Five Five Five

[awc]

Concise description:

• "Five Five Five" is something that I would pay for, which others might too.

Specifics:

• It's the "Five Five Five" deal... or whatever you want to call it---I'm not very creative. The basic idea is: Donate FIVE dollars, and you get to play up to FIVE games for FIVE months. Instead of four. For non-premium members, obviously. They'd keep their non-premium status; the only change is that they can play up to 5 games. I don't know. Maybe launch it on Cinco de Mayo.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Why do something silly like this? Because I think that you are missing a large opportunity for additional revenue. I know $25 is nothing (it's like $2/month) but it is still perceptively a large amount for many players who play casually and don't really NEED to play more than 4 games at a time. In fact, I find myself thinking, "It'd be nice to play more games, but unlimited is overkill... I don't want to drain all my time at CC." So I think of the Five Five Five deal as an excellent opportunity for casual players to donate $5 to CC---something easier to do than $25---and also more in line with their casual-style. Sometimes I even think, "I don't want to get a premium membership because then maybe people expect (perceive) me to be a hardcore/serious player. Which I'm not. But they'd expect me to be much better, which is not necessarily true." When someone with a gold ranking icon beats me, I used to (and still do!) think that it's not as "earned" as when a person with a silver ranking icon beats me. I know it's irrational, but I fall for it sometimes. Okay, if you still don't buy it, let me try some economics jargon: I believe that Conquer Club is a highly inelastic product, i.e. consumption is extremely sensitive to price, and you are missing a critical potential for revenue. I think if everyone's made aware of such a Five Five Five deal, you will make a decent amount of profit, for low maintenance cost! (Is it really that hard for developers to raise player max games to five? It's probably just adjusting a field in the database, no?) For implementation, I would suggest releasing it on May 5th or something, seeing how it goes, and then considering whether it should be an option that players can pay for anytime. COUNT YOUR FIXED/VARIABLE COSTS. If it's worth it, make it an option all-year round! I know I'd always pay for it. Of course, like I said, no change in non-premium/premium status. Users stay non-premium. I also have this theory that when you give a lot of value for little, e.g. unlimited games for $25, people readjust their perception of incremental value, and they view the product as a luxury (as opposed to normal) good, even when it's completely in their budget! "Oh, for $25, I can get all this and this and this. But wait, I don't even play speed games. And I doubt I'd play more than 6-7 games at a time anyway. Forget it." So I think a $5 option is more in line with the "Hey! Just donate $5 and support a site you love. We'll give you an extra game in return. And you'll feel good about what you did." kind of thinking. Still don't like it? Well... please tell me it's a good idea anyway so I feel better about myself.

[ljex]

You realize that you could pay $25 for unlimited extra games for a year or $12 for one extra game a year under your suggestion. Anyone who would do that is just fiscally irresponsible in my opinion. Even if your only going to have 7 active games your better to buy the premium over the 5-5-5 deal you propose. If you would buy this 5-5-5 deal please do yourself a favor and buy yourself the premium membership and then never suggest something this dumb again.

[awc]

You realize that you could pay $25 for unlimited extra games for a year or $12 for one extra game a year under your suggestion. Anyone who would do that is just fiscally irresponsible in my opinion. Even if your only going to have 7 active games your better to buy the premium over the 5-5-5 deal you propose. If you would buy this 5-5-5 deal please do yourself a favor and buy yourself the premium membership and then never suggest something this dumb again.

Binghamton or Huntington, eh? Do you go to SUNY Binghamton? And I live in Huntington! Let's get together and play real risk

Hey, I don't know what you're being so hostile about. Did my suggestion somehow hurt anyone here, or anyone's profit? If it's a dumb idea, then it won't be implemented, simple as that.

Anyway, I think you may be surprised in the way that people actually make decisions---if things were as simple as you make them out to be, our society wouldn't spend so much time, effort, and money in marketing and advertising schemes. The very purpose of my idea was to address the fact that many people are *irrational* consumers. I even gave an example of one such irrational thought in my post---did you not see that? I am definitely not arguing against you that paying $25 is "more rational" or "more fiscally reponsible" haha... you are (mostly) correct about that. I'm just suggesting a way that CC can make more money by targeting a certain group of people, which I believe is large enough to consider.

I say "mostly" correct, because I don't think you are absolutely correct even on that statement. I am fully aware of the mathematics of the 5-5-5 deal, haha. But have you heard of diminishing marginal utility? Ok, if not, I'm not trying to upper-hand you with complex words. (And if you do know it, then I apologize in advance for lecturing, but please understand I'm not trying to lecture or speak "down" to you; I'm just making my rational argument.) Not everyone places the same value on quantity. For me, having a 6th or 7th game is useless. And I don't need to invite people to a game, and I don't need to play speed games. I'm just not interested. However, I wouldn't mind having, 10 months of 5 games! For $10? I save $15. Now, please argue---how is that fiscally irresponsible? For people with different needs (marginal utility), the scenario is different, don't you agree?

Now, if your next argument to me is going to be something along the lines of, "It's only $15 more! You use the site everyday! Give a little, won't you?" Then... I agree. (I would even like to donate $25, without getting premium membership! Because I like this website and I'd like to support.) But if that is your only argument then you are completely ignoring my point.

That's okay though. Your approval is of little value to me ;D

[awc]

You realize that you could pay $25 for unlimited extra games for a year or $12 for one extra game a year under your suggestion. Anyone who would do that is just fiscally irresponsible in my opinion. Even if your only going to have 7 active games your better to buy the premium over the 5-5-5 deal you propose. If you would buy this 5-5-5 deal please do yourself a favor and buy yourself the premium membership and then never suggest something this dumb again.

Oh, I just saw your spread the love banner. No wonder you were being so hostile!

[awc]

You realize that you could pay $25 for unlimited extra games for a year or $12 for one extra game a year under your suggestion. Anyone who would do that is just fiscally irresponsible in my opinion. Even if your only going to have 7 active games your better to buy the premium over the 5-5-5 deal you propose. If you would buy this 5-5-5 deal please do yourself a favor and buy yourself the premium membership and then never suggest something this dumb again.

You know what? I'll show you that I know what I'm talking about. I'll put my money on it.

Here's an informal deal. If CC implements such a five-five-five deal, and it does NOT raise more than $500 in its first release, then I will personally donate $100 to CC. (I say informal, because I obviously will not stand for shoddy development or release.) Now you put your money where your mouth is. You think it's dumb. Then it obviously won't work. So if it works, you put in $100? Either way CC wins! To that cause, we all win.

[awc]

You realize that you could pay $25 for unlimited extra games for a year or $12 for one extra game a year under your suggestion. Anyone who would do that is just fiscally irresponsible in my opinion. Even if your only going to have 7 active games your better to buy the premium over the 5-5-5 deal you propose. If you would buy this 5-5-5 deal please do yourself a favor and buy yourself the premium membership and then never suggest something this dumb again.

Sorry, I am overflowing with ideas haha. Also, don't you think that maybe a 5-5-5 sort of thing can act as a gateway toward more people gaining premium membership? I mean, maybe people are just too lazy to go out of their way to pay $25. But when it's only $5, maybe they'll be more motivated, you know? And once they go through the whole credit card process, maybe they'll be much more inclined to go, "Hey, $25 for premium membership is actually a way better deal. I should have gotten that. I'm gonna get that when the 5-months are up."

[zimmah]

You realize that you could pay $25 for unlimited extra games for a year or $12 for one extra game a year under your suggestion. Anyone who would do that is just fiscally irresponsible in my opinion. Even if your only going to have 7 active games your better to buy the premium over the 5-5-5 deal you propose. If you would buy this 5-5-5 deal please do yourself a favor and buy yourself the premium membership and then never suggest something this dumb again.

well, i don't know how it is in america, but here in europe people pay €1.29 for a bottle of Coke of a brand you'll all know, while they can buy a bottle 3 times the size for just €1.89 (same brand, same store) just because they don't want a 1,5litres bottle.

so, people tend to buy the most crazy things.

[Commander62890]

This idea would sell to:
1) People who really want to play one extra game at a time, but not 3 extra, and also want to support this site.
2) Cheap idiots who think that $25 is a lot of money, but $5 is not, regardless of the fact that you get so little for $5 and so much for $25.

I think this idea could sell, because there are a lot of people in that second category. The OP is obviously in the first, but I can't imagine there are that many people that want so badly to play 1 extra game at a time that they would pay $5 for it, but don't want to play a few more than that.

[edwinissweet]

I dont see the need to categorize anyone that doesnt buy premium as cheap or as dumb. Its their choice. I do think that there should be some sort of "deal" offered. like 10 dollars for a month

[JCKing]

wouldn't it be more wise to double the amount of games available?
This would definitely sell then. $5 for an extra game, won't bring in as much as 4 extra games for $5.
I like the idea though.