Ad reporting functionality

[Psijonica]

In response to post #35627322. #35627617, #35627792, #35628007 are all replies on the same post.

Psijonica wrote: As someone who has been very critical with most of Dark0ne's positions in the past I have to support this decision. I do believe he is trying to find a middle ground. The fact of the matter is simply that expenses are rising almost exponentially and so if everybody paid the 1-2 dollars then add revenue would not even be necessary.

And that brings me to my point: This is the area that should be focused on. How do you get more people to buy memberships? You would think 2 dollars would be an easy sale yet it seems you are unable to turn that around in your favour. This is an issue that needs to be solved.

I think you need help in this area. I don't think you will get the results to want by increasing download speeds. I do think it comes down to "PACKAGING." You are not "selling" it effectively.

Years ago I predicted that Pay-for-Mods would one day become a reality and I have also predicted that in the future the hard costs of running a service like this will become so high that some type of "Membership" will be required to download mods. I can picture a future scenario where in ten years users would get 10 free downloads and then they would have to buy a basic $2 membership. *Again like all predictions they don't happen exactly as predicted but I picture something along this vein.*

piotrmil wrote: > I can picture a future scenario where in ten years users would get 10 free downloads and then they would have to buy a basic $2 membership.

Oh sweet cheese and crackers, no. That's a horrible future. Although, to be completely honest, that wouldn't hinder playing with mods in ANY way. People would simply upload their stuff (or other people's stuff) elsewhere. So that silly and - let's hope to god - hypothetical restriction will do absolutely nothing.

Psijonica wrote: I think it is inevitable.

I think that is going to happen across the board so it would be3 an even playing field. The costs are sky rocketing. Every year the costs are going up.

The real point is how to turn over more memberships. How do you turn more users into paid memberships?

piotrmil wrote: Well, I seriously do hope that you will be wrong. Although, as the modgate showed us, we are prepared for the worst, and have a correct mindset. Just like Nexus does - the addition of donation button, a donation - not-obligatory payment - was the simplest rebuttal against Steam. It's the simple fact that telling people "you can do that" is better than "you HAVE to do that".

As for how to attract more memebrships, I dunno.

Let me tell something. They way the internet looks now is a nightmare. When I turn on my iPad and get bombarded by all these adds everywhere make me want to turn it off. 15 years ago if someone told me that this is what the internet would look like I would be saying the same thing you are saying now, "Oh sweet cheese and crackers, no. That's a horrible future." But yet here we are.

In a perfect internet everything would be free but we lost that internet a long time ago. The corporations are here and they have monetized the internet so we are now slaves to this reality. Every year the costs are rising and they are rising FAST! There will be a time where all websites will enforce an AddBlocker ban. That is the future and because of that I believe "Memberships" will become a requirement.

If you read Dark0ne's post he says the same thing. Forbes is blocking AddBlockers now and they are not the only ones to do it.

Now that doesn't mean that there won't be AddBlockers. It does mean that the future will be different and your experience online will not be the same as it is today. Edited March 15, 2016 by Psijonica

[AceSevenFive]

How exactly would you implement increasing download speeds for people who disable adblock?

[sonic55193]

I use adblock. But I will disable it specifically on this site. To help support the site and its community. Anyone else having adblock, you can disable it only for this site via adblock option.

 

Please support sites that are good for everyone and screen those who are really not worth its ad value.

Edited March 15, 2016 by sonic55193

[uhmattbravo]

In response to post #35627322. #35627617, #35627792, #35628007, #35628477 are all replies on the same post.

Psijonica wrote: As someone who has been very critical with most of Dark0ne's positions in the past I have to support this decision. I do believe he is trying to find a middle ground. The fact of the matter is simply that expenses are rising almost exponentially and so if everybody paid the 1-2 dollars then add revenue would not even be necessary.

And that brings me to my point: This is the area that should be focused on. How do you get more people to buy memberships? You would think 2 dollars would be an easy sale yet it seems you are unable to turn that around in your favour. This is an issue that needs to be solved.

I think you need help in this area. I don't think you will get the results to want by increasing download speeds. I do think it comes down to "PACKAGING." You are not "selling" it effectively.

Years ago I predicted that Pay-for-Mods would one day become a reality and I have also predicted that in the future the hard costs of running a service like this will become so high that some type of "Membership" will be required to download mods. I can picture a future scenario where in ten years users would get 100 free downloads and then they would have to buy a basic $2 membership. *Again like all predictions they don't happen exactly as predicted but I picture something along this vein.*

piotrmil wrote: > I can picture a future scenario where in ten years users would get 10 free downloads and then they would have to buy a basic $2 membership.

Oh sweet cheese and crackers, no. That's a horrible future. Although, to be completely honest, that wouldn't hinder playing with mods in ANY way. People would simply upload their stuff (or other people's stuff) elsewhere. So that silly and - let's hope to god - hypothetical restriction will do absolutely nothing.

Psijonica wrote: I think it is inevitable.

I think that is going to happen across the board so it would be3 an even playing field. The costs are sky rocketing. Every year the costs are going up.

The real point is how to turn over more memberships. How do you turn more users into paid memberships?

piotrmil wrote: Well, I seriously do hope that you will be wrong. Although, as the modgate showed us, we are prepared for the worst, and have a correct mindset. Just like Nexus does - the addition of donation button, a donation - not-obligatory payment - was the simplest rebuttal against Steam. It's the simple fact that telling people "you can do that" is better than "you HAVE to do that".

As for how to attract more memebrships, I dunno.

Psijonica wrote: Let me tell something. They way the internet looks now is a nightmare. When I turn on my iPad and get bombarded by all these adds everywhere make me want to turn it off. 15 years ago if someone told me that this is what the internet would look like I would be saying the same thing you are saying now, "Oh sweet cheese and crackers, no. That's a horrible future." But yet here we are.

In a perfect internet everything would be free but we lost that internet a long time ago. The corporations are here and they have monetized the internet so we are now slaves to this reality. Every year the costs are rising and they are rising FAST! There will be a time where all websites will enforce an AddBlocker ban. That is the future and because of that I believe "Memberships" will become a requirement.

If you read Dark0ne's post he says the same thing. Forbes is blocking AddBlockers now and they are not the only ones to do it.

Now that doesn't mean that there won't be AddBlockers. It does mean that the future will be different and your experience online will not be the same as it is today.

The problem with paying for mods is that the quality isn't consistent. Some of us aren't professional software developers, we just learn as we go. Have you never tried a mod, and thought to yourself "wow, even if they ever actually finish it, this mod would still suck." Would you want to pay money for that mod? Should it cost the same as something absolutely incredible?

So what do you do? Prevent people who don't know what they're doing from even trying? In that case, what about those few you find that say things like "don't judge too harshly, it's my first mod" that turn out to be amazing?

The only time paying for mods is the answer is when the question is "how could I ruin something beautiful?"

[absintheminded]

In response to post #35627322. #35627617, #35627792, #35628007, #35628477, #35628922 are all replies on the same post.

Psijonica wrote: As someone who has been very critical with most of Dark0ne's positions in the past I have to support this decision. I do believe he is trying to find a middle ground. The fact of the matter is simply that expenses are rising almost exponentially and so if everybody paid the 1-2 dollars then add revenue would not even be necessary.

And that brings me to my point: This is the area that should be focused on. How do you get more people to buy memberships? You would think 2 dollars would be an easy sale yet it seems you are unable to turn that around in your favour. This is an issue that needs to be solved.

I think you need help in this area. I don't think you will get the results to want by increasing download speeds. I do think it comes down to "PACKAGING." You are not "selling" it effectively.

Years ago I predicted that Pay-for-Mods would one day become a reality and I have also predicted that in the future the hard costs of running a service like this will become so high that some type of "Membership" will be required to download mods. I can picture a future scenario where in ten years users would get 100 free downloads and then they would have to buy a basic $2 membership. *Again like all predictions they don't happen exactly as predicted but I picture something along this vein.*

piotrmil wrote: > I can picture a future scenario where in ten years users would get 10 free downloads and then they would have to buy a basic $2 membership.

Oh sweet cheese and crackers, no. That's a horrible future. Although, to be completely honest, that wouldn't hinder playing with mods in ANY way. People would simply upload their stuff (or other people's stuff) elsewhere. So that silly and - let's hope to god - hypothetical restriction will do absolutely nothing.

Psijonica wrote: I think it is inevitable.

I think that is going to happen across the board so it would be3 an even playing field. The costs are sky rocketing. Every year the costs are going up.

The real point is how to turn over more memberships. How do you turn more users into paid memberships?

piotrmil wrote: Well, I seriously do hope that you will be wrong. Although, as the modgate showed us, we are prepared for the worst, and have a correct mindset. Just like Nexus does - the addition of donation button, a donation - not-obligatory payment - was the simplest rebuttal against Steam. It's the simple fact that telling people "you can do that" is better than "you HAVE to do that".

As for how to attract more memebrships, I dunno.

Psijonica wrote: Let me tell something. They way the internet looks now is a nightmare. When I turn on my iPad and get bombarded by all these adds everywhere make me want to turn it off. 15 years ago if someone told me that this is what the internet would look like I would be saying the same thing you are saying now, "Oh sweet cheese and crackers, no. That's a horrible future." But yet here we are.

In a perfect internet everything would be free but we lost that internet a long time ago. The corporations are here and they have monetized the internet so we are now slaves to this reality. Every year the costs are rising and they are rising FAST! There will be a time where all websites will enforce an AddBlocker ban. That is the future and because of that I believe "Memberships" will become a requirement.

If you read Dark0ne's post he says the same thing. Forbes is blocking AddBlockers now and they are not the only ones to do it.

Now that doesn't mean that there won't be AddBlockers. It does mean that the future will be different and your experience online will not be the same as it is today.

uhmattbravo wrote: The problem with paying for mods is that the quality isn't consistent. Some of us aren't professional software developers, we just learn as we go. Have you never tried a mod, and thought to yourself "wow, even if they ever actually finish it, this mod would still suck." Would you want to pay money for that mod? Should it cost the same as something absolutely incredible?

So what do you do? Prevent people who don't know what they're doing from even trying? In that case, what about those few you find that say things like "don't judge too harshly, it's my first mod" that turn out to be amazing?

The only time paying for mods is the answer is when the question is "how could I ruin something beautiful?"

I use AdBlock on every site bar this one. But I really ought to shell out the £1.29. Hell, it's cheaper than a two litre of Coke.

Btw, bravo for the 'report ad' feature. I was working, forgot I'd left Nexus open, and got the fright of my life when my speakers blared out "Getcher cheeto-lovin' ass off the couch". I mean, rude to gamers much? Sod off, I'll eat my bloody crisps whilst taking down ghouls if I want.

[Psijonica]

In response to post #35627322. #35627617, #35627792, #35628007, #35628477, #35628922, #35629122 are all replies on the same post.

Psijonica wrote: As someone who has been very critical with most of Dark0ne's positions in the past I have to support this decision. I do believe he is trying to find a middle ground. The fact of the matter is simply that expenses are rising almost exponentially and so if everybody paid the 1-2 dollars then add revenue would not even be necessary.

And that brings me to my point: This is the area that should be focused on. How do you get more people to buy memberships? You would think 2 dollars would be an easy sale yet it seems you are unable to turn that around in your favour. This is an issue that needs to be solved.

I think you need help in this area. I don't think you will get the results to want by increasing download speeds. I do think it comes down to "PACKAGING." You are not "selling" it effectively.

Years ago I predicted that Pay-for-Mods would one day become a reality and I have also predicted that in the future the hard costs of running a service like this will become so high that some type of "Membership" will be required to download mods. I can picture a future scenario where in ten years users would get 100 free downloads and then they would have to buy a basic $2 membership. *Again like all predictions they don't happen exactly as predicted but I picture something along this vein.*

piotrmil wrote: > I can picture a future scenario where in ten years users would get 10 free downloads and then they would have to buy a basic $2 membership.

Oh sweet cheese and crackers, no. That's a horrible future. Although, to be completely honest, that wouldn't hinder playing with mods in ANY way. People would simply upload their stuff (or other people's stuff) elsewhere. So that silly and - let's hope to god - hypothetical restriction will do absolutely nothing.

Psijonica wrote: I think it is inevitable.

I think that is going to happen across the board so it would be3 an even playing field. The costs are sky rocketing. Every year the costs are going up.

The real point is how to turn over more memberships. How do you turn more users into paid memberships?

piotrmil wrote: Well, I seriously do hope that you will be wrong. Although, as the modgate showed us, we are prepared for the worst, and have a correct mindset. Just like Nexus does - the addition of donation button, a donation - not-obligatory payment - was the simplest rebuttal against Steam. It's the simple fact that telling people "you can do that" is better than "you HAVE to do that".

As for how to attract more memebrships, I dunno.

Psijonica wrote: Let me tell something. They way the internet looks now is a nightmare. When I turn on my iPad and get bombarded by all these adds everywhere make me want to turn it off. 15 years ago if someone told me that this is what the internet would look like I would be saying the same thing you are saying now, "Oh sweet cheese and crackers, no. That's a horrible future." But yet here we are.

In a perfect internet everything would be free but we lost that internet a long time ago. The corporations are here and they have monetized the internet so we are now slaves to this reality. Every year the costs are rising and they are rising FAST! There will be a time where all websites will enforce an AddBlocker ban. That is the future and because of that I believe "Memberships" will become a requirement.

If you read Dark0ne's post he says the same thing. Forbes is blocking AddBlockers now and they are not the only ones to do it.

Now that doesn't mean that there won't be AddBlockers. It does mean that the future will be different and your experience online will not be the same as it is today.

uhmattbravo wrote: The problem with paying for mods is that the quality isn't consistent. Some of us aren't professional software developers, we just learn as we go. Have you never tried a mod, and thought to yourself "wow, even if they ever actually finish it, this mod would still suck." Would you want to pay money for that mod? Should it cost the same as something absolutely incredible?

So what do you do? Prevent people who don't know what they're doing from even trying? In that case, what about those few you find that say things like "don't judge too harshly, it's my first mod" that turn out to be amazing?

The only time paying for mods is the answer is when the question is "how could I ruin something beautiful?"

absintheminded wrote: I use AdBlock on every site bar this one. But I really ought to shell out the £1.29. Hell, it's cheaper than a two litre of Coke.

Btw, bravo for the 'report ad' feature. I was working, forgot I'd left Nexus open, and got the fright of my life when my speakers blared out "Getcher cheeto-lovin' ass off the couch". I mean, rude to gamers much? Sod off, I'll eat my bloody crisps whilst taking down ghouls if I want.

This post is not about paying for mods. Lets stay on topic please. Edited March 15, 2016 by Psijonica

[disi30]

It is your message that is great: "hey you use Adblock and this is how we finance our website and servers."*

The SPACE is taken anyway by your message, so it doesn't matter if I look at the sad smiley or at some Ad to support the website. And there is no sound or popups!

 

*from what I remember, because I am so long premium I cannot remember.

Edited March 15, 2016 by disi30

[Psijonica]

In response to post #35627322. #35627617, #35627792, #35628007, #35628477, #35628922, #35629122, #35629182 are all replies on the same post.

Psijonica wrote: As someone who has been very critical with most of Dark0ne's positions in the past I have to support this decision. I do believe he is trying to find a middle ground. The fact of the matter is simply that expenses are rising almost exponentially and so if everybody paid the 1-2 dollars then add revenue would not even be necessary.

And that brings me to my point: This is the area that should be focused on. How do you get more people to buy memberships? You would think 2 dollars would be an easy sale yet it seems you are unable to turn that around in your favour. This is an issue that needs to be solved.

I think you need help in this area. I don't think you will get the results to want by increasing download speeds. I do think it comes down to "PACKAGING." You are not "selling" it effectively.

Years ago I predicted that Pay-for-Mods would one day become a reality and I have also predicted that in the future the hard costs of running a service like this will become so high that some type of "Membership" will be required to download mods. I can picture a future scenario where in ten years users would get 100 free downloads and then they would have to buy a basic $2 membership. *Again like all predictions they don't happen exactly as predicted but I picture something along this vein.*

piotrmil wrote: > I can picture a future scenario where in ten years users would get 10 free downloads and then they would have to buy a basic $2 membership.

Oh sweet cheese and crackers, no. That's a horrible future. Although, to be completely honest, that wouldn't hinder playing with mods in ANY way. People would simply upload their stuff (or other people's stuff) elsewhere. So that silly and - let's hope to god - hypothetical restriction will do absolutely nothing.

Psijonica wrote: I think it is inevitable.

I think that is going to happen across the board so it would be3 an even playing field. The costs are sky rocketing. Every year the costs are going up.

The real point is how to turn over more memberships. How do you turn more users into paid memberships?

piotrmil wrote: Well, I seriously do hope that you will be wrong. Although, as the modgate showed us, we are prepared for the worst, and have a correct mindset. Just like Nexus does - the addition of donation button, a donation - not-obligatory payment - was the simplest rebuttal against Steam. It's the simple fact that telling people "you can do that" is better than "you HAVE to do that".

As for how to attract more memebrships, I dunno.

Psijonica wrote: Let me tell something. They way the internet looks now is a nightmare. When I turn on my iPad and get bombarded by all these adds everywhere make me want to turn it off. 15 years ago if someone told me that this is what the internet would look like I would be saying the same thing you are saying now, "Oh sweet cheese and crackers, no. That's a horrible future." But yet here we are.

In a perfect internet everything would be free but we lost that internet a long time ago. The corporations are here and they have monetized the internet so we are now slaves to this reality. Every year the costs are rising and they are rising FAST! There will be a time where all websites will enforce an AddBlocker ban. That is the future and because of that I believe "Memberships" will become a requirement.

If you read Dark0ne's post he says the same thing. Forbes is blocking AddBlockers now and they are not the only ones to do it.

Now that doesn't mean that there won't be AddBlockers. It does mean that the future will be different and your experience online will not be the same as it is today.

uhmattbravo wrote: The problem with paying for mods is that the quality isn't consistent. Some of us aren't professional software developers, we just learn as we go. Have you never tried a mod, and thought to yourself "wow, even if they ever actually finish it, this mod would still suck." Would you want to pay money for that mod? Should it cost the same as something absolutely incredible?

So what do you do? Prevent people who don't know what they're doing from even trying? In that case, what about those few you find that say things like "don't judge too harshly, it's my first mod" that turn out to be amazing?

The only time paying for mods is the answer is when the question is "how could I ruin something beautiful?"

absintheminded wrote: I use AdBlock on every site bar this one. But I really ought to shell out the £1.29. Hell, it's cheaper than a two litre of Coke.

Btw, bravo for the 'report ad' feature. I was working, forgot I'd left Nexus open, and got the fright of my life when my speakers blared out "Getcher cheeto-lovin' ass off the couch". I mean, rude to gamers much? Sod off, I'll eat my bloody crisps whilst taking down ghouls if I want.

Psijonica wrote: This post is not about paying for mods. Lets stay on topic please.

it's cheaper than a two litre of Coke

hahahaha that is a great catch-line! :teehee:

[uhmattbravo]

In response to post #35627322. #35627617, #35627792, #35628007, #35628477, #35628922, #35629122, #35629182, #35629262 are all replies on the same post.

Psijonica wrote: As someone who has been very critical with most of Dark0ne's positions in the past I have to support this decision. I do believe he is trying to find a middle ground. The fact of the matter is simply that expenses are rising almost exponentially and so if everybody paid the 1-2 dollars then add revenue would not even be necessary.

And that brings me to my point: This is the area that should be focused on. How do you get more people to buy memberships? You would think 2 dollars would be an easy sale yet it seems you are unable to turn that around in your favour. This is an issue that needs to be solved.

I think you need help in this area. I don't think you will get the results to want by increasing download speeds. I do think it comes down to "PACKAGING." You are not "selling" it effectively.

Years ago I predicted that Pay-for-Mods would one day become a reality and I have also predicted that in the future the hard costs of running a service like this will become so high that some type of "Membership" will be required to download mods. I can picture a future scenario where in ten years users would get 100 free downloads and then they would have to buy a basic $2 membership. *Again like all predictions they don't happen exactly as predicted but I picture something along this vein.*

piotrmil wrote: > I can picture a future scenario where in ten years users would get 10 free downloads and then they would have to buy a basic $2 membership.

Oh sweet cheese and crackers, no. That's a horrible future. Although, to be completely honest, that wouldn't hinder playing with mods in ANY way. People would simply upload their stuff (or other people's stuff) elsewhere. So that silly and - let's hope to god - hypothetical restriction will do absolutely nothing.

Psijonica wrote: I think it is inevitable.

I think that is going to happen across the board so it would be3 an even playing field. The costs are sky rocketing. Every year the costs are going up.

The real point is how to turn over more memberships. How do you turn more users into paid memberships?

piotrmil wrote: Well, I seriously do hope that you will be wrong. Although, as the modgate showed us, we are prepared for the worst, and have a correct mindset. Just like Nexus does - the addition of donation button, a donation - not-obligatory payment - was the simplest rebuttal against Steam. It's the simple fact that telling people "you can do that" is better than "you HAVE to do that".

As for how to attract more memebrships, I dunno.

Psijonica wrote: Let me tell something. They way the internet looks now is a nightmare. When I turn on my iPad and get bombarded by all these adds everywhere make me want to turn it off. 15 years ago if someone told me that this is what the internet would look like I would be saying the same thing you are saying now, "Oh sweet cheese and crackers, no. That's a horrible future." But yet here we are.

In a perfect internet everything would be free but we lost that internet a long time ago. The corporations are here and they have monetized the internet so we are now slaves to this reality. Every year the costs are rising and they are rising FAST! There will be a time where all websites will enforce an AddBlocker ban. That is the future and because of that I believe "Memberships" will become a requirement.

If you read Dark0ne's post he says the same thing. Forbes is blocking AddBlockers now and they are not the only ones to do it.

Now that doesn't mean that there won't be AddBlockers. It does mean that the future will be different and your experience online will not be the same as it is today.

uhmattbravo wrote: The problem with paying for mods is that the quality isn't consistent. Some of us aren't professional software developers, we just learn as we go. Have you never tried a mod, and thought to yourself "wow, even if they ever actually finish it, this mod would still suck." Would you want to pay money for that mod? Should it cost the same as something absolutely incredible?

So what do you do? Prevent people who don't know what they're doing from even trying? In that case, what about those few you find that say things like "don't judge too harshly, it's my first mod" that turn out to be amazing?

The only time paying for mods is the answer is when the question is "how could I ruin something beautiful?"

absintheminded wrote: I use AdBlock on every site bar this one. But I really ought to shell out the £1.29. Hell, it's cheaper than a two litre of Coke.

Btw, bravo for the 'report ad' feature. I was working, forgot I'd left Nexus open, and got the fright of my life when my speakers blared out "Getcher cheeto-lovin' ass off the couch". I mean, rude to gamers much? Sod off, I'll eat my bloody crisps whilst taking down ghouls if I want.

Psijonica wrote: This post is not about paying for mods. Lets stay on topic please.

Psijonica wrote: it's cheaper than a two litre of Coke

hahahaha that is a great catch-line! :teehee:

Mandatory paid membership = paying for mods

[Psijonica]

In response to post #35627282. #35627707, #35628177 are all replies on the same post.

adammcbane wrote: Wow very nice thank you for this. The auto ads are my pretty much only issue so glad to hear this, to me it at least shows our opinions matter more. This makes me want to go premium when I can for sure.

Psijonica wrote: Hi, I just want to use your post as an example.

You see it only costs $2.00 to remove the adds. Is that not affordable to you?

The reason I ask is because you mentioned in your post that you would do it when you "can". That kind of paints a picture that you think it is an expensive thing to do.

So my question to you is: How cheap does it have to be for you to buy a membership today?

No offence to you. Please don't take this as me being rude. I am really trying to help this site because I believe that this idea which is not knew is not being Packaged properly.

So again I honestly ask you, How much would you pay to remove adds today. As in right now, right away. If the Nexusmods and Dark0ne offered you a, "LIFETIME MEMBERSHIP" that permanently removed adds FOREVER, what would that be worth to you? How much would you pay? If Dark0ne offered that to you for $1 dollar would you buy it right now?

piotrmil wrote: Remember Psijonica that your argument is slightly flawed - just because someone doesn't pay for some optional feature doesn't mean they don't have money, or think the price is set too high. For some the fact that the price is set at all is already an issue. For example, I'm playing a free-to-play game right now which constantly punishes me for not getting some upgrades with mone- I mean, no, not money, uh, jewels! Yes, totally not money. But I promised myself never to stoop such low and use any of the payment options.

It is not an argument but a question: What will it take to get you to buy a membership today?