Medical Officer Bones

I find some of these complaints in regard to update costs somewhat baffling.
8 years ago the first version of Affinity Designer was released. 7 years ago Photo. 3 years ago Publisher.
Throughout that time customers received free updates and upgrades, and many new users purchased the software at a reduced special offer price. I am one of those.
All the free updates actually made me feel I ought to ask Serif to charge me MORE, because the cost for V1 in relation to its functionality was always greatly in favour of its feature set. In short: very inexpensive for what was on offer.
V2 is a new release of Affinity. It is offered again at small cost compared to other commercial alternatives. V1 continues to run and isn't 'taken away'. There is no subscription. Unlike companies such as Adobe, older versions are not removed from the user's installation options. Serif's business model is based on the "you pay for it, you have an unlimited license" approach, which is actively abandoned by most other software companies.
Yet: like it or not, Serif has to generate revenue to cover development costs. They can't forever keep leaning on bringing in new users. The Affinity devs have always stated that free updates would be available for V1.xx. They stated unequivocally that V2.XX would become a paid upgrade.
Now, I understand that if a user purchased the software in the last 3 months, having to pay for a full upgrade is understandably inconvenient, and it would have been perhaps preferable for Serif to handle those cases differently.
But surely enough, at SOME point Serif has to make SOME money, otherwise business becomes untenable and they'll go bankrupt. Right?
Or perhaps Serif has a good reason to go down the subscription route after all: even IF you try with your best intentions to provide professional-level design software at a very affordable price level, AND offer 50% off to everyone at release time, STILL people complain about it.
If I were them, the subscription business model suddenly is beginning to look quite attractive. Because there is no use in trying to please everyone anyway.
PS I do agree that a grace period of 1 year or so to fix critical bugs in V1 would have been good to have and alleviate part of the complaints made.

I have noticed that the majority of negative and "disappointed will not upgrade" threads since V2 was released are all started by new accounts. There seems to be a recurring pattern: focus on a single missing feature that's been requested for a longer time or on the new Windows installation method. Or undermine the new features.
Quite a few also mention they will not invest in v2 further and insist they are loyal, but disappointed users. Or "I am really interested, but..." then say they cannot purchase the software until that X feature, that the Y commercial option happens to have, is added. Or they mention they will not upgrade. "It's a promising release, but we should wait it out". "Why isn't feature X implemented yet! Outrageous!".
All of them are thread starters. All seem focused on one thing: focusing on generating negative feelings about V2 and the Affinity products. And all of them are created by accounts that were set up by new accounts following the V2 release. Some use older accounts that were inactive for a long time.
And these accounts often respond to other complaints if that thread is not gaining enough traction.
If I were the moderators, I would investigate if a concerted attack is going on to undermine the v2 release. It seems rather suspicious.
I thought about listing examples, but I think that it becomes quite obvious for moderators once spotted.

Software is merely a tool. If it works for you: use it. If it does not, don't. Switch to a different tool or adjust your approach.
A tool or company is not something to invest emotionally in. Appreciate them for what they do: sure. Become enraged and furious? Waste of time and energy. Redirect to positive and constructive thinking and emotions instead. Walk away from your computer and hug your spouse, offspring, pet, or that beautiful tree 🙂
(unless of course a company actively takes part in the wanton destruction of our beautiful Earth and/or causes suffering. Time to become enraged and do something about it...)

Software is merely a tool. If it works for you: use it. If it does not, don't. Switch to a different tool or adjust your approach.
A tool or company is not something to invest emotionally in. Appreciate them for what they do: sure. Become enraged and furious? Waste of time and energy. Redirect to positive and constructive thinking and emotions instead. Walk away from your computer and hug your spouse, offspring, pet, or that beautiful tree 🙂
(unless of course a company actively takes part in the wanton destruction of our beautiful Earth and/or causes suffering. Time to become enraged and do something about it...)

I have noticed that the majority of negative and "disappointed will not upgrade" threads since V2 was released are all started by new accounts. There seems to be a recurring pattern: focus on a single missing feature that's been requested for a longer time or on the new Windows installation method. Or undermine the new features.
Quite a few also mention they will not invest in v2 further and insist they are loyal, but disappointed users. Or "I am really interested, but..." then say they cannot purchase the software until that X feature, that the Y commercial option happens to have, is added. Or they mention they will not upgrade. "It's a promising release, but we should wait it out". "Why isn't feature X implemented yet! Outrageous!".
All of them are thread starters. All seem focused on one thing: focusing on generating negative feelings about V2 and the Affinity products. And all of them are created by accounts that were set up by new accounts following the V2 release. Some use older accounts that were inactive for a long time.
And these accounts often respond to other complaints if that thread is not gaining enough traction.
If I were the moderators, I would investigate if a concerted attack is going on to undermine the v2 release. It seems rather suspicious.
I thought about listing examples, but I think that it becomes quite obvious for moderators once spotted.

I have noticed that the majority of negative and "disappointed will not upgrade" threads since V2 was released are all started by new accounts. There seems to be a recurring pattern: focus on a single missing feature that's been requested for a longer time or on the new Windows installation method. Or undermine the new features.
Quite a few also mention they will not invest in v2 further and insist they are loyal, but disappointed users. Or "I am really interested, but..." then say they cannot purchase the software until that X feature, that the Y commercial option happens to have, is added. Or they mention they will not upgrade. "It's a promising release, but we should wait it out". "Why isn't feature X implemented yet! Outrageous!".
All of them are thread starters. All seem focused on one thing: focusing on generating negative feelings about V2 and the Affinity products. And all of them are created by accounts that were set up by new accounts following the V2 release. Some use older accounts that were inactive for a long time.
And these accounts often respond to other complaints if that thread is not gaining enough traction.
If I were the moderators, I would investigate if a concerted attack is going on to undermine the v2 release. It seems rather suspicious.
I thought about listing examples, but I think that it becomes quite obvious for moderators once spotted.

This reads as if your very happiness in life depends on a piece of software. A very mature and balanced response.
I noticed you created a new account to share your deeply felt outrage with this community.

I have noticed that the majority of negative and "disappointed will not upgrade" threads since V2 was released are all started by new accounts. There seems to be a recurring pattern: focus on a single missing feature that's been requested for a longer time or on the new Windows installation method. Or undermine the new features.
Quite a few also mention they will not invest in v2 further and insist they are loyal, but disappointed users. Or "I am really interested, but..." then say they cannot purchase the software until that X feature, that the Y commercial option happens to have, is added. Or they mention they will not upgrade. "It's a promising release, but we should wait it out". "Why isn't feature X implemented yet! Outrageous!".
All of them are thread starters. All seem focused on one thing: focusing on generating negative feelings about V2 and the Affinity products. And all of them are created by accounts that were set up by new accounts following the V2 release. Some use older accounts that were inactive for a long time.
And these accounts often respond to other complaints if that thread is not gaining enough traction.
If I were the moderators, I would investigate if a concerted attack is going on to undermine the v2 release. It seems rather suspicious.
I thought about listing examples, but I think that it becomes quite obvious for moderators once spotted.

I have noticed that the majority of negative and "disappointed will not upgrade" threads since V2 was released are all started by new accounts. There seems to be a recurring pattern: focus on a single missing feature that's been requested for a longer time or on the new Windows installation method. Or undermine the new features.
Quite a few also mention they will not invest in v2 further and insist they are loyal, but disappointed users. Or "I am really interested, but..." then say they cannot purchase the software until that X feature, that the Y commercial option happens to have, is added. Or they mention they will not upgrade. "It's a promising release, but we should wait it out". "Why isn't feature X implemented yet! Outrageous!".
All of them are thread starters. All seem focused on one thing: focusing on generating negative feelings about V2 and the Affinity products. And all of them are created by accounts that were set up by new accounts following the V2 release. Some use older accounts that were inactive for a long time.
And these accounts often respond to other complaints if that thread is not gaining enough traction.
If I were the moderators, I would investigate if a concerted attack is going on to undermine the v2 release. It seems rather suspicious.
I thought about listing examples, but I think that it becomes quite obvious for moderators once spotted.

I find some of these complaints in regard to update costs somewhat baffling.
8 years ago the first version of Affinity Designer was released. 7 years ago Photo. 3 years ago Publisher.
Throughout that time customers received free updates and upgrades, and many new users purchased the software at a reduced special offer price. I am one of those.
All the free updates actually made me feel I ought to ask Serif to charge me MORE, because the cost for V1 in relation to its functionality was always greatly in favour of its feature set. In short: very inexpensive for what was on offer.
V2 is a new release of Affinity. It is offered again at small cost compared to other commercial alternatives. V1 continues to run and isn't 'taken away'. There is no subscription. Unlike companies such as Adobe, older versions are not removed from the user's installation options. Serif's business model is based on the "you pay for it, you have an unlimited license" approach, which is actively abandoned by most other software companies.
Yet: like it or not, Serif has to generate revenue to cover development costs. They can't forever keep leaning on bringing in new users. The Affinity devs have always stated that free updates would be available for V1.xx. They stated unequivocally that V2.XX would become a paid upgrade.
Now, I understand that if a user purchased the software in the last 3 months, having to pay for a full upgrade is understandably inconvenient, and it would have been perhaps preferable for Serif to handle those cases differently.
But surely enough, at SOME point Serif has to make SOME money, otherwise business becomes untenable and they'll go bankrupt. Right?
Or perhaps Serif has a good reason to go down the subscription route after all: even IF you try with your best intentions to provide professional-level design software at a very affordable price level, AND offer 50% off to everyone at release time, STILL people complain about it.
If I were them, the subscription business model suddenly is beginning to look quite attractive. Because there is no use in trying to please everyone anyway.
PS I do agree that a grace period of 1 year or so to fix critical bugs in V1 would have been good to have and alleviate part of the complaints made.

I have noticed that the majority of negative and "disappointed will not upgrade" threads since V2 was released are all started by new accounts. There seems to be a recurring pattern: focus on a single missing feature that's been requested for a longer time or on the new Windows installation method. Or undermine the new features.
Quite a few also mention they will not invest in v2 further and insist they are loyal, but disappointed users. Or "I am really interested, but..." then say they cannot purchase the software until that X feature, that the Y commercial option happens to have, is added. Or they mention they will not upgrade. "It's a promising release, but we should wait it out". "Why isn't feature X implemented yet! Outrageous!".
All of them are thread starters. All seem focused on one thing: focusing on generating negative feelings about V2 and the Affinity products. And all of them are created by accounts that were set up by new accounts following the V2 release. Some use older accounts that were inactive for a long time.
And these accounts often respond to other complaints if that thread is not gaining enough traction.
If I were the moderators, I would investigate if a concerted attack is going on to undermine the v2 release. It seems rather suspicious.
I thought about listing examples, but I think that it becomes quite obvious for moderators once spotted.

I have noticed that the majority of negative and "disappointed will not upgrade" threads since V2 was released are all started by new accounts. There seems to be a recurring pattern: focus on a single missing feature that's been requested for a longer time or on the new Windows installation method. Or undermine the new features.
Quite a few also mention they will not invest in v2 further and insist they are loyal, but disappointed users. Or "I am really interested, but..." then say they cannot purchase the software until that X feature, that the Y commercial option happens to have, is added. Or they mention they will not upgrade. "It's a promising release, but we should wait it out". "Why isn't feature X implemented yet! Outrageous!".
All of them are thread starters. All seem focused on one thing: focusing on generating negative feelings about V2 and the Affinity products. And all of them are created by accounts that were set up by new accounts following the V2 release. Some use older accounts that were inactive for a long time.
And these accounts often respond to other complaints if that thread is not gaining enough traction.
If I were the moderators, I would investigate if a concerted attack is going on to undermine the v2 release. It seems rather suspicious.
I thought about listing examples, but I think that it becomes quite obvious for moderators once spotted.

I have noticed that the majority of negative and "disappointed will not upgrade" threads since V2 was released are all started by new accounts. There seems to be a recurring pattern: focus on a single missing feature that's been requested for a longer time or on the new Windows installation method. Or undermine the new features.
Quite a few also mention they will not invest in v2 further and insist they are loyal, but disappointed users. Or "I am really interested, but..." then say they cannot purchase the software until that X feature, that the Y commercial option happens to have, is added. Or they mention they will not upgrade. "It's a promising release, but we should wait it out". "Why isn't feature X implemented yet! Outrageous!".
All of them are thread starters. All seem focused on one thing: focusing on generating negative feelings about V2 and the Affinity products. And all of them are created by accounts that were set up by new accounts following the V2 release. Some use older accounts that were inactive for a long time.
And these accounts often respond to other complaints if that thread is not gaining enough traction.
If I were the moderators, I would investigate if a concerted attack is going on to undermine the v2 release. It seems rather suspicious.
I thought about listing examples, but I think that it becomes quite obvious for moderators once spotted.

I have noticed that the majority of negative and "disappointed will not upgrade" threads since V2 was released are all started by new accounts. There seems to be a recurring pattern: focus on a single missing feature that's been requested for a longer time or on the new Windows installation method. Or undermine the new features.
Quite a few also mention they will not invest in v2 further and insist they are loyal, but disappointed users. Or "I am really interested, but..." then say they cannot purchase the software until that X feature, that the Y commercial option happens to have, is added. Or they mention they will not upgrade. "It's a promising release, but we should wait it out". "Why isn't feature X implemented yet! Outrageous!".
All of them are thread starters. All seem focused on one thing: focusing on generating negative feelings about V2 and the Affinity products. And all of them are created by accounts that were set up by new accounts following the V2 release. Some use older accounts that were inactive for a long time.
And these accounts often respond to other complaints if that thread is not gaining enough traction.
If I were the moderators, I would investigate if a concerted attack is going on to undermine the v2 release. It seems rather suspicious.
I thought about listing examples, but I think that it becomes quite obvious for moderators once spotted.

I find some of these complaints in regard to update costs somewhat baffling.
8 years ago the first version of Affinity Designer was released. 7 years ago Photo. 3 years ago Publisher.
Throughout that time customers received free updates and upgrades, and many new users purchased the software at a reduced special offer price. I am one of those.
All the free updates actually made me feel I ought to ask Serif to charge me MORE, because the cost for V1 in relation to its functionality was always greatly in favour of its feature set. In short: very inexpensive for what was on offer.
V2 is a new release of Affinity. It is offered again at small cost compared to other commercial alternatives. V1 continues to run and isn't 'taken away'. There is no subscription. Unlike companies such as Adobe, older versions are not removed from the user's installation options. Serif's business model is based on the "you pay for it, you have an unlimited license" approach, which is actively abandoned by most other software companies.
Yet: like it or not, Serif has to generate revenue to cover development costs. They can't forever keep leaning on bringing in new users. The Affinity devs have always stated that free updates would be available for V1.xx. They stated unequivocally that V2.XX would become a paid upgrade.
Now, I understand that if a user purchased the software in the last 3 months, having to pay for a full upgrade is understandably inconvenient, and it would have been perhaps preferable for Serif to handle those cases differently.
But surely enough, at SOME point Serif has to make SOME money, otherwise business becomes untenable and they'll go bankrupt. Right?
Or perhaps Serif has a good reason to go down the subscription route after all: even IF you try with your best intentions to provide professional-level design software at a very affordable price level, AND offer 50% off to everyone at release time, STILL people complain about it.
If I were them, the subscription business model suddenly is beginning to look quite attractive. Because there is no use in trying to please everyone anyway.
PS I do agree that a grace period of 1 year or so to fix critical bugs in V1 would have been good to have and alleviate part of the complaints made.

I have noticed that the majority of negative and "disappointed will not upgrade" threads since V2 was released are all started by new accounts. There seems to be a recurring pattern: focus on a single missing feature that's been requested for a longer time or on the new Windows installation method. Or undermine the new features.
Quite a few also mention they will not invest in v2 further and insist they are loyal, but disappointed users. Or "I am really interested, but..." then say they cannot purchase the software until that X feature, that the Y commercial option happens to have, is added. Or they mention they will not upgrade. "It's a promising release, but we should wait it out". "Why isn't feature X implemented yet! Outrageous!".
All of them are thread starters. All seem focused on one thing: focusing on generating negative feelings about V2 and the Affinity products. And all of them are created by accounts that were set up by new accounts following the V2 release. Some use older accounts that were inactive for a long time.
And these accounts often respond to other complaints if that thread is not gaining enough traction.
If I were the moderators, I would investigate if a concerted attack is going on to undermine the v2 release. It seems rather suspicious.
I thought about listing examples, but I think that it becomes quite obvious for moderators once spotted.

I have noticed that the majority of negative and "disappointed will not upgrade" threads since V2 was released are all started by new accounts. There seems to be a recurring pattern: focus on a single missing feature that's been requested for a longer time or on the new Windows installation method. Or undermine the new features.
Quite a few also mention they will not invest in v2 further and insist they are loyal, but disappointed users. Or "I am really interested, but..." then say they cannot purchase the software until that X feature, that the Y commercial option happens to have, is added. Or they mention they will not upgrade. "It's a promising release, but we should wait it out". "Why isn't feature X implemented yet! Outrageous!".
All of them are thread starters. All seem focused on one thing: focusing on generating negative feelings about V2 and the Affinity products. And all of them are created by accounts that were set up by new accounts following the V2 release. Some use older accounts that were inactive for a long time.
And these accounts often respond to other complaints if that thread is not gaining enough traction.
If I were the moderators, I would investigate if a concerted attack is going on to undermine the v2 release. It seems rather suspicious.
I thought about listing examples, but I think that it becomes quite obvious for moderators once spotted.

I find some of these complaints in regard to update costs somewhat baffling.
8 years ago the first version of Affinity Designer was released. 7 years ago Photo. 3 years ago Publisher.
Throughout that time customers received free updates and upgrades, and many new users purchased the software at a reduced special offer price. I am one of those.
All the free updates actually made me feel I ought to ask Serif to charge me MORE, because the cost for V1 in relation to its functionality was always greatly in favour of its feature set. In short: very inexpensive for what was on offer.
V2 is a new release of Affinity. It is offered again at small cost compared to other commercial alternatives. V1 continues to run and isn't 'taken away'. There is no subscription. Unlike companies such as Adobe, older versions are not removed from the user's installation options. Serif's business model is based on the "you pay for it, you have an unlimited license" approach, which is actively abandoned by most other software companies.
Yet: like it or not, Serif has to generate revenue to cover development costs. They can't forever keep leaning on bringing in new users. The Affinity devs have always stated that free updates would be available for V1.xx. They stated unequivocally that V2.XX would become a paid upgrade.
Now, I understand that if a user purchased the software in the last 3 months, having to pay for a full upgrade is understandably inconvenient, and it would have been perhaps preferable for Serif to handle those cases differently.
But surely enough, at SOME point Serif has to make SOME money, otherwise business becomes untenable and they'll go bankrupt. Right?
Or perhaps Serif has a good reason to go down the subscription route after all: even IF you try with your best intentions to provide professional-level design software at a very affordable price level, AND offer 50% off to everyone at release time, STILL people complain about it.
If I were them, the subscription business model suddenly is beginning to look quite attractive. Because there is no use in trying to please everyone anyway.
PS I do agree that a grace period of 1 year or so to fix critical bugs in V1 would have been good to have and alleviate part of the complaints made.

I have noticed that the majority of negative and "disappointed will not upgrade" threads since V2 was released are all started by new accounts. There seems to be a recurring pattern: focus on a single missing feature that's been requested for a longer time or on the new Windows installation method. Or undermine the new features.
Quite a few also mention they will not invest in v2 further and insist they are loyal, but disappointed users. Or "I am really interested, but..." then say they cannot purchase the software until that X feature, that the Y commercial option happens to have, is added. Or they mention they will not upgrade. "It's a promising release, but we should wait it out". "Why isn't feature X implemented yet! Outrageous!".
All of them are thread starters. All seem focused on one thing: focusing on generating negative feelings about V2 and the Affinity products. And all of them are created by accounts that were set up by new accounts following the V2 release. Some use older accounts that were inactive for a long time.
And these accounts often respond to other complaints if that thread is not gaining enough traction.
If I were the moderators, I would investigate if a concerted attack is going on to undermine the v2 release. It seems rather suspicious.
I thought about listing examples, but I think that it becomes quite obvious for moderators once spotted.

I find some of these complaints in regard to update costs somewhat baffling.
8 years ago the first version of Affinity Designer was released. 7 years ago Photo. 3 years ago Publisher.
Throughout that time customers received free updates and upgrades, and many new users purchased the software at a reduced special offer price. I am one of those.
All the free updates actually made me feel I ought to ask Serif to charge me MORE, because the cost for V1 in relation to its functionality was always greatly in favour of its feature set. In short: very inexpensive for what was on offer.
V2 is a new release of Affinity. It is offered again at small cost compared to other commercial alternatives. V1 continues to run and isn't 'taken away'. There is no subscription. Unlike companies such as Adobe, older versions are not removed from the user's installation options. Serif's business model is based on the "you pay for it, you have an unlimited license" approach, which is actively abandoned by most other software companies.
Yet: like it or not, Serif has to generate revenue to cover development costs. They can't forever keep leaning on bringing in new users. The Affinity devs have always stated that free updates would be available for V1.xx. They stated unequivocally that V2.XX would become a paid upgrade.
Now, I understand that if a user purchased the software in the last 3 months, having to pay for a full upgrade is understandably inconvenient, and it would have been perhaps preferable for Serif to handle those cases differently.
But surely enough, at SOME point Serif has to make SOME money, otherwise business becomes untenable and they'll go bankrupt. Right?
Or perhaps Serif has a good reason to go down the subscription route after all: even IF you try with your best intentions to provide professional-level design software at a very affordable price level, AND offer 50% off to everyone at release time, STILL people complain about it.
If I were them, the subscription business model suddenly is beginning to look quite attractive. Because there is no use in trying to please everyone anyway.
PS I do agree that a grace period of 1 year or so to fix critical bugs in V1 would have been good to have and alleviate part of the complaints made.

I have noticed that the majority of negative and "disappointed will not upgrade" threads since V2 was released are all started by new accounts. There seems to be a recurring pattern: focus on a single missing feature that's been requested for a longer time or on the new Windows installation method. Or undermine the new features.
Quite a few also mention they will not invest in v2 further and insist they are loyal, but disappointed users. Or "I am really interested, but..." then say they cannot purchase the software until that X feature, that the Y commercial option happens to have, is added. Or they mention they will not upgrade. "It's a promising release, but we should wait it out". "Why isn't feature X implemented yet! Outrageous!".
All of them are thread starters. All seem focused on one thing: focusing on generating negative feelings about V2 and the Affinity products. And all of them are created by accounts that were set up by new accounts following the V2 release. Some use older accounts that were inactive for a long time.
And these accounts often respond to other complaints if that thread is not gaining enough traction.
If I were the moderators, I would investigate if a concerted attack is going on to undermine the v2 release. It seems rather suspicious.
I thought about listing examples, but I think that it becomes quite obvious for moderators once spotted.

I find some of these complaints in regard to update costs somewhat baffling.
8 years ago the first version of Affinity Designer was released. 7 years ago Photo. 3 years ago Publisher.
Throughout that time customers received free updates and upgrades, and many new users purchased the software at a reduced special offer price. I am one of those.
All the free updates actually made me feel I ought to ask Serif to charge me MORE, because the cost for V1 in relation to its functionality was always greatly in favour of its feature set. In short: very inexpensive for what was on offer.
V2 is a new release of Affinity. It is offered again at small cost compared to other commercial alternatives. V1 continues to run and isn't 'taken away'. There is no subscription. Unlike companies such as Adobe, older versions are not removed from the user's installation options. Serif's business model is based on the "you pay for it, you have an unlimited license" approach, which is actively abandoned by most other software companies.
Yet: like it or not, Serif has to generate revenue to cover development costs. They can't forever keep leaning on bringing in new users. The Affinity devs have always stated that free updates would be available for V1.xx. They stated unequivocally that V2.XX would become a paid upgrade.
Now, I understand that if a user purchased the software in the last 3 months, having to pay for a full upgrade is understandably inconvenient, and it would have been perhaps preferable for Serif to handle those cases differently.
But surely enough, at SOME point Serif has to make SOME money, otherwise business becomes untenable and they'll go bankrupt. Right?
Or perhaps Serif has a good reason to go down the subscription route after all: even IF you try with your best intentions to provide professional-level design software at a very affordable price level, AND offer 50% off to everyone at release time, STILL people complain about it.
If I were them, the subscription business model suddenly is beginning to look quite attractive. Because there is no use in trying to please everyone anyway.
PS I do agree that a grace period of 1 year or so to fix critical bugs in V1 would have been good to have and alleviate part of the complaints made.

I find some of these complaints in regard to update costs somewhat baffling.
8 years ago the first version of Affinity Designer was released. 7 years ago Photo. 3 years ago Publisher.
Throughout that time customers received free updates and upgrades, and many new users purchased the software at a reduced special offer price. I am one of those.
All the free updates actually made me feel I ought to ask Serif to charge me MORE, because the cost for V1 in relation to its functionality was always greatly in favour of its feature set. In short: very inexpensive for what was on offer.
V2 is a new release of Affinity. It is offered again at small cost compared to other commercial alternatives. V1 continues to run and isn't 'taken away'. There is no subscription. Unlike companies such as Adobe, older versions are not removed from the user's installation options. Serif's business model is based on the "you pay for it, you have an unlimited license" approach, which is actively abandoned by most other software companies.
Yet: like it or not, Serif has to generate revenue to cover development costs. They can't forever keep leaning on bringing in new users. The Affinity devs have always stated that free updates would be available for V1.xx. They stated unequivocally that V2.XX would become a paid upgrade.
Now, I understand that if a user purchased the software in the last 3 months, having to pay for a full upgrade is understandably inconvenient, and it would have been perhaps preferable for Serif to handle those cases differently.
But surely enough, at SOME point Serif has to make SOME money, otherwise business becomes untenable and they'll go bankrupt. Right?
Or perhaps Serif has a good reason to go down the subscription route after all: even IF you try with your best intentions to provide professional-level design software at a very affordable price level, AND offer 50% off to everyone at release time, STILL people complain about it.
If I were them, the subscription business model suddenly is beginning to look quite attractive. Because there is no use in trying to please everyone anyway.
PS I do agree that a grace period of 1 year or so to fix critical bugs in V1 would have been good to have and alleviate part of the complaints made.

I find some of these complaints in regard to update costs somewhat baffling.
8 years ago the first version of Affinity Designer was released. 7 years ago Photo. 3 years ago Publisher.
Throughout that time customers received free updates and upgrades, and many new users purchased the software at a reduced special offer price. I am one of those.
All the free updates actually made me feel I ought to ask Serif to charge me MORE, because the cost for V1 in relation to its functionality was always greatly in favour of its feature set. In short: very inexpensive for what was on offer.
V2 is a new release of Affinity. It is offered again at small cost compared to other commercial alternatives. V1 continues to run and isn't 'taken away'. There is no subscription. Unlike companies such as Adobe, older versions are not removed from the user's installation options. Serif's business model is based on the "you pay for it, you have an unlimited license" approach, which is actively abandoned by most other software companies.
Yet: like it or not, Serif has to generate revenue to cover development costs. They can't forever keep leaning on bringing in new users. The Affinity devs have always stated that free updates would be available for V1.xx. They stated unequivocally that V2.XX would become a paid upgrade.
Now, I understand that if a user purchased the software in the last 3 months, having to pay for a full upgrade is understandably inconvenient, and it would have been perhaps preferable for Serif to handle those cases differently.
But surely enough, at SOME point Serif has to make SOME money, otherwise business becomes untenable and they'll go bankrupt. Right?
Or perhaps Serif has a good reason to go down the subscription route after all: even IF you try with your best intentions to provide professional-level design software at a very affordable price level, AND offer 50% off to everyone at release time, STILL people complain about it.
If I were them, the subscription business model suddenly is beginning to look quite attractive. Because there is no use in trying to please everyone anyway.
PS I do agree that a grace period of 1 year or so to fix critical bugs in V1 would have been good to have and alleviate part of the complaints made.

This reads as if your very happiness in life depends on a piece of software. A very mature and balanced response.
I noticed you created a new account to share your deeply felt outrage with this community.