Yeah i was going to pay for my wifes zwift account today, and it turns out zwift wants 18 dollars for each of us, and that’s a big effin NO from me.
In comparrison:
Spotify: 6 Premium accounts for family members under one roof. $15.99/month.
Netflix: Number of screens you can watch on at the same time 2, $15.49/month.
I could go on.
RGT cycling costs 9$ for premium and comes with a FREE option.
Even the membership for my local bike club costs the same and that club preps the trails, builds tracks and organizes things aswell as includes an insurance for you and your bike.
You can’t compare zwift to going to the gym either, as YOU’RE the one paying for the lights and the ventilation, you’re the one paying for the shower and you’re the one who has to mop the floors.
There’s not even an intuitive way to choose what account to use if you DO have two…
You have to use zwifthacks stuff to get that part working like it should.
The pricing for zwift is WAAAAY to expensive for what it is, and what it is is a joke… i can get those for free anywhere.
Obviously i HAVE to pay for my wifes account, but i’m canceling them as soon as the snow melts.
that’s 288 dollars every year i’m NOT paying starting today.
I suggest that all of us take this to zwift facebook page and twitter.
They won’t listen when the noise in comming from a forum that isn’t really public in the same way a facebook or twitter page is.
I believe there is a difference between streaming services (Netflix, Spotify,…) and a 3D game (or training tool) like Zwift. But I am not an IT boy.
Everyone has an opinion, that’s ok, but starting a s×××storm @ FB and Twitter? Do you believe it is going to change anything?
I don’t know where you’re located, for me one month Zwift in equal to 3 beers in a pub.
Is it too much?
I do believe that they should feel the pressure, for sure.
I’m not stating that i want to start a ■■■■ storm, but asking for it publicly forces the team to answer publicly rather than to have ONE moderator answer “we have noticed your request” in a closed forum.
I’m comparing it to those services as one of these services will have to go to make room for another zwift account.
I’m not broke, but i do run a strict budget not to end up broke.
Medicines and treatments cost money, aswell as food, clothes, rent, electricity and everything else that is immensely more expensive today than 10 years ago.
I don’t think i should we should need to explain why we want to save money, it SHOULD be obvious to everyone that things are too expensive today.
Yes, it is obvious. And it is even more in the last two years. Literally everything is 10-20% more, fuel +40-50, energy, …
Zwift did not change the price in the last 2 years and is not too expensive in my opinion.
More examples - in an average priced restaurant you pay 15 Euros for 1 meal today. 1 kg bread (nothing special, just bread) costs about 5 Euros…
I try to reduce the cost - but mostly not there where I can do something for my health.
There are many technical differences of course, but if anything those other services cost more to provide to multiple users because they can be used simultaneously which is a different proposition to Robert’s use case.
If Robert comes to your house and logs into your computer for a ride on your trainer, does providing that service cost Zwift any more money than if he had ridden on your login instead? The cost difference to Zwift is literally zero.
I wrote (somewhere, long time ago) IMO a Zwift account should be an account for one trainer, not depending on the number of users - or perhaps with some $£€ (for saving their data on Zwift servers). But it is as it is, it is Zwift decision.
But that doesn’t change my personal opinion - Zwift is not expensive for me. And it is not
We are another family with multiple riders (wife an kids). I’d gladly pay “more” for a family/couples plan (or just a plan with multiple profiles), but I’ve not been willing to pay separately for a complete second plan. My daughter is young enough for a free kids plan, but my wife and son aren’t. You’re losing money by not offering this common request (since I would be willing to give you more money each month).
It makes sense for additional profiles to be discounted since only a single user at a time can use the trainer, so it wouldn’t be the same as having two distinct accounts. Additionally, many overhead expenses wouldn’t have to be spent for the ‘extra’ profiles in a family plan including monthly credit card processing and marketing/acquisition costs.
Finally, as people have pointed out, for most services this is just the societal norm. People feel ripped off if you charge full price for each account when only one person at a time can use the account (very few of us have multiple smart trainers). I was an original World of Warcraft player and even back at launch in 2004 WoW allowed a single account to have multiple characters/profiles.
I appreciate @James_Zwift acknowledging this thread. As near as I can tell this is the second-highest voted feature request that hasn’t already been implemented. If Zwift is categorically opposed to adding this feature, I suggest stating your position so people don’t keep fuming in this thread. If you just haven’t added it yet, please consider prioritizing this feature, I think it would positively impact the size and retention of your player-base/revenue stream.
Explain please. When you’re riding, there’s a stream of data between you and Zwift’s servers that has to be processed and sent back as part of your virtual ride experience. Are you saying that when your partner takes their turn riding, they won’t want any of that? And when you finish your ride, Zwift file away your ride data and details. Presumable for your partner your happy for Zwift to throw all the data away? Two riders quite literally means twice the amount of data processing and long term data storage.
Exactly the same amount of data as if he decided to get back on and do another ride himself. Some people ride every day, some don’t. It’s an unlimited account.
If a family has two distinct accounts, then they can use them simultaneously and there is separate billing for each account (extra payment processing fees etc…).
In regards to stored/streamed data, my wife/son can already ride on my account, so the same volume of data is being received now. In any case, the cost for amazon cloud storage is about $0.03 per gb per-month. The cost for data transfer is about $0.10 per gb. I think it is safe to say that the data cost of a Zwift account is a tiny fraction of the monthly fee we pay. Also note that I fully expect that a ‘family/couples plan’ would be more expensive just not the same as two separate accounts.
Your missing a few things, like just paying for the data transfer and data storage unless there’s some data processing in the middle, so adding the cost for a good few virtual machines. And not just the direct costs, these things then have teams running and monitoring the servers, others implementing code, etc.
So back to basics, two people on average will use twice the resources of one person. Its pretty plain and simple. You can twist one this example or that, but on average two people will use twice the resources of one person.
And please be honest. Saying you expect the family/couple account to be more expensive is deliberately avoiding what you actually want, which is for it to be cheaper per person for you.
The brass neck on this, suggesting he’s the one being selfish, for budgeting as a household. It’s literally the opposite; you cannot bear the thought of anyone getting any sort of perceived better value deal than you, even if they’re paying more per month to Zwift.
I assume you only ever buy individual packets of crisps, cans of pop and tins of beans from the supermarket, to ensure you’re not getting them cheaper per item than those who can only get to corner shops and don’t have access to multipacks? Righto.
Edit: said I wouldn’t get involved in this crap again. Sorry. No more.
I think your apology is genuine so you are excused from the list of volunteers to pay for the zwift community family account @Dave_ZPCMR
Zwift are no more likely to refine options for family membership ( since there already IS child plans !!!) than they are to introduce means tested membership , which all those “not fair” arguments logically lead us to .
Not the crisps again! Crisps are different for a monthly subscription service (though I’m sure Walkers would be keen to find ways to get people to pay for a monthly crisp subscription, after all it’s already done for things like gin). I can put the extra crisps in a cupboard and eat them later.
Nor was I aware that I didn’t budget for my household - really must find out how that food turns up in the kitchen and why the power remains on! I think most of us are making choices with our own money to be here.
And I certainly didn’t accuse anyone of being selfish. That is wholly your false accusation. What I questioned was the unsaid part of “fully expect that a ‘family/couples plan’ would be more expensive”.
It’s literally the opposite; you cannot bear the thought of anyone getting any sort of perceived better value deal than you, even if they’re paying more per month to Zwift.