Now, when that happens for my video game (new console, for example), I can go out and buy the newest version of the game for X$. No one knows, but it's bound to happen at some point. But, alas, someday something will happen that will make YNAB 4 not viable anymore: a change in Dropbox, a change in Windows, perhaps a change in Android that will make the phone app unusable. As a matter of fact, I do use it, and I love it. Now, most people answer: 'But you can still use YNAB 4!' and they are right. With subscription based, if what they implemented doesn't suit me, I still have to pay, otherwise I lose my game/software.

Here's the thing: when it doesn't, I still get to play MLB15 while people who decided that the new game mode in MLB16 (or whatever else they added) is worth it, get to play the game that they want. Now, when MLB16 comes out, I can look at the new set of features, game modes, and roster updates and decide: do these bring me the value that I am being charged for? Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. When I buy MLB15, I know what I get: a certain roster, a specific set of game modes, a certain control scheme for defense and batting along with matching in-game mechanics, etc. The best example I can give might sound weird, but it's sports video games. However, subscription based requires me to take a risk: that the continuous support I pay for will actually be for features I care about. When I plop down 60$ on a software, I know what I'm getting, and unless it's broken in a major way (crashes and other critical bugs that prevent functionality from actually being used), I don't expect updates or continued work.

I guess for me it boils down to limiting risk.

Using money manager ex reports