membership price increase
Sort:
I guess you didn’t see the warning Nvidia put out regarding decreased demand for gaming? You guys are thinking “everyone else is raising prices so why can’t we?” And Im sure it’ll work out well… For little while… Most businesses are pretty happy right now considering current macroeconomic conditions. The economy is still doing pretty good. Labor market is still strong. Demand is still strong. Profits remain strong. Unfortunately tho as interest rates continue to climb valuations will go down. Aggregate demand will go down. Unemployment will go up and most of the developed world will be in full recession. People will spend less, especially on things like gaming. Your membership will decline and in order to boost revenue you will either lower prices or offer some incentives. Just give it some time. We are still very early in the process of the business and market cycles bottoming out.
Aug 12, 2022
0
#22
Or you could skip just one latte a month and be a fully paid Diamond member.
Aug 12, 2022
0
#23
I don’t mind paying a little more, however raising the price AND removing features (gold membership) is a little much. Being in a recession with high inflation I’m going to have to cut back on frivolous spending…and sadly chess.com will be one of the first : (
Aug 12, 2022
0
#24
d_mraz wrote:
I don’t mind paying a little more, however raising the price AND removing features (gold membership) is a little much. Being in a recession with high inflation I’m going to have to cut back on frivolous spending…and sadly chess.com will be one of the first : (
Existing subscriptions don't change. Prices remain the same as do features as I understand it. It's new subscriptions or upgrades on it after September 1st that change.
If I had money to pay, I would. But I have very little and with the cost of everything else in life going up, I can’t justify spending money on my hobbies right now. Sucks but that’s the way things are …
Aug 12, 2022
0
#26
chess20202021 wrote:
So, If I continue next month. I will pay the same rate.
Yes, if your subscription continues, and you're on monthly or your yearly membership renews, you'll receive the same rate. That's what the information about the change says, though it's possible you'll also have taxes applied as well.
Wits-end wrote:
Or you could skip just one latte a month and be a fully paid Diamond member.
I'm already skipping 383 other lattes to pay for 383 other things, because 383 people have told me to "skip your morning latte" 383 times.
I don't even drink lattes. People can be incredibly condescending sometimes. Things are becoming wildly expensive and then we have people blaming it on "greedy coffee drinkers". People should be able to afford a coffee and some chess. I really loathe these kind of comments; they add absolutely nothing to any conversation, and they help nobody.
If you don't understand that a 62% price increase is a lot, then you don't understand much at all. Try to empathize with other people's situations. If you aren't able to, then avoid commenting on it; and definitely avoid telling people what they should or shouldn't buy/drink/eat/whatever.
The subscriptions are much more expensive; it's that simple. Stop throwing people's coffee in their face whenever a big company raises prices. It's not our fault, and it's certainly not coffee's fault.
It's like all those politicians who paid $200 to go to college in the 1960's getting upset at current-day college students who have to pay $200,000. Their advice? "Stop drinking lattes every morning." They don't even think about the $200,000 vs. $200 part; they just go straight to behavioral/personality responsibility insults because they can't even conceive of the fact that someone may have a stretched budget; that someone may have difficulty paying for something.
These people exist. There are plenty of people stretching their paycheck that *also* want to play chess. There's also people who enjoy drinking lattes or whatever, and they want to play chess with all the bells and whistles. It shouldn't cost them 62% more on a Tuesday than it does on a Monday.
Chess.com should increase their prices each year by the rate of inflation, so that there's no surprises and so it's easy to budget for. They've also changed what they provide with each of the plans: no more opening explorer for anyone but the diamond members, as just one example.
There's a lot going on here. But we've still got these people telling us to stop drinking lattes. If the price were $200,000, I'm sure we'd be getting the same advice: stop drinking lattes. I hope that makes it clear just how unhelpful and condescending this is.
My advice to Chess.com: Walk back the price increases. Here's what I propose:
2022: Prices +10%
2023: Prices +5%
2024: Prices +5%
2025 and beyond: Prices based on inflation.
This has little-to-nothing to do with supply and demand. Inflation isn't a big deal for end-users of software and services. Software/internet services have high multiples on P/E and P/S because they don't need to create the goods that are sold; they flip a switch. They have tremendous scalability. That's fine and all, but it should mean that the full costs of inflation *aren't passed on to customers*.
Chess.com is going to lose a lot of paying subscribers. Their gambit is that the increased costs and subscriber lock-in (from people who are worried about higher prices) will off-set this amount. Any website would rather have a smaller number of users if profits remain the same. It's a decent gambit, but they tried it at the absolute peak of global inflation numbers, and I think it'll be egg on their face come the next economic downturn.
Good luck getting people to pay $50/year for a package that used to cost $2/mo; while ripping the guts out of it so it's nearly featureless.
In my humble opinion, this is an opportunistic cash grab that can only hurt the community/website in exchange for the potential of increasing their profits. The problem is that there are free alternatives that offer things like insights and game reviews and opening explorers; features that you'll need $120/year (and more by the month) to afford come September.
Altogether, it's an awful decision. They should've kept the feature set the same and increased priced gradually. They shouldn't have gouged the lower tiers and monthly subscribers. That bothers me the most of all.
/end rant
.org
ScroogeMcBird wrote:
Altogether, it's an awful decision.
Whether it's a good decision or an awful decision will be determined in the free market. Your opinion on the matter at this point is invalid and will have no impact. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but you should present it as just that and you should realize that market forces will determine the outcome, not some guy on a rant.
Aug 16, 2022
0
#30
ScroogeMcBird wrote:
Wits-end wrote:
Or you could skip just one latte a month and be a fully paid Diamond member.
I'm already skipping 383 other lattes to pay for 383 other things, because 383 people have told me to "skip your morning latte" 383 times.
I don't even drink lattes. People can be incredibly condescending sometimes. Things are becoming wildly expensive and then we have people blaming it on "greedy coffee drinkers". People should be able to afford a coffee and some chess. I really loathe these kind of comments; they add absolutely nothing to any conversation, and they help nobody.
If you don't understand that a 62% price increase is a lot, then you don't understand much at all. Try to empathize with other people's situations. If you aren't able to, then avoid commenting on it; and definitely avoid telling people what they should or shouldn't buy/drink/eat/whatever.
The subscriptions are much more expensive; it's that simple. Stop throwing people's coffee in their face whenever a big company raises prices. It's not our fault, and it's certainly not coffee's fault.
It's like all those politicians who paid $200 to go to college in the 1960's getting upset at current-day college students who have to pay $200,000. Their advice? "Stop drinking lattes every morning." They don't even think about the $200,000 vs. $200 part; they just go straight to behavioral/personality responsibility insults because they can't even conceive of the fact that someone may have a stretched budget; that someone may have difficulty paying for something.
These people exist. There are plenty of people stretching their paycheck that *also* want to play chess. There's also people who enjoy drinking lattes or whatever, and they want to play chess with all the bells and whistles. It shouldn't cost them 62% more on a Tuesday than it does on a Monday.
Chess.com should increase their prices each year by the rate of inflation, so that there's no surprises and so it's easy to budget for. They've also changed what they provide with each of the plans: no more opening explorer for anyone but the diamond members, as just one example.
There's a lot going on here. But we've still got these people telling us to stop drinking lattes. If the price were $200,000, I'm sure we'd be getting the same advice: stop drinking lattes. I hope that makes it clear just how unhelpful and condescending this is.
My advice to Chess.com: Walk back the price increases. Here's what I propose:
2022: Prices +10%
2023: Prices +5%
2024: Prices +5%
2025 and beyond: Prices based on inflation.
This has little-to-nothing to do with supply and demand. Inflation isn't a big deal for end-users of software and services. Software/internet services have high multiples on P/E and P/S because they don't need to create the goods that are sold; they flip a switch. They have tremendous scalability. That's fine and all, but it should mean that the full costs of inflation *aren't passed on to customers*.
Chess.com is going to lose a lot of paying subscribers. Their gambit is that the increased costs and subscriber lock-in (from people who are worried about higher prices) will off-set this amount. Any website would rather have a smaller number of users if profits remain the same. It's a decent gambit, but they tried it at the absolute peak of global inflation numbers, and I think it'll be egg on their face come the next economic downturn.
Good luck getting people to pay $50/year for a package that used to cost $2/mo; while ripping the guts out of it so it's nearly featureless.
In my humble opinion, this is an opportunistic cash grab that can only hurt the community/website in exchange for the potential of increasing their profits. The problem is that there are free alternatives that offer things like insights and game reviews and opening explorers; features that you'll need $120/year (and more by the month) to afford come September.
Altogether, it's an awful decision. They should've kept the feature set the same and increased priced gradually. They shouldn't have gouged the lower tiers and monthly subscribers. That bothers me the most of all.
/end rant
On second thought, maybe you could use a latte now and then.
Aug 16, 2022
0
#31
ScroogeMcBird wrote:
...
Good luck getting people to pay $50/year for a package that used to cost $2/mo; while ripping the guts out of it so it's nearly featureless.
In my humble opinion, this is an opportunistic cash grab that can only hurt the community/website in exchange for the potential of increasing their profits. The problem is that there are free alternatives that offer things like insights and game reviews and opening explorers; features that you'll need $120/year (and more by the month) to afford come September.
Altogether, it's an awful decision. They should've kept the feature set the same and increased priced gradually. They shouldn't have gouged the lower tiers and monthly subscribers. That bothers me the most of all.
...
For existing premium members, nothing changes (except maybe taxes at renewal). Prices remain the same as do features. For those that purchase or upgrade before September 1st, they lock in the lower price and get the current features.
The new plans actually add features, in many cases. Some things that were locked behind higher tiers, will be available to all premium on the new plans (e.g. the video library)
Person explains that it's very far from the industry standard.
Guy starts going on about coffee and how opinions aren't valid opinions except for their own opinion that is an opinion (or something like that).
Silly.
I don't see how any of this is a problem. The hair sniffer who whispered into the microphone had the perfect solution. He said "just pay more".
This site will not be getting anymore cash from me . When my present account is finished in January, Woolly will be saying “ Bye 👋 “
Aug 17, 2022
0
#35
Woollensock2 wrote:
This site will not be getting anymore cash from me . When my present account is finished in January, Woolly will be saying “ Bye 👋 “
If you keep your subscription, nothing changes. Your price and features remain the same.
Tilted players are lucky
Chess.com should be realistic when I joined I was a "gold" member but things (system) broke or were stopped by chess.com which I used several changes to the interface have occurred none asked for.One of the streamers publicly accused people of cheating (on YouTube with chess.com mod tools showing the user names chess.com was the paid for the video) I did not pay for this and stopped paying. Oh yes just recently chess.com sent me a message saying one of my opponents violated "fair play" and said I got points back. They listed my occupants points, My points after the game. But he was never flagged (a ya you can admit cheating and chess.com will forgiv3 and raise prices.
I am sure some mod will correct me I only hope he will prove it.
Look at the price increases and ask yourself are you getting anything for your money.
More people would pay if chess.com would give them what they wanted. People play free for two maybe three reasons.
1.they can play unlimitted
2.they post in forums
3. if they cheat they just say to chess.com I will not do it again and there free
Aug 17, 2022
0
#38
ericthatwho wrote:
...
Look at the price increases and ask yourself are you getting anything for your money.
....
3. if they cheat they just say to chess.com I will not do it again and there free
When I first joined the site, I was a basic member, not long after purchased platinum, because I found value in it and felt at the time it was the best value. Upgraded a year later to Diamond for the additional features.
Members have to decide if the features offered at a specific price/tier have value for them, and that hasn't changed. Starting September 1st, new potential premium members will still have that decision. The lower tiers on that date will have additional available features compared to the current ones (such as the video library and no limits on puzzles, including Rishxand Battle).
Regarding point 3, the site gives second chances, but the original account is not used
Martin_Stahl wrote:
ericthatwho wrote:
...
Look at the price increases and ask yourself are you getting anything for your money.
....
3. if they cheat they just say to chess.com I will not do it again and there free
When I first joined the site, I was a basic member, not long after purchased platinum, because I found value in it and felt at the time it was the best value. Upgraded a year later to Diamond for the additional features.
Members have to decide if the features offered at a specific price/tier have value for them, and that hasn't changed. Starting September 1st, new potential premium members will still have that decision. The lower tiers on that date will have additional available features compared to the current ones (such as the video library and no limits on puzzles, including Rishxand Battle).
Regarding point 3, the site gives second chances, but the original account is not used
Look at my games list the game I talked about "fair play" is still there and still playing
and if you don't pay will be rewarded so to speck