Wes, I agree with you in many respects.
But ultimately its the same samples wrapped in new software which I would have been more than happy to pay a reasonable crossgrade fee to get.

But $5640 (my vip price) is not reasonable imho.

I think an interesting poll/question would be :

How many of us would have spent the money they spent on VSL products in the past had they known in advance about the current turn of events regarding the VSL VIP policy?

You don't have to dig very deep to figure out the answer...

Before, VSL were getting our money the nice way:
Now they decided they wanna try to get our money the ugly way.. And it seems they're going to stick to the ugliness..

Okay..

Clearly this doesn't wanna make me buy the stuff.
I would even say it makes me want to NOT BUY the stuff.
And the funny thing is that generally I'm a pretty tolerant chap. Easy going.

The fact that this new policy is making ME want to NOT BUY, tells me alot of people probably feel the same..

It isn't even a question of 'having the money' to buy the stuff.
It's just I feel it's an ugly way to try and get my money, so for the moment I really don't want to give it away..

from my perspective, yes the VI is a new product that wraps existing content plus quite a bit more. the problem is there aren't other options and vsl is attempting to force those who anticipated good faith access to upgrades into a completely different product if they want them. it isn't even so much a monetary issue as presenting the studio owner with the proposition of doing it the new VSL way or taking a hike.

the problem is this new thing, however legitimately innovative and attractive to some, isn’t even feasible to consider for others who face the proposition of rebuilding their studios around untried technology that limits access to the samples and penalizes its users with invasive copy protection from a company that now has an easily-discerned history of saying one thing and doing another (albeit conscionably imo). It makes their promises highly conditional and inconvenient to keep for too many, all at once, without warning, and departing from many tenants they have built their business upon. Ironically, I still like vsl and hope they will try to accommodate the users they appear to be in the process of disenfranchising. I’m not even angry, but unimpassioned analysis makes it clear that if a future point arrives where history shows they were unwilling to fix the present problems for all the users they have made promises to, the result will be an unconscionable legacy of deceptive trade practice.

So now that I’ve stepped into somewhat legal analysis, let me say that before “retiring” to devote my energy to music, I was a general partner of a law firm. So I speak with a degree of experience in saying THE basic tenant of international contract law is something called the Doctrine of Reliance. Generally that means that contracts are formed by one party relying on the fulfillment of promises by the other. The interesting thing is that there doesn’t have to be any underlying intent for a breech or even fraud to occur. Translating that to VSL, it means they are legally obligated to fulfill their - specific - promises where it can be shown that others relied on them, i.e., gave them money. So for me the question of whether VSL is being fair or unfair remains to be seen. And while there is no law that says I have to use their new technology, there is certainly a vast body of law that says they have to keep their commitments however inconvenient or costly and regardless of intent.