Give us a chance

Originally posted by hildanknight
Free players still contribute to the site. They can contribute many great ideas to improve the site, for example. The high number of players (especially free players) may convince companies to invest in RHP.
However, the main point is this: Most people will not subscribe unless they are satisfied with their experience as a free player. I may not be poo ...[text shortened]... d by 1, with a final limit of 20.
If you have any misunderstandings, I hope I can clarify them.

If you like Gameknot so much why don't you marry it?

Originally posted by hildanknight
Free players still contribute to the site. They can contribute many great ideas to improve the site, for example. The high number of players (especially free players) may convince companies to invest in RHP.
However, the main point is this: Most people will not subscribe unless they are satisfied with their experience as a free player. I may not be poo ...[text shortened]... d by 1, with a final limit of 20.
If you have any misunderstandings, I hope I can clarify them.

You get to play free chess and you're able to post in the forums, where are non-subs 'penalised'?

"Therefore, it is the web site team's responsibility to ensure an enjoyable free experience so more players will subscribe"
Bloody hell dude, I don't even know what to say to this. You're already getting a free service, but now the owners of this site needs to give you special treatment because you actively use a free incentive scheme, that is in place to attract more subscribers!?
You want more free stuff, because you're actively using the free service!
Jesus, where will it end?

The subscription price is about a half-days' wages, where's the problem?

Originally posted by redbaron101
mebe there should be a 3month or 6month subscription, or a cheaper sub with less priveleges so perhaps kids could afford to join, I remember when i was a non subscriber I used various ad blockers so i never got the ads, but this site impressed me enough to subscibe to, but i wouldnt be surprised if non subs did the same and used ad blockers etc - there g ...[text shortened]... cheaper sub (for eg one with a higher cap games limit) i might of convinced my mum to fork out.

There is also a monthly sub at $5.95. Sure it gets costly if you do this every month, but its a small price to pay to get a taste of whats on offer at RHP. And it gives you time to accumulate the annual sub.

I was not pointing a finger at RHP! Besides GameKnot and RHP, I have tried several other chess sites - like It's Your Turn and CowPlay. I would never subscribe at those sites because my experience there as a free player was...totally horrendous. IYT doesn't even have a rating system, and CP had too few features.
Think about it: if you play at a site for free for 1 month, and you won't like it, would you subscribe to it? Of course not, unless you are rich or someone pays for you. So far my experience here has been better than at IYT or CP; although it is at the moment not convincing enough for me to subscribe, I will not rule out subscribing in future. (That is if you subscribers don't drive me away with your flames first!)
Thanks to Russ (I understand he's the webmaster) for his support. We free members still contribute ad revenue. And do remember that we can contribute ideas to the site, and report any errors in the site that we see. Isn't that a contribution?
There is another reason for a site to offer more features to free players. Companies will sponsor sites if they believe the site has a bright future. One way to measure this is the member count. Of the 100 000+ RHP members, how many subscribers are there? Let's say 10 000. Would a company invest in a 10 000-member site or a 100 000-member site? Non-subscribers, by contributing to the member count, will help the site win sponsors. (P.S. GK has 300 000+ members, and a large percentage of active members are subscribers. However, don't suggest I marry it - while I am suggesting GK features to RHP, I am also suggesting RHP features to GK. The sieges are a novel idea, and RHP's forums beat GK's hands down.)
RHP can learn from NeoPets and Google. These two sites do not charge for their services - not even a cent - yet they earn loads of money. How? Beats me. Perhaps Russ can figure it out.

Originally posted by hildanknight
I was not pointing a finger at RHP! Besides GameKnot and RHP, I have tried several other chess sites - like It's Your Turn and CowPlay. I would never subscribe at those sites because my experience there as a free player was...totally horrendous. IYT doesn't even have a rating system, and CP had too few features.
Think about it: if you play at a site ...[text shortened]... - not even a cent - yet they earn loads of money. How? Beats me. Perhaps Russ can figure it out.

Google makes money primarilly through googleadsense, which appears on hundreds of millions of pages, and provides adverts that are RELEVANT, which was a serious gap in the market.
Neopets lost a lot of money after a bad case in court, where they were (wrongly I think) indited for promoting gambing in minors.
Note that both of these a several factors of ten larger than RHP, big as it is, and therefore profits would be proportionally smaller.

Perhaps F2P people should be happy with what they have, but perhaps the P2P people should be less self-righteous about their incredible achievement of stumping up thirty dollars for a site.

And whoever said it's half a days wages is poor. hoho! $60 for 9-5 is a lame job.

Neopets is in trouble anyway. They just keep adding banners and ads. Now they are offering "premium" service for $70 per year for a few more features.

I hope they die.

Originally posted by zwu
Why don't they give those without the power to subscribe a least a chance to play a maximum of 8 games? Why 6 max?

Stick with fewer games. You'll win more.