Same IP Players Now Premium?

[pinkyandthebrain]

"There is no such thing as a free lunch"

As non member players we should be grateful of what we can access and play for nothing and expect restrictions placed upon us to encourage us to pay to maintain this site. Get over it.

Members should feel they are getting excellent value and if that means removing ELO stats from us non members, restricting the settings we can play with to set up a table such as choice of game, level of opponent, whereabouts of opponent so be it...live with what you are given or pay.

Site owners perhaps could be more transparent and up front. State they need funds to maintain the site, develop more games etc, drop the philosophy of we want this as a free service with no ads. At the same time tell us basic account holders what options they will possibly remove from us in the future and how they ideally need us as paying members to make a good site an exceptional site.

You don't have to like the changes but surely you can see that you are getting entertainment for nothing and somebody is working to provide you that entertainment and for this I am thankful.


PS What is it with the laminate wôoden floor background to this site - if members could change the design and colours then I’d be up for subscribing...

[Liallan]

only premium games gain royalties

Not sure what this has to do with feeling guilty about not buying a physical copy for use with friends... I never said or meant to imply that buying a membership here supports creators of games directly. It is just that when you play here with local friends in lieu of buying a copy of the game, you are in essence depriving the creator of a sale of a copy of the game. Personally, this would make me feel like a thief.

Your point is true though - if you buy a membership and then play a game here with local friends you still may not be supporting the game's creator. So we should be very thankful that they even allow it at all, right?

I do appreciate your candor, so I hope you can appreciate mine. (That really wasn't sarcasm.)

I am thankful that free gaming sites are around, but I think that leads to an important point. If a site is going to offer something for free, I don't see a reason not to go ahead and utilize it, without feeling guilty about it. Yes, if you like a place and frequent it, it's a very nice idea to help support it, if you can. Not everyone can, perhaps not even half of it. But any sites I know of that have financial support options, the majority of members don't provide it - they're freebies. I'd have a hard time saying they're doing something bad or committing thievery.

If someone can afford to buy the games, has the opportunity to gather in person to play them (which is more fun anyway), and chooses to use this site instead (rather than in addition to), for the entire purpose of avoiding buying anything, and then won't even use that money to buy a membership here, then yes, I'd agree with you. That's not very nice. But just because someone has not specifically stated they do own physical copies doesn't mean they don't - after all, that's not really the topic at hand.

You claimed to understand that point (when Isdariel pointed it out), and yet said to him, "And I can still think your opinion about it is selfish and short-sighted." He didn't say anything at all that even remotely suggested he fit the above description, but it certainly sounds like you think he does, though I don't know for what reason. He discussed some logical reasons why people can have physical copies and still play on here, and the only personal thing was about playing Hanabi which needs more than his one friend. That last thing about the Hanabi might be the only place where it affects him negatively. And yet his opinion is selfish and short-sighted?

It does indeed sound like you are jumping to the conclusion that everyone who dislikes this fits into the selfish realm. And the example of Isdariel in particular makes me wonder if you're actually reading what people are saying, or just jumping to conclusions.

(Side note: As for that quote about only getting royalties from premium games, he may have misinterpreted you to mean the creators here, i.e. those doing the online implementations.)

[veme]

I play on BGA primarily with my friends who are scattered across the country (and other countries). I play with strangers about 10% of the time, and don't enjoy it nearly as much. Since several of my gaming friends are couples, what used to be a free game night, suddenly becomes more complicated. And I can't invite new friends to play and try it out, if they are a couple.

If you are a premium member, shouldn't this still be possible? As long as you are at the table, people with the same IPs should be able to play. Or does it require the premium member to actually be one of the people sharing the IP? If so, that should definitely be changed so that members can have whoever they want at their tables.


Re: Liallan

There are few things I appreciate more than candor.

I never said that I thought people were thieves for using a free service, I said how I would feel if I were using this site in that one particular way. This gives me little sympathy for the argument "Since I don't feel like setting up my game, it should be available to everyone in the world for free." Why should we allow for the possibility of mooching, just to provide a minor convenience for those who aren't?

I think the board game community should be interested in making sure that people who work/pay to provide these games and services are compensated in some way such that they are motivated to keep doing it - and this change, to me, closes off a possible way for people to leech off their contributions while providing nothing in return.

You claimed to understand that point (when Isdariel pointed it out), and yet said to him, "And I can still think your opinion about it is selfish and short-sighted." He didn't say anything at all that even remotely suggested he fit the above description, but it certainly sounds like you think he does, though I don't know for what reason.

My comment was specifically in response to theirs: "I still don't have to like a change that impacts me negatively." This is the definition of a selfish reason to be against something. It is not based on a careful consideration of pros and cons, or a logical analysis of how the change impacts the community, it is purely self-serving.

I also never said Isdariel was selfish or short-sighted, just that I thought their opinion about this is. I realize that I have a combative debate style, but I try very hard to attack only ideas, not people. I love everyone... but I often disagree with them.

[alexgodlex]

If only one player has to be premium to do this I am not sure what all the fuss is about.

For people like me thats plays at work with the same IP, changing that little rules is like switching BGA from free to paid site. It's not a little thing, it's not something you just do like that without communicating to your user base.

I just bought a premium account but it doesn't solve all the problems : it means i need to be there for the others players to be able to play. Which is not the case every day. To be able to play everyday with any person we would have to switch all to premium.
I know some people here thinks it's not a problem, but sorry it's just a ''stupid'' argument : BGA had always be 90% free and that's one of the reasons of the success of the sites (a large user base).

This IP move is like switching from a free (for freemium) model to a 'pay wall' model, but only for a small fraction of the people : the people are playing on the same network. I don't see the logic here : why those people would have to pay and not the rest of the users ? Whats so wrong about playing on the same network that we need to be treated differently ?

Again i don't see the logic here : it doesn't seem logic as a business model and it doesn't seem logic for your loyal user base.
I thought your business model was : trying to add more stuff to the premium users to make people want to pay for a premium account (Versus : removing things to free accounts to force people to switch).

Personally i'm the kind of people that are ok to pay for a premium account if i think the premium account give me exclusive stuff that are interesting to me. So ok i paid for an account, you win, but you didn't make me a loyal customer, you forced me to pay to get something i used to have for free, it's not a very pleasant feeling.

I hope you understand making people hangry is not a good business model.

[pinkyandthebrain]

Personally i'm the kind of people that are ok to pay for a premium account if i think the premium account give me exclusive stuff that are interesting to

You did get something interesting for you, the ability to play with your work colleagues from the same ip. You get to call the shots in games you play and the settings you choose whilst your free member work mates just have to agree if they want to play too... You got a promotion to become their line manager

[alexgodlex]

You got a promotion to become their line manager

Haha, kind of…

Btw, i want to add this : i think the Waiting screen before game IS a good move by comparison :
— It's not very violent : you can do as usual, you just have to wait a bit
— It's for everyone (all non premium member)
— It's make you want a premium account, but not as a negative thing (as the waiting thing is reasonable thing, it's not like you have to wait for a day)

[Isdariel]

Hmm, alexgodlex might be on to something there. The recent change pushes players who are used to play with local friends hard towards a subscription, but has no effect on "singles" at all (and thus it makes sense for "singles" to go "meh, what's the big deal" on this change). A bit diabolically you could rephrase this change as BGA saying: "how dare you play with your friends, go play with strangers!"

I realize that I have a combative debate style, but I try very hard to attack only ideas, not people. I love everyone... but I often disagree with them.

Got it, no harm done. And now you know that "I think your opinion is <adjective>" is so close to "I think you are <adjective>" that it's prone to be mistaken.

Personally, I play a lot of 4-5 player hanabi games with 1 (one) local friend of mine. Why would BGA be better of if we only play alone (or find a different joint activity for us altogether)?

BGA would at least be no worse off if you played separately, this scenario only deprives members of opponents if the local players refuse to play at all unless they are at the same table.

You make it sound as if playing seperately is as good as playing together. This is not the case with friend(s). Playing with them is the whole point.

Second, I personally wouldn't want to play at a table with two players I didn't already know with the same IP anyway. They could easily be cheating (or even controlled by the same person), and I believe it also prevents playing for ELO.

I rarely encounter players who ask about the shared IP, and even few players who have a problem with it (though maybe that's specific to hanabi players). Also, ELO is not deactivated.

[janel_marie]

Playing as friends is the whole reason for us to play. We've brought lots of friends onto BGA because we could play together. It's honestly turned us off from this site. We can no longer as a couple play together with our friends. It previously allowed us to introduce our favorite owned board games to friends. You've lost us for now where as you could have easily turned us to paid customers for offering more rather than taking away what we previously had. It's left a bad taste in our mouth and it's not something we feel inclined to support.

[veme]

For people like me thats plays at work with the same IP, changing that little rules is like switching BGA from free to paid site. It's not a little thing, it's not something you just do like that without communicating to your user base.

I just want to state for the record, because you seem to be addressing me directly, that I am not affiliated with this site. I am a member who pays (grudgingly), and I frequently give BGA crap about their decision making. I just agree with them about this issue to an extent. But I also agree with you about their communication style.

This IP move is like switching from a free (for freemium) model to a 'pay wall' model, but only for a small fraction of the people : the people are playing on the same network. I don't see the logic here : why those people would have to pay and not the rest of the users ? Whats so wrong about playing on the same network that we need to be treated differently?

The difference is, that by being on the same IP, you could be actively circumventing contributing to the community in any way in exchange for the game. That is why this decision makes sense to me. When you are playing with someone from a different IP, you are performing a function that the physical game could not anyway, so it being free should in no way impact sales. Indeed, if anything it should always be a net positive to expose more people to it. When everyone is playing from the same IP however, they could be using the service instead of buying the game - thus they could be avoiding contributing to the community in any way: not paying at all, and not providing opponents for actual contributors.

I suggest you and your friends play your copy of the physical game. If this is not possible for some reason, then my feeling is that BGA is providing enough service to you that you should not begrudge paying a 1/3 of a membership (or whatever) for it, in the interest of making sure people can't rip off this wonderful community we are all a part of.

I don't buy the 'how will we all play at work when I'm sick?' argument either. If you were the one who was bringing a physical game, everyone would be out of luck in the same fashion. As members of a community we should be able to put up with small inconveniences like this (or like having to set up the pieces, god forbid) in the interest of making sure that at least some of the people who put in the work and made this possible are fairly compensated.


I wonder though (thinking about Isdariel's point, and the situation mentioned about two groups in different places wanting to play together), if maybe this would be better implemented as a "no games where everyone is from the same IP" policy, instead of what it seems to be now, a "no games where any two non-members are from the same IP" policy.

It seems much more fair to just let anyone join/play a game once there is either:

a. a premium member at the table
or
b. any two players with different IPs at the table

[Liallan]

Hmm, alexgodlex might be on to something there. The recent change pushes players who are used to play with local friends hard towards a subscription, but has no effect on "singles" at all (and thus it makes sense for "singles" to go "meh, what's the big deal" on this change).

You mean like me?

No one in my house but the cats, and I have a group I play with. Online stuff is just my fix in between, and has also become a way to learn new games on my own time. So this doesn't affect me one way or the other.

However, I do try to think of how things affect other people and how it applies to different situations. If I'd been previously playing with my spouse or my neighbor or something, this would probably upset me a lot, so I absolutely get why people are upset, and it doesn't help that they didn't communicate it very well so no one got any warning (so it sounds), and it would be very nice if they would sometimes be a little more up front about some things. (After all, I think people have a right to some honest disclosure if you want them to pay, especially when it's a fixed membership rather than a contribution.) But I also somewhat see the point behind this. So I'm a little undecided about it and merely following comments for the moment.

(I also could see a possible situation where this could affect me. I used to play at work at a different site with someone, and she was going to join here as well. But we don't play together anymore and I don't know if we ever will. A lot of it was just me teaching her new games, and she has no internet access at home, hence work. It's a LAN on two different computers - not sure how that would work.)

I think probably the one main thing about this that bugs me is pulling the plug on something that used to be free, the idea of taking things away. The idea of making same-IP-play a premium feature does not bother me in the least. If they need to give features to paying members, it's a nice feature to give. But they didn't add this feature: they already had it and then pulled it out from under those who used it. While every change they make is going to annoy a certain number of people, and other changes have them claiming they won't be renewing, etc., I have a weird feeling this one is going to affect people more than some of the other things. Obviously they need to see the impact, but that's my feeling, though it also may be only a very small percentage of members used this feature to start with.