[Zircom]

Out of all the things to take issue with about their monetization model that is such a wild take. Do you also have issues about paying for a videogame that uses your GPU? Probably not.

Any paid software you can run on your own hardware by definition is paying to use "your own" resources(CPU, GPU, storage, etc), what you're paying for is their effort in creating and maintaining the software. If they want a gatekeep features for a premium version that's their right, if you have a problem with it find something else or make it yourself.

[tadfisher]

Of course it's their "right", but it's also not very smart to gate a feature that determines whether or not the product actually functions. The potential customer is faced with a non-playable video and a promise that paying will make it play.

[adamomada]

It’s an added feature for larger servers, it does cpu transcode for free.

[BeetleB]

> The potential customer is faced with a non-playable video

What kind of video is non-playable without GPU transcoding?

[thejazzman]

Who transcodes in 2024?? That's hardly even a core feature anymore.

Get two copies if you want LoFi alternatives. Transcoded HDR 4k etc looks way worse than just having a 1080p copy

And what I'm describing is definitely a pro scenario, so charging makes a lot of sense

[cchance]

What effort, their just running ffmpeg under the table.