It continues to function the same as when you bought it.

If that version satisfies your needs, then you dont have to buy nor subscribe to a subsequent one, nor does a subsequent version inactivate or invalidate the version in your posession.

You are not forced to buy a subsequent version for any reason. If you want a newer version, with more/different features, then you pay for it. Same for anything else in the world.

Oooh that hurts... I'd been thinking it would remain at the level it was when the subscription ran out like it had been up until May of 23. Is there any chance of leniency? I came on board in July I believe.

I would expect that the permanent license I already paid for would carry over to future upgrades of the software. A small fee to upgrade to the newest version, as has been the precedent going from Fences -> Fences 2 -> Fences 3 -> Fences 4. What's not expected is that I should need to pay  $30 this time for...what, exactly? Two new, non-critical, features. Nah...I'll stick with V4.

If Fences 5 eventually gets more features that actually matter and make it worth paying $30 for, then great...but this ain't it.

I've always sung Stardock's praises to anyone who will listen, but this feels like a money grab and anti-consumer decision. 

Edit: fixed verbage to accurately describe past upgrade pricing 

It isn't, but the facts won't convince you.

That's true. I misremembered. If I recall correctly, it's always been a small upgrade fee for owners of the prior version ($5 - $8 seems right?). I've certainly never payed $30 for a Fences upgrade which, when combined with the usual upgrade cost only being for those moving to a sub, really comes across as greed and putting profits over all other decisions. To argue that there is any motive other than money is willful ignorance. 

Nice gift to your loyal customers for your 30th year, thanks!

No way I'm going to upgrade.

Sure this really feels like a money grab and anti-consumer decision.

Chameleon should have been sold as its own "Product".  Bundling it and jacking up the price of Fences by justifying the new features tells us you don't understand the difference between pretty and practical. Fence users, I'm betting, are all about being practical.  Folks who want a prettier desktop (colors and fading) should buy that in a separate Product, for a reasonable price.  Then again, maybe your R&D figured out that nobody wanted it enough to do that to cover your dev costs, so  -ta-da- we got V5 Freakin' Franken-Fences.

How did that song go? "We're not going to take it..."

Are you sure about that? Fences 5 is by no means new feature heavy like start 11v2 was.

The two features certainly point to a new version of Fences 5. I do agree that it warrant's being considered a new release. But, I still disagree that the features alone clearly point out a reason for the price hike for permanent licenses all the way to 29.99 which you seem to imply does. Surely Fences 5 development cost was not greater then that of start 11v2 which was the reason for the comparison.

I have scoured the forums and can not seem to find one single person complaining about paying 8.99. In fact, I would go as far to say the people who like subscription's are probably getting their needs met. But, this is coming at the expense of those who prefer permanent licenses. These people will be charged 29.99 AND have a product with a shortened lifespan all at the same time. The cost is pretty high to actually own Fences 5 if you ask me,

If you look at it that way then yes you are correct. I was merely trying to point out that people don't actually have to upgrade to Fences 5 just to worry about Fences 4 giving out too soon. Fences 4 and 5 will probably have pretty equal compatibility on systems all the way around. Skipping a version of Fences is ok if they aren't in love with the features; the op clearly was not.

I am glad to have a good discussion with you by the way DrJ8HL

PhoenixRising1, that's exactly the point.

Hypothetical: If 5 lifetime activations cost $40 the cost per unit would be $8 per. That's for the lifetime option, that won't update. If OS turnover picks up speed, the lifetime purchase doesn't make much sense, to me. The subscription model at $9 makes more economic sense if OS's last shorter times. Either way, lifetime or subscription, the devs have to be paid, remember, so that will be reflected in both models.

If you're complaining that MS's OS is expected to have a shorter lifetime, and therefore it's relatively more expensive, but Stardock has absolutely no control over that, and don't forget, the software will continue to work on the original purchase OS indefinitely, and perhaps older ones, as well.

No one's saying that in some hypothetical OS to come, the software won't work. You're assuming that. But, if that's the problem, then opt for subscription model. I don't think it's logical to fixate on one payment method. People might instead weigh which makes more economic sense if OSs change rapidly, and updating is more important. Just my thoughts. No one has to agree. No less important are considerations such as whether a theoretical customer will actually need some new feature or whether the prior version answers all needs.

Also, in these hypothetical OS's no one's even mentioned hardware requirements. Lol.

Good talking with you as well.

You should reconsider your decision.

A subscription to a window app is ridiculous.

Hopefully you get the receipt for it.

It's true for most other software as well, so it's a mystery that some people think otherwise about Stardock apps.