While I love the idea for simple software services, it doesn't work to support the actual lifetime of the software, though it can work to an extent. Adobe would be a good example of offering a one-time payment. You get a lifetime for that version of the software. However, you'd have to upgrade/pay another fee to upgrade to the next version, perhaps for a reduced price, and this is likely to be many versions. The issue with this type of offering, is that Adobe would have to support those older versions -- for how long?

I had done some research on this topic... writing saas and thinking, "Wow, wouldn't it be a great cash grab to get that $1,000 for a lifetime for my product upfront? It saves money in my users' pockets and it gives me a large immediate sum." I mean, getting 100 people to sign up for a lifetime is $100,000 minus taxes upfront and sounds amazing. In fact, it would probably support the server hosting costs for quite some time. Until it runs out.

I even thought about offering a limited amount. It's especially a bonus for those who you consider investors of your platform. In other words, you are giving me so much money upfront to support this service. In exchange, I am giving you the rights to own whatever I do in the future, free of charge. However, most people "seeing" actual money hit their account every month is more motivation than that one-time payment.

So I had seen how StackCommerce handles this for their creators: you pay once for a limited supply of something. For example, an SEO platform that does scans of your website and suggests recommendations, you might pay $30 once and get 10 of those per month for a lifetime. Then what these companies would do is offer an upgrade or a trial period to try a subscription plan.

And this model can work. Again, the purpose of the one-time is really designed to at least get a user in and trying the service, feeling that they can "own" it. It makes the user feel good because they have something for a lifetime. It makes the creator feel good that someone actually paid for a "lifetime". However, this may be short-lived for several reasons.

You are taking a huge gamble.. for example, I might only need less than those 10 queries per month on my website, so they made their $30 and that's it. I use it but despite their "upgrade me" attempt, I don't care to upgrade. The other major issue is that if you get an interested buyer for your software, like someone who actually wants to own it, and sell it to others, then you now have to disclose that you have one-time paying lifetime users, which is now cutting into their costs and may depreciate your software for the buyer because they still have to support those customers. Of course, they can always say, "new ownership, we'll grandfather you in at this price... pay another... " or whatever, but that may not always work, and piss your customers off, so it has its complications.

The issue with the "pay once" model is that over time, it prevents the creator from having any real means to continue supporting the software and may even kill the motivation. We all have to work. Software is a part of life. Pay me to continue supporting my product, so I can keep providing it to you. So rather than offering a lifetime of the product, I offer a lifetime of reduced early bird subscriptions. I came to the conclusion that I'd rather give $200 off my service yearly than give it away for a lifetime. If I ever sold my software, there is still an attractive recurring. Once that person unsubscribes from the service and resubscribes, they lose their early bird, so the enticement to keep it at that price is to remain subscribed.

It's basically like letting someone live in your house because they paid you a bit more for rent upfront. It might seem great the first few months, but after a few months, maybe a year, maybe more, you'll likely come to regret this mistake.