IPS is rather expensive when compared to XF in many ways. BUT they do offer more "functions/fun" than XF currently does. They also offer a more complete suite of products that can be used to leverage your site better in some instances.
As I've told many that have asked... you have to look at what you need and what the script developers provide. If you basically need a simple forum, XF does fine. But if you need more than that then you need to look elsewhere or expect to expend a noticeable amount on 3rd party add-ons. XF has pretty much missed the bus on being much more than a simple forum provider. Their media and resource implementations are simply OK (and in some points are lacking).
You have to also realize that IPS is doing more regular updates/function improvements than XF is.
I really like XF... but their sitting on their thumbs is doing them more damage in the market than anything.
If it wasn't for
@Bob's add-ons and the fact that IPS is looking at doing away with standalone scripts in the near future, I'd probably be running IPS on my current site as "bang for the buck", XF is sucking hind teat when it comes down to the fact that many of my 3rd party add-ons could be recreated (with some effort and in most cases not as well without significant time investment and equating to about $300 in current costs not including renewal requirements) in IPS Pages (when you consider I'm smart enough to be able to code basics that I need in it).
Let's simply discard the fact that XF seems to simply ignore suggestions that have existed for a decade (or slightly more) and have high votes. One should simply realize that the ultimate target of XF has apparently nothing to do with end user suggestions and only is pertinent to the developers desires/choices. They have an apparent concrete mindset of where they want XF to go, and suggestions are generally looked at and discarded, with the developers priorities taking the forefront. It appears to be that the primary desire is to off-load any "advancements" to 3rd party and to minimize their input/requirements.
And this is from someone who has been running XF for over a decade (and still likes it)... I've seen the history and the repeat of it time and time again over that 10 years. The ONLY major advancement I have seen in that time was when Chris Deeming came onboard as a developer and suddenly XF had a media add-on that was originally 3rd party. All else has actually been minor advancements, many of which were already serviced by 3rd party developers (which they seem to push most of the load off on). The MAIN improvement from 1.x to 2.x line was to make it easier for 3rd party developers... NOTHING of note for the end license user.
What is really pitiful is that this is from someone who has been a strong proponent of XF from the nasty vB lawsuit days... but there does reach a point where one has to call out the apparently lackadaisical attitude of the developers to task. There are many important bugs listed that have not been addressed in months... for some, these bugs have been "show-stopping" in nature.
They simply need to realize that they need to communicate better. Yes, they had to devote time to getting their cloud election out... but did that process freeze their fingers from keeping their script license holders from being "kept in the know"? Nope. They could have simply stated that their current point of concentration was getting an SaaS offering out, and that stand-alone script progress would be derailed until that was done. Did they do that? No, it apparently never entered their minds until they were called out about it. Closed mouth, and the inquisitions began. Basically, in a nutshell... they shot themselves in the foot with a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with double ought buckshot. And in some ways, that stupidity continues.
There are NUMEROUS bugs, some of which are show-stopping for some, that have existed for months and STILL are not addressed.
And yes, I realize that this may "torque" some of the developers (or staff) off.. but facts remain that. XF is currently falling down on the job of keeping their script updated in a timely manner AND keeping their license holders updated. What should really be worrisome to them is someone with a decade plus history of strong support for them is starting to have issues with their "responsiveness" to issues.
Honestly, if it wasn't for the fact that I don't want to re-create most of
@Bob's add-ons over in IPS Pages (and the fact that stand-alone script support is questionable past the next version), I'd probably have converted over to them. So yes, the main reason I'm still at XF is NOT the XF development team (which updates really sucks recently), but simply because the fantastic support of multiple 3rd party add-ons. XF has no real bearing on it.
Let me reiterate.. I REALLY enjoy the XF environment overall (as a licensed user for over a decade). What I have issues with is apparent overall ignoring of licensed users suggestions (especially those with high votes that have been in existence for a decade or more) and the fact that they have an apparent issue with getting major bug fixes resolved in a timely manner. It's almost a "we know what you need, so sit down and shut up" attitude.
Will this p*ss certain XF staff/developers off.. most likely (and I expect to get a warning and posting suspension for "going against them").. but the simple fact remains... you will have a difficult time disputing any of my claims. This post isn't to "burn" anyone.. but hopefully bring attention to areas that XenForo staff/developers need to improve in.
plausible.io
xenforo.com
