Chess.com regional pricing: A case study
Regional Pricing, Taxes, and Currency Effects
- Discussion notes that US pricing appears cheaper than Western Europe, especially versus lower-income EU countries, and suggests popularity of chess (e.g., in India) may justify higher local prices despite lower purchasing power.
- Several point out that US prices are typically shown without sales tax, while EU/UK prices must include VAT, which partly narrows the apparent gap.
- One commenter argues that currency fluctuation (USD vs EUR) shouldn’t be used to justify current disparities, since companies adjust upward quickly when the Euro weakens but rarely adjust down as fast.
- Another raises PPP-based regional discounts as a general concept (e.g., products sold ~50% cheaper in Poland).
Chess.com vs Lichess: Value and “Scam” Debate
- Some call Chess.com a “scam” for paywalling features (puzzles, deep analysis, openings) that Lichess offers freely, open source, ad-free, and donation-funded.
- Others push back strongly: Chess.com clearly discloses what is paid, offers optional features (videos, events, commentary, tournaments), and thus is at worst “expensive,” not deceptive.
- Analogies compare it either to paid software vs free alternatives or to tourist trinkets with high markups; disagreement centers on whether “overpriced but disclosed” can be called a scam.
- One thread stresses that running such a platform is not costless, so unlimited free access is nontrivial.
User Experience: Features, Pricing, and Cheating
- Several users say Chess.com’s top-tier pricing (e.g., in the UK) is too high, especially when they only need one feature (game review).
- Multiple comments criticize Chess.com’s game review as generic, engine-style, and not tailored to human improvement.
- Lichess is repeatedly praised for stability, lack of lag, strong analysis tools, and a clean, free experience.
- Some former Chess.com subscribers report frustration with cheating detection and say they encounter fewer suspected cheaters on Lichess.
Business Goals, Profit Maximization, and Governance
- Many dispute the article’s premise that every business “should” maximize profit. They highlight lifestyle businesses whose owners just want sustainability, or companies that eschew certain sectors for ethical reasons.
- Extensive discussion of fiduciary duty:
- Consensus that leadership must not loot the company for personal aims or deliberately destroy it.
- Strong disagreement that they must chase absolute short-term profit; courts largely defer to management’s “business judgment” as long as actions are plausibly in the company’s interest.
- Participants note that long-term trust, brand, and ethical choices can all be defended as serving shareholder interests.
- There’s recognition that investors often pressure for revenue/valuation growth, but that this is a cultural/market norm, not a strict legal requirement.
Worker Cooperatives and Alternatives
- Thread branches into whether businesses that prioritize “quality over profit” fit better as worker cooperatives.
- Some say co-ops might be more resilient in sticking to non-maximalist goals; others claim HN users are generally pro–status quo capitalism and skeptical of co-ops.
- Examples of worker-owned or employee-owned food brands and stores are mentioned, along with debate over whether ESOP firms count as true democratic co-ops.
- An anecdote from a worker-owned infrastructure company describes majority workers voting down necessary tech investment to protect near-term dividends, underscoring that co-ops can have their own political and decision-making pathologies.
Regulation, Arbitrage, and Price Discrimination
- Steam’s old two-tier EU pricing is cited: it ended after being treated as discrimination inside a single economic bloc and because cheap-region keys were resold into richer markets.
- Commenters note that regional pricing collides with both regulatory regimes and arbitrage incentives.
- Several describe practical arbitrage: using VPNs, foreign billing profiles, and Asian payment apps (WeChat, Alipay, Linepay) to access cheaper regional prices on various services, with obstacles like geo-locks, local BIN requirements, and transaction fees.
- A side thread references textbook price discrimination, with one person joking that ideal pricing would target each individual’s maximum willingness to pay.