Ozyman suggested a life time membership on a thread about talking in fogged games.

I am very much in favor of this option for numerous reasons:

1)  As pointed out by berickf some people have exceptional difficulty in setting up a cost efficient method for periodic subscription payments and a one and done at the right price would resolve that issue.

2)  When I enjoy an activity, magazine, game etc and start thinking about what it is going to cost me in the long run I prefer to reduce my costs if at all possible.  For instance in the 70's I subscribed to Runners World (the magazine) and I knew I would be running for the rest of my life so when the publisher offered a lifetime subscription  for $100 I sent in the check (I think the annual subscription back then was about $7.50) I still get the magazine to this day and enjoy it.

3)  As a business owner I offer lifetime service contracts for some of our clients in special situations.  I've been doing it for over 30 years and will continue due to the profitability it offers us and the great satisfaction our clients have expressed to us for the service.  In my exact situation I am then obligated to perform further services which results in future  costs to our business that are not always predictable but when priced correctly both our business and our clients are satisfied.  On a web site the additional cost of staying open seems almost inconsequential if the business is ongoing as the site must still operate and the costs for having another 1000 clients on my site is negligible. 

4)  From a business point of view I believe the toughest years are almost always in the beginning because of the burn out, financial failures, incorrect marketing etc kill 95% of all new businesses within 5 years.  Thus the extra earnings in the early years can have a greater relative impact on the business due to the increased capital it supplies at a very critical time. (Money received sooner than later is almost always preferred and of course that is why banks charge interest on loans)

5)  I have been playing Risk for over 50 years.  However, during that time I have had lots of years of no games due to every reason imaginable.  I never have lost my joy in playing even though I don't allocate a lot of time to it.  I like the idea of being able to come back and play at any time I want without having to calculate what will it cost.  I have seen enough of Tom's efforts to know that if he can keep this going it will always be a first class game site so of course I would like to sign up for a "lifetime membership".  I also play other sites but none of them are as high in the quality of the site and the quality of the players.  So another aspect of my willingness to pay for a Premium Membership annually or lifetime is just plain self serving in that I want to support the business so it will be there in the future.

I like the idea of a lifetime membership.  It will all depend on how much $$$ we're talking.

It might seem illogical but I would tend to rationalize the $30 a year much better than paying out a few hundred or whatever it ends up being.

I would be willing to pay up to 4-5 yearly memberships for a lifetime membership.  It's hard to predict too far into the future, but I think I'll be on wargear for at least another 3-4 years.

If Tom doesn't want lifetime membership, maybe a 10 year or otherwise longterm membership.  Even at $100 for 5 years, I'd go for it.

How about simply an auto-recurring periodic charge that can be cancelled via post to Tom or admin?

Thingol wrote: How about simply an auto-recurring periodic charge that can be cancelled via post to Tom or admin?

The point of this from a foreign interest would be to have a one time payment, so an auto-recurring periodic charge would not work.

I think it would be nigh well impossible to put a reasonable price on a lifetime membership.  In one sense it's a bet on how long the site will last.  But there's also the problem of how tom determines that the owner of the account hasn't died (literally) and passed on the account to someone else.

or not died, but still passed on the account.  Of course then you also inherit all the other persons stats, which most people would not want. 

Well what about just 5 years for $100?  It's a bit of a discount on the yearly price which would be $150 for 5 years, and the yearly price is already a pretty good discount.  Maybe $120 would be more fair for 5 years.  That's basically buy 4 years, get 1 free.

I guess a player could also just buy 5 years at once at the current price for $150, if they had problems with transferring funds, but that doesn't exactly seem fair either.

I like the idea of a 5 year rate $120 seems reasonable; after all, 120 invested at 5% yields ~$153 after 5 years compounded annually, though I wonder there would be many takers.

M57 wrote:

I think it would be nigh well impossible to put a reasonable price on a lifetime membership.  In one sense it's a bet on how long the site will last.  But there's also the problem of how tom determines that the owner of the account hasn't died (literally) and passed on the account to someone else.

Disagree with this a bit.  I don't think "inheritance" is an issue at all as if someone wanted to hand over their account after death or as a gift that would be their own choice.  Like Ozy said, however, that would be a bit problematic stats wise (for the inheritor), but, if it were ever to occur maybe Tom could "retire" the previous user name and their stats and then restart the lifetime account afresh with a new user name of the inheritor's choice (if Tom wants to allow such?)  But, that's a post Life-Time account issue and is a small procedural issue which could be dealt wih when it actually occurs or is requested.

As to "how long the site will last" that's a risk that is taken with all life time memberships, and they do exist.  Even RECON didn't know if the magazine he was subscribing for would stay in print until this day and he's been fortunate that it has.  It's just a matter of balancing price with expectancy.  For instance, the community seems to be settling on $120 being "fair" for five years whereas I think most lifetime accounts would settle into equivalency to a 8-15 year price span depending on its perceived stability.  The more brick and mortar and asset value behind the product, the longer the "acceptable" term equability for the value of a Life-Time membership.  So, if 5 years is perceived to have a value of $120 then a lifetime account here at WarGear should, in my estimation, have a perceived value of about $240 as 10 years seems to be an acceptable balance between price and expectancy.  Of course to fairly offer such Tom has to also be thinking that this site is something that he reasonably expect to maintain for at least 10 years, but, all my observations tell me that this site is something that he's pretty dedicated to so I personally would have no problem taking it at face value and seeing it as a reasonable risk at a fair price.

Also important to remember the business decision for tom.  He probable has a fairly reasonable expectations of what is regular annual subscriber ship would be, and what amount to expect as income from the site. I imagine this covers running the server and a couple pints for the guy, but probably doesn't replace his job. 

With lifetime membership, he's forging regular payments for a lumpsum, that likely some of us regular payers would use.   That change in payment structure may or may not be to his taste, due to ongoing maintenance costs - that will always be occuring: "Tom, I need bigger maps - tom,need more features - tom, we need more processing power - Tom, we burned all the oil and now power is super expensive"  etc.

Conversely, it's a website, and in terms of assets, everything is pretty fluid. Maybe he'd like to take the money while were giving it out and lifetime memberships would be great. (not to say the site is a money-grab) 

Let me give another perspective.  It seemed to me that the crux of the problem was that there are some countries where it is very difficult to pay for premium membership.  I am guessing that members from these countries are a very small percentage of the site membership.

Why not just give these people premium membership for free (or maybe some upgraded version of standard membership with PM capabilities?)  This assumes that Tom can confirm the country of origin from the IP address and that this could not be abused.

Since the number of people getting this 'perk' would be very few there would be little cost to Tom and the community and it would solve the problems for people who can't buy premium membership.

SquintGnome wrote:

Let me give another perspective.  It seemed to me that the crux of the problem was that there are some countries where it is very difficult to pay for premium membership.  I am guessing that members from these countries are a very small percentage of the site membership.

I like this idea. At some point, one would hope that the problem will be solved in some areas as the global monetary system stabilizes. On the other hand, the problem could migrate with shifting political turmoil in various regions, etc.  Perhaps the site could offer free accounts or deferred payment, or some kine of payment amnesty to members in these regions.

Why not just give these people premium membership for free (or maybe some upgraded version of standard membership with PM capabilities?)  This assumes that Tom can confirm the country of origin from the IP address and that this could not be abused.

This is very likely off the table because it may be a significant revenue generator, but if consensus is that PMing gives players an unfair advantage, then it really shouldn't be a Premium feature.

As a Premium member, I want my partners in team games to be able to PM me, regardless of whether or not they are Premium members themselves.

Consider a 2v2 team game where opps are both Premium but my partner is Standard.  I'm a premium member, yet I am unfairly disadvantaged in such a game because my partner can't reach me with his or her thoughts in a pinch.

Come to think of it, I want Standard members to be be able to PM me even if they are opponents. 

M57 wrote:

This is very likely off the table because it may be a significant revenue generator, but if consensus is that PMing gives players an unfair advantage, then it really shouldn't be a Premium feature.

As a Premium member, I want my partners in team games to be able to PM me, regardless of whether or not they are Premium members themselves.

Consider a 2v2 team game where opps are both Premium but my partner is Standard.  I'm a premium member, yet I am unfairly disadvantaged in such a game because my partner can't reach me with his or her thoughts in a pinch.

Come to think of it, I want Standard members to be be able to PM me even if they are opponents. 

Team messaging is a separate feature from private messaging and is given to standard too.  So, your team member can contact you, but, other teams cannot (privately).

Also, even though PMing can be an unfair advantage, many players shun against using it even if they're premium, so it is not a widespread problem.  But, that said, their are some players who I know to use it to their advantage so I will only enter games with them when I am premium as well.  I will not bring a knife to a gun fight!

I don't necessarily have a dog in the fight either way, but aren't we (the communal we) overstepping a boundary here?  

By the grace of Tom, we (the communal we) have had the freedom to become integral in the decision making on how this site proceeds (which features are added, how they are implemented, and which fixes need to be amended in for current features).  I'm sure this inclusion leads many of us to feel like we're not just giving suggestions, but we're also honorary governing members.

The decision of what to charge, in what methods, and for what duration, however, are not decisions that (from what I've seen) that Tom has requested input for, and would be a topic (in my humble opinion) that is really only his to make. 

I think it was hugely helpful of Ozy to bring up the idea in the first place (to help fix a fellow member's problem), and it's was a great idea for Recon to create the forum post to bring the idea up to Tom.  However, maybe we (the communal we) should take a step back, and hold off the program design/cost analysis until Tom actually pursues us for suggestions

BorisTheFrugal wrote:

I don't necessarily have a dog in the fight either way, but aren't we (the communal we) overstepping a boundary here?  

This is prudent Boris, and I kind of agree.

As a counter argument: having a couple of opinions to flush out the benefits or downfalls of an idea has traditionally been one of the best ways to come to a good decision. I think lots of voices are always better, especially when none of us really have any real power to implement decisions.  The Socratic method has survived for 2000 years for a reason. 

I kind of agree with Boris.  It seems a bit weird to be talking about someone else's finances.  On the other hand I don't think Tom has ever felt cowed by community pressure, and he generally seems to appreciate community feedback.  And in the case of setting prices a lot of it has to do with what the market will bear, so consumer input is valuable.  And I also think most of us here in the forums really really want wargear to succeed.  I would love it if Tom was able to make this a real job and become rich and successful from it, and I have tried to contribute towards that.

In fact I am curious whether Tom has even seen this discussion.  I sometimes get the feeling he doesn't watch the non-support forums too closely (fair enough, that's where I want him to spend his limited time anyway).  Should someone PM him?  If he were to chime in with 'no this is not an option' I would hope everyone would respect his decision.

I think the whole aspect of this and most other forum threads are just to flush out ideas.  In the case of WarGear Tom has complete autonomy and authority and he can ignore ideas if it's something he has little interest in, or encourage further brainstorming if it's something that intrigues him.  No one is overstepping a boundary by starting such a forum post and I think it would be anti development to implement some kind of unspoken forum police to suppress free thinking, when I have never once read from Tom that some ideas should be kept bottled up - even if they deal with financial aspects, as is the case here.  Indeed, I believe Tom to be very open minded to at least hearing perspectives, even if he doesn't agree with them!

I find the statement "what to charge, in what methods, and for what duration, however, are not decisions that (from what I've seen) that Tom has requested input for" to be a little short sighted as it assumes that Tom is all knowing regarding situations all over the world.  I have lived in over a dozen countries during my life, but I would still not be so presumptuous as to say that I know all global situations.  I have never been to China, India, nor the middle East, for instance, which I would assume to all have very unique internal dynamics which I would not even try to guess at without some first hand experience, or having a conversation regarding the specifics with those with first hand experience.

By "communally" brainstorming such ideas then it allows people from different countries/regions to explain their condition, what barriers they face, and what the possible solutions could be.  In doing such they are not defining what Tom should or shouldn't do, they are simply pointing out avenues which could allow them full premium access to what Tom is providing.  It's then up to Tom to decide if the pros of such - increased global membership, greater one time payments, capital inflow - out weigh the cons - reduced annual subscriptions via migration to Life memberships - and if the idea intrigues him, or not.

I see nothing wrong with it.  After all, it's not like we're asking to see his tax statements and going through his books to play armchair accountants here!  It's only a hashing out of ideas my friend, no harm in that!

In the past, Tom has even solicited our opinion on matters of this nature.  He once broached the subject of compensation for board designers and asked for ideas.  If anything, I suspect he welcomes these discussions; they are his thermometer, barometer, wind direction and speed, happy meter, etc..

One of the strengths of this site is its community and the way they have been involved in its development from the start - this has been noted in external reviews.  This is part of that ongoing process.

M57 wrote:

In the past, Tom has even solicited our opinion on matters of this nature.  He once broached the subject of compensation for board designers and asked for ideas.  If anything, I suspect he welcomes these discussions; they are his thermometer, barometer, wind direction and speed, happy meter, etc..

One of the strengths of this site is its community and the way they have been involved in its development from the start - this has been noted in external reviews.  This is part of that ongoing process.