Free games for every X moves

Originally posted by Phlabibit
the admins have no plan to give people more games just because they move more.

Of course, we all know that.

We are arguing "should they?"

What are the benefits vs. drawbacks?

Originally posted by kenan
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.

It sounds more like the logic as a non-subscriber who would like to play 10 games at a time, but wouldn't like to subscribe. If you'd like to subscribe, why don't you just pay up? Your solution might give non-subs an incentive to move more frequently so that they can earn more games sooner, but I can't see how it would work as an incentive to subscribe.

Originally posted by Phlabibit
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-

I agree.

That's what I was saying - there is no sensible business reason to give extra free games.

Originally posted by Nordlys
Your solution might give non-subs an incentive to move more frequently so that they can earn more games sooner, but I can't see how it would work as an incentive to subscribe.

There's no way I'm going to subscribe. I'm only 11,571 moves away from a free tournament.

D

Originally posted by Ragnorak
There's no way I'm going to subscribe. I'm only 11,571 moves away from a free tournament.

D

I wasn't saying that it was likely to keep many people from subscribing, I was saying that I can't see how it would work as an incentive to subscribe. For most people it probably wouldn't make any difference. But if someone doesn't want to play many games, but still thinks six is a bit too little, it might make them decide not to subscribe and put up with the game limit until they get extra games. There might also be some subscribers who would decide not to resubscribe.

The way it could work is by providing an incentive for non-subscribers not to leave the site completely. The "reward" could be so distant and insignificant that it's not really worth sticking around to get it as opposed to just subscribing; but still, some people would be persuaded by the psychological effect of a reward to stick around.

A lot of people here seem to think paying $30 entires them to a real haughty attitude toward the non-subscribers. The fact is, the non-subscribers are really what keep this site successful. Imagine if the site was completely subscription-only, and the first thing you saw when you tried to sign up was that you needed to enter a credit card number. The site would surely wither away and die quickly.

The non-subscribers are the best target market for new subscriptions. You want as many of them as possible to stick around for as long as possible.

Originally posted by Nordlys
I wasn't saying that it was likely to keep many people from subscribing, I was saying that I can't see how it would work as an incentive to subscribe. For most people it probably wouldn't make any difference. But if someone doesn't want to play many games, but still thinks six is a bit too little, it might make them decide not to subscribe and put up with th ...[text shortened]... y get extra games. There might also be some subscribers who would decide not to resubscribe.

You are either missing my point or trying to divert to issue to another perspective.

We are not trying to get people subscribed. No! We are encouraging people to move more and stick around more. The site indirectly will benefit from having veteran members, subscribed or not.

As I said before if the site had 100,000 non-subscribing active (and moving) members, the income from the ads would be massive, everyone would want to put ads to RHP. If it is x dollars per month to display an ad in RHP, then it would be 10x dollars. (---made up numbers---)

Again, refer back to my original post that started the thread. This incentive would only help to increase "active" members on the site. Therefore, the site would indirectly benefit. The more people play games in RHP, the more time they will spend and be exposed to ads.

You never know I (or any other enthusiastically satisfied customer from the free service) might subscribe next year or so if I keep playing here. There is that slim possibility. However, if I leave, there is no possibility.

Originally posted by incandenza
The way it could work is by providing an incentive for non-subscribers not to leave the site completely. The "reward" could be so distant and insignificant that it's not really worth sticking around to get it as opposed to just subscribing; but still, some people would be persuaded by the psychological effect of a reward to stick around.

A lot of peop ...[text shortened]... subscriptions. You want as many of them as possible to stick around for as long as possible.

Yes. You are right, the major target is the non-subscribing members! The goal is to keep the satisfied from the free service so that they can subsrcibe. It's like a try it and if you like it buy it.

Earlier in this thread, I pulled out some stats from MAP of the month stats, an -extra extra ultra extremely very very active- non-subscriber would play 4000 moves a month. (There is only one person over 2000 this month and two others who are over 1200 moves in 15 days so far.)

So lets say 2250/per month as an avarage number of moves for an *extremely* active non subscriber.

So an extremely active member would play 12*2250=27000 (disregarding the compounding number of games, for example as after 2000 he will have 7 and after 10,000 he will have one more and so on) moves a year which will make him eligable for nine games.

Another extra year for maximum amount of ten games and finally in four years from now this extremely active non-subscriber will be eligable for one free tournament a years--if he keeps moving fast 😀

The incentive is really microscopic but psychologically effective because it can make veteran non-subscribers feel more important.

This could work and would not hurt the business but instead indirectly help the site grow.

right

Originally posted by kenan
Yes. You are right, the major target is the non-subscribing members! The goal is to keep the satisfied from the free service so that they can subsrcibe. It's like a try it and if you like it buy it.

Earlier in this thread, I pulled out some stats from MAP of the month stats, an -extra extra ultra extremely very very active- non-subscriber would play 4000 mo ...[text shortened]... .

This could work and would not hurt the business but instead indirectly help the site grow.

Surely it is more important [financially speaking] to keep the paying customers happy as a priority?

They will thus be more likely to resubscribe than a long-time non-subscriber. Especially if the benefits gap is narrowed.

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Surely it is more important [financially speaking] to keep the paying customers happy.

No doubt.

But non-subs also contribute to the finances, don't they?
RHP gets money from the ads for the number of members who have to look at the ads. No ads, no money from there.

I pay my sub fee to not having to look at the ads (among other good reasons).

Originally posted by FabianFnas
But non-subs also contribute to the finances, don't they?
RHP gets money from the ads for the number of members who have to look at the ads. No ads, no money from there.

I pay my sub fee to not having to look at the ads (among other good reasons).

I have to say I have come around to this way of thinking after reading this thread. Surely the business case goes along the lines of 'We have x thousand users who access the site every day, and now we've increased exposure to our ad space through this incentive. Therefore more users will be coming to your site from ours.'
It is only the non-subs who see these ads, so in a rather bizarre way it makes sense to have more non-sub users, or to have the same number making more moves.

Originally posted by GarethNicholls
I have to say I have come around to this way of thinking after reading this thread. Surely the business case goes along the lines of 'We have x thousand users who access the site every day, and now we've increased exposure to our ad space through this incentive. Therefore more users will be coming to your site from ours.'
It is only the non-subs who ...[text shortened]... way it makes sense to have more non-sub users, or to have the same number making more moves.

It would be nice to look in the book-keeping:
How much money comes from the subscribers?
How much money comes from the ads?

Originally posted by kenan
The goal is to keep the satisfied from the free service so that they can subsrcibe. It's like a try it and if you like it buy it.

I think the goal is to have the non-subscribers UNsatisfied with what they have and wanting more - so they subscribe.

If a non-subscriber is satisfied with what they have, they have no reason to subscribe.