I’ve been an HQPlayer customer since March 2021. Paid £300 for a v4 Desktop license - no physical media, download only.
Recently tried to use it on Windows 11 - wouldn’t activate, stuck in evaluation mode. Contacted support in early October.
After nearly two weeks of back and forth, they confirmed my license was valid but wouldn’t provide me with a working installer. They’ve deliberately removed v4 installers from their site.
Let that sink in: I paid £300 for software with a perpetual license, no physical copy, and they’ve now made it impossible to download what I legitimately own. Hosting old installers would cost them pennies - this is a deliberate choice to force people onto v5.
I eventually had to source an installer myself elsewhere. Got it working, no thanks to them.
Then I asked about upgrading to v5, thinking surely there’d be some consideration given the situation. Jussi’s response? “Support ended May 5th 2025, upgrade discounts ended, pay full price.”
No acknowledgment they’d left a paying customer unable to access £300 worth of software. No goodwill whatsoever. Just corporate copy-paste about maintenance periods ending.
This isn’t about support or bug fixes ending - it’s about deliberately removing access to software people have paid for. That’s not end-of-life support, that’s holding your own customers to ransom.
If Signalyst treats existing customers like this, what happens when v5 reaches end of life? Another £300 and “tough luck, pay up”?
Think very carefully before giving this company your money.
The upgrade discount from hqp4 to hqp5 was 10% off the price of hqp5. Black Friday is coming up and there usually is a 10% discount if you are interested.
Actually that sounds like the plan to me if hqp5 reaches end of life tmr. If hqp 6 launches tmr I will be the first one to pay up 300 and get on it.
Jussi makes a living writing up an excellent software for everyone
I appreciate Jussi’s work and have already shown that by paying £300 for a license in 2021. But you’re missing the fundamental issue here.
This isn’t about upgrade pricing or Black Friday sales. I’m not complaining about having to pay for v5 or v6 - that’s fair. New major versions with new features can reasonably cost money.
The issue is that I can’t access the installer for v4, which I already paid for and have a valid license for. I’m not asking for free upgrades, ongoing support, or new features. I simply want to reinstall software I legitimately purchased.
Let me put it this way: if v5 reaches end of life tomorrow and you can’t get the installer anymore, would you be happy being told “just pay £300 for v6”? What if v6 doesn’t work for your setup? What if you just want to use what you already paid for?
Jussi absolutely deserves to make a living from his excellent software. But there’s a difference between:
Charging for upgrades and new versions ✓
Ending support and updates for old versions ✓
Preventing paying customers from accessing installers they already purchased ✗
The last one forced me to find a pirated copy despite having a valid £300 license. That’s not a sustainable business model - it’s just poor customer treatment.
Supporting developers doesn’t mean accepting practices that lock you out of software you already own. You can respect someone’s work while also expecting basic customer rights.
Quick follow-up since some seem to think this is normal:
UK consumer law is evolving fast. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act just came into force (April 2025) with the CMA getting new enforcement powers, including fines up to 10% of global revenue for unfair digital practices.
Removing installer access for legitimately purchased perpetual licenses? That’s exactly the kind of practice under increasing regulatory scrutiny. The Consumer Rights Act already says digital content must be “fit for purpose” and software you can’t reinstall despite having a valid license arguably fails that test.
So keep defending anti-consumer practices if you want, but don’t be shocked when these business models face regulatory action. The law is catching up.
“Keep the installer yourself” isn’t the defense you think it is. That’s like saying “keep your receipt because shops might refuse refunds” - yes, it’s practical advice, but it doesn’t make the shop’s refusal right.
The “company could disappear” argument is completely separate from “company actively refuses to help paying customers.” One is unavoidable, the other is a choice. And here’s the kicker: the company still exists and is actively operating - yet I’m left in exactly the same situation as if they’d gone bankrupt. That’s not an unfortunate circumstance, that’s a deliberate policy.
And “no law will help” is just defeatist. Laws shape business practices. The fact that the CMA now has powers to fine up to 10% of global revenue for unfair digital practices does matter, even if enforcement takes time.
You’re essentially arguing that we should just accept being treated like the company doesn’t exist, even though it does and is still selling licenses. That’s absurd.
I’m not defending anything and have no need to. I’m just saying what the pragmatic thing to do is. Signalyst could have all versions on the website and then the website shuts down for whatever reasons, there’s no law helps with that.
Whatever we think of the practice, keeping backups is one’s own responsibility.
You are conflating two completely different scenarios:
Scenario A: Company goes bankrupt/website shuts down → No installer available (unfortunate, unavoidable)
Scenario B: Company exists, operates, takes money from new customers, but refuses to provide installer to existing paying customer (deliberate policy choice)
These are NOT the same thing, and pretending they are is absolutely defending the practice.
Yes, keeping installers is pragmatic. But that doesn’t make Scenario B acceptable.
Your logic is: “Bad things can happen beyond anyone’s control, therefore you shouldn’t complain about bad things that ARE within someone’s control.”
That’s nonsense. The fact that my house might burn down doesn’t mean I should shrug when someone deliberately refuses to give me my house keys.
Signalyst exists. They’re operating. They’re selling licenses. They just won’t give paying customers access to what they paid for. That’s not “the website shut down” - that’s a choice.
If you genuinely don’t see the difference between a company disappearing and a company actively withholding access, then I don’t know what to tell you. But saying “I’m not defending anything, just being pragmatic” while making excuses for anti-consumer behavior is… well, that’s defending it.
“Whatever we think of the practice, keeping backups is one’s own responsibility.”
There it is. You’re absolutely defending the practice by shifting responsibility onto the customer.
Yes, keeping backups is smart. But “personal responsibility” doesn’t absolve companies of their obligations to paying customers.
By your logic:
Shops can refuse refunds because “you should have checked before buying”
Banks can deny you access to your account because “you should have kept cash at home”
Car dealers can refuse to provide replacement keys because “you should have made spares”
In every other consumer context, we recognise that businesses have responsibilities too. But apparently with this software, it’s all on us?
I paid £300 for a license that’s still valid. The company still exists and is still operating. They’re choosing not to provide access to what I paid for. That’s not a “personal responsibility” failure - that’s a business practice failure.
You can hide behind “just being pragmatic” all you want, but repeatedly telling people to just accept anti-consumer behavior while avoiding the actual question of whether it’s acceptable IS taking a position.
The fact that workarounds exist doesn’t make the underlying practice okay. That’s the entire point of consumer protection law.
I appreciate the feedback. People are still engaging with the topic, so I’m responding - but I take your point that I’ve laid out my position pretty clearly by now.
For anyone still following: my core concern is simply that paying customers should have access to software they’ve legitimately purchased. Whether that’s a reasonable expectation is apparently up for debate, but I think the evolution of UK consumer law suggests regulators agree it matters.
Happy to leave it there unless there are new points worth addressing.
No. I have no opinion on the practice because I know nothing about the background.
However, I do think that adults are responsible for themselves. As I already wrote, even if the website kept all versions it would still be possible for the website to disappear. Not sure what’s difficult to understand.
If anyone else has been refused access to HQPlayer installers for versions they hold valid licenses for, I’d be interested in hearing from you via DM. Based on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the recent Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, there may be grounds for a collective complaint to Trading Standards or the CMA. The more documented cases there are, the stronger any potential action would be.
You’ve posted multiple times defending the practice while claiming no opinion. That’s not neutrality, that’s deflection.
And for the last time: company going under ≠ company refusing to help customers. One is unavoidable, one is a choice. The fact that disasters can happen doesn’t excuse deliberate poor practices.
If you can’t grasp that distinction, there’s nothing more to discuss.
“Whatever we think of the practice, keeping backups is one’s own responsibility”
“Adults are responsible for themselves”
Every single one shifts responsibility to the customer or makes excuses for the company. That’s not “correcting misrepresentations” - that’s repeatedly defending the practice while claiming neutrality.
If you genuinely had no opinion, you’d have stayed out of the conversation. Instead, you’ve made excuse after excuse while hiding behind “just being pragmatic.”
I’m not misrepresenting you. I’m reading exactly what you wrote.
We’re clearly going in circles now, so I’m done with this back-and-forth. Others can read the thread and decide for themselves.
I’d tried to give you helpful advice on how to protect yourself against whatever company policies or any misfortunes. I regret that now. → Ignore list.