I think your pricing plan is wrong. Don't price based on a subscription model. Instead, sell your software outright, perhaps include more licenses (e.g. for all students and postdocs under the PI's direct supervision), and charge closer to $3-5K for it.
Here is why. First I recommend this entertaining article by Joel Spolsky on how to price software:
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/12/15/camels-and-rubber-...
The idea is the same, and the details are totally different. In academia, funding tends to be feast or famine.
I would never buy software that cost $480 per year. I'd be too scared that my funding source would dry up. Granting agencies and deans are way too capricious. If I got used to it and came to rely on it, I might end up needing to pay out of pocket. Which I'd probably do for $100, but not for $480.
Conversely, when funding does come, it tends to come in larger chunks. For example, my dean has a "small equipment purchase support" program, where I can apply for funding to buy equipment. Never mind the details (I'm not sure if software is covered, and apparently there is a minimum of $5,000, but let's pretend otherwise). If I were going to apply for $500, then I may as well apply for $5,000 instead. It's same amount of work, my chances are roughly as good. Looks the same to me, puts 10x as much food on your table.
An even better source of money is expiring grants. Often, if you haven't spent a source of grant money by a certain date, it goes away. So researchers will say to themselves "Shit. I have $7,000 I need to spend within the next three weeks. Is there anything I can justify spending it on?" If you're in the right room at the right time, then you will get $X, where X is the price of your software, as long as it is less than however much money they have left. At least in my field, somewhere in the low to mid four figures would probably maximize your expected value.
Good luck!