[publicfig]

There is also no point on the front page that it is paid, and I would assume that because there is no mention of pricing that it would be free. I'd definitely put something very early on stating pricing and that it is not a free program. To tell someone 35% through a lesson that they are expected to pay may be fine for conversion, it's a really scummy practice.

[LocalPCGuy]

I know this may be a minority opinion among developers, but I'm ok with them trying to make money. And if the optimal way to do that is to ask 35% of the way through, then that's what they should do. I don't view that as a dark practice or bait and switch. I don't think there is an obligation to be super clear that there is a paid version.

It's something the owner should test, and see if it puts people off or if it converts better. Maybe it puts off 10% more people, but 30% more convert? Good on them for finding that out and optimizing accordingly.

We in the dev world expect way too much for free. Not that I complain when I find something for free, but people deserve to be compensated for their work also.

[publicfig]

I never argued the effectiveness of misleading business practices towards generating revenue or conversions. I feel that design can be misleading and user-antagonistic while still being the most effective solution for monetization. It is up to the creator/organization to make that decision, and that decision can be both financially effective and amoral/"scummy" at the same time. I cannot make that decision for the creator/organization, but I also feel no need to default to defending user-antagonistic practices just because "they work".

[qntty]

Sounds like publicfig is saying that it's not optimal for them.