#2 Hour Limit

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

round glacier
#

I think it’s ridiculous to force users to pay a steep Pro price just to access basic mods. I’ve seen a lot of backlash about this, along with claims that some people were banned for sharing negative opinions. I’m not defending those individuals—if they were toxic, a ban may be justified—but if people are being banned simply for discussing this issue, that’s a poor way for the Wand team to handle it.

I wanted to share my concerns because this change is driving customers away, myself included. There are better ways to approach this, like keeping basic mods free and placing additional features behind a paywall. Right now, it feels like we’re being forced to pay for features many of us don’t even want, just to access the basics. "Play Games Your Way, Without Limits" while limiting us is very shady.

Overall, this approach feels predatory and harmful to the business. I hope the team reconsiders, but until then, I’ll be uninstalling Wand and looking elsewhere for trainers.

sonic kettle
#

Hey Squishy,

We appreciate the honest feedback. We know not everyone will agree with this decision, but we want to assure you it wasn't made on a whim we carefully reviewed the data before moving forward.

The reality is that keeping up with constant game updates across 4,000+ titles takes a huge team. We've more than tripled our development staff, including creators like FLiNG and MrAntiFun, and last year alone we shipped 400+ new game supports, nearly 9,000 mods, and 3,000+ updates. The 2-hour session timer is part of making sure we can sustain and grow that effort.

On the topic of bans the users who were removed early on had already been warned and had ignored the posted rules and timeouts in place. Sharing feedback is always welcome; breaking community rules is not.

We hope you'll reconsider, but either way, thanks for being part of the community while you did.

sweet sentinel
errant anchor
#

lol "Why you make me pay for mods. I want free. Give free or your business fail. I uninstall."

civic karma
#

i have pro btw but i am just saying 2 hours does feel rly short

round glacier
round glacier
# sonic kettle Hey Squishy, We appreciate the honest feedback. We know not everyone will agree...

I appreciate the response and the transparency behind the decision. I understand that maintaining support for thousands of games and constant updates takes significant effort and resources.

That said, I still believe this is a misstep from both a business and community standpoint. From a user perspective, it feels like the platform has expanded in ways that don’t align with what much of the community actually values. Growing the team is understandable, but if those features aren’t what users want, it creates a disconnect—especially when core functionality is now behind a higher paywall.

The 2-hour session timer and Pro requirement for basic mods come across as forcing users into paying for a broader package rather than offering flexibility. Keeping essential features accessible while monetizing extras would likely be received much more positively. Even increasing the time limit, like wacekawe said, feels like a step in the right direction.

I also want to point out that, from the outside, the response to feedback feels dismissive. There’s been a large amount of negative reaction, and while not every decision can please everyone, it doesn’t seem like there’s much willingness to adapt or meet users halfway. That’s what concerns me most—the sense that the direction is set regardless of community response.

I say this respectfully because I did value the platform and would prefer to see it succeed. Right now, this approach risks pushing away the user base that helped build it.

fluid yoke
#

Uninstalling and moving to another platform. You gain revenue by improving your products, not overexpanding your team and worsening the user experience.

Especially when the entire community has been vocal and helpful on suggested changes etc.

errant anchor
# round glacier That kind of response just dismisses the discussion instead of engaging with it....

The issue isn't deep or complicated as you're trying to say though either. Your concern is that you don't want to have to pay for a service that you're provided. You act as if you're entitled to it to the degree that when you don't get it for free any more you already made the decision to uninstall and move on to other programs that you can use for free. You're offering absolutely nothing in terms of constructive criticism when the only thing that would fix your issue is making it free again. And even then you can still use the program. Just with a time limit but it's not like it's expensive.

#

I just don't get how you can say that the response they give is being dismissive either when the only thing you can offer as far as feedback is "don't make it cost anything"

round glacier
# errant anchor The issue isn't deep or complicated as you're trying to say though either. Your ...

You’re misrepresenting my point. I’m not arguing that everything should be free—I’ve already said that changes like increasing the time limit would be a step in the right direction, so it’s not a black-and-white “make it free or nothing” stance.

My criticism is about how the core functionality was handled and the lack of flexibility in the current model. There’s a difference between reasonable monetization and locking basic features behind a higher barrier in a way that doesn’t align with what many users actually want. That is constructive criticism, even if you don’t agree with it.

Reducing it to “you just want free stuff” ignores the actual points being made and doesn’t really engage with the discussion.

errant anchor
#

But you still have access to it and literally nobody else gives you that much access for free. Who's the biggest competitor? CH? They're not giving you near that much for free and it's in a much sloppier format.

civic imp
round glacier