In -general- I have no problem with $50 for a '.5 upgrade'. My problem? I have no idea what the difference is between .5 and .0.
IOW: There is typically a taxonomy of '.0' --- major release. .0x... bug fixes, no features. But what, exactly is a '.5'?
My feeling about '7.5' is this: I think basically it is 7.0 -finished-. I liken it to building a hotel that's not completely finished. You let guests move in, but at a reduced rate because the rooms are OK, but the swimming pool ain't done. Then, when you get 'er done, you start charging full rates.
My grouse with 7.0 is that it was incomplete. MixConsole one way, Project another. I think that either the 7.0 upgrade should've been discounted to reflect the design incompleteness. I'm not talking about 'bugs'... I mean that the lack of design consistency has been a real drag for me and 7.5 is basically 'we finished our thought process... and then tacked on some content as a thank you for putting up with the dust during construction.'
It's not the $50 at all. And it's not that it's not a nice hotel. It's the fact that the building wasn't complete.
And my issue is that this has become SOP and people should complain LOUDLY. Do not release big upgrades like 7.0 unless they are -done-... executed consistently across the entire suite.
Primary: i7960 16gb RAM, SSD, 3 1TB HD, Win7/64 Ult
Second: Q8400 16gb RAM 3 1TB HD, Win7/64
Laptop: HP Pavilion i5, 8GB RAM 7200RPM, Cubase 7.5, iCPro, WL7,
Vienna Ensemble5, VSL, NI Komplete, EWQLSO, etc. CME UF8, Roland TD-12 VDrums