1  |   Order by index

Feb 6, 2002, 5:29pm

Can't believe I'm the first to have any comments on this ... very unlike you
lot!!

Anyway ... all I can say is "Fair enough!" ... No doubt plenty of people
will have a lot of issues with it still, I think it goes to show that AW
aren't the selfish, singleminded, evil ogres that so many people have
insisted on implying over the last few weeks.

Wonder what people are gonna say though ...

Grims

Feb 6, 2002, 5:36pm

Well from me I think aw has been thoughtfull to what the community has said.

As the mongers of doom and despondancy have tried to make us beleave aw is a
big bad monster that could not care what happens, let them take note..

Lets see how many doom merchants say "sorry" we where wrong, and how many
worlds that ran at the first sign of price increase to other places, now see
what a lot of world owners stood by, just by waiting..



Da Wiz

[View Quote]

Feb 6, 2002, 7:49pm

The same could be said of those who fail to recognise a considerable
compromise on AW's part. Time to accept that things change, people!

Grims

[View Quote]

Feb 6, 2002, 10:12pm

Considerable compromise yes,,kind of sad you ppl think that this is a
considerable compromise.I think 6.95$/month is quite much compared to
"Activeworlds will never charge for citizenship".I do not understand why
suddenly this enormous raise;I would have understood if the prices had gone
up a bit each year,since everything gets more expensive.I have not noticed
that server prices nor bandwith costs has raisen within one year that
dramatically.Neither do I belive the wages has gone up in general that much
in USA.I earn about 8000$/year and get along with that,but I guess some ppl
have to earn 200.000$/year to be able to drive a fancy car live in a big
house and god knows what ,,I just wonder why?But I guess some ppl would be
happy if gasoline prices was to go up 600% and then it would only raise
400%.

Strange that you snipped out the important part of my posting and left the
not so importnat beginning.Note also that I said I "would" say,I did not say
I say.

Newbie
grimble <grimble2000 at btinternet.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:3c61a4d4$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> The same could be said of those who fail to recognise a considerable
> compromise on AW's part. Time to accept that things change, people!
>
> Grims
>
[View Quote]

Feb 6, 2002, 10:29pm

All the views on the pricing and what would/would not be acceptable to
people was covered a few weeks ago ... so I'm not going to go into all that
again, or how individuals value a service they use.

The reason I snipped what you regarded as the "important bit" was because I
didn't have anything to say except that its a shame that people will always
find something to winge about. You might have seen that part of your post as
important ... I didn't.

And if you want to be picky about wording in that fashion ... I said
"could", and meant the same as your "would". Read it as you will.

Grims



[View Quote]

Feb 7, 2002, 12:39am

You must be an american ,right?,,well,,may I ask how many worlds do you have
in AW?
I accept that other have people have different opinions than me about the
pricing,I have nothing against the fact that people are willing to pay ,it
is more the issue that everyone might not be able to do it.I think that it
is sad that Activeworlds is developing into a playground for rich kids and
depressed middleage women.I would rather had seen it to be a place for
anyone to be in and enjoy ,even if you do not own a creditcard.
My opinion simply is that 6.95$/month is ok,but taking away the cits that
has came with the worlds and banning tourists are wrong.I hope I am intitled
to this opinion as a less fortunate (rich) as I accept that the rich and
ignorant has their own view on this.

grimble <grimble2000 at btinternet.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:3c61ca68$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> All the views on the pricing and what would/would not be acceptable to
> people was covered a few weeks ago ... so I'm not going to go into all
that
> again, or how individuals value a service they use.
>
> The reason I snipped what you regarded as the "important bit" was because
I
> didn't have anything to say except that its a shame that people will
always
> find something to winge about. You might have seen that part of your post
as
> important ... I didn't.
>
> And if you want to be picky about wording in that fashion ... I said
> "could", and meant the same as your "would". Read it as you will.
>
> Grims
>
>
>
[View Quote]

Feb 7, 2002, 2:09am

Umm ... no. English actually. Don't stereotype me pal!

And like I said in my previous post, which I thought was perfectly clear ...
I only remarked on the section of your post that I had any comment on. I
didn't and STILL DON'T have anything to say on what you find acceptable in
terms AW's pricing or how highly you value the services that AW provide and
you use. If I did have any relevant views, I would have shared them then.

Grims.

[View Quote]

Feb 7, 2002, 2:52am

[View Quote]
> Anyway ... all I can say is "Fair enough!" ... No doubt plenty of people
> will have a lot of issues with it still, I think it goes to show that AW
> aren't the selfish, singleminded, evil ogres that so many people have
> insisted on implying over the last few weeks.
>
> Wonder what people are gonna say though ...




Well I think you or someone else suggested that all of us who complained
owe AWLD an apology or something.

Don't hold your breath.

This is the first time that I have known the company to bow to public
pressure AT ALL. I congratulate them on that.

If nobody had complained we would still be looking at a 600% increase
and probably doubled world prices. So I am not about to apologize for
complaining.

I have nothing against the owners of AWLD being selfish. If there are
selfish AND smart... there will be a LOT of new AW users this time next
year. I want the "Web in 3D"... which means half of America will know
about and use AW... if there's no chance of that happening then I am
prepared to wash my hands of it.

I personally don't see how the price increases are going to make lots of
new users. Maybe there is a phase II of this plan that will make it
all clear to me.

But on that... I won't hold my breath either.

Feb 7, 2002, 3:48am

[View Quote] Not me ...

> If nobody had complained we would still be looking at a 600% increase
> and probably doubled world prices. So I am not about to apologize for
> complaining.
>

Oh c'mon ... Now you're just guessing with the world prices.

> I personally don't see how the price increases are going to make lots of
> new users. Maybe there is a phase II of this plan that will make it
> all clear to me.
>

Not sure where the "price increases are going to make lots of new users"
concept comes from. If anything, investment and subsequent improvement in
the product will bring in the new users. Investment needs funding ... hence
the higher prices. My personal view is, as I have stated before, the price
hike is corrective action and actually goes to providing AW with some
credibility. Something other than the chat program that people like to call
it. I read $20 a year as "enough to cover our costs" ... not "investment in
the future". That has now been rectified and rightly so.

Feb 7, 2002, 5:02am

Hi everyone:

[View Quote] YOU may be able to say "fair enough", but *I*, as a 3D Homepage owner OTOH
don't feel so lucky. Don't believe me, here's a direct quote from the new
FAQ....

QUOTE.......

Will tourists be allowed to visit 3D Homepage worlds?
3D Homepage owners will be able to allow access to tourists for an
additional $2.00 per month.

END QUOTE....

This means that they want to charge ME for allowing tourists. I guess they
need to be reminded that MANY of those 3D Homepages were created by people
whose WEBSITES are visited BY TOURISTS!!!!

My 3D Homepage is tied into nearly a HALF DOZEN websites and soon (I hope &
assuming I get a satisfactory answer) THREE (soon to be FOUR) online radio
stations.

My point being this....I would **LOVE** to know the rationale (aside from
their OBVIOUS need to make $$$) behind this decision. Moreover, I'd love to
know just WHO made the decision!!!!

AW Support is getting a CC of this message and UNLESS I receive a
satisfactory answer, THIS 3D Homepage Owner **WILL** PULL THE PLUG!!!!

Now some of you might say something like "Get over it" or "Good Riddens",
but *I* am NOT going to pay ANYTHING just to allow tourists (which people
who've NEVER heard of ActiveWorlds before visiting my site(s) WILL
UNDOUBTEDLY start out as) to visit my Homepage World. There ARE
alternatives if AW would GET OFF THEIR LAZY BUTTS and EXPLORE THEM!!!!

In short, I say what's good for the goose is for the gander!!! By that I
mean either treat 3D Homepage AND tradional world owners EQUALLY or
DISCONTINUE the 3D Homepage concept altogether since the timing of it's
launch and the rollout of the original pricing scheme was HORRIFYING and
those of us who are 3D Homepage owners (at least those of us FEW BRAVE SOULS
who've come out in public) are ALREADY getting a bad rap AS IT IS!!!

3D Homepage Owners - TIME TO UNITE!!!!!!

Just MY opinion (and MINE ALONE!)....

Patrick Cook
Owner Pub 102X (FOR NOW!)
pchamster at msn.com
Denver, Colorado

Feb 7, 2002, 10:09am

okies:) I in general like british people lol.I just give you an example on
how much it would cost me with the new pricing sheme,maybe you then
understand why I am not totally happy with it.

I have 10 worlds if I want to allow tourists in all those it would cost
10x59.95$ =599,50$
I have given away a few cits and payed for them by renewing my worlds plus
used a few cits myself 14x69.95$=979.30$

So,in total this would cost me 1578.80$ MOORE per year than it has so far.If
you do not consider this to be much money,then ok,,maybe you would like to
chip in a bit.But for me this is more than what I can afford.Not sure how
much the raise will affect you,since you did not answer my question,but I
ask you;if you would be in my position,would you be happy with the new
price?

Newbie
grimble <grimble2000 at btinternet.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:3c61fe08 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Umm ... no. English actually. Don't stereotype me pal!
>
> And like I said in my previous post, which I thought was perfectly clear
....
> I only remarked on the section of your post that I had any comment on. I
> didn't and STILL DON'T have anything to say on what you find acceptable in
> terms AW's pricing or how highly you value the services that AW provide
and
> you use. If I did have any relevant views, I would have shared them then.
>
> Grims.
>
[View Quote]

Feb 7, 2002, 10:33am

On 7 Feb 2002 02:02:45 -0500, "pc hamster" <pchamster at email.msn.com>
[View Quote]
>In short, I say what's good for the goose is for the gander!!! By that I
>mean either treat 3D Homepage AND tradional world owners EQUALLY or
>DISCONTINUE the 3D Homepage concept altogether.

/tongue in cheek on

Agreed:)

world owners are paying $59.95 annually for tourists.

3d home page worlds are only paying $24.00 annually for tourists.

Treat them all equally as you say.

Charge 3d Homepage owners $59.95 as well.

/tongue in cheek off


Moria

Feb 7, 2002, 1:05pm

Admittedly, in your position, I would be pretty pissed off right now.

Since you're desperate for an answer on the "Number of worlds" question ...
none (there are reasons for that).

Grims

[View Quote]

Feb 7, 2002, 1:10pm

As I replied on the the other thread, the effect of the new tourist policy
on the concept behind the 3D Homepages is quite staggering. Its difficult to
see how AW could implement the policy they clearly feel is necessary without
having this effect though.

When it comes to "3D Homepage Owners - TIME TO UNITE!!!!!!" ... (in a weary
voice) please don't. Have you asked AW how they can reconcile the tourist
policy with the "marketing" (pah!) concepts on which 3D Homepages are based?

Grims

[View Quote]

Feb 7, 2002, 4:08pm

[View Quote] After the Pricing Plan build 1, I was really confused about
what on earth they ever wanted to achieve by killing tourists -
unless they wanted to kill AW also, plunder ruins and sail away.

But somehow I feel more optimistic after this new plan.
Apparently JP simply just computed it in his cold, calculating
Financial Officer's brain hehe that forced payment would generate more revenue.
So he was actually doing it to benefit AW, and no sinister plots there.
(Well, except the one for world domination, but that's another story.)

--
Mauz
http://mauz.info

Feb 8, 2002, 6:11am

[View Quote] Well....that is why I sent a CC of the message to AW. To get an
explaination. I had hoped to get one BY NOW, but alas, they never replied.
Frankly I think if EVERYONE was charged $24 a year, that would seem AT LEAST
somewhat reasonable.

But then too....We're not dealing with people who actually CARE about THE
HANDS THAT _FEED_ THEM....

Feb 8, 2002, 6:45am

I think that if that was the case, then we'd be left with the $9.50 a month
price and a total ban on tourists ... which we aren't. Go figure.

As I've said before, this is a SIGNIFICANT compromise from AW's initial
business plan as described in January. A company doing this hardly strikes
me as a company that isn't interested in keeping its customers happy (as far
as economics allows).

Grims

[View Quote]

Feb 8, 2002, 6:40pm

I think some people here lack a basic understanding of economics. :)

SW Chris


[View Quote]

1  |   Order by index