I'm sorry are you suggesting devs should write code for free or am I misunderstanding? Because that makes no sense. A ton of work goes into writing add-ons.
No, I'm saying that 3rd party developers are having to develop code for processes that should currently be first party (in the core script)... and they do charge for them. So the argument that "if it was included in the core it would increase the cost" is a straw-man argument, because paying for those third party add-ons increase the cost of the script already.... without the guarantee one gets when it's native to the script.
I'm not talking about major add-ons... but simply facets that the current script lacks. XFES is a classic case. There was recently someone trying to figure out how not to get (via ACP options) the
Similar/Suggested Threads to not show up at the bottom of every post. I can see a VERY valid need for that in some areas... and it doesn't appear to exist. You can probably do it by template edits for specific groups... but it would be MUCH easier to simply have an option in the first party ES add-on (which you have paid $50 for) to select what nodes you want the
Suggested/Similar Threads to show up in. You CAN somewhat do this by purchasing a 3rd party add-on for another $50 initial/$25 yearly renewal, but it's a simple thing that should be core.
I think it is more about things that should be added to core specifically (like better Elastic Search support), than just third-party add-ons in general.
EXACTLY... it's not so much stuff like Groups, Calendars or anything like that.. it's stuff that simply (and usually in a very easy manner) extends the very basic core features that XF offers either in their base script or their 1st party add-ons.
Simple stuff also... like being able to choose whether
version numbers are shown on the XFRM index page or not (as showing the uploaded date as a place filler itself looks rather crappy). One shouldn't have to create a template edit to remove that. In fact, one could argue that showing the
version number in the descriptor should not even be done.. it should be an "extra" field display item on the index (admin selectable).
This
Looks a lot cleaner than having dates and possibly version numbers on the index page like this
Then you have the fact (at least on resources that I created on my site) if they don't have a version number, it by defaults inserts the upload date as a "version number" instead of allowing it to NOT be entered, but it being what appears to be an optional field
I think most of us know the difference between
enabling an
option and
requiring an input... I mean, come on... prefixes can either be
Required or simply enabled. And it clearly says
prompted and not
forced.
And then if you have submitted an actual version number, it looks cleaner
Now, let's not even talk about the fact it could actually use the use of a
v in front of that version number.
I mean really... how hard would it to be (without having to go out and create custom phrases and template edits to have something like this) as a selectable option?
And now I need to figure out how to not show the
v if the version field is blank if I decide to use that template edit, or engage a 3rd party developer for what should be a "simple solution".
Exactly how hard is it to code XFRM so that if there is NOT a version number provided.. it simply NOT display anything. I mean, I can do it easily with template edits. Oh, that's right, if you have versioning enabled.. it's not an
option but a
forced field, even if the resource may not have a version for it.
Or even having it so that the index is an optional field to display it or not without having to pursue template edits.
Not ALL resources have version numbers, but usually every resource has an upload date... and I'm pretty sure if it's updated, the "upload" date shows the most recent update on the index..
And it's a lot of simple stuff like this that get put into the suggestions area.... and many of them either ignored for years, or simply because they "did not get enough votes". Hell, until the last year or 2, I rarely voted on anything in the suggestion area because I realized it did absolutely no good, evidenced by the fact you have
Suggestions that have been out over a decade and never acted upon by XF developers. The least they could do is close those
Suggestions out as no interest, that way 3rd party developers might show interest in some of them or even license holders pursuing a 3rd party developer directly to create the feature/function.
It's one reason I've simply given up on making any suggestions there.
Would I love to see Groups, Calendars and similar become first party.. yep, first party just like XFMG, XFRM and XFES are.... you want them.. you pay for them.
But there are currently add-ons (many paid) that simply extend the core script in a manner that many other paid scripts currently have built in.... then you hear the cry of "Well, but you have to pay more for <insert other script here>"... never taking into consideration that when you factor in the base cost of those (many paid) add-ons you have to use, you are approaching (and at times exceeding) the cost of those other paid scripts.
Want another simple add-on case (this one not paid).
Here is a simple example... some "extensions" of criteria that many have needed (and note, it's currently
UNMAINTAINED 
).. but XF developers have avoided extending to additional abilities that have been requested.
User Criteria Extended Get User Criteria Extended for free by using the coupon code MORECRITERIA during checkout. Heavily extends the range of available user criteria by adding opposite criteria for most existing criteria, along with a whole...
xenforo.com
THIS is the current weakness in the XenForo developers philosophy for the script.. they put WAY to much weight on third parties to provide core essentials that they could easily provide.. but the only answer is they don't because they are to lazy and would rather depend on others to make the script "more useable".
It has everything to do with it. All you're doing is being one of those who just want to argue. Go and look in the mirror.
No, it has nothing to do with it.... maybe you should take your own advice?
What it has to do with is the dependence of XenForo upon third party developers to offer features that many of their competitors offer in their core script... and may of those third party add-ons are at an additional cost to the core cost of XenForo itself, which negates the argument that many use of "well, if you want those features, go pay more for XYZ script". To get those "features" in many instances you ARE paying equivalent (or more) to get them with XF since you are paying for a 3rd party add-on, and the support is not the same as with 1st party services.
The main point is... many of what should be "native" features are pushed off onto third party developers, not all of who will be around in 3+ years. I've been using XF since 10/2012 and I've seen developers come and go and have been a VERY active participant on the XF site, especially when you consider that by number of posts, I'm 11th ranked on the site, and I'm not a 3rd party developer/styler or an XF developer (which 8 of those 11 are).. and I'm pretty sure this off-topic area counts nothing towards those total posts.... but can't guarantee that.
And yes, I can tend to get rather verbose... but in my defense I REALLY like (overall) the XF script (otherwise, 11 years later I would not still be using it on my main site)... I simply hate to see them wandering off the trail of "greatness" and onto the track of mud of mediocrity. It's rather easy to wallow in the mudhole of "barely getting **** done". It takes a tad bit more concern and work to actually move ahead.
100 USD for lifetime. Such a high price, and its now basically abandonware.
