Cost of Windows 3 version

Does anyone know what it will be? I keep hearing it is a free upgrade if I buy the current version, but that is already $45. Is the final 3.0 price expected to be substantially more?

I’d be surprised if they’re willing to commit to a specific amount for a version that hasn’t been released yet, but you can probably judge by the cost of the Mac v3, which is $49 now.

If you’re worried about the cost, but are sure you want to buy it, just buy a v1 license now.

As far as I know, there’s been no info regarding the final price. Even if they double the price, which I can’t imagine they would, it’d be worth every penny. The Mac version is only $49. In all honesty, providing lifetime use for the app, at those prices, makes me wonder how they stay in business. (Shhhh Don’t tell them I said that)

I’m curious what the upgrade price for current owners of 1.9 will look like…

Given the amount of grief a lot of the people have been giving L&L over in the beta forum, I wouldn’t blame them a bit for saying “Yeah, full freight for 3.0…”.

I have to be honest… I’m extremely impressed by the whole “No shippy new software until it works right” policy L&L are demonstrating, here. It’s too bad that is so rare in the industry–I still feel like I’m a beta tester on about 99% of the other software products I use, to include Windows 10.

People think they’re dealing with “issues” with the beta of Scrivener 3.0, allow me to invite you into my world in the construction industry, where half or more of the damn software we pay exhorbitant sums for doesn’t even work right, out of the box… 2020 Design, I’m looking at you… Six grand, and it takes a week of tech support to even attain a tenth of the advertised functionality they sold us. Flippin’ product still had a DOS code base back in 2009-ish, and required massive intervention via registry hacks to run on Windows 7. Amateur hour, I’m telling you… L&L is to be commended for how it’s doing this, and people just need to be patient.

Either that, or put up with buggy crapware that costs a mint, and loses their work. Given the alternative I experience on the daily, I’ll take L&L and the professional attitude towards it all that they have. “No wine before it’s time…”.

For those who purchased since Win Scrivener 3 was announced (November 2017), free.

For people who purchased before that, we haven’t announced a price yet, but the comparable discount for Mac Scrivener 3 was 45%.


I’ve been following the discussions here for quite a while and find it very strange how polarized they are. It’s almost like two sects arguing and neither even trying to understand the other side. On one side you have people complaining how it’s a rip-off and how after all this time there’s still no Scrivener 3 for Windows, and on the other side you have people telling them “shut up, this beta is better than most products you pay money for!”

I agree that it’s impressive how far the team is going to make sure that the finished product will be an actually finishd product, rather than a glorified beta version. Especially in this day and age you basically never see that. Also, being able to run the very capable beta version for free all this time is definitely a perk for those who don’t mind working with a beta version. In practice, I don’t think most people really even know the difference between finished or beta versions - maybe not even what the difference is SUPPOSED TO be but even less what the situation in software development actually is. You are right, a lot of “finished” products are garbage.

That said, the fact that other companies release unfinished products doesn’t really make the wait - and you have to admit it’s a VERY long wait - any better. The fact that there’s a public beta doesn’t mean that you basically have a finish product at your disposal already anyway. It means you have a public beta at your disposal, and that can be a very different thing for different people.

I myself used Scrivener fairly recently and have been using the beta for my “hobbyist” scribblings. For my professional writing I use the non-beta version even if it’s lacking a lot of the new features. Why? I simply don’t feel comfortable using a beta version for my professional writing. It’s probably partly a matter of principle and partly some form of paranoia, but I would never use a beta version of a software (at least a software that we’re not developing internally - in which case I might have insider information on its actual functionality) for my professional work. It kind of feels like accepting the responsibility if something somehow goes completely wrong. “Probably shouldn’t have used a beta version for it, eh?” I don’t know if this would be L&L’s view on the matter, but if I mess something up by using a beta version it really is my own stupidity, I feel.

Now, I’m also not on the same boat with the complainers cause I just bought the software. I haven’t followed the discussions throughout the whole development process, but judging from what I have read and what you can see in the past blog posts, it does seem like it’s entirely possible that someone bought the software like two years (if not even more) ago under the quite valid expectation that the new version will be released any time soon. I know the development team is not huge and they’re doing their best, but surely you can understand that if a person buys a product that’ll be released soon (I believe there were even concrete release dates communicated earlier?) and ends up waiting to actually get the product for literally years, it’s not exactly a positive customer experience. Yeah, they can use the beta but they didn’t buy a beta.

All this said, I’ll go back to the beginning and say again that I am as well quite impressed that L&L do want to actually finish the product before releasing it. It’s great. But I do also understand that there are people who are probably pretty angry about how things have gone and the “what’s your problem, just use the beta or go away” sometimes seen on the forums aren’t very helpful and probably also aren’t making them any less angry. Not saying it’s the users’ responsibility to make them happy either, just saying.

If you don’t have better backup procedures than that for your professional work, avoiding beta software will not save you.

But sure, if you feel it’s taking too long, use something else.

Backups is exactly the reason why I don’t want to use a software that’s in beta. Backup processes are always a compromise between safety and handiness. Using a beta makes things less safe (f. ex. what if you have a version or versions whose saves are not compatible with future versions due to a bug or something?) and less handy (automating backups is not a great idea because of the possible issues with the safety).

I am using something else, like I said. But it’s probably not an answer that someone who paid money for the product years ago would be entirely satisfied with. I don’t get why some people seem to find that so surprising.

When one pays money for software, one is purchasing the software at its given state — there is no guarantee of future updates, bug fixes, or free releases. You get more of an expectation of such things if it’s a subscription (which Scrivener is not) or if the developer says that you will get free bug fixes of a certain level (as L&L has), but note that doesn’t obligate the developer to PRODUCE those bug fixes — only give them to you if it DOES produce them. (Software publishers pull the plug all the time and they have no obligation to keep writing code for the EOL products unless they specifically contracted to.) As you say, I don’t get why some people seem to find that so surprising.

The beta of Scrivener 3 for Windows was released as an open beta in part so that those of us who used Scrivener on Mac and Windows could keep working on our documents on both platforms when we upgraded to Scrivener 3 for Mac. As a result, L&L has a high degree of motivation to help support their customers in being able to continue to successfully access projects and backups from earlier beta versions.

This is not how marketing or really even communication works. It’s simply not as black and white as you make it out to be, unless the developer doesn’t use the next version in their marketing in any way.

The moment they start making announcements like “if you buy this now, you’ll get the next one for free” things start becoming very blurred. Especially so if they go as far as announcing actual deadlines, release dates or even estimates for the next version. People don’t just buy the compiled string of code, they buy the idea of the product that’s sold to them and when you utilize the next version of the software in your marketing, you’re selling also the promise of the new version. There’s no way around this, you can’t say “buy one and get another one later!” and then go back saying “well, we actually meant buy one and you might get another one later.”

At this point I want to emphasize that I’m not suggesting that anyone’s lying or scamming or anything of the sorts. I’m merely pointing out where the (most likely unintentional) break in communication occurs. What happened is that L&L missed several deadlines they themselves announced. This is obviously a text-book example of what you should NOT do if you want to build trust (predictability, consistency and reliability being some of the key factors for building trust). I could go deeper into this and what could have been a better approach, but I guess it doesn’t matter anymore and probably no-one cares. The point is, that this got them into a situation where they don’t seem very trust-worthy, and that it’s quite a predictable outcome that you have people voicing this as a result.

EDIT: I should probably point out that I am well aware that most software developers don’t care much about being trustworthy. Trustworthiness is not a requirement for doing successful business. Bu you also shouldn’t then be surprised that people find you untrustworthy.

You all might want to think about putting the time and the words you’re wasting in a L&L forum into more productive writing. You know, like the novel you’re all so worried about that you must take the time for excessively wordy comment here.

Or that short story you’re all so intent on writing.

Or the book series you’re working on, and on, and on and on . . .

Or the screenplay.

Go write something productive with the software you use to write something productive that might earn you some money. Or not.

At a thousand words an hour - if any of you can actually type - you’ll be finished on the project you’re working on and be onto the next in mere weeks. You’ll be sending your work off to the editor and will be able to begin your next project while you wait for said sleepy editor to do his job.

Hey! Participating in this forum has allowed me to maintain the dream that I have talent without having to actually complete a book for 11 years, and I won’t have you coming in here and jeopardising that with your hard truths!

Only kidding. I’ve actually written 10.5 books as a direct result of my time on this forum.

(Also, I have never been under the illusion of talent.)

I too had dreams of some measure of talent. I gave up on that a long time ago and moved on to volume production, which, for the past 25 years, has been a godsend. If it ain’t out there, they can’t buy it.

That’s a two-way street, neighbor.

Well, you gotta pick the right horse for your hamburger.

That makes sense for something where the development is in its infancy, and the format is locked, and the focus of development is on basic features.

Since you can look at the beta forum here, you know development is not in its infancy, and focus on development is on peripheral features like compile, and the format is not changing.

And in addition, the Scrivener project format is completely open, and in the very worst case, you can read the files with a text editor.

So no, that is not a reason not to use this software that’s in beta.

I don’t know… I’m pretty happy for people to use any reason they want for deciding not to take part in a beta trial. Not every pickle works in every sandwich.

This is exactly what I meant in my original message. It’s like a sect defending their believes in here. You do not even try to understand seeing the other point of view, you’re just evaluating the unbeliever thoughts.

How paranoid I choose to be with a version that’s not in its infancy but has been stuck in beta for years is up to me. Same with how much time and effort I want to put into figuring out the percentage of a chance that a new version might mess something up. I’m not a developer but I’ve worked in the gaming industry with early versions, so I think it’s very unlikely that an update could mess anything up to the level where I personally would not be able to recover from it. But I don’t think it’s literally impossible and I don’t think want to start evaluating how much time I might or might not have to put into this if it happens. So I choose to not jump fully into the beta version yet, even though you’ve just conclusively informed me that I feel incorrect about this.

Funnily enough I do think I’m technologically even a lot more capable than an average Scrivener user would be, so I could argue that for someone who just wants a writing software the jump could be even scarier (for some it would be less scary, because they don’t even know what kinds of things could go wrong).

Anyway, I’ll have to backtrack to my original comment where I thought I kinda understand both parties in this. Based on the responses it is becoming more and more clear to me that I don’t. This defensive attitude reaches levels that are just mind-boggling to me. While I originally thought some of the regulars here just didn’t really understand why people wouldn’t use the beta, it now seems more like they don’t even try to understand that people feel differently about things. The whole point seems to be to prove how the people who don’t want to jump into using the beta are simply wrong, and that’s something I can honestly say I don’t understand. Guess it’s a form of fandom or something? I don’t know, and I’ll take my leave anyway.

By “point of view” you mean “emotional response”, and you are incorrect. My comment was intended to directly address that emotional response.

That I do not agree with your response does not mean I have not understood it.

Of course it is. And how silly I consider that paranoia, after examining where it’s coming from, is up to me.

That appears to be because you do not try.

You unironically write this as a response to a comment which directly addresses the cause of the feeling you expressed having. I can’t even.

I appreciate what kootes posted, and it’s a nice corrective to the polarized discussion. Probably there are a lot of us out there who are neither content/complacent nor outraged/disloyal.

Anyway, the post was a lot more useful than being informed about what one always gets when buying software – it’s not a novel experience for most of us, though personally, I found the terms of this license, and its subsequent execution, unusual if well-intentioned. Or being told that time would be better spent writing – many thanks for that observation. This works equally well for replying, it turns out, but perhaps my perspective will change after a few hundred posts.