Conquer Club

MagnusGreeol wrote:- I imagine the creator of CC had a good reason for the #4,, who has the right to challenge that? ... . . . . ., It's really a very cheap great time $25 for 365 days,,seriously.

Firstly I don't think an imagination and a business plan are the same thing. Secondly, challenge? wtf? Thirdly, I am not looking for something for nothing, the cost of premium is very reasonable. The point is that you might find an increase in premium uptake.

sundance123 wrote:

MagnusGreeol wrote:- I imagine the creator of CC had a good reason for the #4,, who has the right to challenge that? ... . . . . ., It's really a very cheap great time $25 for 365 days,,seriously.

Firstly I don't think an imagination and a business plan are the same thing. Secondly, challenge? wtf? Thirdly, I am not looking for something for nothing, the cost of premium is very reasonable. The point is that you might find an increase in premium uptake.

--Firstly Take a pill Sundance kid,, Secondly an imagination and a business plan are the same if Your a inventor,, Thirdly, If the price is very reasonable, Are You waiting for freemium game limit to go up before You go premium?

MagnusGreeol wrote:

sundance123 wrote:

MagnusGreeol wrote:- , If the price is very reasonable, Are You waiting for freemium game limit to go up before You go premium?

Firstly, mmm pils. secondly, Read the rest of the posts

Being stuck w 4 games was the reason I bought premium within the very first day of being onsite.
I think it's a great incentive while allowing those who want to play for free enough games to do so. No way to 'prove' 4 games is the ideal #, but I haven't really seen compelling reasons to increase it either. The sites activity has increased quite a bit since new owners have taken over including games created. I don't think additional activity alone is compelling enough.
I tend to agree with Magnus premium is underpriced.

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

sundance123 wrote:

Geger wrote:I just want to add this : The site do get money from Freemiums!! There are ads, and only fremiums see these ads. And when they click the ads (I did, when I was fremium), the site get more money. Also more games for freemiums are good for the site too.

Note : Pssst.... don't let freemiums play poly, because this was the reason I bought premium for 2nd time

Nice to read some business oriented pro arguments.

I noticed earlier that freemiums were here first! I will have remember that the next time a jumped up premie calls us leeches.

Where's Geger's compelling evidence?

Where's the compelling evidence that 4 is exactly the right number of games for freemiums?

Normally, when you want to shift from X to Y, it helps to explain how shifting to Y is best.

At least with 4, we have an idea of how many freemiums to premiums there are.

I don't see how giving more free stuff (thus lowering the relative value of a premium) entices more fremiums to pay for premium. For reasons unexplained, Geger's stance implies that making something more expensive will increase the quantity demanded. Since CC isn't a fashion good, I don't see how that makes any sense. So, you know, burden of evidence is appropriately on him.

*to get more to Geger's point,he says that OP's suggestion will increase revenue from ad-clicking, while (1) ignoring marginal costs/e.g. the increase in fremiums foregoes an increase in premiums and (2) based on his own personal experience of clicking on ads for vague amount of time. That's not compelling evidence, dude. If CC is going to shoot in the dark (again and again), it may as well entice more freemiums to become premiums, instead of banking on expected increase in ad-click revenue (granted, I don't have access to that data, but that's my best guess).

- Just thinking outside the box here, but maybe, just maybe, Freemiums might need a stepping stone? We have Freemiums and Premiums, Maybe We need happy Mediums ? My idea suggests that a Medium player would pay X amount to be able to play 8-10 games with very limited access so not to give the whole cake to Them. We have silver and gold membership,, Mediums would be grey, because its a grey area. If Freemiums had a stepping stone to Mediums, They get more games, The site gets paid, and gives the Mediums 1 more taste and option to pony up the rest and go for Gold ? Just an idea Guys, Please don't crucify Me '')

MagnusGreeol wrote:- Just thinking outside the box here, but maybe, just maybe, Freemiums might need a stepping stone? We have Freemiums and Premiums, Maybe We need happy Mediums ? My idea suggests that a Medium player would pay X amount to be able to play 8-10 games with very limited access so not to give the whole cake to Them. We have silver and gold membership,, Mediums would be grey, because its a grey area. If Freemiums had a stepping stone to Mediums, They get more games, The site gets paid, and gives the Mediums 1 more taste and option to pony up the rest and go for Gold ? Just an idea Guys, Please don't crucify Me '')

The problem is that no one knows what the answer will be because CC doesn't conduct any research for this.
(or it doesn't bother releasing it to let us think about it).


How many premiums would pay less to get 10-12 games and less features?
How many freemiums would pay for the Silver status at the lower price?



One indicator is that although the price of premium has fallen in real terms (from $25 in 2006 to about $20 in today's dollars), membership hasn't increased. This implies that lowering the price won't get the desired increases in membership. Then again, absent proper data, it's difficult to say with greater certainty.

BigBallinStalin wrote:One indicator is that although the price of premium has fallen in real terms (from $25 in 2006 to about $20 in today's dollars), membership hasn't increased. This implies that lowering the price won't get the desired increases in membership. Then again, absent proper data, it's difficult to say with greater certainty.

In 2006 the price of premium was $20. ( I don't remember exactly when it changed.)

BigBallinStalin wrote:One indicator is that although the price of premium has fallen in real terms (from $25 in 2006 to about $20 in today's dollars), membership hasn't increased. This implies that lowering the price won't get the desired increases in membership. Then again, absent proper data, it's difficult to say with greater certainty.

In 2006 the price of premium was $20. ( I don't remember exactly when it changed.)

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

sundance123 wrote:

Geger wrote:I just want to add this : The site do get money from Freemiums!! There are ads, and only fremiums see these ads. And when they click the ads (I did, when I was fremium), the site get more money. Also more games for freemiums are good for the site too.

Note : Pssst.... don't let freemiums play poly, because this was the reason I bought premium for 2nd time

Nice to read some business oriented pro arguments.

I noticed earlier that freemiums were here first! I will have remember that the next time a jumped up premie calls us leeches.

Where's Geger's compelling evidence?

Where's the compelling evidence that 4 is exactly the right number of games for freemiums?

Normally, when you want to shift from X to Y, it helps to explain how shifting to Y is best.

At least with 4, we have an idea of how many freemiums to premiums there are.

I don't see how giving more free stuff (thus lowering the relative value of a premium) entices more fremiums to pay for premium. For reasons unexplained, Geger's stance implies that making something more expensive will increase the quantity demanded. Since CC isn't a fashion good, I don't see how that makes any sense. So, you know, burden of evidence is appropriately on him.

One could easily reverse the argumentation and suggest that we should decrease the number of free games available. Maybe even to zero -- that will clearly entice people to pay up, yes?

Sounds good to me

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

sundance123 wrote:

Geger wrote:I just want to add this : The site do get money from Freemiums!! There are ads, and only fremiums see these ads. And when they click the ads (I did, when I was fremium), the site get more money. Also more games for freemiums are good for the site too.

Note : Pssst.... don't let freemiums play poly, because this was the reason I bought premium for 2nd time

Nice to read some business oriented pro arguments.

I noticed earlier that freemiums were here first! I will have remember that the next time a jumped up premie calls us leeches.

Where's Geger's compelling evidence?

Where's the compelling evidence that 4 is exactly the right number of games for freemiums?

Normally, when you want to shift from X to Y, it helps to explain how shifting to Y is best.

At least with 4, we have an idea of how many freemiums to premiums there are.

I don't see how giving more free stuff (thus lowering the relative value of a premium) entices more fremiums to pay for premium. For reasons unexplained, Geger's stance implies that making something more expensive will increase the quantity demanded. Since CC isn't a fashion good, I don't see how that makes any sense. So, you know, burden of evidence is appropriately on him.

One could easily reverse the argumentation and suggest that we should decrease the number of free games available. Maybe even to zero -- that will clearly entice people to pay up, yes?

Maybe so; I suggest CC limit the games that ex premium players are allowed to play. Maybe Zero.
Wok so hard, just to lose it all...not likely

Gweeedo wrote:
Maybe so; I suggest CC limit the games that ex premium players are allowed to play. Maybe Zero.
Wok so hard, just to lose it all...not likely

Easily solved with a multi account!

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

sundance123 wrote:

Geger wrote:I just want to add this : The site do get money from Freemiums!! There are ads, and only fremiums see these ads. And when they click the ads (I did, when I was fremium), the site get more money. Also more games for freemiums are good for the site too.

Note : Pssst.... don't let freemiums play poly, because this was the reason I bought premium for 2nd time

Nice to read some business oriented pro arguments.

I noticed earlier that freemiums were here first! I will have remember that the next time a jumped up premie calls us leeches.

Where's Geger's compelling evidence?

Where's the compelling evidence that 4 is exactly the right number of games for freemiums?

Normally, when you want to shift from X to Y, it helps to explain how shifting to Y is best.

At least with 4, we have an idea of how many freemiums to premiums there are.

I don't see how giving more free stuff (thus lowering the relative value of a premium) entices more fremiums to pay for premium. For reasons unexplained, Geger's stance implies that making something more expensive will increase the quantity demanded. Since CC isn't a fashion good, I don't see how that makes any sense. So, you know, burden of evidence is appropriately on him.

One could easily reverse the argumentation and suggest that we should decrease the number of free games available. Maybe even to zero -- that will clearly entice people to pay up, yes?

Maybe, but geger's suggesting that demand curves slope upward, which doesn't make sense. That was the topic.

Your topic is about the price elasticity of demand. In other words:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=203370&view=unread#p4460635

In short, we don't know. No research is being conducted or has been released. We do know that membership has been shrinking as the real price has fallen since 2007 (thx, spiesr). Decreasing membership price won't seem to work. Decreasing the relative price of premium by increasing freemium benefits likewise won't likely work. I don't see how increasing the relative price by decreasing freemium games would get a profitable amount to join. Based on our limited information, it seems wisest to leave it alone.