follow this forum.
Sorry vertibration, you’re completely wrong on this. InMusic have furtively changed the licensing system to a subscription-style service. Not only was this change done without notification, we never agreed to any new Ts & Cs allowing this, so it is actually illegal under UK and EU law. The website to this day does not notify potential buyers of the 90-day reauthorisation requirement. That’s how honest and transparent inMusic are.
So yes, those who do not want to sign up to this system are owed a refund. It’s nothing to do with broken software, it’s the DRM/authorisation system, which was introduced by inMusic, no-one else, so it is easy to trace back as this is nothing to do with fxpansion or ROLI.
Again missing the point. This DRM has been introduced in the last year by inMusic. The problem is with the DRM, therefore the problem is inMusic’s and is of their making - nothing to do with how old the software is, the DRM is new.
I know you love to defend inMusic, but the way they have behaved is indefensible.
They have illegally introduced a data-collecting DRM, they have illegally signed us up for a 90-day subscription-style service and the have illegally withheld my request to see that data.
All of this is directly against the UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Data Protection Act 2018, but please go ahead and try and defend their position.
What data are they, ‘illegally’ collecting and how have you verified this?
Wouldn’t a 90 day subscription style service require users to pay money every 90 days?
How does that work then?
I don’t think I’ve missed the point but you haven’t answered my question so I’ll ask again, can you name any other piece of software (or hardware ) that gives you a full refund after 10 years of use?
Or even 6 months of use, during which time a user might have recorded a few albums.
I’m just presenting another side of the coin, I’m not an expert on DRM but the rights and wrongs and legalities of it have been extremely complex with a lot of grey areas.
@Steve63 I think the argument here with the DRM, is that it is technically a breach of contract and thus a refund may be warranted. I take it that inMusic’s initial user agreement for migrating BFD3 users from FXpansion, made no mention on any authorization checks that would occur in a given period? I myself can’t say for certain if this is the case or not, as I haven’t actually gone over the agreement.
How would the DRM work without collecting data? I never agreed to inMusic collecting my data every 90-days, so that is illegal. What actual data that is I do not know as they have also not responded to my request for data access which is also illegal. Not sure how many times I have to repeat this. Read some GDPR law.
It was someone from inMusic, maybe even Drew, that described it as subsciption-style, not me. That’s where I got the phrase from. Maybe ask inMusic how that works, not me. I didn’t design this shitty system. Also it’s not subscription (where you would pay every 90 days), but subscription-style, i.e. you’ve paid the fee upfront but still have to sign in every 90 days to use your software, like a subscription.
Honestly you don’t get it. If the DRM had remained the same then no I wouldn’t expect anything as BFD is old, I’ve had it since BFD1. The DRM changed at some point when inMusic took over. From that point it became a different product, with different requirements that no-one knowingly signed up for.
You don’t think there’s been some dishonesty on their part for not even announcing the change? Or still not putting it up on their website for potential new customers to see? That it took users investigation to find this change? I’m sure you’ll put your positive spin on that somehow, I’m not interested.
I understand the argument pretty well and I’ve heard it on this forum enough times and stated my views on it enough times, I get it and it kind of makes sense, I’m just not sure of the legality of it.
DRM law is so different to other consumer laws and rights.
Like a lot of people I rarely read the T&C’s so the answer might be buried somewhere in there.
To be honest I didn’t think you had, I definitely read it from an inMusic rep though, possibly not even on this forum, maybe email, Twitter, Facebook, who knows these days?
Regardless, there was never a notification of the introduction of the 30-day rule as it was originally (don’t forget that juicy nugget), which indicates how underhanded inMusic are in dealing with their customers. I love how all those on the positive-spin side keep ignoring this fact.
