After more than three decades with Archicad: has Graphisoft lost touch with professional offices?

[Jean-Louis]

Our architectural office has been operating since 1991. We have been working with Archicad since the very early years, probably since Archicad 4, and at times our office used up to ten Archicad licenses.

This is therefore not a spontaneous complaint from a new or occasional user. It is the conclusion of an architectural office that has used, paid for and relied on Archicad professionally for decades.

In the early years, licensing was handled with hardware dongles. That was technically primitive by today’s standards, but at least the logic was clear: the license was physically where the dongle was.

More than three decades later, the current Software Key workflow often feels like a less transparent digital version of the old dongle system.

One example: in a professional office environment, work may take place on different machines and in different locations. This does not mean parallel unauthorized use. It simply reflects normal architectural practice.

Still, if the Software Key is not manually uploaded after use on one machine, the license can remain blocked there and cannot be used on another machine. The Graphisoft portal even shows where the key is programmed, but it does not offer a simple remote release function.

This is not a modern professional licensing experience. It behaves like a digital dongle with a built-in trap.

A network license setup is not a convincing answer to this problem either. It only shifts the complication elsewhere, requiring a machine to remain available as a license server. What is needed is much simpler: valid licensed use by the office, no parallel misuse, but reliable access on the machines used in daily professional work.

This is not only about licensing. It is about the overall direction of the product.

Archicad is positioned and priced as professional software for architectural practice. Accordingly, our office expects continuous and substantial improvement of the core product: better everyday workflows, better usability, better licensing, better support, and the removal of long-standing weaknesses.

Instead, many basic issues remain.

The macOS printing and page setup workflow is one example. Archicad still relies on a separate old page setup dialog that feels completely out of place in the current version. This may sound small, but such details matter in daily work. They show whether a product is being carefully maintained or whether old structures are simply carried forward.

There are also basic CAD workflow issues that still feel inconsistent. Snapping, aligning and working with simple geometric references should be absolutely reliable in a CAD program. These are not exotic edge cases. They are part of everyday architectural work.

Support has also damaged our trust. We have experienced cases where even simple practical questions were not answered properly. In some cases, the correct solution was already known internally, and the support quality was tested deliberately. The result was disappointing: support struggled for days and eventually had to be given the solution.

A paid service structure that cannot reliably help with basic practical questions has no convincing professional value.

This is particularly problematic because service contracts have created significant yearly costs. In our case, after the price increase two years ago, the service contract had risen to more than EUR 1,000 per year. We left that service contract this year because the value was no longer convincing.

At the same time, Graphisoft is adding AI features behind cloud-based subscription requirements. In Archicad 29, the AI Assistant is not available without a cloud-based subscription license. From our point of view, this shows the wrong priority.

Before asking professional offices for more subscriptions, Graphisoft should first solve fundamental problems in licensing, support, usability and everyday workflows.

The contrast with developments elsewhere is becoming obvious. Other software ecosystems are starting to interact with modern AI tools in more open and practical ways. SketchUp, for example, is already moving towards direct interaction with Claude. Whether such workflows are already perfect is not the point. The point is the direction: open interaction, fast experimentation, and AI integration that actually touches the model.

Meanwhile, Graphisoft still seems tied to old licensing structures, service-contract logic and subscription incentives.

We are not interested in submitting wishlist items. Long-time paying offices should not have to provide unpaid product strategy advice while also paying high license and service fees. The issue is no longer a missing feature request. The issue is loss of trust.

So the question to Graphisoft and to other professional offices is this:

Do you believe Graphisoft is still moving in the right direction for architectural offices that have used, paid for and relied on Archicad for decades?

From our office’s perspective, the answer is increasingly no.

After more than three decades with Archicad, our trust in Graphisoft as a reliable software partner has been lost. We are prepared to leave Archicad behind at the next realistic opportunity if this direction does not fundamentally change.

[Jahon]

I read your post with great respect, and as a fellow long-time user since 2001 and before from Belgium, I can only confirm your conclusion: Graphisoft has completely lost touch with the architectural floor.

Your description of the licensing system behaving like a "digital dongle with a built-in trap" is exactly what I am experiencing right now [1]. In my case, it has evolved into an actual hostage situation. Mid-contract during an active 3-year Studio subscription, Graphisoft unilaterally stripped the MEP Designer from my license.

Just like you noted with the AI features in Archicad 29, they are weaponizing basic desktop tools to force small offices into heavy cloud-based subscription models (BIMcloud SaaS / Collaborate) that we do not want, do not need, and actively avoid for data sovereignty reasons [1].

While corporate is pushing these subscription incentives, my daily work for contractors is frozen [1]. I am spending my nights doing manual workarounds for features I already legally paid for.

This is a direct breach of contract and violates the brand-new EU Data Act (in force since Sept 12, 2025), which explicitly bans these vendor lock-in tactics. Thank you for speaking out. Long-time paying offices are indeed being treated as milk cows rather than partners.

[Jean-Louis]

Thank you for your response. What matters to me most is not whether every individual case can immediately be assessed in legal terms. The more important point is that many long-time users seem to recognize the same pattern.
This is no longer about one isolated licensing problem, one missing feature or one bad support experience. It is about a relationship between Graphisoft and its professional customers that has clearly become unbalanced.
Many architectural offices have supported Archicad for decades through license purchases, service contracts, training, workflows and professional commitment. In return, they expected a reliable software partner that understands daily architectural practice.
Instead, more and more users seem to experience Graphisoft as a company focused on subscription logic, cloud restrictions, feature fragmentation and monetization strategies, while basic workflow problems and long-standing weaknesses remain unresolved.
That is the real issue: loss of trust.
Whether individual situations are legally questionable is one matter. But the broader signal from long-time users is already clear enough: the relationship between Graphisoft and its professional customer base is in serious trouble.

[jl_lt]

i would say, yes