Recently on GitHub there have been some… “interesting” people adding PRs to add paywalled Scratch Membership only features. I (and many others) do not agree with this people and hope that they will no longer be allowed to make these PRs or something at least. This is a clear violation of Scratch's goal, and might even cause bullying because the richy rich goes up to the regular kid, and starts bullying him for not having some dumb cat ears. Please reconsider.

Ok then how are they going to Justify that $35 Price or $150 for Lifetime

Also Like to bring up the Outsider thing which has more features than the Membership.

I was just gonna say this:
Title: Please reconsider this GitHub PR :/
Post:
If no one knows what I'm talking about, there is a pull request on scratch-www called "[UEPR-399] Add avatar badges to Scratch Members." I thought this would be rejected for similar reasons to 8.2 and 8.8 (like where it says people would try to brag or say that they are better than others), and it just doesn't feel like what Scratch is supposed to be.

I have a feeling this backlash will be worse than the color change in 2023..

mingo-gag wrote:

Ok then how are they going to Justify that $35 Price or $150 for Lifetime

Also Like to bring up the Outsider thing which has more features than the Membership.

Umm, other things OFF of Scratch?

Oh and yeah, Cat Blocks will also be a part of this subscription. So they couldn't bring it back for April Fools but for a MEMBERSHIP?

This is sad.. I can't even remotely defend Scratch as to why one of the best parts of their website, which it being free, is now introducing pay-walled assests, content, incentives, and etc.

I agree this should not be added.

Although I do not believe it will escalate beyond a badge, the Scratch Foundation would become under fire from this. It would hurt profit more than it would help.

I was just going to suggest that they keep stuff about the membership mostly private.
No public badge on user pages. No public Scratch News announcement for a contest that only payers can join.
They're really going against a lot they said about the membership before it was rolled out.

Absolutely, it will create division between non members and members as public badges will be used as status symbols by members whether thats the st's intention or not.

I agree with this. They are saying that the free aspect of Scratch will stay the same, but I know for certain that they will start adding features to the membership tier. It's just like what Netflix did; they advertised themselves as a solution to the crazy prices of cable tv, yet they are basically on par with cable tv prices now.

I absolutely do not agree with adding the cat ears avatar badge and a past April fools joke as membership features, especially with the latter, they could’ve just waited till next April.
I think access to that one software that Pixar uses to make stories and some exclusive sprites are already enough.

really? adding a rejected feature behind a paywall? real mature ST

i agree, its great if people get some cool extra lessons or sprites when they donate, but making it a public status symbol would just create division. also putting special features behind the membership that people have been asking for for a while, isnt scratch supposed to be free?

It's an optional bonus for people who have foundation memberships. It doesn't convey any substantial bonus other than an avatar cosmetic. Other social media platforms have been doing something like this for almost 10 years at this point.

A “paywall” would only happen if they actually added something that restricted your use of the site unless you paid, and far as I can tell you can still use the site just fine without cat ears on your avatar.

NanoRook wrote:

It's an optional bonus for people who have foundation memberships. It doesn't convey any substantial bonus other than an avatar cosmetic. Other social media platforms have been doing something like this for almost 10 years at this point.

A “paywall” would only happen if they actually added something that restricted your use of the site unless you paid, and far as I can tell you can still use the site just fine without cat ears on your avatar.

You're missing the point. One of the reasons this is a problem is because this is a rejected suggestion, which was rejected for a good reason:

TOLORS wrote:

There are three ranks: New Scratcher, Scratcher, and Scratch Team. The only reason the New Scratcher rank exists is to prevent spam, and since it only takes a few weeks to become a Scratcher, bullying and separation are rather minimal. Similarly, the Scratch Team rank exists so users know who is on the Scratch Team; note that Scratch Team members do not brag about the Scratch Team rank. In contrast, there may be division in the community between Scratchers and those with a higher rank, which could also lead to bragging and bullying.

So do you just not see the problem?

I completely agree with this.

There are better ways to make money than adding paywalled features to your website. Scratch, you are a nonprofit organization. That, and you target your program at children. This is unethical, goes against various statements made by your team members over the past 18 years, and is undoubtedly a recipe for disaster. Please reconsider. You don't want to hurt your reputation. The existing membership features are laughable enough, but this is far worse.

Also, considering the Scratch Foundation made two times more money in 2024 compared to 2023, can we really defend this with “They aren't making enough money”? I don't think so.

scratchykit5743 wrote:

Also, considering the Scratch Foundation made two times more money in 2024 compared to 2023, can we really defend this with “They aren't making enough money”? I don't think so.

20 MILLION?!?! Baby they're making more than Taylor Swift's album sales. I can rest assure you that with that, they can hire more moderators, not implement paywalled features, etc.

Sasha_Banks272 wrote:

So do you just not see the problem?

That's about account rank, not avatar decorators. I guess you could argue they're similar and therefore could lead to a similar consequence but not really. Nobody is going to get a sense of superiority over others because they donated to a nonprofit and now their avatar is orange. If it actually starts community infighting, that'll be 1) hilarious and 2) easily solved by just warning/blocking the perpetrators.

Anecdotally I've used other sites that have had similar donator perk systems and nothing ever came of it. I seriously do not see the problem with giving people who throw money at Scratch minor cosmetic rewards. It's a lot better than the current alternatives such as running ads. I think people are just mad about it because the curtains are finally opened and they can see the brick walls at the back of the theater, and are realizing that “nonprofit” is not a magic word that inoculates the Scratch Foundation from having to be profitable.

NanoRook wrote:

Sasha_Banks272 wrote:

So do you just not see the problem?

That's about account rank, not avatar decorators. I guess you could argue they're similar and therefore could lead to a similar consequence but not really. Nobody is going to get a sense of superiority over others because they donated to a nonprofit and now their avatar is orange.

I understand that people like you and I are older mature enough to understand that doing stuff like that is very immature. But mind you, Scratch is filled with little children who have yet to understand that concept.

NanoRook wrote:

Sasha_Banks272 wrote:

So do you just not see the problem?

That's about account rank, not avatar decorators. I guess you could argue they're similar and therefore could lead to a similar consequence but not really. Nobody is going to get a sense of superiority over others because they donated to a nonprofit and now their avatar is orange. If it actually starts community infighting, that'll be 1) hilarious and 2) easily solved by just warning/blocking the perpetrators.

Anecdotally I've used other sites that have had similar donator perk systems and nothing ever came of it. I seriously do not see the problem with giving people who throw money at Scratch minor cosmetic rewards. It's a lot better than the current alternatives such as running ads. I think people are just mad about it because the curtains are finally opened and they can see the brick walls at the back of the theater, and are realizing that “nonprofit” is not a magic word that inoculates the Scratch Foundation from having to be profitable.

The thing is, Scratch is targeted at children. Children are extremely susceptible to peer pressure and “Fear Of Missing Out”, and by nature they will end up feeling extremely jealous over something trivial like this and beg their parents to buy an arguably overpriced and pretty useless membership.

While this sort of thing would make more sense on a 13+ website, not only are kids under 13 unable to truly comprehend the cost of a Scratch membership, but also unlike a lot of other sites with donation programs, Scratch's directly calls itself a membership, which in no way sounds like a donation program to anyone with a certain level of maturity.

scratchykit5743 wrote:

snip
The thing is, Scratch is targeted at children. Children are extremely susceptible to peer pressure and “Fear Of Missing Out”, and by nature they will end up feeling extremely jealous over something trivial like this and beg their parents to buy an arguably overpriced and pretty useless membership.

While this sort of thing would make more sense on a 13+ website, not only are kids under 13 unable to truly comprehend the cost of a Scratch membership, but also unlike a lot of other sites with donation programs, Scratch's directly calls itself a membership, which in no way sounds like a donation program to anyone with a certain level of maturity.

we must also not forget that this can go the other way around (“LMAO look at timmy, he can't afford a membership…”). This would make more bullying on the site.