Keep AI Away From BGA

[tbhp]

In regards to free accounts:

What do you think the impact would be if BGA decided tomorrow that only premium accounts can create and join games?

They'd get an immediate bump in premium subscriptions, and they no longer would be spending resources on the free accounts. Sounds great for BGA, so why don't they do that?
Because the number of active users would plummet. It would suddenly become much harder to find/create a table. Many games would become impossible to find opponents for, and this will get worse over time as more and more people don't renew their subscriptions as it becomes too difficult for them to find opponents for the games they want to play.

The fact of the matter is free accounts provide content (other players) for the premium accounts to interact with. For a Premium Game a subscriber can create a table with any settings they want and will likely fill the table with free accounts that will have to take any table with settings they find good enough. When the free accounts join they are providing an incentive to the Premium users to keep maintaining their subscription.

So who cares if the free users are upset about a change? The Premium users who will be complaining about the lack of opponents if the free users decide it's not worth the hassle.

That sounds like an extremely backwards argument again (not surprising coming from you).

Just because non-premium users are a big part of the site's traffic doesn't mean we should give them kudos for not giving support to it. You write like we should be grateful that those people exist, almost putting them above paying members because at least they don't complain or something.

Why do you always take the defense of the people who are doing nothing or are doing something wrong?

[Cile]

In regards to free accounts:

What do you think the impact would be if BGA decided tomorrow that only premium accounts can create and join games?

They'd get an immediate bump in premium subscriptions, and they no longer would be spending resources on the free accounts. Sounds great for BGA, so why don't they do that?
Because the number of active users would plummet. It would suddenly become much harder to find/create a table. Many games would become impossible to find opponents for, and this will get worse over time as more and more people don't renew their subscriptions as it becomes too difficult for them to find opponents for the games they want to play.

The fact of the matter is free accounts provide content (other players) for the premium accounts to interact with. For a Premium Game a subscriber can create a table with any settings they want and will likely fill the table with free accounts that will have to take any table with settings they find good enough. When the free accounts join they are providing an incentive to the Premium users to keep maintaining their subscription.

So who cares if the free users are upset about a change? The Premium users who will be complaining about the lack of opponents if the free users decide it's not worth the hassle.

That sounds like an extremely backwards argument again (not surprising coming from you).

Just because non-premium users are a big part of the site's traffic doesn't mean we should give them kudos for not giving support to it. You write like we should be grateful that those people exist, almost putting them above paying members because at least they don't complain or something.

Why do you always take the defense of the people who are doing nothing or are doing something wrong?

Sounds like you're only commenting here because of some grudge you have against me, and not engaging with the actual content of what was said.

I'm not interested.

[tbhp]

Sounds like you're only commenting here because of some grudge you have against me, and not engaging with the actual content of what was said.

I'm not interested.

Deflecting again it seems. If I keep coming at you, it's because you take the "bad guy" position in just about every discussion I see you engage in. It's not you inherently who is targeted, it's your opinions.

[Cile]

One friend of mine recently decided not to renew premium.

Have you told him he's a

cheapskate loser

?

1) What is the change causing people to be upset? Is it advertisements? If so, I don't see this as reasonable. Websites cost money to operate, and if people aren't supporting the site with a membership, the website needs to find that revenue elsewhere. Advertisements are the most obvious method.

I mostly agree, but that depends on how aggressive the ads are. I've been on the internet long enough to know advertisers will push their ads to the limit of what people will tolerate and keep trying to push further. I used to not run an ad-blocker because websites cost money and need to get revenue from somewhere; then I encountered a banner ad that literally screamed at me every time my mouse went over top of it. I immediately downloaded an ad blocker and have refused to be without one since. So I can understand people having an inherent mistrust of ads because they always trend towards the worst they can possibly be while still being tolerated.

If BGA wants to put a static banner ad at the top of every page for non-premium users that sounds completely reasonable. If they were to require non-premium users to watch a 1 minute long ad every time they opened a game's page then that would not be reasonable. I don't believe the latter is likely, but isn't that what YouTube is up to at this point? 2+ 30s unskippable ads? It all depends on the specifics.

2) How are people expressing their displeasure? Sometimes non-premium members phrase their requests in a very demanding way, as though BGA owes them something.

I agree that is inappropriate, much like someone saying

These cheapskate losers shouldn't be paying $0.00 and the whining like losers.

as if the free to play users owe them something would also be an inappropriate way of expressing ones displeasure, and unlikely to win anyone over.

My personal opinion? Any free user who thinks BGA is a "hassle" has a really weird way of evaluating value versus cost. For $0.00 a month, BGA provides a lot. I understand it is the case that some feel differently - I just don't understand why anyone would feel that way.

I agree. I couldn't tell you why anyone would say the current situation is a hassle (Sure, there's been downtime lately, but you get what you pay for) but that doesn't mean a proposal to introduce ads couldn't make is a hassle, depending on how aggressive those ads are.

My main point is that attitudes like:

Just in case we have lost track of the main thread here: WHAT exactly is the issue ??? People paying $0.00 are unhappy? Well, I'll happily send out a payment to those people of exactly how much they have contributed. Anyone who feels he or she is not getting his or her $0.00 worth can expect a full refund of that $0.00 in the mail.

Are not healthy for the longevity of the site because dismissing the concerns of free users doesn't turn them into paying users, it just results in a shallower player pool.

BGA allows free users for a reason. There is a careful line to be drawn between minor inconveniences to encourage users to subscribe, and annoying users to the point that they leave. Complete dismissal of the concerns of free users means that line is going to be put in the wrong place.

[Ceaseless]

Sounds like you're only commenting here because of some grudge you have against me, and not engaging with the actual content of what was said.

I'm not interested.

Deflecting again it seems. If I keep coming at you, it's because you take the "bad guy" position in just about every discussion I see you engage in. It's not you inherently who is targeted, it's your opinions.

Let's take a look at your previous post.

That sounds like an extremely backwards argument again (not surprising coming from you).

Just because non-premium users are a big part of the site's traffic doesn't mean we should give them kudos for not giving support to it. You write like we should be grateful that those people exist, almost putting them above paying members because at least they don't complain or something.

Why do you always take the defense of the people who are doing nothing or are doing something wrong?

You spent about as much of that post taking direct shots at them unrelated to anything they said as you did actually disputing the topic itself.

[FrankJones]

[things I write earlier, redacted to avoid a cluttered page]

It sounds as though we mostly agree.

Regarding the portions of my old post you quoted: I am fairly certain I already acknowledged my inappropriate tone in the portions you quoted, and that I apologized for them and entirely re-wrote that post, removing the harsh and judgmental language you quoted.

And I feel as though this is not the first time you nevertheless quoted those things (which are unfortunately still visible in a reply someone made and quoted, even though I apologized for and rescinded the remarks).

What else am I supposed to do at this point? I cannot stop anyone from continuing to berate me for things I already retracted and apologized for. But at this point, it isn't a good look for anyone who chooses to do that. I apologized. I removed it. I acknowledged and owned my error. Continuing to berate me about it is no better or honorable than what I did in the first place, and makes it seem as though you aren't all that concerned about the admittedly stupid things I said, but rather, that you just want to continue to kick me around because I said them.

[FrankJones]

ALso, @ CIle,

No, I did not say anything harsh to this friend. As it happens, he has made no complaints whatsoever about his non-premium membership and seems grateful for what it still offers. If he did, I would issue to him a more polite version of what I originally said in my since-deleted post, and I doubt he would take any offense.

So, even putting aside for the moment the fact that I already apologized for and rescinded those remarks, in his case, it wouldn't be applicable anyway.

Maybe you and I can move past that at some point? Or, I suppose you've never in your life wrote something stupid on the internet when you were in a bad mood and drunk, in which case, you perhaps feel it is appropriate to continue to belabor the point and berate me for it long after I owned the mistake and apologized? Wouldn't that be rather judgmental, which you (or someone, I forget exactly who) criticized (correctly) me for in the first place?

I rarely see people apologize on the internet or admit to a foolish rant or harsh post, and yet in those rare instances where the person owns it and apologizes, I've noticed this same thing usually occurs: Continued berating and belaboring of the point. What is the purpose of calling someone out on something if no apology is going to be accepted and the person who was wrong in the first place is just goi to be belittled endlessly about it?

[tbhp]

You spent about as much of that post taking direct shots at them unrelated to anything they said as you did actually disputing the topic itself.

There was not much to answer to their actual post. They just talked about how non-premium members are oh so useful to the site and acted like it's some sort of 'gotcha' when it's not. It's not a valid counter to anything that was said earlier in the discussion.

What is next? "People who pirate movies are actually the best viewers because they generate so much traffic for the movies. Viewers who pay are actually bad because if everyone paid then no one would watch movies anymore." What sort of backwards logic is that?

[FrankJones]

If BGA wants to put a static banner ad at the top of every page for non-premium users that sounds completely reasonable. If they were to require non-premium users to watch a 1 minute long ad every time they opened a game's page then that would not be reasonable. I don't believe the latter is likely, but isn't that what YouTube is up to at this point? 2+ 30s unskippable ads? It all depends on the specifics.

No idea. The moment I realized I could get rid of all YouTube ads for $12.99 a month, I signed up immediately and never looked back. YouTube is my main website/app for music (which is almost exclusively what I use YouTube for), so for me personally, having ads would be asinine.

That said, I do have one friend who uses YouTube when we have social gatherings at his place - he has a very nice home, hence a lot of social gatherings there.

And while we watch YouTube on his Gigantic TV, yes, we do actually make fun of him every time an ad comes on, because... come on dude. This TV cost as much as some of our cars, and you aren't paying for premium?

Not once has he taken offense.

So, yes, I actually do have some idea of how annoying YouTube's ads are, in contract to my opening sentence in this post.

My response to anyone who finds those ads "unreasonable" would be, "$17.99 (The price has gone up, I think that is what it costs now) is a very reasonable price to have unlimited ad-free use of YouTube."

[Meeplelowda]

come on dude. This TV cost as much as some of our cars, and you aren't paying for premium?

And the discussion about what to do with your disposable income being a choice rears its head again.