> I'd have no problems with a page that says, "We're sorry to see you go, won't you reconsider? Here are some reasons why we think you should stay." I have a big problem with a page that says, "We're sorry to see you go, so we're going to make your life a little bit harder in the hopes that you change your mind.
See also the evil AOL dialer dialogue that used weird negatives to confuse people into not disconnecting. That was so evil I think they last some law cases over it.
It's disappointing that so much effort goes into evil tweaks. But it's worse that customers reward that evil behaviour. Candy Crush is huge at the moment. I'd pay £5 for something like Candy Crush without the evil; heck, I'd buy it for all my family too to avoid the constant FB spam from it.
The freemium app craze drives me nuts. Used to be, the way to get more revenue from your game was to make it better. Now game creators are getting more revenue from their games by making them worse. That's a great example of win-win versus win-lose transactions.
Note that I have nothing against game creators charging for their products, it's just that the freemium model is pretty much inherently built such that creators make their money by making the game less fun to play.
See also the evil AOL dialer dialogue that used weird negatives to confuse people into not disconnecting. That was so evil I think they last some law cases over it.
It's disappointing that so much effort goes into evil tweaks. But it's worse that customers reward that evil behaviour. Candy Crush is huge at the moment. I'd pay £5 for something like Candy Crush without the evil; heck, I'd buy it for all my family too to avoid the constant FB spam from it.