I Wish This Site Was Less Stingy

The impetus for this post comes from feeling really bad about the availability of puzzle rush and puzzle battle for free users. Firstly it isn't stated anywhere on the screen that free users only get one per day. So it's a bit manipulative in that sense for first time players. Further, the modes are available for free on competing platforms, so it's a little ridiculous to expect a user to feel incentivised to upgrade. Unless of course chesscom is relying on the naivety of its users?

Overall I still like playing on chesscom because I trust their cheat detection and like the look more... but having every little thing being paywalled including but not limited to the latter mentioned puzzle modes is really saddening. The biggest irk however is most definitely how they allow free users to analyse from the analysis page but not from the play page. So I have to upgrade in order not to open a new tab to analyse? It's a degrading and silly experience to have features made less convenient. I bet if they could, they would paywall analysis boards on the whole, or maybe even paywall the right to play. "Sorry, you've played your one allowed game for the day, upgrade now"

Yes they're a company and yes I should just suck it up that I have to play puzzle rush on the other site and open a new tab to analyse. But can't we agree that the other site is superior in every way except cheat detection? And further, can we agree that Chesscom is banking on the naivety of its player base that they can't find many of the things they offer for free on competing sites?

If you feel manipulated or bad, you don't have to be here. Why do you need people to agree with you?

Maybe the site wishes you were less stingy too.

I stated that the website obfuscating the play limit was manipulative, not that I felt manipulated. Which simply as a matter of fact, it is. The only reason that the play limit isn't stated is because they want new players to the mode to get roped in, then feel incentivised to upgrade.

I play on both sites. No, i cannot agree with you that the other site is superior in every way except cheat detection. I have no issue with any company that seeks to offset its cost of service delivery or making a profit. I also have no issue with an entity that relies solely on contributions for support.

Encyclopaedia Britannica runs on subscriptions, Wikipedia runs on donations...

But chess.com shall be different because we demand it. TICCPROW

ccCs

I think the site could charge less for diamond. 10 dollars a month is very expensive. I can get two streaming tv channels for that price.

It's almost as if the whole site was built on the principles of manipulating pieces of a puzzle that we don't fully understand, and have to figure out how to get the best out of the available circumstances! I mean, some things are available for me to just take, but I have to to go about it this way rather than the easy way that I would like. And these things I would like to take but I have to sacrifice something to get them.

Just responding for posterity: Yeah overall there isn't that much shilling on the site, and yes I have noticed a few abusive people that harass me who probably won't get banned.

As stated I play here because I like the look more and trust the anticheat more.

My issue isn't with the for profit business model necessarily, it's the manipulative sales tactics which all the people who make contending claims in the thread are conveniently ignoring. If they stated somewhere on the puzzle battle page initially that free players are limited to one game a day that would be more ethical and less manipulative. I say that as a sales person who has to deal with bosses forcing deliberately manipulative sales tactics into the scripts and saying I have to lie in order to sell a product. So I maintain that chesscom doesn't need to implement manipulative sales tactics or paywall something as minute as same-page engine analysis.