family plan / multi-member discount (again)

(Jeff Englin) #1

I know this is something that has been requested for quite some time now, I’m really surprised that by now a better price structure hasn’t been implemented. You guys (Zwift) are missing out on increased revenue. period. as I mentioned, father of two in college…I am not going to add another $15 or $30 bucks to add my “adult” kids that I’m already paying through the nose for tuition, room & board, books, etc. So the can zwift one or two times a week around their already crazy college schedule. Not to say that high school wasn’t just as bad for expenses & activities. Nor that my wife, who is an adult & thinks zwift is neat, but not as (choose your favorite): committed/dedicated/crazy as her husband who rides each day he can. Again, not a good candidate for a full subscription. I get that there are committed spouses & above 13 age kids who can/will ride regularly. But I know there are a lot more situations like mine, where I would be willing to pay you more money than I am now for my part-timers. Overall, (I believe) you’re going to get way more of my-type subscriptions that would offset any current multiple accounts. and while the under 13 thing is good & makes sense, as those kids won’t usually log serious time on the system - I think the cost factor is a bigger issue when the family has older kids in the mix. AND those are the ages that help foster cyclists!! Great ages to get em hooked, overall/long-term it benefits cycling in general & increases your future customer base (if they’re used to zwifting in college, they’ll most likely want to continue when they graduate. if they aren’t zwifting, its just another new expense to add on to everything else).

if you could please pass on these comments, it would be greatly appreciated…I know I’m far from alone. This has been discussed/requested for a long time. This isn’t a request for game changes or new worlds for the same cost structure… It will mean more revenue WITHOUT game-system changes (just the account billing). ?seems like a no brainer?

(Phil Wedgwood) #2

Make this happen please as my three kids want to use Zwift

(Jean Goulet) #3

I completely support the idea of few users on a single account for 1-2 $ more/month, but anything more than that, i wouldn’t be interested.


(Azeem Nizam) #4

Make this happen, even if it’s a few bucks more for two.  


(Peter Scharbach) #5

Most paid monthly online games allow multiple ‘characters’ with their own names, skills, and stats on each paid account, any of which can be played at any time, just not simultaneously.

This feature helps maintain interest in the games, as part of the fun is developing a character, reaching goals, collecting items, and being able to do this anew without having to scrap a previous profile keeps interest in exploring the game alive.  

It’s very surprising to me that zwift doesn’t feature this.  Simply the convenience of switching from a flats racing ‘character’ to a hill climbing ‘character’ would be more convenient than having to switch around components and the like would make this feature worth it.

This idea that somehow Zwift is doing anyone or themselves a favor or making more money by forcing couples to choose between riding the same character, or forcing them to pay an extra $15 a month for absolutely no increase in app use at all, just the trouble of automatically recording and storing the data under two files in the database instead of one, as if this cost more.  What zwift does with this is simply force couples to share characters and create resentment and make themselves look bad. It’s sad.

Happy customers are loyal customers.

Consider this, you have an account paid by a couple. 

A) They share the character.  Neither fully identifies with the character because it doesn’t separate either of their progress or accomplishments.  When one of the couple tires of zwift, neither cares and they cancel.

B) They each have their own character that tracks their accomplishments and stats individually.  One of the couple tires of zwift, but the other still wants to make progress with their character, so they don’t cancel.

Please learn from every other monthly paid online game.  They succeeded for a reason, and you are simply trying reinventing the wheel and making a mess of it.

(Peter Scharbach) #6

Or consider the difference in word of mouth advertising between these:

“Oh you like bikes?  Me too!  My guy does some kind of bike game but I haven’t tried it because he can’t make multiple profiles or something.  He’s nuts about it.”

“Oh you like bikes?  Me too!  My guy and I do this thing called Zwift, it’s really fun, we share an account and it tracks your progress like it’s farmville, etc etc etc etc, you should try it we can ride together!”


Like, what are you guys even thinking.  Whoever is calling those shots needs someone to explain the internet to them.

(Nic Haarhoff) #7

Yup…We all agree.  I would add 2 more users if there was a reasonable up charge (would totally be incremental revenue for Zwift).  Not paying for 4 accounts all at full price especially at the new $14.99 rate (or whatever it will be for me here soon).  The 2 accounts work just fine.  We are all in the same house anyway.  The other 2 use less often and just delete their ride at the end as they are casual users while my wife and I hold the subscriptions being the serious riders and track metrics.  Definitely a lost revenue on the part of Zwift.  Maybe a base “family” subscription ($20?) with a ($5?) add on for additional users in household?

(Azeem Nizam) #8

Can’t believe they still don’t have family plans.  NO way I’m shelling out $30 a month with all the other virtual training platforms out there. I love Zwift, but not at $30.

(Peter Scharbach) #9

They’re probably thinking of it in terms of lost business, thinking that there are some set of households currently holding two accounts that will downgrade, or some set of potential new households they can get two accounts out of as things are rather than one, so why throw away the business.

This is the thinking of someone who does not understand how people in general use the internet and how they in general share games, accounts, and how carefully most people watch their money, or how loose they are willing to be with it if the amount of money is low enough.

The number of households that have a zwift account that have one or more other people in the household that have enough of an interest in exercise and biking that they’d happily pay $2-3 a month for access to individual workouts and stat tracking and stuff and maybe use it once a week or something, but who would never pay $15 a month for separate account is probably way more than these guys realize. 

Not only that, the way that mmorpgs and new games and tech spread in life and on the internet is this: people read a blog post, or see a video about, or hear from a friend about a game, and they try it for free for long enough to develop a relationship with the game, and then they start paying for more control and access to the game.  This does not happen in seven days, this happens in 30 days.  Every customer you can get into a game that will develop enough of a relationship to it to talk about it, write about it, make a video about it, etc, is worth WAY more than a few dollars of lost revenue for not charging full price for access.

Go look at youtube, how many zwift videos are there.  Basically none.  There are about one hundred thousand more videos about turtles than there are about zwift, zwift doesn’t exist on youtube.  Give more people access, and increase awareness through easier access, and awareness and interest will begin to spread and snowball. 

Please stop fooling around guys.  You’re welcome for this excellent and completely free advice that will improve your profits long term.

(rip torn) #10

@peter provided great pts that were downvoted with no rebuttal.

2 users should be provided for 1 account with only 1 logged in at a time. Charge $2 for each additional user. Then start selling virtual items, ie fortnite.