1  2  3  |   Order by index

Jan 2, 2002, 5:28pm

What about pricing of worlds and citizenships that are coming with them?
http://www.activeworlds.com/letter.html
icey

Jan 2, 2002, 5:37pm

Yes that's what it means.. I'm not liking it and if you don't like it
either.. send an e-mail or snail mail to Rick. Tell him how you feel about
it and don't just say "This sucks change it back" put reasons for it. I
certainly don't have the money to pay for a citizenship under this new
system. My parents are already sketchy about it enough. :) *watches the 20
days left on cit tick by*

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jan 2, 2002, 5:46pm

if the pricing system chnages, no more upgrades...the big problem is the
majority of the user base (purely opinion) is of teenagers and most of them
won't be able to pay (also opinion). This doesn't effect me very much
becuase im in a financial slump right now anyways and i won't be renewing at
the end of january (although i would if i could)

[View Quote]

Jan 2, 2002, 5:48pm

let me correct that...if the pricing system DOES NOT change, no more
upgrades, and then pretty soon it will disapear intirely becuase of lack of
upgrades. I know it's for the best, don't just be greedy and jump on saying
no just becuase of the price. Either this changes or your time on AW is
limited.

[View Quote]

Jan 2, 2002, 5:54pm

I totally agree with your opinions Coz.. the good majority of AW, I would
say, is teens (hence why AWTeen is extremely popular). Although there is
still a lot of adults, I would have to say the substantial majority is still
Teens. $100 some odd a year is quite a lot for a teen whom legally can't
work yet. This is why I am against this new system.. if it does go into
effect. I would expect the active users in AW to drop from around 500 to
about 100-200. How does everyone else feel about this? My big question
is.. do you want to lose, as Rick said, the people who love this and the
community? (in my opinion the people who enjoy using this aren't extremely
rich) Sure some will still be here, the ones whom can afford it.

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jan 2, 2002, 6:13pm

Well for my own opinion...

This new "pricing model" will effect the income of AW.com Inc in a bad way. By
requireing a credit card number for ALL new users and eliminating tourist mode
entirely, they will be cutting their own throats. not everyone on the net has a
credit card, or is willign to send the credit info over the net. What about the
people who want to pay with a check and be a tourist while they wait for the
check to arrive at AW.com? Thats how I paid, and how I will continue to pay.

[View Quote] > I totally agree with your opinions Coz.. the good majority of AW, I would
> say, is teens (hence why AWTeen is extremely popular). Although there is
> still a lot of adults, I would have to say the substantial majority is still
> Teens. $100 some odd a year is quite a lot for a teen whom legally can't
> work yet. This is why I am against this new system.. if it does go into
> effect. I would expect the active users in AW to drop from around 500 to
> about 100-200. How does everyone else feel about this? My big question
> is.. do you want to lose, as Rick said, the people who love this and the
> community? (in my opinion the people who enjoy using this aren't extremely
> rich) Sure some will still be here, the ones whom can afford it.
>
> --Bowen--
>
[View Quote]

Jan 2, 2002, 6:32pm

The good thing I see about this is

1) No more stupid tourists!

2) No more cheap and mindless kiddies to ruin the newsgroup! Yay!!!

The bad thing I see is:

1) No more AW citizens, total. lol.

2) There's a reason I don't own a world. ;) If you expect me to pay for a
world just to be a cit, then you're not only killing people like me, you're
killing worldowners who might have to pay double.

3) You're going to need a MUCH better upgrade in 3.3 than what you have now.
The present community's requests/demands should be met to keep us happy, and
for your chance at creating essentially a new one or at least a changed one.
They're on our good side with at least implementing one thing, but I don't
think that's going to cut what we've been complaining about for a few years.

4) Security cracks, nough said.

5) AWC basically lied to us denying any profit losses. Actually, I don't
think they ever lied, but the members of the community themselves
misinformed the lot of us. If they did, naught naughty, for if they were in
good financial health, 20 dollars a year should've cut it for them.

The bad outnumbers the good, but I still see the good as REAALLLLY good,
especially for the community. Kills the gene pool a bit, but only the bad
defected ones. ;) I wished it was more along the lines of 5 dollars a month
though. 10 is really sharp. That two dollar analogy is not a good one,
considering we've been paying less than a candy bar for them. Personally, I
want to keep my lunch money for something useful, like lunch. ;) And I'm
sure it's going to hurt ENZO's image too. Tough times for AWC, such a shame,
but at least the community tried, I'm glad to know AWC doesn't see it as our
fault. ;)

Nornny

[View Quote]

Jan 2, 2002, 6:34pm

I disagree. $100 a year isn't a lot for many teenagers. Around here, if
you go to the movies ($8.50) and buy a popcorn ($4.00) and a soda ($2.50),
as well as pay for gas and car maintenence in getting to the theater
($1.00), the total comes to about $16.00 for one night. Thus, a trip to the
movies that lasts two or three hours is almost 1 and a half times more
expensive than a subscription to AW for a month.

The question isn't whether most people can afford to pay (anyone can set
aside $2.00 per month) - it's whether people will want to pay instead of
buying other things that they can afford. Personally, if 3.3 is as good as
AW makes it sound, I'd definately put out the money. Heck, the elimination
of tourists isn't that bad after all - there won't be any more annoying
tourists at GZ who only cause trouble and can't be kept out. With the new
system, everyone is responsible for his or her own actions, and people can
still try AW for free.

I lied there. What's going to determine whether I pay or not is whether
everyone else will put aside the money, not whether I will. If AW's
community loses interest and there's only 100 citizens logged on at 10PM VRT
on a Sunday evening (which seems to be AW's busiest day), then I probably
won't pay.

AW made a big mistake not by proposing the price change but by stating that
3.3 could possibly be the last version if such a pricing scheme was not
implemented. Everyone knows that 3.3 can't be the last version of AW if
they want to continue as a feasible company. Technology changes, and after
a year or so AW would start to become obsolete, and people wouldn't even put
out the lower $20.00 a year for citizenships anymore. 3.3 being the "last
version" is something that simply isn't an option.

By the tone of the letter, this plan is far from finalized yet, so I'm not
going to spam AWGate protesting mindlessly like a lot of people are,
especially since nobody, not even the posters to this newsgroup, knows what
the pricing for current citizens will be. Everyone needs to calm down and
talk about this change reasonably after they know ALL the facts, not fire
off two-sentence letters consisting of obscenities to ENZO screaming that
they disagree with the price change.

The people starting these ridiculous petitions that have one-sentence
justifications, spamming telegrams to AWC staff members, flooding inboxes,
and screaming and yelling at ground zeroes are only making the situation
worse.

[View Quote]

Jan 2, 2002, 6:44pm

Well I have just done two things I rarely do ... purely out of curiosity
about what the reaction to this would be - subscribed to the community
newsgroup and visited AWGate - and I haven't been let down at all.

AWGate is full of people raising petitions and bitching and crying and
wingeing (no change there!) because they're not gonna get something dead
cheap anymore. What so many people have conveniently ignored all this time
is that their citizenships have been subsidised by the other business AW
does by selling its technology to corporations around the world. The
"community" and the ability for the public to access AW for close to nothing
is a by-product of that business. As Rick says in the letter, the business
is failing for the same reasons that many other businesses are ... customers
that simply aren't able to pay what they are due to pay or decide against
taking on new ventures.

Putting up the price of an AW cit by 600% might seem excessive but I think
it probably just brings it more in line with the annual cost of hosting the
technology. The fact that the cit count will drop dramatically will have
been built into that pricing model for new cits and I can't see it being uch
cheaper for existing cits to be honest.

Personally, I'll be glad to see the back of the freeloading tourists,
although I think the 2 weeks gratis period is a little short. Anyway, I'll
be watching with interest what sort of comments get plastered into this NG
.... could turn out to be a record thread.

Grims

[View Quote]

Jan 2, 2002, 6:54pm

Gee Brant if $100 a year is not too much for most teenagers, then get me the
fountain of youth please!
I am not a teen, and I work for a living. $100 a year for the privilage to chat
is a bit high. Heck I can go to Worlds chat (no where near as nice as AW), and
still have 3D chat for free!
Get rid of the stuff that drains the system of AW and lets see if that helps,
THEN look at what they need to do to cover the losses that remain.
I know that if new users after tomorrow have to pay $114 a year then those of us
who have been here for a while won't be paying much lower than that. I for one
do not wish to pay my hard earned money so those stupid 3D homepages can stay
going. Eliminate the dead weight, the stuff that shows no profit only loss, then
re-evaluate.

[View Quote] > I disagree. $100 a year isn't a lot for many teenagers. Around here, if
> you go to the movies ($8.50) and buy a popcorn ($4.00) and a soda ($2.50),
> as well as pay for gas and car maintenence in getting to the theater
> ($1.00), the total comes to about $16.00 for one night. Thus, a trip to the
> movies that lasts two or three hours is almost 1 and a half times more
> expensive than a subscription to AW for a month.
>
> The question isn't whether most people can afford to pay (anyone can set
> aside $2.00 per month) - it's whether people will want to pay instead of
> buying other things that they can afford. Personally, if 3.3 is as good as
> AW makes it sound, I'd definately put out the money. Heck, the elimination
> of tourists isn't that bad after all - there won't be any more annoying
> tourists at GZ who only cause trouble and can't be kept out. With the new
> system, everyone is responsible for his or her own actions, and people can
> still try AW for free.
>
> I lied there. What's going to determine whether I pay or not is whether
> everyone else will put aside the money, not whether I will. If AW's
> community loses interest and there's only 100 citizens logged on at 10PM VRT
> on a Sunday evening (which seems to be AW's busiest day), then I probably
> won't pay.
>
> AW made a big mistake not by proposing the price change but by stating that
> 3.3 could possibly be the last version if such a pricing scheme was not
> implemented. Everyone knows that 3.3 can't be the last version of AW if
> they want to continue as a feasible company. Technology changes, and after
> a year or so AW would start to become obsolete, and people wouldn't even put
> out the lower $20.00 a year for citizenships anymore. 3.3 being the "last
> version" is something that simply isn't an option.
>
> By the tone of the letter, this plan is far from finalized yet, so I'm not
> going to spam AWGate protesting mindlessly like a lot of people are,
> especially since nobody, not even the posters to this newsgroup, knows what
> the pricing for current citizens will be. Everyone needs to calm down and
> talk about this change reasonably after they know ALL the facts, not fire
> off two-sentence letters consisting of obscenities to ENZO screaming that
> they disagree with the price change.
>
> The people starting these ridiculous petitions that have one-sentence
> justifications, spamming telegrams to AWC staff members, flooding inboxes,
> and screaming and yelling at ground zeroes are only making the situation
> worse.
>
[View Quote]

Jan 2, 2002, 6:56pm

Yeah a lot of those are good points. AW needs to get into some
partnership.. we're all experiencing this economic slump, give us an SDK so
we can make our own browsers, or something else to that effect. *note don't
release the source code this could lead to some harmful factors* Make a
linux or mac version of it, I know a lot of people who would pay $20-30 a
year for a linux or mac version. There's a lot of other options that they
could do to lesson the burdon on us. Cutting 3d homepages for example, this
was a blunder the very first day 3.2 came out wasting the bandwidth and
driving their expenses up. Partnerships with other companies would be
another great way instead of "selling" the technology. Lowering the cost of
the world licenses by $20 would stimulate more people into buying worlds..
thus increasing revenue higher then it would normally be.. not by much but
it's more then they had. Taking out those free citizenships with the worlds
and lowering it another $20. These are all some ideas that AW could do to
get some money. How do you guys feel about these.. would they seem better
then charging US $120 a year?

--Bowen--

Jan 2, 2002, 6:58pm

Well I 3would not want them to cut the cits that come with worlds, however if
they offered a choice of two prices for worlds (one with cits and a lower one
without them) that could be nice.

[View Quote] > Yeah a lot of those are good points. AW needs to get into some
> partnership.. we're all experiencing this economic slump, give us an SDK so
> we can make our own browsers, or something else to that effect. *note don't
> release the source code this could lead to some harmful factors* Make a
> linux or mac version of it, I know a lot of people who would pay $20-30 a
> year for a linux or mac version. There's a lot of other options that they
> could do to lesson the burdon on us. Cutting 3d homepages for example, this
> was a blunder the very first day 3.2 came out wasting the bandwidth and
> driving their expenses up. Partnerships with other companies would be
> another great way instead of "selling" the technology. Lowering the cost of
> the world licenses by $20 would stimulate more people into buying worlds..
> thus increasing revenue higher then it would normally be.. not by much but
> it's more then they had. Taking out those free citizenships with the worlds
> and lowering it another $20. These are all some ideas that AW could do to
> get some money. How do you guys feel about these.. would they seem better
> then charging US $120 a year?
>
> --Bowen--

Jan 2, 2002, 7:02pm

I agree with dotar. Just because it's not a lot for you or other teens in
your area doesn't mean it isn't for all the rest of us.. minimum wage isn't
exactly "easy" to live off of, especially when it's $5 an hour where I live.
And not all teans can work 40 hours a week. Not all teens can get jobs
either.. competition for the 10 work spots at burger king LoL. I pay for
everything, haircuts, clothes, medical visits, all except room and board,
then there's college for me coming up at the end of this year.. it's kinda
hard for me, not to mention anyone else. :\ Why not lower do other things
which could increase revenue (3d homepages gone like dotar said)?

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jan 2, 2002, 7:08pm

LOL, 40 hours a week? I wish I had that. I am a manager in training for my step
dad's Texaco station and I barely clear 30 a week due to the current economy and
the travel scares going on. This week (due to the holiday slump) I am gettign 10
hours. Lucky for me the holiday slump is almost over and this week is our
slowest annually each year. So my hours will go back up, but even $50 a year
hurts for me.

Paying child support, my rent, food costs, electricity, phone costs. Heck I
barely make it now. AW is my relaxation from the stress of IRL. I acnnot afford
to pay through the nose to relax. I will stick with AW as long as I can afford
to do so. But if they raise the rates for existing users anywhere near what they
are doing for newbies, my days with AW are numbered.

One other thought. If they jack the price for new users that high, where do they
propose to get the new blood to invigorate the community from time to time from
anyway?

[View Quote] > I agree with dotar. Just because it's not a lot for you or other teens in
> your area doesn't mean it isn't for all the rest of us.. minimum wage isn't
> exactly "easy" to live off of, especially when it's $5 an hour where I live.
> And not all teans can work 40 hours a week. Not all teens can get jobs
> either.. competition for the 10 work spots at burger king LoL. I pay for
> everything, haircuts, clothes, medical visits, all except room and board,
> then there's college for me coming up at the end of this year.. it's kinda
> hard for me, not to mention anyone else. :\ Why not lower do other things
> which could increase revenue (3d homepages gone like dotar said)?
>
> --Bowen--
>
[View Quote]

Jan 2, 2002, 7:13pm

Oooo good points :). That's what I'm saying, we're all in this slump from
that economy. The max I could work at a minimum wage job was 5 hours where
I live, because of all this.. everyone's getting to those jobs.

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jan 2, 2002, 7:21pm

I just thought of something.. what about those people who have more then one
cit? They're loosing even more money then they think, I have 2.. I've seen a
few who've had about 10. Now you can't be on all those names at once. And
certainly can't pay $1,000 for them all LoL

--Bowen--

Jan 2, 2002, 7:30pm

Are they raiseing the price on the uniservers? I think if a big company
could afford a uniserver then they might also be able to afford to shoulder
some of the burden being put on our backs.

[View Quote] > What about pricing of worlds and citizenships that are coming with them?
> http://www.activeworlds.com/letter.html
> icey

Jan 2, 2002, 7:31pm

And I do agree Brant, going out and signing all these petitions and yelling at
GZ's is not going to solve a darn thing.

[View Quote] > I disagree. $100 a year isn't a lot for many teenagers. Around here, if
> you go to the movies ($8.50) and buy a popcorn ($4.00) and a soda ($2.50),
> as well as pay for gas and car maintenence in getting to the theater
> ($1.00), the total comes to about $16.00 for one night. Thus, a trip to the
> movies that lasts two or three hours is almost 1 and a half times more
> expensive than a subscription to AW for a month.
>
> The question isn't whether most people can afford to pay (anyone can set
> aside $2.00 per month) - it's whether people will want to pay instead of
> buying other things that they can afford. Personally, if 3.3 is as good as
> AW makes it sound, I'd definately put out the money. Heck, the elimination
> of tourists isn't that bad after all - there won't be any more annoying
> tourists at GZ who only cause trouble and can't be kept out. With the new
> system, everyone is responsible for his or her own actions, and people can
> still try AW for free.
>
> I lied there. What's going to determine whether I pay or not is whether
> everyone else will put aside the money, not whether I will. If AW's
> community loses interest and there's only 100 citizens logged on at 10PM VRT
> on a Sunday evening (which seems to be AW's busiest day), then I probably
> won't pay.
>
> AW made a big mistake not by proposing the price change but by stating that
> 3.3 could possibly be the last version if such a pricing scheme was not
> implemented. Everyone knows that 3.3 can't be the last version of AW if
> they want to continue as a feasible company. Technology changes, and after
> a year or so AW would start to become obsolete, and people wouldn't even put
> out the lower $20.00 a year for citizenships anymore. 3.3 being the "last
> version" is something that simply isn't an option.
>
> By the tone of the letter, this plan is far from finalized yet, so I'm not
> going to spam AWGate protesting mindlessly like a lot of people are,
> especially since nobody, not even the posters to this newsgroup, knows what
> the pricing for current citizens will be. Everyone needs to calm down and
> talk about this change reasonably after they know ALL the facts, not fire
> off two-sentence letters consisting of obscenities to ENZO screaming that
> they disagree with the price change.
>
> The people starting these ridiculous petitions that have one-sentence
> justifications, spamming telegrams to AWC staff members, flooding inboxes,
> and screaming and yelling at ground zeroes are only making the situation
> worse.
>
[View Quote]

Jan 2, 2002, 7:52pm

You have GOT to be joking right?

[View Quote]

Jan 2, 2002, 7:53pm

Oh I know, they would never jepardize their revenue by charging those who can
afford to pay.

[View Quote] > You have GOT to be joking right?
>
[View Quote]

Jan 2, 2002, 7:53pm

Good ol classic Wing here, posting from a friend's account. I do believe,
that Activeworlds Corp just crashed a proverbial airliner into downtown
Activeworlds. However, I have some serious doubts that Activeworlds will be
able to carry on as a community as New York has. Now before someone else
says it, "Osama Bin Noll." There. Down to buisiness.

Their financial status is obviously reaching a meltdown point, or an
increase this horrendous would be completely uncalled for. Either way now,
Activeworlds dies. Dies developmentally at first and dies at the heart
later, or gets it's heart ripped out immediately. Many hundreds of people
have poured hundreds of hours into Activeworlds and it's community.
Alphabit, Goober, Comit, continue the roll call as you wish. Other people's
livelihoods depend on Activeworlds. Roland, Flagg, Lucrezia, etc. The
community versus the company. Either the company gets paid and the community
decreases in size dramatically, perhaps to the tune of a 75% decrease or the
community gets to contine normal payment, the company flounders, development
stops and one or two people, turning very little profit struggle to keep the
servers running and not much else.

Either way it's a shitty way to go.

[View Quote]

Jan 2, 2002, 8:01pm

Brant, speak for yourself. I make $60 a week after taxes. I have to pay for
my own lunches. Down to $25 a week [Expensive school lunches]. I'll be
driving a car this time next year. Down to -$50 a week
I hold the highest paying teenage position in all of Hereford and work the
max hours allowable by the government.

--Wing
[View Quote]

Jan 2, 2002, 8:08pm

"The question isn't whether most people can afford to pay (anyone can set
aside $2.00 per month)"

I believe that was $2.00 a week or so. It's about $10 a month they said.

[View Quote]

Jan 2, 2002, 8:09pm

Man that is warped. Pay for what you use, don't expect to be subsidised by
those in a better position to pay. Has it occurred to you that maybe you're
just being asked to pay your way?? With less public cits AW has one less
revenue stream, but without the real business there IS NO AW!! Its not
difficult.


[View Quote]

Jan 2, 2002, 8:13pm

$9.50 US funds a month. Thats worse than almost any other chat on the net.

[View Quote] > "The question isn't whether most people can afford to pay (anyone can set
> aside $2.00 per month)"
>
> I believe that was $2.00 a week or so. It's about $10 a month they said.
>
[View Quote]

Jan 2, 2002, 8:19pm

And without the potential clients the business's will have no friggen interest
in beign here. As for my question I am serious, are the business's havign to
pay an increased amount? Or are just the cits gettign the shaft?

[View Quote] > Man that is warped. Pay for what you use, don't expect to be subsidised by
> those in a better position to pay. Has it occurred to you that maybe you're
> just being asked to pay your way?? With less public cits AW has one less
> revenue stream, but without the real business there IS NO AW!! Its not
> difficult.
>
[View Quote]

Jan 2, 2002, 8:20pm

I don't think the universes and galaxies are being increased.. the worlds
are though (pretty sure). Capitalists at work here.. the rich pay less..
the poor pay more :).

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jan 2, 2002, 8:21pm

Oh and as for that subsidized by others issue. Its not even part of the point. If
AW was in financial straits they should have let us know long before this. If they
had, maybe somethign acceptable to all parties could have been arrived at by now.

[View Quote] > And without the potential clients the business's will have no friggen interest
> in beign here. As for my question I am serious, are the business's havign to
> pay an increased amount? Or are just the cits gettign the shaft?
>
[View Quote]

Jan 2, 2002, 8:21pm

The global and permanent elimination of all tourists, I must agree, is but a mere dream. Would it forever change the face of the AW
community, if this dream were to become reality?

The features of AW 3.3 will further enhance the face of AW, as Roland and everybody else continues to say. But should the price of being
able to see these features be $2 a week?

Our choices appear to be either accept 3.3 as our final and last version, or face the new pricing model. The community of AW has always had
that third, invisible option: we can tell Rick (and co.) in our own words that he must consider the opinion of the community. It is believed
that the community is part of the decision in what goes on with AW. Can the company possibly consider our point of view? Perhaps some lurker
in the darkness is a marketing genious, and can think of a new and better pricing scheme for AW to keep their boat afloat and to keep the
community happy.

The new pricing model introduces several problems. Not all people have a credit card; if they wish to even see a triangle in AW they must
imput a credit card number and be confined to two weeks to enjoy that triangle and many more of 'em. It should also be considered that well
over half of the AW community are but only teenagers, whose parents are probably skeptical about the $19.95 a year they are paying for. Kids
who come from families who do not generate a whole lot of income (such as I) will find their visit to AW very short. It has been said that
current citizens will not be affected for the time being, but what about those tourists out there who have been ready for citizenship in so
long that they become discouraged by this pricing schematic and leave AW-- possibly to never return.

I have heard many better pricing schematics touring ground zeroes of popular worlds. Perhaps one of them will fit us all.

-- Tony M, citizen # 314753, registered February 2000.

Jan 2, 2002, 8:25pm

if we just exept 3.3 as our last version it will become obsolete or AW will
go out of business, whichever comes first

[View Quote]

1  2  3  |   Order by index