I'm going to take issue with the notion that, you (..the general or royal 'you') - the perpetual license holder and user - haven't paid for this and therefore don't deserve access to it, or to be able to use it.
I'd be very hard pressed to believe that Graphisoft began developing this tool only in the last year or even the last couple of years, and to the extent that it's been a long-term project percolating in the background (and even if it really has been just a one year so far, project) did the resources, and more pointedly, the funding resources just fall out of thin air or with magic dust, to allow them to develop it?
Or did it (...or at least some of it) not come from the license fees that perpetual license holders (i.e....almost everyone not on SSA's and that sort of deal) have been paying over the years?
Perhaps the argument is that the funding has come from some sort of discretionary rainy day, sort of piggy bank fund that GS have that enable them to develop these kinds of experimental tool without imposing the financial and resource burden on regular user.
In which case, then you're left with the very obvious question begged:-
What the hell has been happening with all the (Perpetual) license fees we've been paying all these years: - at least in the last several, ....or I'd say 6-8 versions?
We were under the impression that these were the sort of things we were being told that GS is working on in the background hence the reason we weren't getting any noticeable improvements or upgrades.
You could make the argument that some of it has gone to developing tools like the MEP addon/Designer suite, or the SAM tool.....in which case, you're simply opening up a bigger can of worms with regards to what Graphisoft is delivering or not, to paying (ARCHITECTURAL) customers and their expectations.
Fact of the matter is that AI Assistant (and to a lesser extent, features like Dark Mode on Mac platform) are features that Graphisoft is using to heavily promote this version - despite (...I'd argue) BOTH their status as "Experimental"* or "Partial/Incomplete" features.
On the one hand how do you justify using features that are not even accessible or usable by most of your users as one of the key prime new features and tools of the new version?
(*A legitimate argument could even be made on that the notion that a feature or tool still considered "Experimental" or "Beta" in no way justifies it to be 'Exclusive' or locked out for some users as it's not even a finished product, and that Graphisoft are the ones benefitting from this sort of "open beta" that allows them to freely get feedback at no cost by users testing them on professional projects))
On the other hand, how valid really is the claim that the reason these users don't have access to it is because they haven't paid for it given what we know about development cycles and for how long they tend to run?
What's even more puzzling is the idea that they're doing this, almost underlining the fact that 'Subscription-only' is the way that GS is moving forward - even as they try to make the argument to non-subscription users that if they make the jump it will be worth their license fees money.
And yet the opening gambit is to say, ......"Well, you Perpetual license holders can't use this tool (whose development you at least partially, or in whole, helped pay for), but if you make the jump to Subscription, you'll have access for it.
Just not in this current (...not so) fully featured version you're paying for."
Just how effective a sales pitch is that?
I'd say make it make sense for me, but honestly I'm out of the whole "making sense of Graphisoft's marketing/PR/Customer relations strategies" business.
And I should point out, I'm not even one of those users that's particularly enthused about AI assistant or the AI Visualizer.
But I do commiserate with the angst of those other Perpetual license holders who are rightly annoyed by this decision.
