GRAPHISOFT screwed us again. This licensing nonsense is an absolute train wreck.

[Space_Agency]

So today I go in to change the representation of an existing run of ductwork in a project we created in V28. But nope cannot edit it. And it dawns on me that we recently changed our license to Archicad "Studio". So now ALL of our previously created duct routes, any objects that are classified as MEP elements in our embedded libraries are now also completely un-editable. I can't move it to another layer. I can't link it to another design option. I can't change the 2d or 3d representation. Nothing. It is essentially frozen and completely uneditable. So I go to change our license. And of course Graphisoft has made it so that the license we just paid for a few days a go in no way is credited to an upgrade to a "Collaborate" option. So we have just wasted more money now by having to essentially pay for both license types. What a complete RIP OFF. The practices of this company have moved from making software 'for architects by architects', to just simple greed. It's one thing to degrade the license and take away the tools, It's another to basically freeze everything that you've already created with a tool that was paid for and then now have to pay for an additional license just to unfreeze it. Why? Money is more important than keeping your user base is the only thing I can surmise. 

[mthd]

That is very unfair for that to happen to all your hard work in creating your ductwork.
Unfortunately when you convert a license to subscription you are actually downgraded to AC 25. The only thing I can suggest is to back save to AC25 if that is possible and work in that version for editing your ductwork ?

I am simply not going to convert to a subscription under these terms & conditions because they definitely favour the vendor and not the user.

We once paid to be upgraded to the next version or to go one step up. Now we pay to go back four steps, where is the logic in all this ? Unfortunately this has all the markings of scam written on it. Whoever came up with this concept has made life very difficult for us longtime users. The future results will speak for themselves and large corporations who have tons of money don’t care if it squeezes out the small businesses.

[Lingwisyer]

They integrate MEP into AC in one version, though scuffed, removing the need for a seperate subscription, then in the next make it part of the higher subscription only... Zzz... If you stay in AC28, you should still be able to use the abeit scuffed MEP as far as I know.

Ling.

[Barry Kelly]

---

@mthd wrote:

Unfortunately when you convert a license to subscription you are actually downgraded to AC 25.

---

Not exactly true.

If you have a Hardware or software perpetual licence, it will be downgraded to 25, but you will receive a cloud license that will run 26 up to the latest version (29).

So you will not be downgraded at all.

Should you ever cancel your subscription, you will supposedly get your hardware or software key converted back to the version you had previously.

This is not the issue with the original poster.

They took out a Studio subscription that does not include the MEP functionality.

They should have switched to the full Collaborate subscription.

It is clearly noted that Studio does not include MEP, but you would like to think that the distributor would be accommodating in helping them switch to collaborate license.

Barry.

[mthd]

Since I don’t use MEP and from what I have read it is supposed to work better in AC25. Hence back saving may allow them to edit the ductwork ?

You are right about the collaborate subscription version. So they could technically upgrade the studio subscription into collaborate if that option is available for them ?

[Lingwisyer]

That is their woe. Apparently you cannot "upgrade" from one to the other, just take out a new subscription. So since they had just started their subscription cycle on Studio, they are out of pocket for that cycle for the licences that the extra Collaborate licences required supercede.

Ling.

ps. I wonder how licence reservation works if you have access to both types? We have seen that cloud licences take precedence over other licences as brought up in another thread... *facepalm*

[mthd]

So technically they would be stumped with taking out the studio subscription option ?

[Lingwisyer]

Yeah. From a quick look, it would appear that AC does not have an exit clause with the agreement being that you are stuck with what ever subscription period you signed up with. "Cancelling" just prevents auto-renewal. My guess would be that for a lot of people who converted their perpetual licences, that they would have taken the three year upfront deal if they could handle the spike in capital expenditure. If this is the case, then it would be especially problematic as you now have a multi-year discounted licence that you do not have a use for and are now required to take out a new un-discounted licence to meet your requirements.

Ling.

ps. Undecided whether this is better or worse than Adobe's exit clause...

[Space_Agency]

Exactly Barry, accommodation. We were actually on the "collaborate" version and when Graphisoft switched the license purchase over to this new platform, "Studio" was what was selected in our subscription when we went to renew/reset our license and so we just went with that just not knowing that MEP had been gated from Studio. There should be at least some form of accommodation to have our payment apply to going with the full version to get out of this mess. The fact that MEP was stripped out also is a greed BS issue given that it's a half baked execution of the feature/product at this point compared to the previous V25 version. We don't even want to use it but do find using it in a limited manner to streamline our modeling of certain MEP elements in our projects is faster. But here's the thing. If GS wants to nickel and dime for that half-baked implementation fine. But we still need to at minimum be able to simply edit/move/put on a different layer, change the representational settings, etc. of older elements so that we do not have to re-model everything. Simply freezing that content is an asinine approach That and not being able to apply our previous payment to the "upgraded" collaborate version is what is infuriating me. That is completely short-sighted and frankly  GS  just giving the finger to paying customers. And if it's a technical issue that GS can't "implement the settings changes yet" then GS shouldn't be gating the MEP feature set at this time until they can deal with the real world needs of its users. 

[mthd]

@Space_Agency Wrote “If GS wants to nickel and dime for that half-baked implementation fine.” No @Space_Agency, that is definitely not fine, experimental features that are still being developed shouldn't even be charged for. 

Talk to your provider and see if you can get the correct version that you need at no extra cost or if you can at least simply pay the gap if there is one ?

Dear head company and GS, “We will not let you walk all over us loyal users, start playing fair or many of us could be out of here”. This is the companies problem because they treated us unfairly. I can see this move by the company as damaging the ship so to speak probably in the very near future. The captain of ship always takes the blame when they have made wrong moves and that could spell disaster for the future of the company. I personally see many loyal customers eventually jumping ship.

I had my say let others have theirs.