All jokes aside, I'll try to keep this post as professional and up-beat despite my emotions after spending a half hour viewing this community after the recent update.


I'm a long-time FAN of invision community. My favorite communities in the early ages of my internet life were powered by this platform. I created my account looking for options to create communities myself now. I never pulled the trigger until recently, last month actually. I decided to purchase a Teams plan as it sounded suitable for my current situation.
I ran into a few issues as I already had a community and site up and running. Long story short before we even discuss other issues, the solution was and still is to self host the site. So here I am, 2 months in with my relationship (monetary) (remember this name you guys hold actually been around a while right?) and I went the self-hosted path.

Here are a few more reasons that helped me select this option:
1) This plan is a better price point if you're able to self-host.
2) There's something comforting about knowing I'm the only guy that can mess up the servers. I'm not going to experience maintenance when you guys do (if you guys even do lol.), I can assure my users of where their content lies, I mean this point alone done it for me I can go on and on.
3) I can make adjustments to hardware if capacity calls for it, without taking a forever hit to my bill fold (aka a recurring BILL)
4) As advertised, it says you get all of the invision applications (which you totally do, I'm not claiming you don't)

After this latest update I'm considering I may have made a crucial mistake in the past few months. I have already been on the fence as watching how the Marketplace has changed (note I was not a customer yet, I was just watching you know) from V4 to now its gone ? To now us self hosted customers (which by the way we are going to be charged yearly still. I remember back in the day checking out pricing plans and seeing something along the lines of LIFETIME.) are excluded from some features in the newest update, such as quests.

I'm sure V4 had a nice application that really introduced a system like that, that is no longer on a market place here. Like what is even the option for us to use this new feature that was shouted to me in my dashboard?


I don't know man, this update is extremely cool, but the way it is rolled out has really just rubbed me the wrong way here. I don't understand why this is a "tier" feature. If MUST be one, I still don't understand why the users who pay a premium in my eyes to self host don't get access to it. Like you're still getting those dollars from me you still got a customer like ???

You need to go ahead and slap a big announcement on the self-hosted package just like you did my admin dashboard. Go view your self-hosted package as a customer. What does it seem like??? You're getting all the bells and whistles right???

Wrong man. And that's cool dude. Just advertise it as such. If you're making this big change go ahead shout it out everywhere and let the clients make their choices. It just feels wrong.

DOES NOT INCLUDE NEW FEATURES LIKE QUESTS

I do think when self-hosted clients upgrade, no feature that isn't available should be listed as a new feature.

I hoped quests would be useful to me and my community; it sounded fun, and while I hope it does, it comes down to client-based users. I don't think it will, and as good as v5 is, there need to be features that continue to attract people who want to host their own site and have full control over it. For me, the cloud is too expensive.

Invision does need to come up with ways to encourage clients onto the cloud, but it does seem at times that the most exciting parts are cloud-only.

It's why a common joke is to insist everything be a cloud-only feature.

There are going to be improvements for us, and there will be for cloud customers. We all have the same goals at the end of the day: to see Invision improve. Being balanced is a good thing; reconsidering what cloud features could be self-hosted probably happens more often than we know. I understand why there's a need to encourage cloud customers, but at the same time it's disappointing. I don't recall seeing that "quests" was just for cloud users, but I may have missed it. It did get my hopes up.

5 minutes ago, ClawOfWinterfell said:

I do think when self-hosted clients upgrade, no feature that isn't available should be listed as a new feature.

I hoped quests would be useful to me and my community; it sounded fun, and while I hope it does, it comes down to client-based users. I don't think it will, and as good as v5 is, there need to be features that continue to attract people who want to host their own site and have full control over it. For me, the cloud is too expensive.

Invision does need to come up with ways to encourage clients onto the cloud, but it does seem at times that the most exciting parts are cloud-only.

It's why a common joke is to insist everything be a cloud-only feature.

There are going to be improvements for us, and there will be for cloud customers. We all have the same goals at the end of the day: to see Invision improve. Being balanced is a good thing; reconsidering what cloud features could be self-hosted probably happens more often than we know. I understand why there's a need to encourage cloud customers, but at the same time it's disappointing. I don't recall seeing that "quests" was just for cloud users, but I may have missed it. It did get my hopes up.

I love how positive you are after I'm assuming going through the same loops I have been.
Mad props to you.

I had prematurely informed my community what was coming as I have recently move to Invision. I still can't believe I have to tell them actually guys this huge move we did isn't permitting us to do this cool thing I just ranted about.


I too understand business needs, but this is indeed bad business. No where is it noted this feature is a cloud only feature. No where does it really state any new features we wouldn't have access to.

I don't know I'm really unimpressed with the company at this point. Someone sat there and made the choices, and they are ones of greed and good luck, most retailers are locked in, who are you after? Have you checked out the competition lately?

There have definitely been moments when I've felt unhappy, but I believe we can justify the inclusion of certain features through reasoning. Invision has always been my favourite forum solution; I once almost left back when the lifetime licenses were being torn up, but Pages and the suite's advancements won me over in the long term.

We can either accept that we won't get certain features, make a case for them, or just sulk.

I am not suggesting anyone in this feedback discussion is sulking, but I have seen it before in previous posts where f-bombs have been dropped and people seem to think that being rude is going to make people listen to them.

There are entry-level and second-level cloud clients expressing their desire for the "quests" feature.

They have every right, but as cloud packages get improved, some features might filter down. It seems unlikely us self-hosted clients will see it, because it's clearly an idea Invision believes will attract people to the third level of cloud hosting. So, what points can we raise where Invision may listen to us? Believe me, I have had bad times when I haven't managed to put myself over well.

I understand your disappointment, because I was too when I realised that a super useful new feature would be cloud-clients only.

2 hours ago, k1ngzo said:

No where is it noted this feature is a cloud only feature. No where does it really state any new features we wouldn't have access to.

I hear you; I don't recall reading it, and it was listed within the upgrade benefits, which is why Invision should make sure clients only see the updates they will get to avoid further confusion. Even if a blog or post had said it, it's not a great idea to list it as a benefit for upgrading when it's not going to be there.

2 hours ago, k1ngzo said:

I don't know I'm really unimpressed with the company at this point. Someone sat there and made the choices, and they are ones of greed and good luck, most retailers are locked in, who are you after? Have you checked out the competition lately?

It's the same feeling a lot of self-hosted clients feel when they see a new feature, but it turns out to be cloud-hosting only.

There has been talk in the past that has explained why a feature has been omitted from self-hosting; many, such as the live features, make sense. Others, like "Quests," do leave you scratching your head. All companies make difficult decisions and have to balance the happiness of everyone. We do the exact same thing when we try to please our members within our communities, and that can be a challenge.

So, if Invision doesn't listen to the feedback. If they remain on course with keeping it feature-locked, the only thing I can say is try to voice reasons why you want it.

The last alternative is to find a third-party dev who could make a more comprehensive feature, and you could go as far as improving what quests would do. This is a real thing to consider, but it might displease the Invision gods. That's not sarcasm, but I would like to point out that there's always an element of copying or taking on ideas. Many third-party ideas have ended up as core features over the years. Some alternatives to cloud-hosting features are already available third-party.

Social media has significantly influenced much of what we have observed from version 3.4 onward.

I mean telling them why would do no good,

I think I'd speak with my wallet and probably my mouth to convince others to do the same. It IS what they care about after all.

At this point I would cancel service and make a fork myself that I upkeep.

I wouldn't even be upset if the information was there, but it's not and when these community managers address it in these topics it is not very direct. Another tell tell sign they do not give a hoot. They have took almost a grand out of my pocket the past two months and I already feel like the plan I purchased is not going to get the updates it was advertising. I do not feel as if what I purchased is what I thought it was going to be.

Take the self hosted option off the site if this is the direction. The competition at least does that right.

Topic has been brought up thousands of times. I understand you're frustrated, but you have to accept it. Self-hosted has the lowest priority and makes up only a small part of the business. It's the worst type of customer pays the least and complains the most.

30 minutes ago, PanSevence said:

Topic has been brought up thousands of times. I understand you're frustrated, but you have to accept it. Self-hosted has the lowest priority and makes up only a small part of the business. It's the worst type of customer pays the least and complains the most.

Awesome put that in quotes in the self hosted page in pricing. Would have never bought if I knew this was the attitude around it.

11 minutes ago, k1ngzo said:

Awesome put that in quotes in the self hosted page in pricing. Would have never bought if I knew this was the attitude around it.

It's clearly stated what is included in the package. There's no information that quest functions are part of it, so why do you think they are available?

I understand the argument of deliberately building features for the IC cloud packages that use cloud native solutions (AWS products in this case) to build suite enriching features. Chances are IC will only continue to do more of that as they are cloud committed and their client base is a cloud majority.

However in that you have inevitably increasing costs. The more innovative they get that relies on cloud products to enrich their own product, the more expensive their own costs become. So there is a level of pragmatism in carefully selecting features to target and understanding the scaling of their own cost and its impact on clients. That is a game (yes game) of calculated business risk and client tolerance.

With that said, IC is becoming more sophisticated and professionally oriented, gravitating farther away from hobbyist sites. The cost of their chosen growth gets passed on to their clients, that is natural. And in order to be affordable, their clients will need their own revenue to support their sites. Feature growth and richness don't correlate with low cost.

Now I don't know if IC needed to push to the cloud and I don't know how much of what they built truly relies on it, but they wanted to be more than a software distributor and become a hosting solution as well. The cloud provides them native uniformity, stability, scalability, security and (cloud) product extensibility while allowing them to focus on innovation AND also gain a revenue stream from hosting.

Smart business but a bigger cost/revenue game that increasingly prices out smaller clients.

FWIW I am self hosted on 4 sites now and want to continue to be primarily due to cost and flexibility (IC has their defined hosting terms and you have no say in customizations you may want beyond that).

I'm hopeful they continue self hosted licensing and more so don't choose to release features to the cloud just to drive business there and forcefully phase out self hosting through an inferior subset of features. Only time will tell.

Edited August 6, 2025Aug 6 by Clover13

7 hours ago, k1ngzo said:

I too understand business needs, but this is indeed bad business. No where is it noted this feature is a cloud only feature. No where does it really state any new features we wouldn't have access to.

Hi @k1ngzo,

I'm not throwing any shade to your opinion/s or feedback, but it does specify that it is a Cloud plan-only feature on both the blog post and topic (check the last line of each).

First off, thank you for being a fan and a customer of Invision Community over all these years. Trust and loyalty aren't something that we take lightly, and I appreciate you taking the time to leave your thoughts.

I understand your frustration. I go running a lot and am tied into the Garmin ecosystem and currenly have the Forerunner 955 watch which does everything I want it to do and more. However, I still have a pang of envy watching the newer watches get a suite of OS features which offer more insight into breathing patterns, running tolerance, running economy and so on. Those features are locked into watches costing upwards of £800, while I paid around £400 for mine, which is still a significant investment.

Why do Garmin do this? To upsell to higher value items. By retaining high-end features in their premium watches, Garmin encourages some customers to upgrade to a higher-value model.

Would those additional watch features make me a better runner? Absolutely not. But I still want them all the same. Am I willing to pay double for the watch? No. I have to make purchasing decisions based on my budget and realistic needs.

We are not trying to be deceitful with our product tiers or pricing. We clearly state on each blog entry which product tiers these features will be available on. You'll notice it's not just "self-hosting" that won't get specific features; not all tiers will. We consider Invision Community Classic as a product tier, not a separate product.

The community platform market has undergone significant changes since a decade ago, and even more so in the last five years. There is no sustainable business with licensed downloadable software anymore. As of today, Invision Community Classic accounts for 12% of our income. That's down from 25% just a few years ago.

Bluntly, we'd have closed up shop or declined to the point where we have just a few team members and are unable to release updates, and we've fallen so far behind with technology that almost everyone would desert us for a more modern platform.

I can't control what the market does; we can only respond to it. And we are not afraid to make changes to ensure we continue to grow. No community platform on the market has taken such a significant leap forward as we did with Invision Community v5. I'm not just talking about legacy forum products, but even major players in our industry.

What does this mean for Invision Community and Invision Community Classic? We remain committed to it. We adjusted the model to focus on support and costs, making it more sustainable. However, our other product tiers are what are driving growth within the company, which allows Invision Community Classic to exist and get all the major updates v5 brings.

You will see us revamp our site soon, and our marketing focus will shift to business and enterprise, as these are the strongest segments of our market.

Having specific features which are primarily targeted at business and enterprise customers ensures that we offer a wide range of functionality for different budgets and needs.

I know that in the past we've had a single product tier, and it is an adjustment to move into a world where not every feature comes to every tier. Still, it helps grow our business and ensures we can afford to keep Invision Community Classic.

I can't tell you how you should psychologically react to this change. You've positioned it as a "stepchild," and I presume that this means you assume we love it less. Putting aside potential trauma for that stepchild in knowing this, we do not feel that way about Invision Community Classic. To us, it is one of our product tiers.

Lastly, you put across the notion about servers and control and spinning up more and so on. That ship has sailed. No one wants to do this anymore. I don't want to do this anymore. Those who do and enjoy it are the exception to the rule.

Other than having complete control (although your actual host, and their data centre, might argue about who has control), who really wants to be woken at 4am with a service down, or having to keep on top of server upgrades or fret about memory and how much disk space you have left on top of managing and growing your community? There's probably a handful of people left, but not enough to sustain us.

We continue to adapt and grow, and we want as many to come with us as possible, but I won't apologise for restructuring our business to ensure it has a bright future.

To add - I'm a cloud customer and I still don't get quests.

However, I understand there are different packages available and my package doesn't include them. That's the way of packages nowadays.

Do I wish I had quests? Yes. Will I upgrade for them? No - I can't justify the cost uplift for that feature. Do I begrudge not having them? No, I simply understand they aren't part of my chosen package.

I do agree that features that are unavailable shouldn't be on the upgrade list for you in the upgrade notes (or should be clearly highlighted which packages they are for on there).

53 minutes ago, James Hargreaves said:

I do agree that features that are unavailable shouldn't be on the upgrade list for you in the upgrade notes (or should be clearly highlighted which packages they are for on there).

Agreed, and we made a change yesterday to make it clear on the release notes.

I mean I stand with the last statement I put then man.

Get rid of community classic. Truly feels as if I was advertised something else. It wasn't clear there were new features in version 5 I wouldn't have access to. I literally would have never moved to self hosted if that was the case. I literally was running the teams plan starting 6/28.

Hope to see much changes to the self hosted page to accurately describe what it will be and what it won't be.

I mean seriously if you guys can't "afford" it then why even offer it?

Literally a new customer who didn't dig deeper than beyond the pricing page. Insanity.

34 minutes ago, k1ngzo said:

I literally would have never moved to self hosted if that was the case. I literally was running the teams plan starting 6/28.

I'm happy to help you move back and take into account the license purchase.

3 minutes ago, Matt said:

I'm happy to help you move back and take into account the license purchase.

Literally.

If there’s one thing I noticed and know. Invision isn’t greedy and doesn’t do it purely out of money. No. They do it out of passion, but that passion became a business and business needs to be sustainable. Sorry, my blood is boiling reading comments from people saying it’s pure greed. It’s not.

As I said in my thread, why classic license renewal is only one price (200usd)?. Offering more options like 200 300 500 (or 200 and 500 only) per year and add more features to each plan like courses and live updates. Cloud customers are unaffected and self hosted people who need more features will pay for it, and invision will get extra cash.

1 hour ago, asd937 said:

As I said in my thread, why classic license renewal is only one price (200usd)?. Offering more options like 200 300 500 (or 200 and 500 only) per year and add more features to each plan like courses and live updates. Cloud customers are unaffected and self hosted people who need more features will pay for it, and invision will get extra cash.

It makes sense in theory—but in practice, it's not so feasible or easy to manage compared to the Cloud model.

Take this example: you decide to go all-in on premium features, which costs $500 a year, versus sticking with a basic $200 license. Later, you decide to downgrade back to the $200 plan. What happens to the extra features you were paying for? Will every customer voluntarily remove or stop using them? Maybe. But realistically, many wouldn’t—they’d continue using the extra features without paying.

There’s no easy way to monitor, restrict, or disable those features on self-hosted sites. It would put unnecessary strain on the Invision team to police licenses or enforce compliance. So while the idea of modular licensing is appealing, the practical execution—especially on self-hosted installs—is far more complex.

3 minutes ago, Cedric V said:

It makes sense in theory—but in practice, it's not so feasible or easy to manage compared to the Cloud model.

Take this example: you decide to go all-in on premium features, which costs $500 a year, versus sticking with a basic $200 license. Later, you decide to downgrade back to the $200 plan. What happens to the extra features you were paying for? Will every customer voluntarily remove or stop using them? Maybe. But realistically, many wouldn’t—they’d continue using the extra features without paying.

There’s no easy way to monitor, restrict, or disable those features on self-hosted sites. It would put unnecessary strain on the Invision team to police licenses or enforce compliance. So while the idea of modular licensing is appealing, the practical execution—especially on self-hosted installs—is far more complex.

coding wise it is possible to place timer on these features that can stop features if no renewal is made. Invision can even stop all forum completely remotely for violation of license terms. Clients will upgrade to keep forums working and to get security updates and premium features their community value. If customer decides to downgrade, it can be done from dashboard like upgrade. Ion cube can be used to secure php code if this is a concern

3 minutes ago, asd937 said:

coding wise it is possible to place timer on these features that can stop features if no renewal is made. Invision can even stop all forum completely remotely for violation of license terms. Clients will upgrade to keep forums working and to get security updates and premium features their community value. If customer decides to downgrade, it can be done from dashboard like upgrade. Ion cube can be used to secure php code if this is a concern

IonCube isn’t even enabled by default on most shared hosting environments—unless you specifically request it from your provider. And even then, there’s a good chance they’ll decline. So relying on IonCube as a method of licensing control isn’t a great move.

Timers aren’t much better either. If a customer downgrades mid-term, how do you cleanly handle that? A timer won’t necessarily reflect changes in their agreement, and it opens the door to people bypassing restrictions. These methods sound good on paper but are far from practical in a real-world setting.

16 minutes ago, Cedric V said:

IonCube isn’t even enabled by default on most shared hosting environments—unless you specifically request it from your provider. And even then, there’s a good chance they’ll decline. So relying on IonCube as a method of licensing control isn’t a great move.

Timers aren’t much better either. If a customer downgrades mid-term, how do you cleanly handle that? A timer won’t necessarily reflect changes in their agreement, and it opens the door to people bypassing restrictions. These methods sound good on paper but are far from practical in a real-world setting.

Ion cube can be a must prerequisite like php mysqul, if your server can't have it then better to get cloud.

Payment can be yearly or every two years in advance, so customer already paid and can't change his mind.

3 hours ago, asd937 said:

Ion cube can be a must prerequisite like php mysqul, if your server can't have it then better to get cloud.

We tried that like 20 years ago and people could not comprehend ioncube. People have enough trouble keeping MySQL running 😄

12 hours ago, Matt said:

I'm happy to help you move back and take into account the license purchase.

Respond to the entire message?

If it isn't clear my vibe isn't giving off "i'm going to support these guy's month to month payment system after being treated like a paying customer of theirs"