[Quantumcat]

I understand perfectly why BBO don't want to have too many free tourneys - they want to offer just enough so people can have a go playing in a tourney and see if they like it before they spend their money, but not too many otherwise people would just play free tourneys all day and never give BBO any money.

However, it is obvious people are willing to spend a small amount playing tourneys even with no chance of any reward - 25 cent games seem to attract way more people than the more expensive ones where you can get 1.5 times your money back.

Is it possible to have some sort of subscription to play as many "free" tourneys as you want? Then BBO still gets money, and people can play in loads of tourneys if they want (which they might otherwise not want to, since they have to risk $1 or so each time).

So when you subscribe, there would be a tab to show you the "free" tourneys you have subscribed too, and there would be a new one like every few minutes (or more or less depending how many subscribers there are - need to fulfill the demand but have at least five or more people per tourney on average).

There could be a low subscription amount - say $5/month, where the tourneys give no prizes or masterpoints. Then a more expensive one - say $10/month, where you get very small fractions of a masterpoint and no prizes, then a really expensive one (say $50/month) where you get normal amounts of masterpoints and small BBO$ prizes for winning (not big enough prizes to come close to paying for your subscription though). So people that want to farm for masterpoints are going to have to commit to giving BBO lots of money. While people who just enjoy playing tourneys for their own sake can do so. They would much rather take out a subscription (and have a guaranteed amount spent on tourneys) than constantly having to fight to get into the 25c or free games.

If it turns out people are very willing to spend $50/month to farm masterpoints, you can always introduce a more expensive one later, and reduce the masterpoints and prizes of the $50/month subscription.

Also the REAL free (no quote marks this time) tourneys can be used for what they are there for - letting people try out tourneys so they will realise they enjoy them, and then want to spend money playing them. Currently you need lightning-quick reflexes to get into a free tourney, so the people who just wanted to try it out aren't going to bother and then won;t give BBO any money in future, when they would have if they'd gotten a chance to find out how much they enjoyed tourneys.

[stevenagy]

So this isn't a bad idea if it's also amended to include that there are no more absolutely free tourneys, but that all accounts get some number of free tourneys in the month.

People wanting to get their feet wet are welcome to play a simple (no pay-out) tourney at no cost still to see if they like it (they can do this, say, a dozen times in a month). A subscription moves you to unlimited play for that class of tourney, and some number of pay-out tourneys (BBO$, BBO MPs, ACBL MPs) depending on the level of subscription. Members could also opt to pay for pay-out tourneys on a per-event basis, if they should so choose.

Generally, if you examine the rest of the online gaming pay-to-play schemes, the system BBO has now probably makes them more money. Micro-payments, and pay as you can/want to systems (especially with features which allow you to earn in-game currency for proficiency at the game) are quite profitable.

[Quantumcat]

Each account getting limited free tourneys is an excellent idea - nobody can hog the free tourneys and new players will have a half decent chance of getting to try tourneys out.

You're right that they have a very profitable system currently, but even if introducing subscriptions (in addition to pay-per-play options) meant they got less money per player, the extra volume of players would make up for it and they should end up making more money overall. Of course I am no economist, it's only a layperson's guess, it's possible they have already thought through this and decided against it.

[barmar]

If you want to play in lots of free tournaments, what's wrong with all the tournaments that are hosted by players?

[Quantumcat]

Why does anyone pay for GIBs if you can create your own tournaments? This doesn't make sense. If it's true I'll just play all my BBO bridge as tournaments and never pay for more GIBs ever again.

[barmar]

1. Directing a tournament is more work than most players want to put in. And most players don't know the Laws well enough to be a good director (not that that will stop them from trying).

2. You have to find a partner, or make it an individual and deal with lots of idiot or abusive partners. GIB may not be the best bridge player around, but it never calls you names when you do something stupid.

3. You want masterpoints.

[Quantumcat]

Your comments are confusing. GIB can't play out of turn, and it is impossible to look at other people's tables to cheat so I don't know why you need a director. If I wanted to play with other people I would just play with my regular partner at a normal table. Maybe we aren't talking about the same thing. I enjoy robot races and bingo, but fighting for the free ones is exhausting, and the $1 ones detract from the enjoyment since you can't lose too often. I want to be able to pay $5 - $20/month and play as often as I want, with nothing being at stake.

[barmar]

I'm talking about ordinary tournaments with humans, not robots. You can't create your own robot tourneys.

I've searched your original message, it never uses the words "robot" or "GIB", so I didn't realize you only cared about robot tourneys.

[Bbradley62]

barmar, on 2012-August-04, 23:09, said:

I'm talking about ordinary tournaments with humans, not robots. You can't create your own robot tourneys.

I've searched your original message, it never uses the words "robot" or "GIB", so I didn't realize you only cared about robot tourneys.

There were two clues that should made her meaning obvious. First, this sentence is clearly referring to robot tournaments:

Quantumcat, on 2012-July-31, 19:21, said:

However, it is obvious people are willing to spend a small amount playing tourneys even with no chance of any reward - 25 cent games seem to attract way more people than the more expensive ones where you can get 1.5 times your money back.

Second is this, which very clearly refers to free robot tournaments:

Quantumcat, on 2012-July-31, 19:21, said:

Currently you need lightning-quick reflexes to get into a free tourney, so the people who just wanted to try it out aren't going to bother and then won;t give BBO any money in future, when they would have if they'd gotten a chance to find out how much they enjoyed tourneys.

You don't need lightning-fast reflexes except for free robot tournaments.

[USViking]

Quantumcat, on 2012-July-31, 19:21, said:

I understand perfectly why BBO don't want to have too many free tourneys -

What do you call one free tourney every nine minutes?

Then there are a significant number of xtras such as 80%TCR.

The BBO free tourney set-up is a fabulous free gift, it can't get any better,
please drop the subject.

[Quantumcat]

It's not a free gift. It's there so people can try out tourneys and decide if they want to start spending money on them.

Do you think free samples at supermarkets are fabulous free gifts too? I was only pointing out that I wasn't asking BBO to cook up the whole contents of the shop and serve a free banquet to all passers-by.

[USViking]

Quantumcat, on 2012-August-07, 19:01, said:

It's not a free gift. It's there so people can try out tourneys and decide if they want to start spending money on them.

Do you think free samples at supermarkets are fabulous free gifts too? I was only pointing out that I wasn't asking BBO to cook up the whole contents of the shop and serve a free banquet to all passers-by.

Anything you do not have to pay for is free, regardless of whether it may also be meant as an enticement-- the two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Judging from the decided comparative infrequency of players in free tourmaments who have earned BBO masterpoints I think it is reasonable to infer that there are many who seldom if ever join for-pay tournaments.

Speaking for myself I had played in hundreds if not thousands of free tornaments before I joined my first for-pay, and I did so more than anything out of a sense of guilt at being a complete freeloader for so long. Despite the erratic and indifferent results I confess I enjoyed for-pay much more than I expected, and I can see how the free versions may perform as successful enticement from a business standpoint.

[Bbradley62]

USViking, on 2012-August-08, 10:34, said:

Judging from the decided comparative infrequency of players in free tourmaments who have earned BBO masterpoints I think it is reasonable to infer that there are many who seldom if ever join for-pay tournaments.

Of course, this lack-of-points siuation would also occur if people were "graduating" from free tournaments to pay tournaments and not going back after they've won points in the "grown-up" game. But I think your explanation is more likely.