Conquer Club

OK. So far I have not seen this brought up before, except by myself in another thread. What if there was another membership option added.

Basically, a $10, (Place Name Here) membership option with:
A higher amount of max games allotted,
X amount of "Speed Games" per X amount of time. (i.e. per day/week/etc.)
And as always, players will be able to upgrade to "Premium" status at any moment.

This would be a good solution to some of the problems being discussed in many of the other threads at the moment. (i.e. "Give Non-Premium Players X Number of Free Speed Games," "[Official] Freestyle Changes -- Give us your feedback!," etc.)

Also, more "Freemiums," who can't necessarily afford $20 at the moment or might not think it is worth it, might be inclined to upgrade to the $10 option. Not to mention, bringing in more paying customers so Lack can afford to keep CC not only running but expanding as well. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
thedude13

___________

The Dude abides.

'Varying Premium Limits' was rejected.


--Andy

20 dollars a year is not alot of money man, work at mcdonalds for 1 day. theyll hire you.

honestly, 20 dollars won't even bring your gas tank to the halfway mark.

crying over 20 dollars is HIGHlarious.

Ya 20$ thats nothing. but i do think freebies should get more games. Im not a freebie but i do think they deserve more than 4 games

thats the point of the limit, if they want more games they pay 20$ which really isnt much as people have said already, especially in europe and your crazy euros

with a higher limit lack wouldnt make as much money

i just ment like maybe 8 games not 4. gets kinda boring. Again im not a freebie. just stickin up for all those poor people....that can afford a computer to be looking at this....that can afford internet service to be looking at this.......

If you cant "afford" $20 a year, why can you afford $10 a year

misterman10 wrote:If you cant "afford" $20 a year, why can you afford $10 a year

Because it's less?

come on 20 dollars? for a year? its like 10 cents a day, suck it up and buy it

michiganfan22 wrote:come on 20 dollars? for a year? its like 10 cents a day, suck it up and buy it

Even better, its about 5 and a half cents a day.

That should be a slogan for the site... "Conquer the World as much as you want for just five cents a day."

For me in one year, it worked out to almost exactly one penny per game

hey brilliant idea .. Lack should charge by the game, maybe 10 cents.... hehe Rocket would owe a fortune!

but seriously, let's all be vewy vewy qwiet and hopefully lack won't notice that we have a really good deal.

No one is complaining about the cost of the membership. In fact, I think it's a steal. The fact is however, a lot of people a complaining about certain issues that "Freemiums" have. Mainly, wanting a couple of free "Speed Games." The main argument for that is that "Lack would loose money." Obviously, there are a lot of people that don't intend to ever go "Premium" or they already would have. Therefore, having a slightly cheaper option might persuade them to throw at least a little money towards the site.

Also, let's say someone has an extra ten bucks one month and puts it towards CC; then has an extra 10 bucks the next month, hey, they just paid for a "Premium."

By the way, please fully grasp what a poster is conveying in their posts before throwing lame a** shut downs at them like: $20 is nothing. Thank you kindly.

thedude13

____________

The Dude abides.

The problem is, in order to have another tier, lack has to code it, in lots of places. But if he's going to go that way, why not just offer premium at $2 a month or $20 a year. That way, people who are really cheap can pay $2, sign up for a hundred games, then drop back to free until their 100 games run out... right?

thedude13 wrote:No one is complaining about the cost of the membership. In fact, I think it's a steal. The fact is however, a lot of people a complaining about certain issues that "Freemiums" have. Mainly, wanting a couple of free "Speed Games." The main argument for that is that "Lack would loose money." Obviously, there are a lot of people that don't intend to ever go "Premium" or they already would have. Therefore, having a slightly cheaper option might persuade them to throw at least a little money towards the site.

Also, let's say someone has an extra ten bucks one month and puts it towards CC; then has an extra 10 bucks the next month, hey, they just paid for a "Premium."

By the way, please fully grasp what a poster is conveying in their posts before throwing lame a** shut downs at them like: $20 is nothing. Thank you kindly.

thedude13

____________

The Dude abides.

I think that it's a red herring mate. either someone will pay 20 bucks or they won't pay anything .. it's about access to credit cards, it's about the perception that everything on the internet is public property, it's about people resenting Lack a good living... Each person has their own reason but i honestly don't think it's the amount that is key. (I hope it is a very very small percentage who can genuinely not afford it and i regret their situation.)

Poker sites will go to as low as 20 bucks minimum deposit... now is this due to a minimum sum to make it viable to process? (genuine question)
I am sure Lack would look into a pay as you play option if it were cost effective.

anyway .. for me it worked like this: i found the site, had access to 4 games... it was just about bearable enough for me to enjoy. It became completely unbearable with waiting 5 days for a go, i bought premium.

there was no pressure from the site to move to premium, it was implied like a donation to a museum. (nice, clever) i was not made to feel like a second class citizen; i was compelled by my desire to play with more freedom.