Official: How Can We Serve You Better?

Agreed. It's a mess if project uses several assets and half of them break if you change folder name or move em around. Manually fixing the path problems get overwritten with asset updates. There are a lot of threads about asset store flaws but nearly none of them have received anything but thanks for the suggestions and we will look in to it style posts. They should do their own "Asset Store: How can we serve you better" since its kinda service of its own. Most of the problems could be solved enforcing better asset submit rules.

 

Fair enough - Keep in mind that your posts may have come across as a little too harsh though, and almost personal (I thought so anyway).

 

If it helps, I can personally attest that Unity does NOT ignore the small guys. I'm a company of one, haven't produced any actual games yet, and even still Unity listens.

At one point I provided a bug report for the Water4 prefab, with a repro. Days later, they acknowledged the repro, were able to reproduce it themselves, and said that a fix would be forthcoming at some point.
That's more than I can say about any other big software product I've used.

 

Did you get your fix?
I've submitted 2 bugs with repro instructions. In both cases I've got the confirmation the next day that QA was able to reproduce it and that it's sent to developers for resolution. The first was in December, a minor inspector UI bug, not fixed yet, the other one, a Shuriken module bug - a few weeks ago. I don't care much about the first one, but the Shuriken one might be annoying if you don't know of a workaround. Hopefully it'll get fixed sooner rather than later.

 

LOL, the only co-workers I'd ever felt any pity for after I graduated from university were the QAs and the CMs. Talk about unjustly getting an earful from both sides and the better they do their jobs the bigger earful they get, and...I once reported a bug and it was ignored I imagine because it was on obscure, EOLed HW with questionable quality meshes and textures but...whatever.

 

I've suggested earlier in this thread that asset store plugins act like installers when they get imported into your project, partly so that you, the user, can choose where it gets installed.

If the creator needed to put native dlls in the Plugins folder though, we can't do anything about that, because they only work in those folders. This was something I was hoping to get improved too. So I also suggested earlier in this thread that the function of "Editor", "Standard Assets", etc, be moved to being properties that you can set to any folder (saved in the folder's meta file).

That way, an asset store plugin can truly be in one folder and be self-contained.

 

Since resources-folder are special and you can have several of them, it would be enough to have the ability to do the same with "plugins"-subfolder, without implementing special properties for folder.

 

We are indeed working on Unionpay/Alipay support

 

^this^

and how the hell did this turn into a bug report discussion... damn.

I think you could easily lock this thread and walk away and a full spectrum of what-to-do's... going in any direction you choose. personally, I would just make a list, prioritize it based on quality, and then match what Unity wants to do with already established plans/priorities.

 

On that note, improving the Asset Store QA to cover some of this stuff would rock.

I've got assets in the past with hard-coded path names so I can't move stuff to fit with how my project is organised. That's annoying.

Then there's also the thing where only current versions of stuff are available. That's also annoying, especially where the vendors don't care about a stable API - if you're forced to upgrade then you might also be forced into a major re-factoring of your own codebase to suit.

 

I'm both a non-enterprise Pro user (at work) and a hobby user with a free license. The accounts aren't linked, so Unity don't know when I contact them via the freebie account that I'm a Pro user at all... and yet on multiple occasions I've had prolonged discussions with support staff.

I've also had a fair bit of communication with them via the work account as a normal Pro user.

In other words I certainly don't feel ignored, and I don't think there's any reason they'd treat me any differently to others. My suspicion is that it comes down to what you're asking and the information you're able to provide moreso than what kind of license you have.

 

I've actually been treated very nicely on my support requests even though 1 out of 2 have been I am out of license activations. Ultimately my forgetfulness. 3 of the others I was advised that the VS project file configuration was wrongly setup, definitely not Unity's fault.

I can't do anything about how license activation is done however the second scenario of an incorrect VS project file configuration is not something you'd not expect to hear a report back from as it's not a bug on the part of Unity but I did 3 times with the correct resolution and on the same problem. I doubt I'm the only one that has sent a bug report that wasn't a bug to Unity due to a lack of expertise in some area of technical expertise and not an actual bug.

 

The problem is that it's dependent on the folder name. Susceptible to spelling errors, and that you can't mix-and-match their properties unless you put an "Editor" folder inside a "Standard Assets" folder, etc.

I'm also wondering why some folders needed to be only at the topmost of your Assets directory to work.

In my plugin, I have this silly little code where it recursively searches your whole Assets folder to look for where the plugin's been placed to do that... only to find out later on that there's this thing called the "Editor Default Resources" that does the job of giving a Resources folder for editor extensions.

It's partly what irks me with these special folder names. It's not obvious what all the special folder names are to new users. I've had to make a wiki page to collect all of them. If they were settings you can fiddle around with, it'd be straightforward (at least I hope so).

I've suggested elsewhere that they give us the ability to download previous versions of an asset. Think SourceForge. It could give the extra benefit that it lets the author also put up additional stuff as separate download: documentation, mobile-friendly versions, etc.

 

tl;dr: contrary to other people here, Unity as it is, is more than enough for my needs right now.

My stand with the topic on the bugs:

I'm only concerned when there's crash-causing bugs, of which we haven't had much lately.

Sure we don't have the latest .NET. Dynamic cloth isn't exactly easy to use. Mecanim and Shuriken scripting is... *sigh*

Then I'd make a workflow where I'm not dependent on them. If a project came on that needed something Unity doesn't have, or it has but is doing an extremely poor job of it, I'd simply advise my boss to not use Unity for it.

I have no qualms with the fact that NGUI doesn't feel like it's built-in. It does the job. Numerous asset store plugins are doing the job some people feel should be built-in into Unity. I don't mind that.

I have this stance because, I haven't bought a Pro license, so I don't feel entitled to make demands (I understand you guys come from a different situation). And honestly, I'm not sure I want to plop down my $1,500 yet. As it is, there's not much Pro features I need or want.

We plan on buying one (for now) subscription license in the coming week because we now have some funding, and we're gonna start development on our game in earnest.

To be brutally honest, the only immediate benefit I see from getting a Pro license and deploying our demo on it right now is so we could get rid of that Unity splash screen logo at the start. You guys already know why players get dismissive when they see that. I love Unity, but not the gamer's stigma surrounding it.

(I'm sure we could take advantage of the graphical niceness and full-screen effects that Pro gives later down the road, but they're really superficial stuff as far as I'm concerned; fun game with not so cool graphics? still fun. but the other way around? not so much. I'd rather concentrate on getting to the "make the game fun" part right now, of which, Unity isn't being an obstacle for me in tackling that task)

 

I do not know if my opinions really have a bearing as I am close to a beginner with Unity but I am a one man "hobby" show that started off by reading about Minecraft and how much the creator had earned and at that point decided i also wanted to earn as much I then bought "Objective-c for Dummies" and "iPhone Application Development for dummies" and started from the absolute beginning.

To start off with something i could grasp, as an absolute beginner, i decided to do something very easy, a quiz game.

Two years later I have released a few games, based on the same extremely bad coded, but working, quiz platform with, from my standard, great result. Still rolling approximately a 100 paying games a week. My big luck was that the original game was reviewed as the second funniest game to bring with you on the school holiday that gave me a lot of really good sales, and still do.

However, i decided to create a new 2D card game using Apple SpriteKit and made a prototype that worked, i was planning to use Apportable to port it to Android. I then read a tutorial on Ray Wenderlish webpage (http://www.raywenderlich.com/66345/unity-2d-tutorial-animations) and decided to give it a try. To my amazement i recreated the exactly the same prototype with approximately only 35% of the code. Well, i had to learn C#, which as been quite fun.

Coming from the Apple/XCODE world, and especially being a very poor programmer, it is one particular thing i miss at this very early stage of my Unity experience. However, being so new as I am with Unity this thing may actually exist already but i have not found it.

With my very limited experience of Unity the thing i miss most of everything, so far, is the ability to create snapshots of the full project at any time to be able to restore to a previous point.

 

Nobody ever said something about demons from hell or a evil corporation. And nobody told you an idiot. Please don't put such words in our mouth. I second the wish to stay civil here. I feel sorry that you see the debate about the bugs as a personal attack. It is not. It was never meant in a personal way.

I can of course understand your frustration. You explain and explain and explain, and nobody seems to listen. Now try to understand our frustration too. Because we have the very same feeling. We DO listen, we explain and explain and explain ... . It's like we use two different languages here. What you overlook is that we are also developers. We all have our experiences with bugs and bugfixing. And we are the unhappy customers too. We don't moan for no reason. Something goes into the wrong direction here.

And this wrong direction is in my opinion a bug fixing system that ruins Unity in the long run. Because Unity gets buggier with every version. The bugs accumulate. Version 2 was buggy here and there, but great. Version 3 was still good. Version 4 is so la la. And already close to nasty in more than one area. It's a nice curve to follow here. With a negative peak at version 4.3, which was useless at release date because of the performance problem bug.

Count two and two together, and then tell me how Unity 5 will be.

I have seen this qualitative degeneration happen at more than one software. And quite a few have biten the dust then with the try to do a complete rewrite. Unity may still be far away from that. But it is already in the state where more than one user starts to moan about the existing unfixed bugs and flaws. This happens now and here in this thread as you may notice.

And here we are back at the initial question. How can you serve us better? Please solve the bug dilemma!

You asked, we answered. Yes, the answer is definitely uncomfortable for you. But the bug question is ON TOPIC. So please don't try to make us quiet with hinting towards off topic. The issue is too important. That's why i don't really get the resistance here.

 

I think this thread should be finished, but I suggest at doing so in a careful manner. For example start directing conversations into relevant threads and topics. What we don't need, is lots of mixed discussions and frustrations in a 1000+ post thread!

Since 'How Can We Serve You Better?' is an open ended issue, one possible solution is to replace it with a regular summary thread - for example I've been following the development of C# 6 over at the recently open sourced Roslyn compiler. They release meeting notes (split into parts covering small batches of issues, to maintain clarity) of current discussions the language design team is having - enabling the community to understand the position of the team on various issues and provide feedback.

 

This is a key sentence. Thanks. Up to this point it communicated more as a "we did it this way in the past, and we will do it this way in the future, basta".

But what is different really? The baby has another name. Sustained Engineering. And there is a promise to release bug fixes faster. But for the rest it still looks like you continue as usual. Which didn't work in the past. The bugs accumulated. More and more showstoppers makes it through. I simply don't see how the same failing strategy will magically work in the future now.

In the end i don't really mind how you solve the bug dilemma, as long as you solve it. So let's wait what happens. Even when i fear that we will lead the same discussion again in the nearer future.

 

From the blog about Sustained Engineering:

As Thomas mentioned previously, they fix bugs for 4 versions of Unity at the same time (4.3, 4.5, 4.6 and 5.0). The sustained engineering team will be working on bugs for the current release. This means that there are more people working to fix bugs in the current release, something which they didn't have before. I'm not sure how someone can take this information and think that it's the same system as it now, but with a new name.

 

Thomas— I think it's better to ignore their criticism. It's noble that you're trying to help them understand how the bug system works but it's ultimately pointless when it's concerns from one or two users out of thousands. They're not running Unity's QA dept., you are, and you don't have to justify yourself to them. Take their suggestions on board and rise to a higher level than them and move forward.

Brett— A much as I think this thread continues to see great feedback and ideas, unless the irreverent posts of the last 10 pages are discouraged, this topic should probably be locked with your final summary of feedback. If that does happen though, I hope this can become an annual feature of Unity, as I think it's a great way to get user feedback!

 

Oh, I think it has more to do with growing to more than 600K active users. They will need to find a way to consolidate bugs with the same root cause, fix those bugs, and dismiss the bug reports as fixed at once.

I can remember once being assigned to replicate bugs and we didn't even have the HW for me to attempt to replicate it on. Bugs aren't always about SW code. We had to borrow custom HW the customer bought from us and then had to borrow their database used to configure the HW. With the correct configuration of HW SW dB I found the bug very fast but it had lingered for at least 2 years prior and led to things being thrown against the wall by the customer and banning of certain people on site if crash wasn't fixed. So they flew me out to site to watch for it to happen on an in service system to see if it was actually what I found and when it was the HW engineers fixed the problem very fast. It was futile though until we could consistently reproduce the bug and they had one engineer assigned to it for 2 years with several hours a month that couldn't reproduce because it because he didn't have right HW or SW dB.

While I don't think all the bugs listed in Unity's bug database will be that easy if they could allow, if the private information was, well, privatized, the public to attempt to reproduce and isolate bugs to were causing them problems for comparison's sake with their current work.

If using assets out of the Asset Store started reporting which assets and which version are imported into projects and what warnings and errors start happening on import of those assets packages and one started including asset packages and those warning/errors as a sorting criteria in your bug database I can see how that could be helpful.

Also to include as sorting criteria the number of meshes, textures, the total size of the textures, the total size of the meshes, materials, animation controllers, the lines of C# code, the lines of JS code, the lines of Boo Code, and whether scripts from more than one language are included in a project. Also whether none asset store plugins where used.

And of course sorting criteria by Unity API and compiler errors/warnings.

Make this (privatized) sorting information and project information available to the public as sorted clusters and allow them to drill down to interesting bug report Unity configurations (if you can do that without violating privacy) so the public can attempt to reproduce and isolate the bug. Of course if Unity game engine isn't made open source they can't fix it but I think most bugs can easily be dismissed if it's simply namespace problems and a number of other common mistakes.

Some bugs might be textures and meshes violating standards or attempting to use too many of them in a project and those can't be helped in most cases. If that were the case I'd hope Unity could grey them out from usage after import one day.

That or a similar system is a lot of work to implement but I'd be surprised if you haven't got such a system already implemented. You can use the system to build a KB (hopefully better than any KB I've encountered to date).

 

But it's not the same strategy. If you think the only thing that's changed is the name then I think you've missed something somewhere.

 

The strategy to priorize bugs is the very same. And there is nowhere mentioned that the old dismissed bugs gets fixed now. Means the bugs will still accumulate on top of what we already have.

But yeah, surprise me. We'll see if my favourite show stoppers will stay or not

 

Sure, but at the end of the day that's the same strategy everyone uses in all practicality. If you can't reproduce it you can't test to see if it's fixed, which makes it a bad idea to try. Keep in mind that even when fixing a bug, all changes have to be thoroughly tested to make sure they don't introduce new bugs. So blindly trying to fix bugs that you can't test against means that you're increasing the risk of adding new bugs without even knowing if what you're doing is going to fix anything. Plus, it takes time away from fixing other bugs that actually are testable.

Throwing time at stuff that can't be reproduced simply isn't the most productive thing they could be spending their time on.

It's naively idealistic to believe that bugs won't accumulate in any large scale software development. What's important is how they're managed, and having worked with Unity since v1.6 and successfully delivered dozens of projects with it during that time I can honestly say I don't have an issue with their approach to this.

Can you provide data that will help get them fixed? There's nothing to gain from complaining about stuff not getting fixed under these circumstances. But now that you know precisely why they're not getting fixed you're in a perfect position to do something about it. And if they're genuinely showstoppers for you... why wouldn't you?

 

Seems that we talk about two completely different things here

It's not about the bugs that are not reproduceable or hard to fix. We all know that rascals that makes you crazy to catch. It's also not about declined bugs that gots declined for good reason.

It's about regular reproduceable valid bugs with perfect description that gets ignored because the staff thinks they are too small to get fixed. Little naggers like the 0.01 scale for FBX import. Priorities ... .

And it's about show stoppers that gets categorized as little naggers, and makes it more and more through. It's about wrong priorities. And it's about the masses that falls under the table. The masses that accumulates with every version. Which will end in the situation that just very big bugs gets fixed, and the usual workflow ends in more and more workarounds.

Maybe i am naive and idealistic. But i have seen software dying at this. My favourite 3D software has biten the dust that way. It is no good thing.

But i already did. The issues are long reported. But half of my reported bugs are simply not fixed. And i can exactly do nothing about it. I have already done what was possible. I reported them, i documented them, i gave advice and example projects. I cannot fix them by myself. I have no access to the Unity source code.

It's also not about that just my showstoppers gets fixed. The whole system is faulty from my angle of view. That's what worries me. As told, i have seen this degeneration game happen too often in the past.

 

The only example that you've given there is the 0.01 scale on FBX import, which isn't actually a bug? That's a preference - no matter what the default is, some people will have to change it. Considering the wide variety of models we've used from a wide variety of 3D packages, exporters, and online repositories, since we rarely ever have to change it I think it's arguably a sensible default.

 

Couple of suggestions:

• UT should build AAA games using Unity, this would I hope push the development of the engine further and faster than incremental updates and changes. Provide UT with a separate revenue stream and give the community a great set of templates and free assets to work on.
• Build a VR enabled version of the Editor with a 3d visual scripting system that generates code and is generated from code.
• Open up the source code of the Unity engine so the community can help you find and fix problems and add/improve features.

 

For me it is. Default should be an integer. 1. You want to import your mesh in a ratio of 1:1 in most cases. Ideally this feature should keep the last value you have typed in.

And i did mention more than that.

I did also mention before that i have to close Unity from time to time when the edit boxes quits working in the Inspector tab.
I did also mention before that the gravity does not work for joypad.
I did also mention before that the tree maker is crashy.

Makes three more. And those are the showstoppers that i talk about. But yeah, the thread is really long now.

 

Yet we don't see it, that's why we are still discussing about it.

Reading this thread i noticed something, that when somebody says
"It would be cool to have add feature X", the answer usually is
"YES! We are working on that"

While, when somebody says "I have this bug Y that's affecting my work", however, the answer is something like
"Stop complaining, part of it got fixed in release Z that is coming soon(ish)™"
AKA we can't tell you how many months it will take to ship a point release, OR WHY it's taking so long.

Be a little more transparent on show-stopper bugs, maybe?

The GCC team has a categorization of bugs with priority from P1 to P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/management.html
P1 Most important. [...] A P1 regression blocks the release.
P2 This generally indicates a regression users will notice on a major platform, which is not severe enough to block a release though. This includes bugs that were already present in a previous release.
P3 The default priority for new PRs which have not been prioritized yet.
Priorities below P3 are not on the radar of release management.

It's not that difficult to do.
If you can point to a P1 bug, you have a reasonable excuse to delay a release.
If you are delaying because you want to make a better release, you can say you are working on solving P2 and P3 bugs.

 

That would make my exports from C4D come in giant at 200 units tall for a standard character.

HTH

 

This just recently was implemented. Give it some ramp up time. Then if it is still the same schtick in a few months..smack them around .. I am sure at this point they are listening to all reasonable suggestions to handle interfacing with the dev community. I personally think Thomas and Graham have shown remarkable constraint when dealing with the emotional nature of many of the posters in this thread. I would have unloaded the equivalent of a salt shotgun on many a post if I was them..heh..

 

And makes my export from Blender, Ultimate Unwrap 3D, and many others come in as 0.02 units small. See the problem?

This is definitely a step towards the right direction

 

As the grfx guru at UT can you explain for our edification how to achieve the equivalent of the UE or CryTek "look" or what parts may be missing, what could be added future wise and other pertinent info surrounding this? For many here this area of the engine is a black box. Is it the need to cater to hardware in that a great many end users do not have a honking gaming computer setup? Is it technical limitations in the lighting algorithms? In my experience some setups look awesome with little tweaking and in others I just cannot find the right combo. I cannot place my finger on exactly why.

 

Yeah.. You have to set the scale per your needs. Simple fix and not something Unity should do as most pro level apps the scale does not need adjusting. Set the export scale on your app to correctly export the FBX so it comes into Unity correctly for your needs. This is NOT a bug. It is a preference.

 

That is great to hear and it's a step in the right direction. Most of the devs here will appreciate a main release focused mainly on bug fixing and improvements.
I myself am looking forward to it. ( hope my long time bug is fixed in this release, fingers crossed )

 

Well, we'll just have to politely agree to disagree re: what makes a "bug" and also re: what makes a "showstopper".

4.5 sounds epic, and I can't wait to get my hands on it.

 

will this OUT REAL SOON NOW maybe anywhere near this week?

 

Yes - fbx size and units inside 3D Applications are not standardised. I have that problem between many of my 3D Apps. Before GoZBrush this used to be a real pain in the ***. Difference here being that ZBrush for example does KNOW which application a model is coming from.

Usually Unity really does not give me nearly as much of a headache as you always make it out to be. I model my things in modo in real world metric units - they import the same size. I could really care less whether the auto-importer sets the scale to 1, 0.1 or 0.01 - a factor of ten simply is the unit scale difference between most 3D applications. Also neither me, nor any of my colleagues at work or any of my clients so far had ANY complaits or problems about the size of models that were modeled in metric real world scale.

I never had any factors of 2 on import. Ever.
I've been using, Cinema 4D, Modo and ocasionally ZBrush for final export. I am using Topogun but never exported a final mesh from it - always one of these programs is the last step befor a model goes to obj or fbx. Except for rapid prototyping I also do not use native files import in Unity any more. It's just a bad habbit and need to much work to sift through all the files at the end.

I see you complain about the subject of import scale a lot but really: please tell me what it is that makes the internal import factor such an issue for you. If you cannot set the scale somewhere inside Unity then you must rely on your 3D app to export the model in exactly the size of Unity's measurements. And not even all 3D Apps support a final size export factor - so maybe you'd even need to scale any model by factor X * 10 before export. What makes this such an important issue for you that it needs to get fixed sooner than some of the really pressing bugs and(or even showstoppers?

 

Okay, this has been a problem in the past and I think that it's something that should have been fix a long time ago: ASSET STORE VERSIONING.

Every time a new point release of Unity comes out or a new version release comes out, the asset store becomes an absolute flustercuck of assets updating to support the new version while losing support for the most previous version. In order to accommodate this, a lot of asset developers end up having to either host two versions on the store, or host special versions for compatibility reasons on their own sites. The asset store should be able to handle this natively with a "download compatible version" option. Even the App Store does this now.

 

We have all been hearing about Unity 4.5 and 4.6 for a while. Since none of us have access to these versions, you are still hearing complaints regarding the state of bug fixes in Unity 4.3. If you want to impress all of us with 4.5 and 4.6, then you need to release those new versions. This is a huge part of the disconnect between Unity staff and Unity users right now. There is simply too much lag between when the Unity staff gets a new version ready and when the Unity users get to use the new version. "Coming Soon" counts for nothing at this point, because users have all heard that for too long. To rebuild some of the trust that was lost in recent years, Unity needs to release 4.5 and 4.6.

 

Err, what? Please reread. I gave you three show stoppers too. This is the second time that you deny that i ever told them.

We can argue if the import issue is a bug or not. It is definitely a nagger. And a fix would improve the workflow.

Interesting that everybody stops at the import issue now. But not a single note about the show stoppers. Selective reading is a funny thing sometimes

It is not SUCH an issue. It was an example for a nagger bug that i stumble across at a daily base. There was enough demand that there is even a script around to fix this, here we are at the workarounds again.

The naggers are nasty and time eating, but relative harmless. It's the masses that is bad here.

The showstoppers though are real issues. When i have to redo a tree because the tree maker ruins the result with a wrong click, then this is a big issue. When i have to reboot Unity to continue with work, because the values in the edit boxes are not longer editable, then this is a big issue. When a feature is simply out of order, and my joypad has no working gravity while the keyboard has, then this is a big issue.

All three stops my show, that's where the definition show stopper comes from. I cannot continue without a workaround. They all fall into category 5, needs an urgent fix. They all are around since quite a while. The joypad gravity issue dates back to Unity 2.6 and earlier.

 

I'm a Unity Pro owner, under the educational commercial license.
Here is my list of requests/observations.

1. If you're going to give a discount to edu customers for the commercial license, make it a "discount" rather than half price for half as many installs.
2. Better than 1 above, do away with the 1 or 2 computer install requirements entirely. It's an antiquated system with no purpose other than to punish actual paying customers. Plenty of other software allows you to install on as many machines as you like. I'd prefer a login system and/or a hardware dongle to this crappy release and renew install system.
3. If you can't/won't do number 2 or 3, then make the licensing manageable through the web while away from (or when you lose access to) your install without having to email tech support to have the license released.
4. Create a direct upgrade path for educational users. Right now, I'm perpetually on the educational license, so If I leave my current position, I can no longer buy the upgrade through Studica (at the discount). I can buy upgrades directly through Unity, but they are no longer discounted (which I'm fine with), but the license remains the 1 install edu license, even though I'd now be paying full upgrade price. This is something I was NOT made aware of at the time I purchased.
5. Get rid of the some users are second class citizens schemes. This has been the bane of Unity since the beginning. Too many licensing categories and too many unnecessary restrictions, when the reality is the "must get Pro after 100K revenue" should be enough to distinguish between free and pro.
6. Get rid of the licensing per target scheme and/or offer a significant package discount for all the licenses.
7. Open the source up.
8. Create a system that allows updates to be downloaded and installed as smaller patches rather than a complete download and re-install with every .x version of Unity, particularly when it's just to fix a few bugs.
9. Offer a subscription plan that isn't quite so expensive.
10. Create more purchase options including revenue share models as a possible option.

 

It's a step in the right direction.

The next could be transparency about what's stopping a release.
And a further one could be transparency on bug/feature prioritization.

 

This sort of post is basically all I want as far as "why is thing late" is concerned. Even just a simple one paragraph blurb.

 

I agree - knowing it's late, with a brief explanation why, is a lot better than being kept in the dark wondering if it'll be today/tomorrow/next week/next month.

 

+1