By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Zuhyc on 19 January 2010
Edit Thread
ioi said:

Well since this thread has been created, it makes sense to fill you in on some of the plans.

For VGC 3.0 we are planning 3 levels of access for data:

  • Free where you can see top 20 charts each week (top 50 rankings), top 10 per console (top 30 rankings), hardware, top 10 preorders (top 30 rankings), new features like milesones, weekly records. Will be enough to have an overview and to discuss trends.
  • Standard membership (~$99 per year) where you can see top 200 per week, top 50 per console, top 50 per publisher, top 100 preorders, extra comparison tools, maybe top level download charts, maybe no ads.
  • Premium membership (for industry) where you can see all data as well as some fancy tools for analysing revenues, year on year data, anticipation metrics plus much more.

So you won't HAVE to pay to view data but if you do subscribe it gives you access to more data. Unfortunately, the data-collection side to VGChartz has got to a point now where it is costing more to run than it is generating in ad revenue, therefore we need to move to a new costing model to continue to grow and improve the service. The data certainly won't be going anywhere but you'll only be able to see top-level data for free with the new site. It's more a case of adding new stuff and charging to use it than charging for what is already there.

I knew this day would come and I don't like it one bit.

First I'd like to say that I understand that you plan on charging 'advanced' data for the industry, it take a lot of work to make all that. But that standard membership? I understand that you're not getting enough revenue, but the premium membership will cover (a part of?) it. Besides, if the ads aren't bringing in enough money, than you should try and get more members.

VGChartz has something unique no other site has next to the (p)review and news you see everywhere:  accurate sales data. Yet, this community is very small compared to gamespot, ign, neogaf, gamefaqs, ... by having the industry pay you for data, I think you've proven to everyone that the data is accurate.

And you say you're not going to charge for data we already have? I check the top 200 of worldwide sales every week, top 50 of most platforms and some publishers.
And I'm sure that over time, you'll start to 'persuade' us to pay for the data (delaying the data for free users, removing certain data, ...)

Like Mummelman said: this site grew big (and continues to grow) because it's free. Don't change that.