Subject:
|
Re: Update news on BrickShelf.com
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:35:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4162 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Joel Midgley wrote:
| |
I’m kind of worried about that myself. If generating revenue was a problem,
I’m not sure how this will help given that users can still opt for a free,
non-premium account. If the freeloading userbase was the problem, why not
implement a minimum fee for all users rather than charging $60 per year to
what will likely be a very small minority? Right now, I wonder if this fee
will have any significant impact on Brickshelf’s bottom line.
|
I think cutting off free access would be kinda harsh. But I could definitely
see restricted access -- limited resolution on files, etc.
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Update news on BrickShelf.com
|
| (...) I guess my greatest concern is that not enough members actually pony up the cash. We could easily end up back at square one six months from now. Brickshelf has accepted donations in the past with limited success. What's to say that this (...) (17 years ago, 20-Jul-07, to lugnet.general, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Update news on BrickShelf.com
|
| (...) I'm kind of worried about that myself. If generating revenue was a problem, I'm not sure how this will help given that users can still opt for a free, non-premium account. If the freeloading userbase was the problem, why not implement a (...) (17 years ago, 20-Jul-07, to lugnet.general, FTX)
|
51 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
