12 dollars a year for 25-30 games, and the other benefits
6 dollars a year for 15 games, and some of the other benefits
This will improve the following aspects of the site:
more people would buy premium
people like me who want to make sure they dont end up with too many games, would have an option, rather than being freemium. i am going to have to let mine expire i like being golden, but i just cant be mature enough to limit my games.
Last edited by vodean on Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
<NoSurvivors› then vote chuck for being an info whore
I could definitely go for this. I could swing $5-6 per year, and probably would, just to up my game limit to 10. However, it's a question of economics for the site. If lack gains an extra 500 people that are currently freemium and switch to "freemium plus" (or whatever you want to call it), that's an extra $2500 per year. On the other hand, if 125 people that are currently premium decided that all they wanted was a slightly higher game limit and decided to switch from premium to "freemium plus," the site loses $2500 per year from what it was getting. It might be worth putting up a poll to get an idea how many freemiums and premiums would pick this option to make sure it is economically beneficial to the site.
Seems like a huge loss for CC. I'd drop down to the $12 account, as I try not to go much over 20 games. I imagine the majority of premium users would do the same. And let's be honest, most people who can't justify $25 a year aren't going to pay $12 either.
Something like this would not necessarily equate to a loss for CC if only the 25$ premiums had speed game access. It's one of the reasons many buy premium.
This post was made by jefjef who should be on your ignore list.
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
jefjef wrote:Something like this would not necessarily equate to a loss for CC if only the 25$ premiums had speed game access. It's one of the reasons many buy premium.
thats a good point. this could work. we just need to decide where to put limits and tweaks, to maximize everyone's benefit.
<NoSurvivors› then vote chuck for being an info whore
Yes very good idea. Though here's how I'd do it. I'd just double the amount of games people can play according to the amount they play.
So $12=24 games available to play.
and $6=12 games one can play.
Or they could do it where $6 doubles the games from 4 to 8.
Then for 12 you'd add another 4-6 or something.
I think what I'd do is only offer one additional membership level instead of two. It would cost $5 and would allow one to join up to 8 games at a time. It could also allow one to play 1 speed game every 3 months. Here are the benefits as I see them:
This is restrictive enough that very few current premium members would be willing to drop down to this tier. I suspect that a $12 option with the ability to play 20+ games at a time would be sufficiently good for a number of people to drop full premium.
It doubles the number of games a freemium player can join at a time, and for a very cheap price, so I think it would be very tempting for a lot of them.
It gives freemiums a taste of speed games, which might be enough to tempt them to become full premium members.
Since it's only one additional membership tier, it wouldn't require the introduction of multiple new rank colorations. I suspect you could just leave them in the current silver and call it "freemium plus."
how about, at check-out, when you are buying premium, there are 2 options for sub-pages, like in the UCP. one(default) is full premium. the other is partial premium, where it is a dollar for 5 additional games (the first dollar counting as six), plus one dollar. then 5 dollars for speed game capabilities, 50 cents for private games, 50 cents for invitations. GOLDEN rank -free with purchase.
<NoSurvivors› then vote chuck for being an info whore
AndyDufresne wrote:I think the current system of limited Freemiums, and Full Premiums is probably the most cost effective---'tis why Lack has stuck with it thus far!
--Andy
maybe higher prices for each option, or partial premium would up profits.
<NoSurvivors› then vote chuck for being an info whore
i like being golden, but i just cant be mature enough to limit my games.
