27 Jun 06
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemI subscribe to the site in order to support it. The clans and tournaments are just that - extras. Consider it a 'Thank you for subscribing' feature if you wish.
LOL
Who knew subscribing put one on a level with Mother Theresa?
Another subscriber waxing virtuous about their lost $29. I wonder how many of you would pay for the site if you [b]didn't get any extra features!? I say, pay the money and renounce your clans, tournaments, sieges, and extra games, if you're so concerned about 'contributing to humanity'.[/b]
However, one thing is for sure, the site wouldn't exist without people subscribing. I'm sure that it couldn't survive on the revenue from advertising alone
27 Jun 06
Originally posted by HindsteinOk, if the clans and tournaments are just extras, then I challenge you to abandon your clan and resign all your tournament games. Prove that you're really subscribing just for the sheer joy of seeing the site run! 🙄
I subscribe to the site in order to support it. The clans and tournaments are just that - extras. Consider it a 'Thank you for subscribing' feature if you wish.
However, one thing is for sure, the site wouldn't exist without people subscribing. I'm sure that it couldn't survive on the revenue from advertising alone
However, one thing is for sure, the site wouldn't exist without people subscribing.
Wrong. It started out without paid subscriptions, and it could continue that way, if the site owner so chose. There is another corr. chess site that offers far more features for free than RHP, and it is still alive and kicking.
28 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemWho's paying for the bandwith to keep that site on the internet? It is free to users but not free.
Ok, if the clans and tournaments are just extras, then I challenge you to abandon your clan and resign all your tournament games. Prove that you're really subscribing just for the sheer joy of seeing the site run! 🙄
[b]However, one thing is for sure, the site wouldn't exist without people subscribing.
Wrong. It started out without paid subs ...[text shortened]... chess site that offers far more features for free than RHP, and it is still alive and kicking.[/b]
Personally, I don't care if non-subs get their own forum. Forums/fora for minors and language-specific forums are fine too. Whatever.
Edit -- really, non-subs getting a forum doesn't have any affect on my sub-hood or anyone else's.
28 Jun 06
Originally posted by reader1107Of course, sub-only services consume more bandwidth, too.
Who's paying for the bandwith to keep that site on the internet? It is free to users but not free.
Personally, I don't care if non-subs get their own forum. Forums/fora for minors and language-specific forums are fine too. Whatever.
Edit -- really, non-subs getting a forum doesn't have any affect on my sub-hood or anyone else's.
There are sites that offer free image hosting, and pay for it with ad clicks. Google is now a huge company (stock value, at least!), and they got there mainly via ad revenue. Yes folks, it can be done without directly billing the users!
28 Jun 06
1 edit
I so rarely get involved in the demands, desires, and hopes of those who don't subscribe mainly due to the fact that their requests still won't happen. At least this is what i am to gather from all I have seen thus far.
Those who paid for their subscriptions don't want pop-ups, ad clicks or any other bits of this forced garbage (sub and non-subs agree most of it is). This site was set up mainly for the purpose of gaining funds through purchases of subscriptions and thusly, those who have paid the price should get added benefits.
With this piece of knowledge, The enticing part of the non-subs to join are all the added benefits. this is to include our clan forums. BTW clan forums are rather exclusive to each individual clan, so not all subscribers can see what is posted in my clan and I can't in theirs.
Now I know that there is a portion of Russ' income paid by the ad's that Non-subs must go through, but it is small in comparison, or so i have been told. Common sense says it is due to subscribers having so many added features.
Now the idea of a non-sub forum where subscribers are only allowed in by invitation is just plain absurd. with all the open forums that are available, and non-subs free use to them (might I add unlimited) really is more than fair enough. I have no qualms with non-subs posting in the forums. Sometimes the insight given on some topics is well thought out and deserving of some attention. I also agree that there have been far to many non-subs that have made moves in, say 6 games, not really knowing what they were doing or getting into, and have left the site all together. This is the bases behind the argument of non-subs having less commitment than subs.
Personally I would say enjoy what this site does offer non-subs, subscribe if you can. or go to another site that you will find that offers more for free.
Thats my thoughts.
28 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by KJCavalierYes, I agree. The reason I suggested this in the first place was basically to show my disagreement with those who had been spouting off for subscriber only forums - as THEY pay for this site so only THEY should be allowed to use them.
Now the idea of a non-sub forum where subscribers are only allowed in by invitation is just plain absurd. with all the open forums that are available, and non-subs free use to them (might I add unlimited) really is more than fair enough.
Fortunately, the majority of subscribers are more enlightened.
28 Jun 06
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemI think that you have missed the point. Either that or I didn't make it very well in the first place.
Ok, if the clans and tournaments are just extras, then I challenge you to abandon your clan and resign all your tournament games. Prove that you're really subscribing just for the sheer joy of seeing the site run! 🙄
[b]However, one thing is for sure, the site wouldn't exist without people subscribing.
Wrong. It started out without paid subs ...[text shortened]... chess site that offers far more features for free than RHP, and it is still alive and kicking.[/b]
Your challenge is incredibly childish. Just because the extras were not the reason I subscribed doesn't mean that I ought to boycott them to prove a point. If you want proof, check out my game history - you'll see that I joined the site in June (and subcribed soon after) but didn't enter a tournament until October or join a clan until December. Plus, I couldn't cope with the Crazy Frog ads - they were too distracting. £17 was worth it to not here that again!
However, your counter arguement has equal flaws. Sure, the site started out without subscriptions, but there were far less people playing then. With the growth of numbers, Russ and Co. needed to raise more money to cope with the growing cost of site hosting and bandwidth - something that is not cheap!
Do you really think that this site could survive without subscription? If all subscribers paid nothing, would the site last long on the advertising revenue alone? I doubt that Russ levvied the subs just so he could sleep on a pile of money.
Is this other site you talk about entirely free with no subscription option? I doubt it.
28 Jun 06
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemJust to throw a different point to your "Google" theory. Google makes a vast majority of its revenue through advertising, because that is it's business. Wether it is for products, services, iformation, technical advances, and so on and so forth. It's added "benifits" are to keep people going to their site for it's information services. This is a chess site, The only searching that is really done here is on the various games and opponents. Not a real cause for advertisng as a hugh market here. Sure there is some revenue from it, but not the source that a Google will have.
Of course, sub-only services consume more bandwidth, too.
There are sites that offer free image hosting, and pay for it with ad clicks. Google is now a huge company (stock value, at least!), and they got there mainly via ad revenue. Yes folks, it can be done without directly billing the users!
28 Jun 06
Originally posted by HindsteinYour challenge is incredibly childish. Just because the extras were not the reason I subscribed doesn't mean that I ought to boycott them to prove a point.
I think that you have missed the point. Either that or I didn't make it very well in the first place.
Your challenge is incredibly childish. Just because the extras were not the reason I subscribed doesn't mean that I ought to boycott them to prove a point. If you want proof, check out my game history - you'll see that I joined the site in June (and ...[text shortened]...
Is this other site you talk about entirely free with no subscription option? I doubt it.
I support my local Wendy's with monetary donations. They give me spicy chicken sandwiches and french fries as a way of saying "Thanks." 🙄
If you want proof, check out my game history - you'll see that I joined the site in June (and subcribed soon after) but didn't enter a tournament until October or join a clan until December.
I bought a coupon book, but didn't use one at Wendy's for 4 months. Of course, I'll use this as proof of my undying support for Wendy's, when in reality I was just too lazy to pull the coupon.
Plus, I couldn't cope with the Crazy Frog ads - they were too distracting. £17 was worth it to not here that again!
You said it! I get so sick of telemarketers that I just buy whatever they're selling, just to shut them up. Who cares if I actually want it or not?
Sure, the site started out without subscriptions, but there were far less people playing then.
Or, could it be that there were far less people who wanted to play hundreds of games at once?
Do you really think that this site could survive without subscription? If all subscribers paid nothing, would the site last long on the advertising revenue alone?
I'm sure it could survive. Not all gaming sites have subscription models, you know.
Is this other site you talk about entirely free with no subscription option? I doubt it.
No. But I don't begrudge the paying players the right to have hundreds of games, play on multiple teams, etc.
However, the above site offers ALL of the following for FREE:
-20 concurrent games
-Ability to join 1 team
-Ability to play 1 tourney every 6 weeks
-Public and private (team) forum access
-A wide array of variants, from CrazyHouse to FischerRandom to Suicide
So tell me, Hindstein, why haven't they gone broke yet??
28 Jun 06
Originally posted by KJCavalierIf true, your argument only shows that RHP is not a very profitable business compared to Google. If there's few people to see the ads, then there's also few people to pay a subscription fee.
Just to throw a different point to your "Google" theory. Google makes a vast majority of its revenue through advertising, because that is it's business. Wether it is for products, services, iformation, technical advances, and so on and so forth. It's added "benifits" are to keep people going to their site for it's information services. This is a chess sit ...[text shortened]... ket here. Sure there is some revenue from it, but not the source that a Google will have.
28 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemBigDogg,
....text shortened....
No. But I don't begrudge the paying players the right to have hundreds of games, play on multiple teams, etc.
However, the above site offers ALL of the following for FREE:
-20 concurrent games
-Ability to join 1 team
-Ability to play 1 tourney every 6 weeks
-Public [b]and private (team) forum access
-A wide array ...[text shortened]... yHouse to FischerRandom to Suicide
So tell me, Hindstein, why haven't they gone broke yet??[/b]
I think that you have misunderstood me. I am not a campainer against you or any other non-subscriber requesting more site features. I perhaps don't believe you will be successful in you quest to get the above differences between the two sites implemented, but I have nothing against the request.
I merely responded to your question on the last page:
I wonder how many of you would pay for the site if you didn't get any extra features!?
I believe that I am one of those people. That is all. If you are looking for a mud-slinging match, I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere. Many of your replies to my statements have been either childish retorts that do nothing to help your cause, or statements that do not make any sense.
For example, subscribing to get rid of adverts from this site is not that same as buying from telemarketeers who constanly bombard you with phonecalls. The equivalent would be to sign up with TPS - the telephone preference service here in the UK that blocks all telemarketing calls for you. This just happens to be free here and I have signed up to it. However if it were not, I wouldn't think twice about paying a few pounds/dollars a year to never recieve another call again.
I'm not going to counter-argue against all of your lame points about Wendy's, as it is futile.
If you are looking for a simple answer to your question about this other nameless site, then here it is: They have subscribers. Maybe this is oversimplifying this, but I have yet to see you show me a correspondance chess site that does not have any subscription. Incedently, what are the benefits from subscribing to this other site then?
You are right though, that there are gaming sites that do not have subscription models, but there has to be some way of generating the income to support the bandwidth charges and site hosting. There is no such thing as a free lunch!
I say to you that, honestly, removing the irritating and distracting adverts from the site and opening up the opportunity for more than 6 games was the only reason I subscribed back in June, although I appreciate the bonus options available now.
If you can put up with the ads and make do with the limits of the non-sub then that is fine. I don't believe that Russ is that interested in every single request from a non-sub if it increases the cost of running the site. However, more chess varients would be nice. May be this will come one day - just don't bet on it being available for all.
I don't want to sound nasty in any way, but if this other site offers so much, why are you campaining for change here, instead of playing chess there?
🙂
28 Jun 06
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemI think that this is true!
If true, your argument only shows that RHP is not a very profitable business compared to Google. If there's few people to see the ads, then there's also few people to pay a subscription fee.
I'm sure that RHP is a drop in the ocean compared to the might of Google. But then, it's like comparing a successful corner shop with Wal-Mart.
28 Jun 06
Originally posted by HindsteinI don't see any ads at all while using Firefox.
BigDogg,
I think that you have misunderstood me. I am not a campainer against you or any other non-subscriber requesting more site features. I perhaps don't believe you will be successful in you quest to get the above differences between the two sites implemented, but I have nothing against the request.
I merely responded to your question on the l ...[text shortened]... so much, why are you campaining for change here, instead of playing chess there?
🙂
I do know a chess site that is free for everthing - they accept donations, like this one did before subscriptions - maybe they will have subscriptions eventually. [I am not claiming it is as good as RHP but it is ok]
I won't advertise it here but if proof is required send me a pm.
28 Jun 06
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveAnd how often do you donate to this site?
I don't see any ads at all while using Firefox.
I do know a chess site that is free for everthing - they accept donations, like this one did before subscriptions - maybe they will have subscriptions eventually. [I am not claiming it is as good as RHP but it is ok]
I won't advertise it here but if proof is required send me a pm.