Family and Child Plan Request

Can I start by saying I have asked for this for nearly 3 yrs. I will never watch my wife get off our shared trainer and climb back on the same trainer and pay 2x a subscription to ride the same software. It makes no sense. Secondly I find it absolutely rude that despite several requests nobody from zwift has replied to confirm this will or will not happen. So we are left in limbo year after year with one of us using Zwift and the other Tacx free software. I would gladly pay £15/£16 per month for 2 member training. Effectively you have lost £180 income. Most of all though you have given yourselves a reputation of being rude and ignorant. Just let us know if it will happen so we can make choices of how to train together. It’s simple. To reiterate 2x12.99 for a shared trainer is never going to happen. Perhaps reply this time? It’s been years.

3 Likes

If you want a reply Alan here goes. Why should my subscription be used to subsidize you’re partner’s. What’s the benefit to me? If you think Rouvy’s so good for doing this then go to Rouvy. But no, 3 years of the same whinge and your still here so clearly you do think it’s worth it, but just want to save some money if you can. Understandable, we all do, but not when it’s one set of users benefiting of the full subscriptions of others.

(Under 16s cheaper or free - I can support that because I’m big picture enough to think encouraging young riders is a benefit to them and society in general)

2 Likes

What’s the detriment to you?

1 Like

What’s the benefit for me or my wife that children can ride for free? what is the benefit to me that you can run unlimited distance for free?
Strange that some people can use the software for free, but that I have to pay for me and my wife.

1 Like

I must admit I am sort of with you on the undercurrents of some of the posts here.

Many seems to be around , “I dont want to pay for a subscription for my partner”.
Something about this is a little bit disturbing and seems to belong to very outdated mindset .

Is it appropriate for subscriptions for a “secondary” member of a relationship to be a reason for this family plan membership. In these days of metoo and all that both members of this partnership should be equal in terms of income and therefore in what they can spend there money on .

It would be better to take concerns about economic equality elsewhere rather than ask Zwift to subsidise , and thus perpetuate , this .

However I do fully support that minors who do not have there own income are legitimate for discounted rates and Zwift here have excelled by offering completely FREE membership so there is absolutely no argument on this count either. Well done zwift , you have delivered the most appropriate solution here

What might be left is possibly to offer a “concession” level of membership .

What about retired people , are they not more worthy of discount , having a reduced income.
What about Students and others who for whatever reason have a reduced capacity for income.
Yes it might also include anyone taking paternity or maternity leave (a thing that some might think happens quite a lot in “families”) .

The other angle many post in (under the guise of a “family” situation but IMO is nothing specifically to do with Family at all , is having a lower subscription for reduced access or functionality . Maybe there is scope for that but its entirely for Zwift to consider that , and to be honest think it is inapproprite to be framing that request as a “Family” thing , and as a result I think Zwift are acting properly to refuse to consider it on that basis.

In short , start requesting it in a less interest group self centred basis and then we are talking .

1 Like

This is a breathtakingly weird take.

1 Like

As I stated, Dave wants some of the money Zwift take from my pocket used to reduce the amount they take from his and his partner’s pockets. I don’t see why I should be happy with having my pockets picked for the benefit of two adults who I don’t know. If we take that approach, well the whole of my cycle club (about 30 of us) would be very keen for a club rate, subsidized from the pockets of solo riders.

Sorry, you didn’t explain how it’s to your detriment for Alan and I to pay Zwift more money than we do at present. It wouldn’t change how much you pay, and what you get for the money you pay. It wouldn’t have any effect on your subscription whatsoever.

“Why should my packet of crisps be used to subsidise your multipack bag? What’s the benefit to me?”

In narrow context there may appear to be no detriment.

Lets look at the bigger picture , the thousands or users who could in this new subscription model now , with no reduction of functionlaity , be able to now claim and move to this proposed “family” membership. This large reduction of revenue has to be paid by someone … That would include students , retired people, those on income support , disabled people , single mothers , carers etc . I would suggest they are more entitled to a membership subsidy.

1 Like

Zwift have said many times they aren’t considering a family plan. I think the fact they have only raised the price once since launch and have focused on keeping it a good value package for all a much better idea.

And FREE access to under 16s :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:

I can see both sides to it, if we suspend reality and presume Zwift are a innovative, forward thinking company who deliver new features that the customers want, then anything that reduces operating income has an impact on all users as budgets reduce and services decline - or staff have to do more with less due to this change.
In reality, they are beholden to VC loans and a need to increase revenue.

As someone in a household that has 2 users who each have their own sub, id benefit from it… Family plan might be a bit to traditional way of looking at it… but if you were to link subscription to device, then there might be an opportunity there as the 2 subs can’t be used simultaneously…

I presume/think the answer to all this will link to my comment above, Zwift are not in a place to reduce their income due to their VC involvement currently…

Big house you’ve got there. And all sharing one turbo trainer too, that shows incredible discipline. :+1:

Or maybe it’s a complete non sequitur.

Kids under 16 on Zwift for free are picking our pockets apparently, the little shits. :rofl: “What’s the benefit to me?” :thinking:

As has been discussed before, only Zwift know (or could estimate) how many households have multiple full price accounts and could/would migrate to a discounted package, thus potentially losing them money versus the amount of additional income they could/would attract from those like Alan and his partner who would happily pay a bit MORE money than they do now. It’s a fair question.

But don’t pretend that anyone claiming there’s a direct and personal detriment to them by others obtaining a discount for buying more of the same thing (a principle that applies to literally every single form of trade in the world), despite it having no impact whatsoever on the amount they’re already happy to pay, or the service/product they receive for that payment, is anything but utterly selfish.

It boils down to a position of ‘if I can’t have this, nobody should have it.’, which I find astonishingly self-centred.

I’ve no idea why I keep replying to this bonkers thread. No more. :joy:

3 Likes

Okay, let’s try again. It we use Alan’s figures, then for exactly the same features and benefits (no extra crisps, we’re only getting one packet for each user), I have to pay £5 more than the other two. Strangely, I’d also rather pay £5 less too, in fact I’m reasonably confident that everyone would rather pay £5 less. If you can’t see the issue yet, then I’m more than happy for you to pay £5 a month into my bank account to help subsidize my Zwifting.

…no one has said anything about tying the cost to one trainer or one PC. In fact many have said that they want the family plan so that they and others in their household can ride at the same time.

That’s Alan’s entire premise! This is ridiculous.

1 Like

Hi all. Missed this barrage of replies. At least this has finally kicked up some interest. Some very amusing takes on my opinions but I have seen the history of Zwift and Tacx first hand so can give real and accurate comments not throw away ‘what’s in it for me’ cheap jibes. Has everyone forgot zwift was rolled out at £6.99? Just as my free Tacx software with multiple profiles, given with my £900 trainer, was being replaced with subscription? Then zwift climbed to £12.99……per user……for the same single trainer in our household. So to the guy who said why should I subsidise then how amusing you don’t realise your already paying double the launch price. That’s what’s in it for you.

Sorry forgot to add Mark. In our and most cycling clubs members get cheaper racing fees than people turning up to ride. Also British cycling membership gives you many discounts and benefits. How gallant you are that you have decided to waive all those benefits so everyone pays equal amounts. I assume you have done that, along with donating to all external racers so they don’t feel you are benefitting from their extra entrance fees. What a top bloke. Forget comparison web sites, let’s pay full whack for everything for the greater good of mankind. Really??

Oooo go on let’s have one more whinge…erm I mean point. Tacx software with a Tacx trainer was extremely accurate to the point (weather dependant before you get pedantic on me) where you could train a 10 mile time trial course on street view and be within 5 seconds in the actual ride. Much as it will hurt folk Zwift does not control smart trainers that well. It’s more of a fun cartoon social training tool and will still give individual comparisons and improvements to help training. Sadly Garmin bought Tacx and completely ruined a good product. All this adds up to why I won’t pay double top prices for a shared trainer with only ok software. If the accuracy and features where better there would be good reason to consider it but Tacx advance 4 v Zwift is chalk and cheese. The end.