Free games for every X moves

ok, so some are full members and some are partial members...

Originally posted by jvanhine
ok, so some are full members and some are partial members...

Some members are full of it. 😛

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Thanx you two... We are all members, but stars are subs.

P-

Didn't you get that back to front?

We are all members, but subs are stars. 😉

Originally posted by Phlabibit
We are all members, but stars are subs.

P-

I'm a NON-SUB ALL-STAR! ©

D

Originally posted by Ragnorak
I'm a NON-SUB ALL-STAR! ©

D

Some non-sub all-stars are full of it.

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Like I said earlier, incentives are nice... but number of moves has nothing to do with it. If you can get someone to join and pay, now we're talking.

This user talks of loyalty to the site, but where is the loyalty when you play so many games but never pay? Loyalty is drumming up new users who are willing to pay if you are unable to pay to play.

T to have non-paying members who have 10 games or more, or they would have left it at 10.

P-

With all due respect your opinion, I would like to reply you with my business logic as a non-subscriber --who would like to subscribe but does not need more than 10 games at a time.

I am sure many other members feel this way due to other obligations in life.

You're absolutely right about the issue concerning referring other users to RHP. Maybe something like "if a non-subscribing member recommends 10 subscribing users, he gets a free one year subscription" can work.

Anyway, the reason I had to reply was that you mentioned "There is absolutely no business sense in giving features to players who don't pay just because they play more games. Non-paying members could play each other in a rush to build their move counts up and get something others pay to have. If anything, it would hurt business.


However, you are missing my point. We are talking about a very microscopic change in the number of games that the use will be able to play extra games.

For example, a chart like below would not hurt the business, instead it would encourage people to actually "play" in RHP instead of registering and leaving after a certain while. (The vast majority of the registered users are "inactive"😉

-No extra game under 2,000 moves.
-1 extra Game over 2,000 moves.
-2 extra games over 10,000 moves.
-3 extra games over 25,000 moves.
-4 extra games over 50,000 moves.
(Any non-subscribing member can maximum have 10 games)

*After 100,000 moves, the member is eligible for one tournament of his/her preference per year.

It is a system for non-subscribing veteran members which is similar to "darkening pawn star colour".

I would like to draw your attention to the ratio of moves versus free games I am suggesting. How long will it take to become "a veteran user" for a non-subscriber?

Let's do some basic math!

For a non-subscribing member to be eligable for just 3 extra games he would have to play 25,000 moves.

Let's say me moved 10 moves daily. It makes 3650 moves a year.

So; 25000/3650 is approximately 6.85 yrs.

We can conclude that for a "once a day" RHP user (assuming 10 moves a day) will be eligable to play 9 games after 7 years of regularly playing in RHP.

Now, is that a lot?

You talked about the abuse (hasty moves can only hurt the player's own rating in chess, logical member will refrain themsevles for doing such a foolish act). Let's calculate for an "all day" RHP user to be eligable to play one tournament per year.

Assuming he moved incredibly 100 times a day (meaning 100/6=16.67 moves per one game, which is almost half of one chess game) it would take him (100,000/36500=2.74) almost three years. Also, keep in mind that regularly averaging 100 moves a day for a non-subscribing member is almost impossibe.

I want to stress the phrase almost impossible.

To summerise my point: Of course one should (and must subscribe if he has free time to play over 30-50 or more games at a time) subscibe to get the coolest features and help out the site. However, player who do not need more than 10 games at a time should be rewarded to be long time member.

It was just a genuine thought. However, we see that it is not an rubbish idea and it is not aimed to hurt RHP's business by any means.

Far from it! We all want this superb chess site to improve even more by recognizing its loyal members and making them feel proud by hanging around and playing chess.

Think about this way instead, it a veteran non-subscriber is enthusiastically satisfied, recognized for his/her loyalty and rewarded tiny bit accordingly, he might want to recommend RHP to his/her friends even more.

Why should the PTB bother to improve the situation for non paying members? I see no reason. I don't think it would be a particularly wise business move either. No doubt they have more important things on the site that obviously take priority.

There's simply no reason.

IMO

I recommend this site to lots of people - I feel I am helping them to visit a decent chess site. I don't need rewarding.
Whether they subsequently subscribe or not is their business as far as I'm concerned.

----------------------------------------------------
I do think they should fix this issue though. 😉
Thread 72707

Originally posted by Phlabibit
There is absolutely no business sense in giving features to players who don't pay just because they play more games. Non-paying members could play each other in a rush to build their move counts up and get something others pay to have. If anything, it would hurt business.

The business model of this site seems to be based on advertising as well as subscriptions. Presumably there is some value in displaying the ads to more people more frequently.

The ads alone may not be enough to offset the server costs of the games played. However, keeping someone as an active user means that person still has a chance to subscribe (and I would think would be more likely to finally give in and subscribe the longer they've stayed active). Someone who leaves the site entirely has no chance of subscribing.

Originally posted by incandenza
The business model of this site seems to be based on advertising as well as subscriptions. Presumably there is some value in displaying the ads to more people more frequently.

The ads alone may not be enough to offset the server costs of the games played. However, keeping someone as an active user means that person still has a chance to subscribe (an ...[text shortened]... ger they've stayed active). Someone who leaves the site entirely has no chance of subscribing.

My thoughts exactly.

The plain fact is that the more games one has the more he is exposed to the site. You are in fact right on the point: non-subscribers (active users) are more likely to subscribe than anyone on this planet!

Some subscribers are dismissing the value of the entire non-subscribers group to this site. We are also members and a part of this internet community. We too help the community grow and profit economically indirectly.

This site would be stronger if it had 100,000 solid non-subs (moved over 25,000 times) than 1,000 inactive paying members.

All the advertisement income from 100,000 members plus a high likelihood of potetial subscribers vs. $30,000 dollars a year (-tax?).

Analyze that!

Business is a complex area and an extremely complicated issue. There are many variables that affect profit. However, I am not denying the power of subscription! It must be a hefty portion of the site's income. What I am saying is that there are other variables besides just subscribing. Giving just (and maximum) "four" more games(after 50,000!!! moves) and encouraging people to actively participate in the site cannot hurt the business in great deal.

Let's be realistic!

Originally posted by kenan
My thoughts exactly.

The plain fact is that the more games one has the more he is exposed to the site. You are in fact right on the point: non-subscribers (active users) are more likely to subscribe than anyone on this planet!

Some subscribers are dismissing the value of the entire non-subscribers group to this site. We are also members and a part of thi ...[text shortened]... vely participate in the site cannot hurt the business in great deal.

Let's be realistic!

Subscribers are more likely to subscribe than I am.

Case disproven.

😛

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Subscribers are more likely to subscribe than I am.

Case disproven.

😛

I am a subscriber, and I'm not likely to pay for another subscription. One is enough.

Your disproof is disproven. Sorry. 😛 😛

Originally posted by kenan
The plain fact is that the more games one has the more he is exposed to the site.

Don't get that at all 😕

Is someone with 100 games who moves once per game every day more exposed to the site than someone who play 6 games only but moves constantly making 300+ moves per day, often finishing games in one of two visits and then starting new games?

Giving people extra games gets rid of the incentive to join, after all if you only want to play 6 games at a time and these are available for free why would you pay a subscription?

If you want to play more then make a small sacrifice somewhere in your life (take a weekend off from going to the pub for instance) and pay the small annual subscription fee. After all its only $30 per year, which is £15. Its not that big an amount to find.

Originally posted by adramforall
Don't get that at all 😕

Is someone with 100 games who moves once per game every day more exposed to the site than someone who play 6 games only but moves constantly making 300+ moves per day, often finishing games in one of two visits and then starting new games?

Giving people extra games gets rid of the incentive to join, after all if you only w ...[text shortened]... iption fee. After all its only $30 per year, which is £15. Its not that big an amount to find.

It goes back to my "Eat 6 free sandwiches, get your 7th for free also" comment. Why would anyone buy a star if all they had to do was keep playing?

I'm not too worried about arguing this point, the admins have no plan to give people more games just because they move more. It's plain silly.

P-

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Why should the PTB bother to improve the situation for non paying members? I see no reason. I don't think it would be a particularly wise business move either. No doubt they have more important things on the site that obviously take priority.

There's simply no reason.

IMO

I recommend this site to lots of people - I feel I am helping them to -------------
I do think they should fix this issue though. 😉
Thread 72707

Why improve it for people who don't pay?

Easy. They don't pay. I believe you feel you get enough for free, so I'm not taking a dig at you, I'm just saying... don't you get enough for free? Shouldn't there be incentive to pay up? Why reward people who don't want (or can't) pay to play?

Everyone here has internet access, how much does that cost them a year? A whole lot more is the general answer.

P-

Originally posted by adramforall
Don't get that at all 😕

Is someone with 100 games who moves once per game every day more exposed to the site than someone who play 6 games only but moves constantly making 300+ moves per day, often finishing games in one of two visits and then starting new games?

Giving people extra games gets rid of the incentive to join, after all if you only w ...[text shortened]... iption fee. After all its only $30 per year, which is £15. Its not that big an amount to find.

I will explain if you do not get it. Below is taken from the MAP of the month first ten pages (first 300) over 1000 moves this month in 15 days.

There are only 3 people over 1100 moves.

1100/15= 73 moves a day. And we talking about the very very fast non-subs.

Bye the way, it's impossible for a non-sub to make 300 moves a day.

Zowi--2122
Petesfreak—1455
Thewiz-1255
O Artem O-1092
Becker-1096
Facki-1133
Kayi kayi-11 30
Sabra-1057
Henrybat-983
Clavijohenry-993

Ok. My point is many people leave their games (One of my opponent hasnt moved for 20 days) and I basically have 5 games. Only one of my oponent moves daily the other make a move once a while.

It would be better if I had a just a few more games. Not more!