Pay per user is ridiculous

Nigel, IMO it is not about bikes and computers, it is about trainers and devices you can use for Zwift.
In most households is one trainer, in some two. But the most households have a computer, everyone has a smartphone, tablets, etc.
Why are there so many issues with users being logged in on more devices?

Which ones are becoming more restrictive?

Who determines what is enough, you? What a bizarre concept.


Because it is very individual!
Of course individuals should pay. We use one bike two accounts

Yeah, but once you factor in iPads, other tablets, mobile phones, laptops as well as desktops etc. actually the number of “Zwift-capable devices” can easily be one per household member.

We have more bikes than “computers”, sure - but 6 of those bikes are mine. The other two family members only have one each. We’ve got about 12 devices capable of running Zwift. :smiley:

Edit: that said, we only have one Tacx Neo. :wink:


Have to admit I find it utterly baffling that a proportion of the paying userbase consistently argues against cheaper or better value subscription costs. Can’t understand it at all.


Bonkers isn’t it?

Personally, I’d pay slightly more for a sharable, multi-profile account. Just as I do with Netflix Premium and Spotify Family.

The latter gives me 6 accounts for the price of one and a half “individual” ones.


Because it won’t be the case that all of a sudden Zwift would make it cheaper for everyone. Were they to reduce prices to allow some sort of family plan then it would no doubt be offset by increased pricing elsewhere.

Seems like paranoia to me, but fair enough if you know their business plans. What most people refer to with family plans would increase their overall income, as Daren mentions above. They’d get more money out of him, as they would with me.

Hard to say if it would increase their income, or not. There seem to be quite a few households paying for two, possibly more, full-price memberships now, so it would all depend on how that lost revenue compares with the gained revenue from households that go from one membership to a family plan.

And with regard to your other comment: I am not at all arguing against Zwift lowering their pricing. I think that would be great! What I am arguing against is some people’s expectations that Zwift give them something for free. If you want two separate profiles, pay two separate memberships. If you’re ok sharing a profile, go for it, and pay only one subscription.

1 Like

Yeah you’re right, I suspect there are very many households which would take out a family plan but only Zwift know for certain if that would outweigh the lost income from households with multiple individual accounts, if everyone was able to switch. On the basis of this thread and others though, loads of people love paying full whack so presumably they’d not do so anyway. :wink:

Nobody should expect anything for free though, that’s clearly going too far the other way.

Personally, I’ve added a FulGaz subscription to my arsenal, just for the added variety. If you buy the annual FG subscription you are allowed to add a second family member at no additional cost. FG is very different from Zwift, to be sure, but definitely something to consider for those who want a less costly option and/or a sort of ‘family’ plan.

1 Like

Just looked it up. Ignoring the actual price (and the fact it’s very different as you say), they offer a chunky discount for buying annually as well as that added value of a second profile.

If Zwift want to get into the casual market - and their hardware stuff confirms this - then they need to consider what their prospective customers expect based on other digital services.


Of course I don’t decide but I have an opinion.
Who decides who is in ones family?
Kids already ride free.
Is Zwift going to check marriage records and residence?
Is it accurate to state one must be married to be in the family?
A fair price for all would be easiest.
I would be for a better value, sure, but I think adults should all pay same price, just like a hamburger at Culver’s.


Makes you wonder how (and why) virtually every other digital service manages it.


A lot of them are at a hugely different scale compared to Zwift. Think of the household penetration of something like Netflix or Spotify compared to Zwift. I bet if you walk down your street most will have Netflix, Spotify or both; but on most streets maybe no one else has Zwift.

Also, it’s reasonable to say that in most households, everyone in it will want to stream movies or music. In a typical household, maybe only one person actually wants to ride an indoor exercise bike.

So there are certainly differences, and there’s no guarantee that a model that works for a streaming service would work for something like Zwift. That’s not to say they shouldn’t do it, mind.

1 Like

There are no free charge parts of Zwift other than the ability to ride 25 KM without a subscription that resets each month. RGT Cycling does however have several free parts and has had a recent update that makes it compatible with more trainers. You can even race on RGT for free as long as you have a smart trainer or power meter.


I don’t think family’s/partners should have reduced membership. Why? What if you have 2 people who have a high joint income. Why should they pay less than a single household on minimum wage. What justification is their for letting couples have preferential rates? Everyone has the same benefits, everyone pays the same price. Not sure what is unfair about that? Kids yes but not adults.


Using your own argument; why kids but not adults?


Seems to me, Zwift would do well with a couple membership at 20 bucks. It’s 15 bucks/person in the US right now but I know several couples (all of the married type in this example) who have one membership and the spousal unit poaches off the other person. In all cases, there’s no reason to change that because the second rider isn’t that serious about Zwifting. If they had a discount for two, I know all of them would opt for it just so the outlaw Zwifter could have their own data. None of them are willing to spend another 15 bucks for the honor. If the less serious partner had their own account, they would be much more likely to get involved with more of the Zwift assets. A win-win!