Originally posted by Kewpie
Actually I think it's the other way around, RHP charges in USD, so what profit comes back to the UK is smaller than it used to be. Still, at least they're paying for their US server in USD. 🙂

they charge in usd but they convert it into pounds being an english based company... so 3 years ago they were getting £15 for the $30 sub, today if the pice was still $30 they'd be getting about £18.

Originally posted by drdon
I agree! If players are serious enough to want to contribute, the subscription fee is but a small price to pay.

Why should the advantages of subscription be eroded? The 'riff raff' could even save their pocket money to subscribe if they felt strongly enough about needing to contribute.

With the value of the $US slipping further down the toilet each day, subscriptions are likely to become even better value.

1. Non-subsribers contribute to the financing of this website as well by looking at all the advertising that pops up. Without that, there wouldn't be much advertisers wanting to pay this website. I guess most of you are similarly disturbed on other websites... (e.g. Google, newssites etc.)

2. I agree that $40/year is a small price, but what if the 6 game limit helps from getting addicted to this website?

Have a nice day!

Originally posted by JS357
That's the idea.

elitist! the sooner real socialism comes to your country the better!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
elitist! the sooner real socialism comes to your country the better!

Hah! They have duped you. You are advocating corporatism, not socialism. Getting people to pay advertising costs invisibly, is the objective. I say, pay for what you want, directly, instead of paying companies to advertise things you don't otherwise want. They do build advertising costs into the cost of goods you purchase -- and you pay that -- don't you know?

This should probably be taken over to the debate forum, except that I will be gone for a month after tom'w.

Originally posted by JS357
Hah! They have duped you. You are advocating corporatism, not socialism. Getting people to pay advertising costs invisibly, is the objective. I say, pay for what you want, directly, instead of paying companies to advertise things you don't otherwise want. They do build advertising costs into the cost of goods you purchase -- and you pay that -- don't you know? ...[text shortened]... obably be taken over to the debate forum, except that I will be gone for a month after tom'w.

adblockplus works like a socialists dream on firefox! Advertising costs is an expense not an apportion of profit, you could of course say the same thing about any product or service. Have a good-one and see you when you come back!