Stemming from a discussion on this thread
http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/3472/page//#

See post #24 and above

What if Tom has costs that we can't see that would be higher for a 5-year/lifetime option (more than for an individual year), so pricing this new option for less/yr isn't a viable solution for him.

Or maybe Tom sees this as a gamble because it's a potential loss of revenue for him in a venture that he's trying to earn money with.
Or maybe Tom would only want to give the discount of 10 years for the price of 9 as opposed to 5 for 4.
But the first discussion of the price for a new commodity always sets the market for that commodity.

Since he's never offered this option before, by us agreeing that 5 years for the price of 4 is a great price, we've now set the market.
This, in turn, forces Tom's hand to either:
1) Accept the groups suggested pricing scheme, whether it's most beneficial for him or not.
2) Charge a price that his costs/preferred profit/willingness to gamble require, at a downside of potentially making those participating in this discussion feel like they're being gouged (especially those who need this option because of international purchasing rules)

I guess my end goal is this:  
As many have said and probably most of us feel, I want this to be as profitable for Tom as he can make it.  
It's in our (his and the community's) best interest for that to be true, because the more profitable it is for him, the more likely he is to spend more time on this and less on whatever other work venture pays his bills, which is a win for all of us.
As such, I want to give him every opportunity/freedom to set the pricing as aggressive as he thinks the market can bear, then only let the open market (does it actually sell at the price he set??) govern whether he needs to modify that price.

By having the group suggest a pricing scheme, then (whether you believe it or not) the price WILL be artificially depressed.
The only person here who has actual justification to see the price inflated is Tom.
For all of the rest of us, (I don't care how altruistic you think you are), we all benefit from a more aggressive (lower cost) pricing scheme, making any pricing we come up with either at or below the ideal market value, never above
The likelihood that we actually chose the market sweet spot is VERY unlikely, but if so, great.
The much more likely situation is that we slightly depressed the market, and in turn we're costing him potential profits, and I'd hate to think that our "helpful discussions" would do that.

BorisTheFrugal wrote:

"forces Tom's hand"

 

I don't think that such discussions force his hand at all, and I think that the community is mature enough to accept that whatever Tom decided is his best option for himself and the site had undergone his due consideration and would not be seen as being "gouged".

We should also do a little comparative market analysis. What are the other guys charging? And for how long?  

I feel invested here, so I don't even know...

i joined a couple based on the article from a while back: http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/where-to-play-risk-online/  

or was it this one?: http://www.playonlinerisk.com/

from what i can tell...

conquer club
- 1 year: $25

landgrab
- 1 month: $2.50
- 1 year: $20.
- Lifetime: $60. 

warlight
- Lifetime: $29.99

dominating12
- 1 year: $25 

couple others that i haven't looked into yet: 
http://atwar-game.com
http://www.artofwar.cc 

BorisTheFrugal wrote:

Since he's never offered this option before, by us agreeing that 5 years for the price of 4 is a great price, we've now set the market.
This, in turn, forces Tom's hand to either:
1) Accept the groups suggested pricing scheme, whether it's most beneficial for him or not.
2) Charge a price that his costs/preferred profit/willingness to gamble require, at a downside of potentially making those participating in this discussion feel like they're being gouged (especially those who need this option because of international purchasing rules)

By having the group suggest a pricing scheme, then (whether you believe it or not) the price WILL be artificially depressed.

The likelihood that we actually chose the market sweet spot is VERY unlikely, but if so, great.
The much more likely situation is that we slightly depressed the market, and in turn we're costing him potential profits, and I'd hate to think that our "helpful discussions" would do that.

If you think our biased and blind discussions somehow depresses the market, how do you propose Tom determines market value and price structure.  With his own metrics?

When I go to my local deli, should I not complain about the price of the roast beef sandwich if the one down the street (which is almost as good) costs a lot less?  Should I not tell him that the last two sandwiches I had used stale bread, or that the guy behind the counter was rude to me, . or should I just never come back ..and let the owner try and figure it out on his own?  OK, bad example, the roast beef sandwiches here on WarGear are inedible.

Using the metaphor a bit more on topic - Shouldn't I let the proprietor know that I'd bring my family if he had a five for the price of four special?

My sense is that Tom is influenced by the conversations found on these threads if and when he wants to be, which leads me to believe that he expertly leverages the helpful information found in the forums all the while getting a better sense of the pulse of the community to create the great site that we all enjoy ..with a price structure that very few if any ever complain about.  The proof is in the pudding.  How many conversations on these threads include complaints about the value of the the site or what we get for the money?  On the other side of that coin, do you think that if we didn't ask for new features he would implement them (or even think of a lot if not most of them)? The idea for and development of Factories came from these threads.

If tomorrow Tom decides that a five year plan should be $200 because he'll feel obligated to keep the site going longer ..then good for him.

and, looking at the comparables, the estimates we have come up with for lifetime memberships have been significantly tom favored compared to the rest of the competition. 

I think this happens because were not all here acting purely out of self interest.  The site itself is a bit of an act of charity on toms part, and we all pay into it because of the value we feel here. we discuss stuff out of a sense of the great good and the communities development, not purely for selfish gain. 

Or, were all buying roast beef for each other, which affects our conversation with the shop owner. 

Some responses:

M57 - The appropriate way to evaluate the market is to....ask the market.
He can look at his competition,  evaluate what his site provides (better or worse) than the competition, and evaluate his costs to figure out what he has to cover by those membership dues.
Then....let the response to govern his decision making:  if people buy it a bunch, then raise the price, if no one does, he needs to decide if it's worth it for him to cut the price.
But then again, I'm a libertarian, so  I'm a believer in the free market economy.

What I keep trying to establish is that there's a difference between Tom pursuing us to ask for our suggestions and us offering our suggested price without provocation.
Also, I've tried to establish that there's a difference between responding to his pricing scheme and  suggesting one prior to him suggesting something.

So, I think the deli analogy is accurate (to a point) but disagree with your examples.

Complaining about the stale bread or rude workers:  You should definitely do.
When the hoards engine doesn't produce the appropriate results, tell Tom
When the seat selection for a board doesn't give us the result we want, tell Tom.

When you'd prefer that your deli take your Diners Club card (Welcome to the 90's!!), then suggest it to the owner.
When a player would rather pay for more than one year at a time because of the costs of paying international fees, suggest it to Tom.

I'd posit that suggesting in a forum post what Tom what he should charge for a lifetime membership is equivalent to going into that deli then posting a sign in the front window that says "Coming Soon: Pay for 10 sandwiches and get free sandwiches for life!!" without the owner suggesting that he was cool with the idea yet.

Ratsy - Our estimates are only Tom favored if we're comparing deli sandwich to deli sandwich, as opposed to (potentially) a roast beef sandwich vs a filet dinner with all the trimmings.
WG might be justifiably more expensive because Tom is providing something better than the opposition.

But since I know that the two of you are much smarter than I am....feel free to tear my theories apart.....while I go make myself a sandwich.  :) 

Boris,

It's good argument, and that's a tasty sandwich. :)

I went to the dentist yesterday and told them that I wanted their sandwich for cheaper. And they managed it.  Sometimes you do go into the shop and ask for what you need/want. Even if they don't like it.  Sometimes they tell you it is what it is, but that'll never stop me from trying. 

So, in conclusion, I respect where you draw the line there, and I have definitely thought alot about it, and I agree.  

I'm no stranger to pushing people's boundaries however, especially when I don't know exactly where they are.  ;)

My feeling is that Tom has fostered a culture here encouraging members to brainstorm suggestions of any type and place them in a queue.  Tom acts upon these requests at his leisure and discretion.  I have not sensed that he is badgered, burdened, or coerced by the membership's suggestions.  So, in summary, I do not think this discussion oversteps any boundaries.

I'm always interesting in hearing suggestions / new ideas / new ways of doings things so no concerns from me about this being discussed. Getting the balance right between Standard and Premium accounts has always been a challenge - it's difficult to incentivise Premium without giving the player a gameplay advantage which most people would dislike.

I'm pretty flexible to new payment options - although I'd worry about people paying for lifetime / long (> 5 year?)  memberships - if the site shuts down in x years time you're going to be upset if you've played for lifetime!

Tweaking the membership price is definitely an option - there's a sweet spot around annual pricing which hasn't been explored so far - the pricing has always been the same.

So how about 5 years for the price of 4?  It seems like that meets some sweet spots for not being so long as to have the death of wargear be as big an issue, but also allows people in tricky financial situations to pay a big block at once.

Works for me. I've added the 5 year option - it's priced at $99 which I hope is a reasonable price point.

tom wrote:

Works for me. I've added the 5 year option - it's priced at $99 which I hope is a reasonable price point.

Many may hate me for saying it, but personally I think you've slightly underpriced it.

On the other hand there's no denying that $99 is a great price-point that will probably bring in lot of money in the first year from existing membership.

M57 wrote:

tom wrote:

Works for me. I've added the 5 year option - it's priced at $99 which I hope is a reasonable price point.

Many may hate me for saying it, but personally I think you've slightly underpriced it.

On the other hand there's no denying that $99 is a great price-point that will probably bring in lot of money in the first year from existing membership.

Well, $100 seems like a helluva lot for an online board game 

Speaks to the quality of the site that we'd be willing to pay it. 

I also would be willing to pay more, but vocal forum members are a small market.  $100 might be the right level to entice the more casual players also.

tom wrote:

M57 wrote:

tom wrote:

Works for me. I've added the 5 year option - it's priced at $99 which I hope is a reasonable price point.

Many may hate me for saying it, but personally I think you've slightly underpriced it.

On the other hand there's no denying that $99 is a great price-point that will probably bring in lot of money in the first year from existing membership.

Well, $100 seems like a helluva lot for an online board game 

Objectively that's a pretty fair point, maybe you should bill it as "just $.05 a day". I love that the bid came in under the prices everyone was arguing about. Kudos Tom. 

I like the new membership level option.  So, I signed up.

I'd recommend that there be a change in status for membership to something like:

1)  Standard

2)  Premium

3)  Premium +, or Gold (ha ha)

The status difference will be a constant reminder to those who haven't yet stepped up that it is available.

There are always multiple reasons for people doing things to include just a desire to be included as "the most special or whatever  person/membership" but it requires some recognition.

As JP Morgan once said, "A man always has two reasons for doing anything, a good reason and the real reason."

you can try to play Petite Warriors, you will like its cute characters and well design.

Noob bot casts necro spam!