So, it’s not wrong to expect that a new version of a product come out close to the estimated release date. I am a writer, and I’ve been using this software for about 3 years now, trying to work through the various bugs we’ve all encountered over the years.
The biggest pitfall, for me, is that the years have brought a series of upgrades to screen DPIs, Currently, I’m using a Surface Book 2 15", which has a resolution that sits just under 4k. The text on version 1.9 is grainy, at best. In fact, I had the screen professionally calibrated in hopes it might help, and it hardly helped at all. The grain wasn’t an issue at first, but after a few weeks, I started getting headaches. I realized it only happened when I started using Scrivener. I gave them the benefit of the doubt, knowing how hard it is to keep up with ever-increasing screen resolutions and processor capabilities. I wasn’t mad at all. That is, of course, until I repurchased the software earlier this year. I only did so because I knew I was applying to MFA programs this year, and they were advertising the fact that you could upgrade to 3.x as long as your purchase fell within a certain time. So, I figured the software would update sometime in the fall, just in time for my applications, and I wouldn’t have to worry. Imagine how excited I was when they announced an August release date. That meant there’d be no headaches in the final stretch of application season. The date came and went, they said there’d be something new in weeks “definitely not months”, but here we are in November. I finally went ahead and upgraded to the beta, only to realize that the flagship feature for me (the fullscreen mode) is inverted by default and that one of the bugs in the beta is that even replacing the background doesn’t always stick.
This all is kinds of unacceptable. It would be made a little better if we’d received some substantive feedback regarding the new release date, but we haven’t. A simple blog post would do the trick, but now we’re two whole months out and I feel a little duped. Why would they advertise a possible upgrade if the upgrade wasn’t actually on the horizon? This beta program isn’t new, so it should have been obvious that there were some substantial bugs to be worked out in the first place, but to leave us mostly in the dark about how close we are after the months they claimed we wouldn’t have to wait, it feels shady. It’s not wrong to express that. It’s not wrong to say that I want to be able to expect communication for that “1-time fee”. Regarding that fee as an excuse for this behavior, that’s not actually true. I have now paid for this product twice, only to have been left with the same product I had before the second payment.
They actually have given a substantive update on further release timelines: they will no longer be giving any estimated delivery dates. They will release when they feel the beta is ready for release.
Your original purchase already qualifies you for the upgrade discount, allowing you to purchase Scrivener 3 (when ready) for less than you paid for the second license. Since we have always been very clear that it would, I’m not sure how your spending decision is our fault.
Well, to be fair, for those of us who frequently read and hang out in the forums, this ain’t news at all. Obviously not.
But I think that the 45% discount rule could be advertised more clearly - beyond in blog posts. I haven’t seen such a clause being quoted on the web site, and for instance below the advertised purchase alternatives.
Imho, it would be great to actually see that policy being quoted more liberally, also for those who haven’t hung around in here for ages, so to speak. Just a thought.
Naturally, such a mention should have a “terms can be changed at our discretion” sort of thing added to it. But still. I didn’t know about such a clause when I initially bought Scrivener 1 for Windows. And when I first heard of it, I had quite a hard time finding any official statements of that policy for a while. Now, I’ve seen it in posts and stuff, and I know it’s there. But it is very hard to find. At least in clear text. Where it is needed the most.
I expect more people will have made that same mistake of buying the software twice because of the lack of such information being clearly visible on the L&L home page. So what I’m saying is that, basically, that might be helped by looking it over and adding a note in a few more visible spaces.
So you just insult the people who you deem are being insulting, even in cases when they are not (that would be lunk, primarily, on that front). How very mature of you.
“I’m sorry that you felt you had to buy a license twice, as your previous purchase made you eligible for an upgrade discount when Scrivener 3 is released. We’lll do something to make that more obvious so others don’t face the same issue. Shoot me a message and we’ll refund that second license purchase.”
Folks, once again, if it is going to be difficult to avoid the endless cyclical sniping and bickering, then please make an effort to talk about the topic rather than each other. If you find your response is more along the latter, then simply press the back button in your browser and go fix a cup of tea, instead of posting. I promise you the rest of the world will not miss a snarky post you never made, but the ones you do make end up blighting the thread for all time.
So it seems to me, tea is a very simple and productive solution that benefits everyone.
While I appreciate the hard work of the scrivener team, I would like to just say this.
I do love this product. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t continue to use it religiously. For me however, the frustration with the beta is not because I find myself needed to update it on PC whenever I want to use it (I’m mostly a mobile user) but because it is the only version which will work on my pc right now.
My PC has a dual drive system with the OS on one drive and most of the user programs on the second drive. The scrivener I paid for ceased to work many iterations of windows ago, and despite extensive technical help, promptly broke again beyond any solutions I could find. I would be more than happy to go back to the previous version if it would even open at this point. But it doesn’t, so here I frequent.
As a programmer though I know this is a hard process. Scrivener is massive. I get it, I really do. It’s huge, and resource intensive to create and to use. Squishing one bug sends 100 more scuttling out from under the carpet. Which is why I always raise an eyebrow at a hard release date.
My request would be one beta that doesn’t expire. Let me decide when to switch to the new beta.
Thank you again for all your hard work. I hope you’ll consider my request.
Sorry to hear you couldn’t get that working, for whatever reason. I don’t think it is with a dual drive setup in general—I do the same myself, C: is for system and E: is for everything else. I have both the beta and version 1 installed to E: and running without error. But who’s to say what else is going on, I’m not much of a Windows expert, so I wouldn’t even be able to speculate.
Have you encountered any other beta programs that offer a different solution than expiration dates? For myself, I’ve only ever seen expiration dates used, to ensure that ancient copies aren’t in the wild, and of course to ensure that once it goes on sale you don’t have a free version (buggier though it may be) that anyone in the world can download instead.
What we do do differently, I’ve noticed, is give people a head’s up on when to check for a new download. Most of the betas I’ve participated in recently do not even hint at the fact that they will expire—they simply do. One day you launch it, it doesn’t work, and gives you a warning box with a link to go online and get a replacement, instead.
Perhaps it is another example where transparency is not the best course of action. :mrgreen:
I suspect its the setup because the main complaint from my version is that it’s not executing (on the D drive) in it’s supposed installed directory (C drive). It had never been installed on the C drive, and nothing had been moved there. This also broke the uninstaller. I had to manually remove everything I could find from the drives and the registry. After about two months of back and forth with a very patient and helpful tech support member, I was able to get it to run for a single session. After that, it would not open again.
No. I have never participated in a beta before because I have never had the need or interest. I understand not wanting there to be ancient or free copies floating around, but in this instance I don’t use the beta to test it. I use it because it is the only version that works for me. I was also under the impression that the beta wouldn’t work without the code I paid for. Is this not the case?
If it were up to me I would not be participating in the beta at all. I was perfectly content with the old version that I had paid for and I have faith that you will release good software when it’s ready. But in the interest of utilizing the product, I am forced to use the beta.
I was given a little iPad mini 5 as a present. And in spite of all my frustrations, complaints, frustrations, and angry posts because version 3 for Windows has not been released yet what’s the first app that I bought?
I love what’s L&L has done with Scrivener for the iPad.
Lunk, Astaff, I’m sorry if I was not clear—but my post was aimed at everyone who is writing posts that attack, however mildly or however much in jest, other posters. If it’s about the person and not the topic, press the Back button.
Understood, and it is unfortunate that playing by beta rules seems to be the only way you can get the software running on your system. But yeah, that’s why it expires, because anyone and everyone can download it an contribute. We’ve essentially been giving people a two year demo. That probably is the other alternative to expiration dates: locking it down to paid users only, but that’s problematic for its own reasons since it means opening sales for it and essentially selling a beta. Some companies do it, there is even an industry around it (particularly in gaming), but it’s always rubbed me the wrong way.
Just so you know - I have the latest 1.9 version installed on a Windows 10 desktop where I have a C:, D: and E: - I have Scrivener insalled on my D: (and always have) and I have all my project files saved to E: (this is a drive I regularly back up). The 1.9.8 version I started with was done with the same setup and no problem too.
I’ve uninstalled it and reinstalled it (Because it crashes on me since I updated to the latest last 2 versions), but it does load up all my projects just fine again and again without issue. Installs and uninstalls just fine a well.
So, I don’t know why you are having the issue you are having, but it’s not unversal.
Okay, see, this is obviously a mistake on my part. Your mistake, however, is not addressing the rest of my post. You picked out one thing, decided to be snarky, instead of choosing to perform any kind of customer service. I merely was pointing out that complaint from customers is not a bad thing, especially when a major release is as tardy as yours is. Please, sweetheart, do not think that you are somehow in the right here. You all have been talking about a release for a long time, while continuously pushing back a deadline that you were able to meet for other platforms. The problem is that you all don’t have the resources to pull off what you claimed you could, and now you’re probably sleep deprived and over-caffeinated, snipping at customers, not moderating your forums, and making general asses of yourselves. So, either address the concerns of myself and others in this forum or get back to work making a product that should have been done months ago. Whatever you choose, put a smile on it, because the way you responded is unacceptable. Have a good evening. Don’t respond to this message because I’m not checking the cesspool again.
Calling a professional member of the L&L team ‘sweetheart’ is condescending and sexist to begin with and your post descends into your own cesspool from there.
Not sure about this thing with Windows and v1x of Scrivener refusing to start up. I too am running both v1x and the beta on several computers, from several generations and different manufacturers of CPU’s, GPU’s and so on. If it was a general Windows problem, I think I would have run into it by now. I just haven’t. So there must be something else going on.
From my knowledge of Windows and from having worked IT Support for some years (a few years back, nowadays, though), my mind sort of wanders towards something being corrupted in registry or addresses on master boot record. Something like that. And what might actually solve it would be to refresh (sadly, these days, usually via a clean install to be sure) of Windows to make sure those issues are ironed out. Which they would probably be.
It’s not a fun thing to have to reinstall Windows, and then reinstalling apps and all of that. But to honest here… any Windows install that is older than one year will be increasingly slowed down and prone to those kinds of problems. The Windows install will simply deteriorate over time, and will end up giving you grief of many different kinds (including things like these) regardless. So that is the Windows tech person tip, I guess. Though I have no idea (haven’t looked into it and am not at all affiliated with L&L obviously) how exactly Scrivener plays with Windows, its registry and such in more detail.
A clean Windows reinstall might (should) solve the problem with Scrivener not booting, but as too often, without knowing more about the problem, I cannot give a solid promise, though.
Regarding the request for a “none-ending” beta build. I understand perfectly why there is an expiration date tagged onto each build. And that is just simply fair, though I see Catty’s problem here as well. Most, if not all, software will have expiry added to each beta, and most apps just simply either won’t start unless you update or buy the release product eventually, or there will be a link or something to be able to upgrade to the latest version.
What L&L could actually do, though, without losing control of the need to add an expiration date, would be to add a second “tier” or “fork” to the beta system. Something like:
Beta Avenue 1: Current beta update rate, every 15-30 days or so.
Beta Avenue 2: Update rate slowed down, so that updates can be done every 30-45 days, 30-60 days, or perhaps - prompt an update every other update update cycle on Avenue 1.
Just a thought. But I have no idea how the app is written to begin with, and if that would take a lot of time off the hands of the devs that would probably be better used for making sure the hot release of v3 can be made as soon as possible.
