Waiting screen before game - FAQ

[Shaq Jenkins]

Out of curiosity, have you guys considered what I am going to call (for want of a better name) the New York Time model of revenue generation?

NYT has the following policy: Every month you can read 10 news articles for free. If you want to read more you have to get their subscription.

By analogy, you could allow non-subscribing players to play 30 (or some number of) games free every month. For greater access, people could subscribe. You could even make it multi-tiered with different levels of subscription.

Just a thought. I don't know whether it will make people more or less angry than they already are about the waiting screens.

Adapting this policy would completely kill BGA. Limiting the number of games people can play is a great way to alienate non-subscribing members. Another gaming site that I was a member of adapted that policy and their memberships plummeted (I think they shut down recently).

I'm okay with the wait screen, but I don't think it will make subscriptions increase. These wait screens were probably designed for people like me who play often but don't pay. I have enough gift points to buy a 1 month membership - maybe I'll cash those in.

The thing is, not generating enough revenue will (eventually) completely kill them as well. Although it may not be apparent to the end user, it costs money to keep a site like this up and running.

I know the site needs revenue - I just don't think your suggestion would help them gain that much of it. The NY Times model didn't work for another similar gaming site and I imagine that many users wouldn't react nicely to having the number of games they're allowed to play limited. I really hope they do not adapt this suggestion.

[Espina]

Adapting this policy would completely kill BGA. Limiting the number of games people can play is a great way to alienate non-subscribing members. Another gaming site that I was a member of adapted that policy and their memberships plummeted (I think they shut down recently).

I'm okay with the wait screen, but I don't think it will make subscriptions increase. These wait screens were probably designed for people like me who play often but don't pay. I have enough gift points to buy a 1 month membership - maybe I'll cash those in.

The thing is, not generating enough revenue will (eventually) completely kill them as well. Although it may not be apparent to the end user, it costs money to keep a site like this up and running.

I know the site needs revenue - I just don't think your suggestion would help them gain that much of it. The NY Times model didn't work for another similar gaming site and I imagine that many users wouldn't react nicely to having the number of games they're allowed to play limited. I really hope they do not adapt this suggestion.

Well, I was just floating an idea, and it seems to work (I suppose) for the NYT. If there is precedent to show that it does not work in the board-gaming community, then obviously they should not adopt it here. But it is a little frustrating that there are all these people on here complaining vociferously about the wait screen, and not much by way of constructive suggestions for alternative ways that revenue may be generated for the site.

[SKTERROR20]

A major problem I've had is that when the wait screen appears there seems to be a problem and I am unable to play the game. So I try refreshing and the game doesn't refresh. I have to close my browser and reopen the game. Even then it only opens about 50% of the time. It takes a lot of scrambling on my part just to be able to make my first move and avoid being kicked. So now I will only play a real time game with a BGA club member.

You might ask why not become a member yourself? I was tempted to and might have to 1 support the site and 2 get access to start some of the games I like better. Now with this wait screen appearing I will never get one because I feel like this is a measure to force me to be a member rather then a choice. I'm also not sure how long I will stay with the site because of the troubles I've had with the wait screen.

[Isildur1]

Je n'avais pas vu ce topic, j'efface mon message où je l'avais mis pour le reposter ici

J'allais renouveler mon abonnement pour la 3ème ou 4eme fois mais le coup des 30 secondes d'attente , pas du tout dans l'esprit bga, fait que je ne renouvellerai pas

Depuis le début on nous dit que l'abonnement donnera des + et que les joueurs non abonnés ne seront pas pénalisés, d'ailleurs pour cet esprit que j'étais fidèle à l'abonnement mais là...on se croirait sur canal +...

Franchement déçu

[Liallan]

You should give trophies and rewards to members only.

This is pretty much like the ELO things.

When we made ELO free, BGA got +20% more games/players. If we remove trophies/rewards/ELO/..., BGA will lose more than 20% of players.

But... non-paying members were getting trophies and rewards, right? And nothing about that has changed, right? So how do we know what would happen if you didn't involve ELO? Not everyone cares about the trophies (like me), so I don't know who would pay just to get trophies, perhaps only a very small percent. I like having the little icons for the "reward" stuff, but those come with gift points and/or prestige. (Right? I don't pay that much attention.) The gift points can eventually be put towards a free month membership, so any of the game-related ones could go, and take prestige away from non-payers. (Neither of the other places I play have prestige. Would people really quit over that?) I'm not sure I agree with pulling people out of the rankings cause that feels like it takes away the purpose if everyone isn't there. Hey, wow, I got in the top 10... or did I?

I could still see using gift points for anyone who does other stuff to help the site. I think I've got about 60 and only a tiny bit of that came from translations, so I assume the rest was related to games and could be done away with. For people who play a lot, how long does it take to get 100, and therefore might they start paying without that little privilege?

I don't personally care about the delay thing or even see why people were having such a huge problem with it. (I just see people being seriously impatient - maybe it's the "immediate gratification" generation.) If someone really plays a lot and is taking advantage, I'm not seeing a 30 second delay as being that big a deal, and it does seem "right" somehow that whatever we do, it's going to affect the people who play a lot more. But... I do kind of see the point that it might be better to use a reward system rather than a punishment system. (Having ELO hidden always felt like a punishment and I hated it.)

But, I'm seeing other problems coming up, like being delayed 5 minutes, having to refresh, etc., but those are obviously bugs that need worked out. I totally understand someone being upset cause they almost got kicked from a game, or even got penalized in some way (and those would need removed). But I wonder how those same people would feel once it's working properly.

[sourisdudesert]

Thanks for all your feedback.

As many posters explained above, the alternatives to the waiting screen are probably even worst solutions.

The only possible way to see if it works is to do it, so that's what we did.

[Wakan Tanka]

I'll tell you why I think this waiting screen is a bad idea.

Previously people buying membership were receiving additional features. It was a good policy. You want some extra stuff - you buy it, you don't want it - don't buy it. Everybody's happy. What you're doing now is punishing those who don't want to pay, which in my opinion will cause players to quit rather than make you rich. I may be wrong, though.

I know there are still some extra features only for members but since number of membership subscriptions decreased, you can assume it's not enough. If making ELO free for everybody made you lose money, then I think it was a bad decision.

[sourisdudesert]

@Wakan Tanka

The FAQ will probably answer your questions.

[Wakan Tanka]

@sourisdudesert
I haven't ask any question.

[yoyote]

Idées en vrac :
Chaque membre obtient un multiplicateur de 1.1 pour le calcul de l'ELO en cas de victoire/ 0,9 en cas de défaite.
Classement parallèle dédié comme déjà évoqué.
Récompenses dédiées aux membres.
Rendre certains sujets de forum accessible en écriture uniquement pour les membres.