Zwift has sent out a survey to numerous members (including myself) that indicates they’re pondering multiple membership tiers, steering + braking, hosted audio-video workouts, premium racing leagues, and many more features. While the survey is of course meant to gather feedback to guide Zwift’s next steps, it ultimately gives a surprisingly wide-ranging view of some of the things Zwift is working on (or at least, considering). And, in this case, it seemed to have also lit a fire of ire for many people that received it, as seen on Reddit, Zwift Riders, and other places.
First, and foremost – despite some speculation to the contrary (including from the CEO of Zwift itself on Twitter, since deleted), the survey is indeed legit and from Zwift. Zwift’s head of communications, Chris Snook, confirmed this later in the day, saying that “the survey is intended to help us understand the value of individual product features…”.
But more on all those features in just a moment. First, let’s dive into the piece that undoubtedly caused the most outrage – the payment tiers.
Proposed Payment Tiers:
The survey basically focused on two core things:
A) A multi-tier pricing and subscription model
B) The value of individual features being considered
Oh, also, it appears to let the cat out of the bag on not just one or two features, but an entire slate of things being planned. Which, come to think of it, seems to be a pattern of Zwift surveys lately. So in the future, if competitors wanna know what Zwift is planning – simply look at the survey they sent ya.
Now, at first glance (and 2nd, 3rd, and 8th glances), the survey outlines numerous scenarios where you basically pay more than you do today for features that you may or may not use. In particular, it presents 8 different scenarios to evaluate, each with three options. In all the scenarios there are features shown that have not previously been announced (such as instructor led workouts with video, or real coaches writing tailored training plans for your season with feedback on your workouts).
At the start of the survey they note the following, with my additive red box around an important bit of text:
On every subsequent page with options, they repeat the same “these are made up scenarios” wording. But, if there’s anything we as consumers know from years upon years of corporate communications: There’s no such thing as made up scenarios. At least not in the general sense. There’s a reason why Zwift is asking things, else, they wouldn’t be asking them.
Here’s the first of eight different pricing scenarios that came up. We’ll ignore the fact that the first option spells ‘Cycling’ incorrectly. In my case, due to being European based, the options are presented in Euros. For others, they’re presented as USD, GBP, and perhaps other currencies. The highest price I’ve seen for a plan was $44.99/month USD, and 39.99EUR/month (~$46USD).
You can hover over various little ‘info’ icons to get additional information on some of the proposed features. For example, this one for the ‘Group Rides & Activities’ line item, specifically the “Plus” option:
You’ll also note that all of the slides present a rowing option, something that Zwift has repeatedly hinted at, but not actually yet released.
And here’s another with racing bits for the ‘Premium’ option:
Now, we’ll circle back to my collection of ‘unseen features’ in a second. But for now, let’s keep talking about the pricing model. Essentially what you see ranges in price from 9EUR up to 39EUR, some billed annually, some not. Some with ‘1 or 2 months’ free. Some not. The combination of using billed annually and free months is confusing AF to my brain. Just write out the effective monthly price, please.
In any case, you’re required to select a package, even if they all suck. So, I did.
So in this case, I decided that I’d prefer multi-stage events over steering. I guess? Realistically, almost all eight of the different scenarios I got were horrible. A trend that almost everyone echoed online.
After which, you’re asked whether or not you’d buy that option. And every time I selected no.
Another, like this one, leaves you just puzzled. I have to choose between cycling at $9/month with steering/braking, but at $29/month I don’t get that feature?
About now, you’re probably asking yourself: What horrifically inept management consulting firm put together these scenarios?
And the answer, according to Zwift: A computer.
In discussing the lack of coherence with Zwift, the company said: “It’s important to note that the methodology requires randomness. These packages are not crafted by a human to make a nice coherent package of features. But the randomness and the large sample set should help us make sense of what people value.”
And while it’s true that computers can do fantastically impressive things with poor data sets, it’s also true that frustrating your user base is hardly the best way to go about gathering that information. After all, at no point during the survey did it ever ask you *WHY* you didn’t select that option. Or even ask you to rank these new features in order of importance (which would have gotten the information they were after in a much more direct manner).
This type of methodology is called a conjoint analysis, and has been used for years. This means that the options are entirely random within them. You can then take algorithms to (in theory) figure out the differing price points people might pay for various features. Assuming people didn’t just give-up due to the stupidity of the computer-created options.
Now, despite these scenarios being made up – here’s a simple gallery of all eight options I was presented with. It sounds like everyone is getting different options – so these again, will vary.
Again, we’ll get back to the new features in a second, but what was the intent behind the survey? Ask, and you shall receive.
Zwift said later, “The survey is intended to help us understand the value of individual product features – do people value mass participation events over racing for example. The pricing structures and tiers are irrelevant, but the methodology behind putting features at random behind different paywalls helps give us a better understanding of each product function.”
Certainly, Zwift wouldn’t be the first software platform to offer various pay levels. In fact, there’s many good reasons Zwift should consider that. After all, if they’re adding in features that include a real human coach that evaluates your race calendar, and comments daily on how well you executed your workout – that should cost more. Setting aside the scalability or potential quality of that, I think most reasonable people would agree that’s a substantially increased feature for those that want it. And thus, paying more makes sense.
Same goes for potentially expanding into areas currently occupied by TrainingPeaks, or Today’s Plan, or whomever. All things hinted at, and all things you may pay another service for today.
However, Zwift has to balance significant new premium features against undercutting the core of their subscription base. Or, against upsetting their most ardent supporters in the Zwift community, who widely took this survey as a massive slight against them.
Now, whether or not Zwift raises prices, adds tiers, or does any of this remains to be seen. It doesn’t take a fancy survey company though to realize some of it will be done. They wouldn’t be considering this many options to not do any. Plus, as pointed out by numerous individuals, with CEO Eric Min hinting at an IPO, having higher tier pricing to increase cash flow projections for potential investors.
Finally, note that while Zwift says the pricing structures in the survey are irrelevant, the reality is that some human put a cap in that survey structure for pricing. So to presume they aren’t considering a $40/month tier (the same as Peloton), would be fanciful. Of course they are, otherwise they would have put the cap at $30/month (or $60/month). Whether or not they settle on such a tier is the real question.
All The New Features:
But, let’s ignore the computer randomizations for a moment, and instead focus on the concrete: Numerous new feature ideas Zwift has floated.
Again, some of these are undoubtedly just ideas. Things that may or may not come true. Others are things Zwift has confirmed or talked about repeatedly (for example, rowing and steering). But, they’re all things that weren’t created by a computer.
No, these were things that a human put together as plausible features, likely backed by internal roadmap summits, in-person meetings, conference calls, and all assortment of thinking and analyzing. That’s the way companies work, and Zwift is no different there. So, if you skim through all the survey options, they consolidate into the following list of “new features”, all of the descriptions are exact quotes from the info tabs (except rowing):
Rowing: This is the easiest one, given it’s at the top of every page. And also one that Zwift has repeatedly discussed as being near-term.
Coach-designed & Tailored Training Plans: A coach will write you a tailored training plan, check in to assess your progress and revise the plan when necessary
Instructor-Led Workouts with video and Audio: Pre-recorded workout library with on-screen videos of instructors for increased guidance and motivation. Also includes ability to participant in live instructor-led classes.
Premium Racing: Team time trial, scratch racing, and handicap racing
Plus Racing: Includes all race types, as well as organized leagues and seasons to create ways for groups of people to compete and accomplish a common goal
Plus Group Rides: Adds Club functionality to let the community form their own groups, create their own events, and generally build smaller, more intimate communities.
Premium Group Rides: Includes all group ride types, and adds access to special events such as rides with professional cyclists, early world unveilings, and more.
Steering and Braking: In-game features like steering and braking to introduce skill and strategy, not just pure watts
Zwift Companion App Expansion: Added post-activity analytics and insights
Up to 15 Virtual Worlds: This wasn’t a separate item per se, but listed at the top of every survey option. Any reasonable person would expect Zwift to continue expanding worlds, so this isn’t a huge surprise.
Now, the above new features were all of those that were featured within the pricing models section. However, there was also a secondary section of the survey, where Zwift asked extensively about how you ranked their various pro level events (primarily from a watching them standpoint):
This also included asking whether or not you found any value here:
However, that then segued into six different combinations of how you would compare various features:
Here’s the full set of six pages of options I received:
As with before, there were times where I was like “I don’t really care about any of these”, so a least-to-first ranking would seem to be more valuable than forcing me to choose between multiple blah things as ‘Most Attractive’.
In any event, within these there were yet more features outed. They included:
– Improved leaderboard services to power segment results and player rankings for fun competition
– Hardware purchase included in monthly membership
– Music streaming (integration with Spotify/Apple Music)
– In-game purchases (e.g. exclusive gear, bikes)
– Matchmaking service (ride with Zwifters of similar ability)
– Free in-game unlocks via drop shop
– Text and voice chat
Now, not all of the above are huge leaps. For example, Zwift already does some hardware bundling with their online store in a limited fashion. And with the recent in-housing of Zwift Power, the leaderboard pieces aren’t a big jump. And while Zwift lacks voice chat today, they do have text chat.
Still, in total, the survey is a stunning display of Zwift’s roadmap of things being considered. Undoubtedly there are others not listed here being tossed around, but still – this gives competitors a massive list for which to consider bringing forward prior to Zwift doing so. While few of these features are groundbreaking by themselves, like any major software platform – it’s more about the total integration than any single feature.
Ultimately, while it’s easy to dismiss the higher-priced tiers as a money grab, the reality is that if the company can offer more features that people find valuable at a higher price – then I don’t have an issue with that. For things like racing leagues, added coaching components, etc… there’s undoubtedly space in people’s wallets to re-allocate funds. After all, people aren’t spending on races in 2020 (or travel to races), nor are they likely to spend 2019 type race amounts in 2021 either.
Thus, it makes sense for Zwift to strike while the iron is hot. The key is ensuring they don’t burn anyone with the iron in the meantime.
With that – thanks for reading!
FOUND THIS POST USEFUL? SUPPORT THE SITE!
Hopefully, you found this post useful. The website is really a labor of love, so please consider becoming a DC RAINMAKER Supporter. This gets you an ad-free experience, and access to our (mostly) bi-monthly behind-the-scenes video series of “Shed Talkin’”.
Support DCRainMaker - Shop on Amazon
Otherwise, perhaps consider using the below link if shopping on Amazon. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. It doesn’t cost you anything extra, but your purchases help support this website a lot. It could simply be buying toilet paper, or this pizza oven we use and love.
Meh. Enough to get me to go back to TrainerRoad. I don’t claim to represent any huge class of athletes, but I’m just a triathlete who needs a platform to do the structured workouts my coach sends me through TrainingPeaks. I do occasional free rides on Zwift to change things up, but I’m not interested in paying a lot more money for any of these features.
You know you can load a TrainingPeaks workout into your garmin/wahoo/etc & have it control your trainer for free?
So answer the Survey and give Zwift the information they looking for, all they are looking for is how happy users are and what they are looking for, in the future, like the article says, none of the above is done, some isn’t in progress, and they is no looming pricing change … so not sure why people need to threaten with “gonna leave” because of the changes, when there are no changes
@OG Yeah, not as seemlessly and automatically as Zwift does it (and I *think* TR has recently rolled out something similar). The Zwift integration with TP is one of those simple, but really valuable, things.
@David E As of a few weeks ago, we do in fact have the ability to pull your planned workouts seamlessly from TrainingPeaks into TrainerRoad :)
You can learn all about the process here in our Help Center:
link to support.trainerroad.com
@David E the next week or two of TrainingPeaks workouts are always loaded and in my Edge 530. When I go to start recording the 530 asks if I want to do the workout. Very seamless.
You really think Zwift listens to their user base???? Just jump onto their forums and see the list of legitimate feature requests that they completely ignore. Let alone the list of bugs in the program.
well, I have been using TP with Garmin for almost a year. I had issue only twice so far and I took care of it. Granted, you need to turn on the device and sync it everytime there is a change in plan but once its up, its ready for you.
Does steering and breaking make sense without the possibility of crashing?
Steering does from the potential for strategy and positioning in racing. Trying to make breaks or stick on wheels could be more challenging with a steering element.
Braking may not require “crashing” specifically and could lead to some other “penalty” in the form of delayed power or something else to encourage more “proper” brake use around corners and such.
There’s a great amount left out beyond the simple statement of the functions. Implementation and actual use may be far more detailed and complicated than what is appropriate in a survey to gauge interest.
Your point brings up even more questions. Do people who pay for steering or steering+ braking get put in separate race groups? If crashing were enabled, how would it even work. Could you just veer and wipe out half of the peloton or would you just crash if you went into a corner too fast. Would you just hit a virtual barrier that would scrub a bunch of speed off? Seems like latency or frame drops from any rider could wreck a race for a large group of people.
I would assume steering/braking would only affect yourself and at most the drafting possibilities of those closest to you. Anything beyond that like full collission detection would quickly lead to way, way, way too many griefers only in it to spoil the experience for everyone else.
Separate packages for Cycling, Running and Rowing (with Coach-designed Plans, Training Plans and Premium Racing as purchasable add-ons). These packages should be offered at $10 or less. Obviously a package that combines them all at a discount should also be offered.
When using the steering in Zwift on the MTB route, getting the wrong line makes you slower
So I work in the market research space so can help clarify the methodology. Simply put, yes, these features are mostly randomised by computer. They can set certain exclusions (so can’t show x feature as part of this option), but it uses a mathematical mode to randomly allocate features so no bundles should be taken at face value. These bundles are not placed together, it is done by a computer.
The output Zwift get from this is that it allows to them to see how much each feature is worth. So they can see that x feature is worth $xx, x feature is worth $xx. They can then, from that, create a bundle that will give them optimum subscription % and then base the costs off that.
Eg. If everyone always selected the option with plus group rides they will know that it is extremely important and people will pay a lot for it.
Anyway, hope that clears it up!
I will add that not having a ‘none of these option’ is not a good idea. While they are assuming that you are a member so you must choose an option, they are also not measuring people leaving on certain bundles.
Thank you for this. I work on the data viz side of market research, kinda, and I was looking for a good way to explain the process above. You nailed it.
And I’d add that usually when you do a conjoint analysis based on a survey (as opposed to sales data), you take pains to hide the brand that’s doing the research so as to not bias the results. For one, execute the survey and recruit respondents through a third party, make the product generic, not linked to a specific brand/solution. Hard to do in this space, but they could mask it enough so people wouldn’t know if they were asking about zwift vs TR vs any other. The data from this survey are going to be useless, given the reaction from the people to whom it was sent.
And I’d add that usually when you do a conjoint analysis based on a survey (as opposed to sales data), you take pains to hide the brand that’s doing the research so as to not bias the results. For one, execute the survey and recruit respondents through a third party, make the product generic, not linked to a specific brand/solution. Hard to do in this space, but they could mask it enough so people wouldn’t know if they were asking about zwift vs TR vs any other. The data from this survey are going to be useless, given the reaction from the people to whom it was sent.
Personally on a study like this I would recommend branded.
Doing this unbranded will allow you to model the intrinsic value of each feature as provided by a generic platform. However, Zwift will never launch any of these features on a generic platform. They will only launch these on Zwift. If you want to know if people prefer Zwift to launch Feature A or Zwift to launch Feature B, the model should show preference of each feature as if Zwift were to launch it. In this case the study should be branded.
And Ive worked with marketing people for 30 years and if its something Ive learned about the whole business its that its full of shit!.
Marketing is just made up crap, done by a group of humans beings self promoting an industry that doesnt need to exist and this Zwift survey proves the point.
It doesn’t need complicated maths.models and random sequences, lets not forget these things also have dumb humans behind them, not magical cosmic computers created by God, so are in themselves, flawed.
If Zwift want to know what to charge and what features to add and improve, its very, very simple. Ask the bloody community!!!!!! Its really not rocket science and doesn’t need all this mumbo jumbo marketing BS.
Also, how are turbo trainer manufacturers going to take this? A lot of turbos are bought with Zwift riding in mind and a lot of cyclists will hold off from buying turbos if they believe Zwift are starting this nonsense.
No mention of a Family Plan yet that I could see?
Moved from Zwift to Rouvy a while ago for this exact reason.
Zwift offer free children’s accounts to members – although obviously that doesn’t cover other adults in the household…
The only option I would actually pay for: usable UI (esp. on AppleTV) :-)
I’d pay £10/m just to be able to mute the home screen music on Apple TV like you can on other platforms.
Why is it so loud? it’s turned up to 11 compared to the rest of the sound in the game.
Still waiting for the update to the appleTV GUI too
Hey, new ui is coming, any day now! Just keep on paying that monthly fee will you. Oh by the way, would you like to pay double instead? Just doing some market research here, no need to be angry!
Yes! That music is horrible, I don’t know what it is but it is absolutely the worst.
$ 10, the best option, I won’t pay any more for simulations. I prefer to go outside. I stopped riding zwift when he turned my $ 15 into 15 euros. It was the end of my wallet.
I was considering starting to use Zwift when it was still €10, but for me it’s been a hard pass since it went to €15.
Clearly many others disagree, however
In my point of view, what they are doing, is opening the doors to other company less hungry of money but much more motivated to gain consensus.
BANG ON!
If it is a conjoint (and it likely is), then indeed the scenarios are made up, and differ from person to person participating in the survey. Then, utility (meaning price) for each feature will be calculated – helping to create final offers.
And people are filling this in? They’re happy to donate their time to a corporate?
Well, yes, I’d prefer a service I use and pay for to be developed based on my (and other users) requirements rather than just want the provider thinks I want.
–“Hi, this is Zwift, would you like to see us include rowing?”
“Not telling you.”
–“OK, we won’t then.”
Damn, I sure wish Zwift included rowing.
Yeah, odd to complain about a company offering an opening to customers to give feedback that may well impact their direction in the future. Zwift has stepped way from customer responsiveness since their inception. I find the general ignorance and actions contrary to clearly stated preferences of many (via the Z forums and ZR FB group) to be upsetting.
I get a sense that Z thinks they know better than us (paying customers) and they implement more of what they want than what we want. In that light, I think it’s important for people to take part in any open invite that Z is willing to offer.
My limited experience with the Zwift Running Facebook Group is that it is an echo chamber. If you disagree with the consensus opinion, you will be bullied out, I watched it happen to others and eventually it happened to me. In fairness, a moderator eventually did reach out and give an unprompted, earnest apology to me, but I have not returned.
If you want to criticize Zwift for not listening to these social media groups or the feature requests on the forum, that’s fair: they’re definitely not following the groups’ demands. But I imagine that one or more folks at ZHQ have seen what goes on there and have probably made a deliberate decision to not prioritize the squeaky wheels.
Best not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Sure, there is some real garbage that can happen in ZR.
But those few bad moments don’t negate the many good ideas, suggestions and discussion that still exist there. There are legitimate complaints about bugs and such that have been ignored or addressed in poor ways, despite positive comments. Couple that with the interactions between some Z employees (not to mention the CEO), and it seems they see some value of a presence there.
Choosing to ignore the good purely because of the bad (which is a relative minority of the overall content) would be a serious mistake, IMO. Doing so gives more credence to the thought that “Zwift” knows best…” and their customers should be happy with what they get feeling that I and others have sometimes. It’s not an endearing feeling as a paying customer with positive suggestions to improve our and others experience on the platform.
Strava is the same way. That led to people not paying because they felt the company was ignoring their users opinions. Zwift should take a lesson from that.
This is a cojoint analysis, a randomized technique to help zwift determine the value of different options.
You’re misreading a survey to understand what customers value with Zwift’s intention to offer these features.
If they follow the results, they will only offer features that rank highly, and that people are willing to pay for.
You should talk to someone with experience in market research to understand what’s going on here. Part of the thresholds they put on pricing are to assess the value and sensitivity to price, not to determine the exact pricing model.
That said, if they spelled “cycling” wrong, then perhaps the market researcher they hired has some quality control issues.
The problem with that, is assuming that people are picking plans logically. These plans are so horribly formed that people eventually basically just pick one without much (or any) reasoning – merely to try and get to the next page, since there was a ‘I wouldn’t buy any of these’ – effectively an escape option. You’d pick one at random (throwing off the algorithm), and then select the ‘I couldn’t buy this’.
Since most of the plan groupings weren’t logical by human standards (with less expensive plans have more features than higher plans), I’d have a hard time believing they’re going to get significantly useful data from this. I know some market researchers might disagree, but at the end of the day, when I’m just choosing a random plan that gets me to the next question because none of the option combinations are good, then there’s little data to be gleaned from that.
Got bored with it… too many options… and that is the problem with this, I agree fully Ray
If you are skimming through, that’s not an issue. Quite likely they will remove fast responders from the analysis,so only those that pay attention will be included in the analysis.
As for “Since most of the plan groupings weren’t logical by human standards (with less expensive plans have more features than higher plans)”, the analysis will account for that. Others people will see other combinations, some with better features or lower prices, so for them the choice is not obvious. The research will find at what price or features people start switching.
Bingo. In short, if you give people only irrational options — what you might expect form a computer– they are going to get frustrated and take the choices less seriously, yielding results that are of correspondingly less value. And discerning people aren’t going to fill out the damned thing at all, recognizing it for a potential was of time based on the low quality of its construction.
Spot on. A state their importance on a scale of 1 to 10 for a list of features would have being much better.
If they wanted to do a study to see what current features and proposed features were popular and try to put a value on that, that would be a legitimate study.
This isn’t that.
Price plans should be incremental, and I think Zwift could do a few plans along the lines of:
1. Basic Package – All the routes, without the racing or training plans
2. Training Package – Basic package plus training plans
3. Race Package
4. The whole lot premium package
Then have an additional $5 to add the other sports.
What the survey seems to indicate is they want to charge a bit more for some features they already offer. In which case I hope they listen to the survey results.
But if you don’t have the “I don’t like any of these” then its a bit meaningless.
Simply have a survey which ranks the features.
If Zwift does what it looks like, then I am back to TR for the same monthly cost I am paying now. Better training plans, and I’ll watch Treadstone on Amazon Prime rather than the cycling screen I do on Zwift. It’s a nice to have not an essential.
It’s not that SOME market researchers will disagree with you on your belief that this study results in useless data. Conjoint analysis is well studied and we know that it doesn’t matter if hypothetical scenarios are illogical scenarios. You still make a choice. You think it’s random just to get to the next question. In fact it’s not. You do this a few times. The non-random element starts to show a pattern as well. What in truth will happen is that people start to focus on those few parameters that really matter to them. This is 10 options including price. They visually already prime you to look at price more prominently. You’ll maybe subconsciously process 2-3 besides price. Across subjects, it will on average be always the same 2-3. From that, you can derive how much these 2-3 drive decisions. You can assess willingness to pay. Since these are average-based estimates, you also have standard errors that tell you exactly how much randomness was left in what you answered. You can create optimal plans which then take into account human logic. You would ideally test these logical plans again in a different study format.
Numerous researchers have commented in the past two days that this study had far too many variables and differences, not to mention confusion. Prices shouldn’t have been variable on ‘one month free’, or ‘two months free’, while listing dollar mounts monthly. Nobody is doing that math in their head – so it’s stupid and useless.
And when choosing between most valuable/least valuable and I can’t choose “These all suck”, then I literally am picking one at random. I picked the middle one onetime because that’s what you do – choose the middle.
Ultimately though, that’s besides the point. If Zwift gets good data out of a bunch of frustrated people – great! But look at how many people they pissed off? They continue to find ways to piss off their customers when there was no reason to. They did a poor job of explaining the purpose of the study (or the prices), and people rightfully got upset. And atop that, they basically told the entire Zwift community “Yo, we don’t really care about all the feedback you give us in forums, social media, etc… – instead, we’re just gonna hire a market research firm to incorrectly spell Cycling, throw a bunch of ideas together randomly, and see how much you hate it.”
And that ignores the general lack of a good idea of giving away vast swaths of your major roadmap components. They literally just handed the RGT’s of the world their thinking on a silver platter.
Pretending that surveys like this don’t impact Zwift is silly. Sure, they may (or may not) have gotten data, but at what cost?
Its not a click bait article at all. I think Ray is spot on to highlight this info.
I would scrap my Zwift memebership if they started all this nonsense.
Thomas youre just talking crap and obviously a marketing person trying to justify a job thats overhyped beyond belief.
Dear Zwift…. look at the mess Strava made with trying to package up stuff, it doesn’t work, it won’t work, you will piss off your user base.
If you want to add trainer led classes (like Peloton), or real life coaches… go for it, but just add them to the platform so that we can add them if we want them… simple
And Steering and Braking… are you going to add grenades and bazooka to make a it a real game, Tacx had a steering platform 10+ years ago, I know, I bought one, it also worked in their 3D world, I used it once and never again, however I still use the frame as it means I don’t need a front wheel and my bike fits in my room better, so it wasn’t a complete waste of money for me.
*Sigh*
I take a break from zwift in during northern summer, so I’ve been off for 3 months. Is this what I have to look forward to when I return? Yikes.
Just give me rowing and more worlds. I’d pay $5 more a month for that, for sure. I don’t need all the rest of this crap.
YES!!!!!!!
I’d even come back for that
While the Peloton subscription is expensive, it covers everybody in the household, so our Peloton Bike has 4 users at $40 = $10.
If Zwift is going to $40, I hope they make it a family plan. (I already pay $30 for two subscriptions). I will not pay $80 for my spouse and I.
I’m only on Zwift for the racing. If they mess too much with Zwift Power or mess up the racing side I’ll be off. I don’t mind paying a little more a month either if they get rid of the sandbaggers!
There is no way I would pay more than 15 Euro. In Germany a cheap fitness club cost less than that.
This is junk! I will be looking for an alternative. Why change the working platform all around, delete features like on the $9.99 plan with no Companion App and only 12 Worlds. Forcing another price increase to get back some of the features, but must pay $40 and only get 10 Worlds and no steering/braking. Zwift has made a crap show out of their proposed offerings. All in all it is Zwift looking to make more profits. I imagine a lot of people will drop off the Zwift platform, negating their dreams of increasing revenue. They are messing up a good thing. ZWIFT, Leave things alone. I can see if they come up with some great new feature and offer it as an add-on, but they are offering nothings and jacking us around with 3 goofy plans, where none appear to be a complete package with all features and all Worlds.
Zwift is sitting on a load of features and functionality they said they were going to launch this year. I expect to see all that come out in one go for 19.99€
I just looked through all those questions questions and didn’t see Mario Kart mode. Even Paperboy mode would be fine. I just want more/different scenery and Mario Kart mode. Just take some levels from a car racing game and give me something to do like avoiding green shells.
I suggested this on the Zwift message boards a few years ago. The dentists and over-serious racers (I’m guessing) all gave me a hard thumbs-down.
I’ve been paying for both Trainerroad and Zwift for a few years. I use TR for my “serious” training because they have a huge wealth of genuinely thoughtful training plans. I use Zwift mainly for either goofing around/easy rides or doing long multi-hour (4-6 hour) rides that allow me (unlike on TR) to practice gearing on climbs for full distance tri training. All of the nonsense Zwift appears to be thinking about doesn’t interest me in the slightest. Lots more training plans would interest me.
When the price jumped to $15 a month with no real effort to fix the bugs, glitches and UI- I stopped keeping my subscription live from May November. $20 a month encourages me to go look elsewhere for my winter riding fix. Especially since I doubt like hell any of the current problems will be fixed when the price jumps, again.
As far as packages go, that worked great for Strava… So much so they were cancelled within 2 years.
This is an example of a company contemplating what many others have done before them. Moving from innovative to rent seeking. Whoever made that survey should probably go back to school.
Typo or word use correction suggestion:
“Also includes ability to *participant* in live instructor-led classes.”
I’m thinking *participate* is more appropriate?
Why don’t they just go for premium “race” and “coached” tiers? Strava’s Summit packages where confusing AF, and were retired (for a good reason) and now Zwift want to make even more confusing tiers? WTF?
Yes, have a $5 base package that gives you either running, cycling or rowing, then have addons for premium races, personalized coaching, training plans, etc.
Some interesting parallels with the separate survey I got via VeloNews yesterday. Mine was more open ended and include (what I assume) were adjusted questions based on prior responses in the survey. Mine had questions related to non-Zwift option (TrainerRoad, Sufferfest, Rouvy, etc.) and looked to be comparing those to Zwift. The wider start but finish with a focus on Z imply this is closely related to the info in Ray’s post.
It touched on the pricing and structure shown here, but also dove pretty deep into hardware options. Asking about smart trainers, smart bikes, and even “trainer bikes” meant for attachment to smart trainers and including Zwift specific features for control, steering and such. It also looked at wider fitness use and activities outside as well.
It’s seems likely these were driven from Zwift looking for responses from a wider range than pure Zwift users.
Well, as a newbie on Zwift, for that price I am out. O got hooked on Zwift but that price takes away the fun.
I am not absolutely sure of this – I am getting a bit long in the tooth – but I remember receiving an email survey from Zwift that asked very early on – maybe in the first few questions – my age. Once I choose over sixty years old, the survey ended with a thank you for your time and that was the end of it.
Does this sound familiar to anyone? Are we older users not of interest to Zwift?
Or maybe I am completely misremembering.
In any case, I would love to answer all these questions. No…no…no…no…
Honestly Id pay for more strategy in gear selection. Like world of warcraft type stats on gear. There are training apps out there already and this plays like a video game and they should lean into that more.
Nice, Zwift looking for more ways to fleece it’s user base. (Ref: their last price hike and where they are likely leading us to smells a bit like the Strava $ grab) Reeks of arrogance…
Maybe rather than charging more, or trying to build hardware or adding new features, they should first be able to create a platform that doesn’t crash consistently on certain devices, or consistently break functionality or deal with the sandbagger issues or … How about support that has a faster than 4 week turn around.
This feels like it will lead be a bait and switch tactic (these questionnaires are usually a sign of things to come – I’m expecting something will happen) – get people paying and in the door, determine what they like and then charge them extra for that. Really, charge for levels of group rides or races – like with some pro from team XYZ or race against some Zwift sandbagger like it’s a local crit or RR? Um, no.
There may not be any alternative, but I lived off of TTS prior to this and can do the equivalent again. (RIP VirtuGo – you had potential)
Road Grand Tours Premium is FREE and very comparable to Zwift. Several of the famous Real “Col” climbs too. Only thing missing is the powerups…….thank god.
Thanks for the tip…..I’ll look into it………….
The RGT Cycling was charging a while back. They swapped to free for some COVID relief.
I fully expect them to swap back to a paid service at some point down the line. No idea when, but I doubt it will be free forever.
So many of these services that use RLV or virtualized roads focus on climbs. Not everyone wants to do climbs every session.
The one thing that Zwift had going for it was essentially a set of curated courses available at a given time with varying topography to satisfy everyone yet still where you can see other real people on the road to get that sense of community. This is the edge that Zwift has and they know it…
If RGT could emulate that last component, that would change the game for them, otherwise, may as well run a RLV on GoldenCheetah.
Also fulgaz is a good option if you prefer real road. Works really well with apple tv or on a windows computer. Yearly sub allows 2 users.
RGT is nowhere near zwifts level. Not even close.
Yeah, RGTC is very young and short on some options (while offering some that Zwift still doesn’t… save and restart where you want for instant).
Bkool is probably the closest one to offering the range of Z features, but it was so badly run and implemented that I stayed far from it. Comments from more recent users seem to indicate it is improved. It also offers some unique functions (route creation) that Zwift doesn’t.
Rouvy is a bit closer now with the Virtual implementation, but still well short in areas.
Honestly, there really isn’t anything that is totally on par with Zwift, and we may all be suffering a bit because of that. It’s too bad the VirtuGo didn’t make it, because it showed promise too. Not sure we will see something that is really up to the challenge in the near future, but it would likely help push Zwift to move better and in line with customer expectations if there was. That’s the theory anyway.
Leave well enough alone Zwift and don’t get greedy……….
Makes me glad I bought the year gift card a month back. When that runs out I suspect pricing will have increased.
If it does I am glad that I have kept my TR grandfathered yearly sub and will only keep one instead of both currently.
I’m a conjoint scientist and I have a lot of experience running these surveys in an industry setting.
Just a couple things
1) This one is important. You almost always have to ask about a really wide, implausible range of prices to get a good estimate of the preferences along prices you’d actually consider, if any (the high-end is almost never really in consideration). The techniques used for analysis don’t perform well on the edges of whatever range you surveyed on.
2) There’s a lot of reasons to ask about prices that are unrelated to a realistic chance of charging at all, like helping to validate relative value of potential new features.
3) “these were things that a human put together as plausible features, likely backed by internal roadmap summits, in-person meetings, conference calls, and all assortment of thinking and analyzing.” — Ha! I wish. It’s usually a researcher or analyst spitballing. Especially if the company is smaller. These surveys are good opportunities to really stretch your imagination. Zwift might have a different take here, but it’s not something to read too much into. For example, a survey design might require an additional level of a feature for cost reasons (it’s complicated) so you have to just make something up to fill the gap.
For me Zwift has far too many features. I’m happy with 1 world, group rides, no companion app and average graphics. The points system is a great motivator but i wish there was a way to collect and display KOM Jerseys. My next investment is a 24″ floor fan. I haven’t Zwifted since the heat got crazy in the UK. I’ve got a velopark nearby that has unlimited access for £20/month.
When we jumped from $10 to $15 there was outrage over a 50% increase, but hope and promise for increase in features and performance that many users bought in to. Many just shrugged and looked at it as on par with their Netflix, Hulu etc. subscriptions. Now that we have a sense of what is accomplished with that extra $5 a month, I figure an increase now is going to be a bit more difficult to sell. I would hesitate at $20 a month and flat out reject $30 a month, but I also only ride inside if I absolutely have to. Some users will absolutely value Zwift differently, i’m curious how many value it that much.
I see a lot of people say the situation at Zwift is comparable to the at Strava. I don’t think that’s true.
Strava (finally) got the news that they didn’t have a business model which means they had to pivot or shut down. Easy choice on their part.
Zwift is in a situation where, even though things are going well, they see massive growth potential with a user group that’s very different from their core clientele. It looks like they have decided it is worth to potentially alienate those “old” users in order to tap into that “new” potential. Obviously sucks for some of us but everyone knew something like that could happen when they pulled in that VC cash.
Who are these mystery users? Zwift is already populated by the pointy end of cyclists. Do you think casual riders are suddenly going to come hang out on Zwift if it costs more? Are they going to steal Peloton’s “just works” model by adding a hardware option and somehow convince folks who haven’t ponied up for Peloton to pony up for Zwift? Tough sell to say the least.
LOL. How about $150/month, braking but no steering, you only ride in Richmond, but you have a magic 2X power boost at all times?
When in the HECK are they going to improve the data display to show Average watts, lap watts, average speed, and lap speed? Wtf is taking so long?
I hope they don’t ruin it like Strava did! Barely use Strava any longer.
I like Zwift but I only freeride. In the end what I like the most is the segments and the “Ride Ons”. I do not want to pay for racing, running, or rowing. I would like a better interface with more information (Fulgaz, BRVR, Bkool, etc) but I seldom see more than two other riders in Rouvy or BKool….and they do not have drafting.
I will not pay more for what I currently have and I certainly will not pay more for features I never or will never use.
I do not ride the road anymore so I will need to checkout BRVR “Magic Roads”. For $30 /mth I can use any 3 of the other apps.
Zwift is going to drive off a lot of users with this crap… All they are and all they’re ever really going to be is a way to make riding on a trainer a bit less shitty. No one actively wants to watch other people racing on Zwift and unless they partner with someone like TrainingPeaks to offer integrated workouts, they’re not suddenly going to become a training company. They need to stop confusing aberrative covid entertainment with core feature sets and stick to what they are, improve the graphics, maybe get hardware partners for people that want to package a new trainer in with their membership but they need to chill with most of this crap and trying to charge people for it.
I disliked being data mined in this fashion. There is an existing community that has basically said very clearly what they would like Zwift to do. Things like this just make the community feel cynical. Just a bad way to go about getting information which would have been given freely and with more detail with more transparency and engagement (not from algorithms) from Zwift.
Cynical or negative towards the platform, indeed.
I felt that way already prior to joining (not sure what it was but something struck me wrong – maybe it was company, maybe just blind fanboys), but did just because I knew people on it, but that can change.
Definitely lowers my already low opinion of the platform and its management.
Did i miss an option/subscription just for runners or rowers? I do none of those because i do not have the equipment….
When you raise $120m from ‘investors’ (banks/venture capitalists) remember ‘who pays the piper calls the tune’
Zwift, while an absolutely ingenious idea that actually makes indoor cycling enjoyable, is run by absolute morons! What’s worse is that they’ve cornered the market on all this, and as a result have become something of a totalitarian regime. And this bizarre “computer generated” survey for possible subscription plans further proves their ineptitude. Why get everyone all worked up by putting out a survey for utterly bizarre subscription plans with feature bundles that make little to no sense?
Agreed completely
But it takes just one inept moron to look at the results of that survey and go, wow, people like this ‘feature’ that we are currently giving away as part of the platform. How about we make a tiered payment model and charge for those features now… (Without consideration of the repercussions)
Some of the questions/options seem to align to what Zwift have done with zwiftpower and WTRL interestingly enough… I understand that didn’t go too nicely for the people that put in the effort there.
The morons start at the top and go straight through management and below…
Perhaps Z is learning from TR. TR bumped up prices twice in rapid succession. I think that I now see the strategy. They have a passionate user base who largely paid the new price (I think). If you can pull that off AND use the new cash to advance the platform, you distance yourself from the competition that kept their user base while not increasing prices (or increasing more modestly) and failed to advance at the rate of TR. I’m not a current TR user, but I love their podcast. They are planning to fly all over the world for races, they buy bikes at the drop of a hat and are hiring continuously. But they are making real advances in the platform (it seems) – the planning calendar sounds awesome, the ability to perform workouts outdoors in cool, etc. These are characteristics that distinguish TR from competitors and will be advantageous for them. If they took the bump in prices and spent it on Lamborghinis and EPO instead of reinvesting, the decision to raise prices would have been negative in the long run. But it seems as if it could pay off through attracting new users from competitors that lack these new features. Chapeau. Is that what Zwift is trying to do? Just charge $50/mo for everything and then take the new cash to build new features and crush the competition. I’ve ridden a number of Zwift competitors and I don’t think that it would take much to slay them all…
That’s the problem. Zwift has no real competition. And they know this. As a result they’ve become little dictators. They do their own thing and very rarely even bother to address known issues or complaints from their subscribers. Without so much as saying it, their attitude has become one of “If you don’t like it, then try and find something better.” At the moment they know we can’t. So … expect another price increase in the coming months. If this covid crap continues, and we’re forced to endure another round of lockdowns come fall, they know they have us by the jewels, and I predict the increase could be painful.
I would have hoped that Zwift would spend their time more productively in fixing things that users need, like the fence or making the U-Turn on the Companion app work.
Just simple things, not hard, but instead we get fed this pile of crap
Zwift group rides are nor race events without the fence and Zwift races are infested with blatant cheating … how about this gets fixed/addressed first
That will be the end of zwift for me!! We have 3 subscriptions in the family. No way We will pay that amount
Time to go over to Sufferfest
Agree. One cent up, only one, and i am gone. Pay enough already for what they deliver.
That would be me done for Zwift. Now that my Stages Dash can control my Wahoo Bike, I have what I need for training and don’t see the value for Zwift racing.
This is bad news, although it’s standard that SaaS companies raise their prices annually, it’s shocking to see value for money drops significantly with those ‘suggestions’ VS to what we get now for 15.
I hope they keep this as a concept and don’t go to market with it. If they do it will be – 1 for zwift and +1 for t Rouvy or other vendor.
The £10 one looks perfect for what I use Zwift for, and would save me £3 a month.
How about a coherent, intuitive user interface for Zwift – is that being considered?
Don’t be silly, they can only break basic functionality or features (not repair them), do some experimental tests like the mountain biking course with steering and try to create the facade of real racing by bringing in world tour teams to drive the illusion of it being some trustworthy esports platform. Ref DCR’s view of the Zwift back end for the televised virtual Zwift TdF – they poured a lot of $ into that, now we see, it will be at the cost of their general user base. Not sure where they think the RoI is on that…
This is Zwift not Peleton. I have a smart trainer and don’t need or want a ‘static’ (peleton) bike or the bl#@dy price point.
With the gamer style of Zwift I felt it was cheeky with the last price hike though I was protected for a period. If they bump the price again I’ll be walking.
I think with the pro’s and official org’s using there platform they have got cocky and also feel Peloton is a threat. There is also the IPO you mention.
I feel someone bigger and better could get into this space easily and destroy Zwift. With its look and poor mobile app its being really cheeky if it thinks we will pay more for a product that at the end of the day all it does is increase the resistance to a turbo and lifts the front of your bike!
GTA mod does that with an amazing playground!
Agreed, someone like Codemasters should be able to make a killing by simply repackaging a game like Grid into a Zwift competitor for 1/4 of the price. Unfortunately, it does not look like any of the employees at these companies use Zwift. Hopefully the GTA mod generates curiosity at Rockstar. Nintendo Switch is another platform that will allow for a Zwift competitor to scale quickly.
TR user anyway. But, as a person who had zwift membership on and off, this is funny. I know target group for zwift is wannabe(will never be) tour rider in their 30-50s male roadie with some kind of stable income. I know there is more to milk than some teenage kids playing warcraft or any monthly charged mmorpg. Even these game publishers don’t charge this much. They may charge as big expansion comes out, but jacking up the monthly 3x is laughable. There maybe some that disagree with much more flexible finances than me but, really? Lol
I suspect you think you know more than you actually do…
1 more cent increase and its bye bye zwift for me. Not everyone has limitless disposable income. Dont get me wrong…i love zwift but it is already quite expensive for what it does….virtual cycling/ virtual racing.
1 more cent increase and its bye bye zwift for me. Not everyone has limitless disposable income. Dont get me wrong…i love zwift but it is already quite expensive for what it is..virtual cycling/ virtual racing. It will become too expensive for me.
1 more cent increase and its bye bye zwift for me. Not everyone has limitless disposable income. Dont get me wrong…i love zwift but it is already quite expensive for what it is..virtual cycling/ virtual racing.
Maybe they going to integrate Sufferfest then and give the option to add this to your Zwift subscription.
If it goes for a lower price than currently Sufferfest + Zwift, that would be an option for me to really consider. Because I like the workouts and the 4D-Profile from there but only get a one or two month subscription every now and then because of the extra payment.
Even though I haven’t zwifted in months, I haven’t cancelled my subscription because I want to fund zwift to add more content. This news just pisses me off because it seems greedy. Zwift has like 200 employees and half are marketing people. But only about 20 are development. So it’s like, if they scale up the price are they going to scale up marketing also? Just seems stupid. The thing is, digital world’s should grow with money that gets dumped into them year after year. Take any video game that it’s over 5 years old. Is it selling for the original price? No. (Maybe call or duty, but Activision does that intentionally so people buy the new game and not the old one) old content doesn’t stay the same value. You have to constantly grow to maintain that 15$ value each month. If zwift charged 1-2 for premium spin classes/races, great. Otherwise they set themselves up to get swooped by competition.
Also would love it if they added support for my proform TDF which doesn’t have ANT+ or BTLE. But it does have power, cadence, incline, and wifi.
My answer to all this is: I’ll go elsewhere, like Rouvy AR. or FulGaz
All I want is just either ride by myself, or ride in groups. THAT’S IT! There was no option for that.
I don’t race, I don’t Run, I have a Concept2 rower that I use with other programs FREE, and do workouts on YouTube with “Dark Horse Rowing”. FREE!
If I have to pay more for things I don’t want or use, I have one option.
They are at the right way to end like Strava!
If the current plan will be changed – I’m out.
as it was for $ 10 I paid all year, for $ 15 only in winter, when it will be $ 20 and more, I will choose to spin from the wahoo ROAM for free: P
I recommend BigRingVR.com (10$ / m) for the best video on the trainer. Better than Fulgaz.
The strength of zwift is that everyone has the same options. At each race, we can meet and ride with a friend. Various subscription options will destroy the community, just like on strava. I don’t race for KOM as I can’t see where I am on my friends list.
An additional fee for using the zwift companion is mockery and laughter.
I recently got a two month Rouvy trial with my new Saris trainer. Very impressed. Being able to ride actual world routes is refreshing. Yes, you’re often riding alone, but that’s par for the course for me. I like Zwift, but as someone who just free rides or joins a group ride now and then, I’m just not interested in paying more for things I don’t need. Happy with the lowest price tier offered but taking the companion app from that bracket is just a shit move
Take a spin on bigringvr.com (the best video – only recorded from the car) or fulgaz.com has good video too. Rouvy did not have the same level of video shot with a camera on the handlebars of a bicycle. Rouvy advantage – competition on the route. Vehicle physics in Rouvy very poor. For example, you will not go downhill than 72km / h. Uphill I am overtaken by bicycles with less w / kg. And other ambiguities dismiss me a bit.
I only have IOS so i cant use that at the moment but if that comes out with IOS version ill try it
Are we SURE this is legit? Eric Min seems to think not:
link to aws1.discourse-cdn.com
This is addressed in the opening section. It’s also why Eric deleted is tweet.
I’ve used zwift for four years now, from 2017. Started at 10 a MOnth. I like some of the newer features, but none are a deal breaker. I think drops shop is dumb, but I do like the multi stage events. It saves my ass in the winter. I’ve also done a few group hosted rides, esp by dklein, and those were great. I don’t need training plans, I don’t need to talk to people, I like the app, when it WORKS? and I like the multi platforms, iPad, phone, android. But there’s also a problem with bugs. At least once a year my rides get messed up. Like you said about garmin, fix what’s already working to make it better. I also don’t need running or rowing. So they should charge like 10 base and then 5 for each add on, training, running, rowing, etc. They went to 15 a few years back, but that 2as also when the other options weren’t as good also. Raising prices into a competitive environment doesn’t make sense. But then again, Im a librarian, not a dot Comer.
More and more I’m riding on TrainerRoad. Years ago they offered it for $89/year with guaranteed no increases. I guess they had a cash flow problem so they offered that deal.
I will drop Zwift if they increase price or reduce functionality.
I’ll gladly give up zwift if any of this is implemented.
I’ve been using Zwift now since just after Jarvis. Most of the features they’ve introduced, I’ve used. I came on from TR for the gamification of my workouts. Since then, I joined a team in the spring, and I haven’t used the training workouts as much. I have done some of the Zwift rides, and then done meetups with my teammates. I have been doing a bunch of racing and TTT and I’ve seen my power go up. That being said, I’m a triathlete, so none of this is sport specific.
Before Zwift, I knew how to find and make my own workouts, so if they got rid of that, I won’t be butt hurt. I was running on Zwift, but then COVID, and the gym is shut down, so I don’t have access to a treadmill, and I’m not going to have Zwift running on my phone while I run IRL. I’ve tried it. Honestly, I haven’t run since they shut down schools here in NYC.
I enjoy the platform for what it is, but I will adjust my payment if the stuff they offer is out of my league. I’m not planning on rowing, and I don’t currently have space in my apartment to keep my bike setup at all times (read I workout in my kitchen, on the stove or in front of the toaster). I can always run outside, and if I really want to swim, I’ll go swim in the shark-infested waters.
Zwift wants to show that it has the ability to be fully premium, especially since they did all this TDF stuff, but I also hope it doesn’t go to their heads. They are a good place to train, but staring at the wall worked for years before them.
I have concerns regarding the mention of the companion app in the different tiers. The trainer I have (Kurt Kinetic Smart) requires the use of the companion app in order for swift to even see it. If I wind up having to pay a higher tier just so I can use the app it is not likely that I would pay the extra. It is not likely I can replace the trainer any time soon either.
Hopefully it’s inclusion in the tiers is just part of the screwed up computer survey algorithm.
El número de usuarios por razones de la pandemia incrementaron por lógica la demanda de plataformas virtuales son la única opción para muchos atletas ,toda empresa o corporativo siempre verá más por sus ganancias que por sus usuarios ,solo recordemos que muchos abandonaran las plataformas virtuales cuando regresemos a nuestra vida habitual
That for 15 euros is okay, but the CA has to be with it.
I won’t pay 25 euros for the other packages (significantly fewer worlds) and i don’t need running and rowing.
The packages released so far do not match the options.
Should offer a basic package with Grouperides (€ 9.99) … with the option of booking additional functions.
So everyone can decide for themselves.
Road Grand Tours (RGT) has better race physics than Zwift: riders automatically brake to corner at a safe speed (potentially wasting joules/watts), then must accelerate out, and also it takes extra energy to move up thru a pack. These make for more realistic racing, where pack position is important, and riders aren’t getting slingshot from 5th row to off the front unintentionally (leading in part to the high sustained powers in Zwift races). The downside is RGT does more server side computation, and is this more demanding of a robust internet connection.
In any case, Zwift should just charge per-event if that’s what they want to do. Fewer people will enter events, more will ride solo: will that help their business? I don’t know.
I remember when a zwift UI update was just around the corner. I trust zwift with a grain of salt on actually implementing things.So them thinking about locking possible worlds or features behind a bigger sub puts me off. don’t make people pay for a whole year of a sub that they will probably only use during winter.Not to mention didnt we just have a price increase but nothing has really changed at all.. its fine if they want to offer a discount for 6,12 month subs but definitely don’t make it required.think its fine if live coaching cost extra but don’t lock out worlds out. But I think 14.99 is already pushing it as the only reason I use zwift over others is the user base but if that shrinks my reason to stay goes away.
The responses on this thread are proving Zwift’s challenge. The use cases and wants for the existing user base are incredibly diverse and contradictory. For every person saying they only use it for races there are two saying they never race; for every person saying they want more worlds there are two saying they don’t care about new worlds, they want more group options, etc. And that’s not even considering trying to understand what features might attract new users.
Instead of threatening to take your ball and go home, why not provide your input, and if you care enough, reach out to Zwift directly to plead your case for what you want, and what you are willing to pay for it.
My biggest issue so far is zwift seems to regularly just ignore even popular request threads. Even things they have been confirmed like UI fixes just never get implemented. If they are actually going to monitor and moderate racing and get a better category based system adding a extra cost for racing would not be to wild. But if racing stays as is and just gets put behind a pay wall is when its just Bs.pretty much 0 came from the last price increase to 15 for the avg user. So maybe we will get a 10usd plan but it looks like they are looking into making plans yearly which will probably alienate alot of people who are not year round users .
Have you ever thought that if you are willing to pay 40$/month for the next 20 years +, plus internet provider, plus regular investment (trainer, tv, computer, apple tv, etc, …) and you are complaining that you are paying too much taxes while some of your fellow citizens are almost dying of hunger that you might be a F… Narcissist ?
Is it going to get a Pay2Win?
I want compete with everyone on zwift and not only the one on the same subscripion level.
Completely agree Chris. We should at least have an option to boost our characters and get some free watts. Maybe like an extra $10 a month and your power gets a 105% boost or faster bikes. Makes sense.
Here is the problem with my thinking, I would like to think that they would want the opinion of people like me. People that were in since the beginning and who left and have never come back. I think about coming back, but then I think about how they always seemed to me to talk to the things I liked, but did to the things they wanted.
I left when they were bound and determined to go racing. They didn’t care about it being a “training” platform they wanted a racing platform and that was that. So they decided they didn’t need the everyday person like me any longer. It was cool once Zwift, but no longer.
I’m a level 37 Zwifter so I think I know a little something about how Zwift works both in game and behind the scenes. I for one understand this direction however would rather see them double down on level hierarchy. Why don’t I get a 10-30watt bonus because I’m 37, over say a level 3 zwifter. I have put the time in I deserve some bonus.
Just an idea but I think it would really bring the community together
I think that’s a wild take to give someone more watts just because of level and i my self would drop zwift right away if you got more watts just for levels.I wish power ups them self were not a thing. Its supposed to be you vs the other guys or about self improvement. I don’t want it to become we did the same w/kg but hes lv50 so I lost. That just seems to video game like. Its already kinda there with the better bikes and wheels
Great article. Thanks for taking the time. I don’t visit the forums any longer. It became clear that Zwift don’t really take much notice of any feedback they receive.
I’ve been a member of Zwift since the early Jarvis Island days. I’ve been one of it’s most vocal supporters and have helped many others to find and use the platform. I’ve helped form rider groups and social platforms within Zwift and have ridden over 45,000 miles on its roads. Something I’d never have done before Zwift came along. I’m definitely no newbie.
For too long now Zwift have ignored the very people who built this community. The Only thing Zwift has over the many alternative providers is the Social aspect of group riding. Everything else can be found on the other platforms, some even do certain things better than Zwift do.
I’ve been involved in Organising Group rides since 2015 and am tired of waiting for Zwift to develop what we’ve been asking for:
Changes to the way we log out of rides.
Enhanced and customisable GUI.
Decent graphics.
Leaders being able to see both Ladies and Gents Sprint times.
A way to control flyers and disruptive riders.
Blocking of riders who harass others from Group Rides
Club features.(Still eating)
Some of us have been awaiting development like these which we have been suggesting for years. Instead we get new mustauches and facial animations. Courses which we can’t ride and some like the new Paris course which is pretty useless for anything, apart from promoting the TDF. Terrible changes to rolling resistance and physics which are still absolute nonsense.
I’m increasingly using the other platforms these days and even hacks to games like GTAV. The only thing that keeps me on Zwift is its price. If they move to a pricing structure like Strava which means I have to pay for stuff I don’t use it will be time to say goodbye.
The Corona Virus and the massive increase in numbers gave Zwift ample opportunity to do a useful survey of what subscribers required. Instead they came up with that survey. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding and almost contempt for the very people who subscribe. I can only hope that Zwift wake up before it’s too late.
Most has already been discussed and explained, but I’ll just note that I was suspicious from one of the very first questions. They wanted to know my household income in ranges. No problem – that’s a standard market research question.
But the smallest amount you could choose in the GBP priced survey, was under £50k!
While I appreciate that people who buy often expensive bikes and invest in ~£1k+ smart trainers are probably wealthier than average, this question very much suggested to me that they’re thinking only about their more affluent users.
The UK average household income is just over £30k. So the vast majority of UK homes would be in the first of six numerical categories. And I suspect that I’d be upset if I knew how many female World Tour riders also fall into that first category, never mind juniors, amateurs and hobbyist riders.
That is the arrogance of American companies against the international consumers. It I exactly the same topic pelethon or Strava don’t understand. We got a bigger percentage of medium income in Europe. That means it does not make sense for an company to focus on high income households, if they want to reach the masses.
what a Polish cyclist is to say, earn on average £6k
I thought Zwift was for the community, well not all the people in the community have fantastically well paid jobs. Unfortunately we struggle to get by in life, don’t make it even harder by taking away the thing some of us use to escape the mundane.
Thanks, I’ll take a look this weekend. Yes, sometimes the speed of the Rouvy video is crazy. I passed guys on Ventoux riding so slowly they would have fallen over.
Thing is RGT is actually better :) The community is also more friendly as well.
You should do another review DC, now that they have released a update.
You can have the free version, (which also includes racing) or the subscription version with everything also cheaper than Zwift.
Trainer road and RGT for me this coming winter.
RGT unfortunately it still doesn’t work properly on Apple tv. There will be a project that the phone collects data and presents it to Apple TV. It is a bad idea. Constant disconnection of connections.
Kinda click-baity article. There was no solid reason to believe this was anything more than a survey and you added fuel to the panic.
Eric Min posted on Zwift Riders today that there won’t be any price increases for the near future.
Near future is pretty limited.
Whether or not Zwift wants to admit it publicly, they’re absolutely considering higher price points. Else, they’d never included such a detail in the survey. In fact, I’d (and Zwift too, based on the feedback I got from them), argue that this cooled down the flames, not added to them.
Its not a click bait article at all. I think Ray is spot on to highlight this info.
I would scrap my Zwift memebership if they started all this nonsense.
The only “feature” Zwift should be working on is integrating an App into Xbox and Playstation so that I don’t need to drag my laptop out and hook it to the TV to train in the living room.
It is exactly what I am missing. And state of the art graphics
All I care about on Zwift is the racing but apparently I’m in the minority on that. If I want to do structured workouts there are better options for that.
I think Zwift are shooting themselves in the foot. This is not them striking while the iron is hot, this is then opening the door for another company to come in and produce a better product and cheaper. This is nothing more than a cash grab that all business do at some point, Strava did it recently.
Companies like Zwift always think they won’t be toppled by anyone else….just like MySpace did when Facebook came along and look how well that worked out for MySpace.
Zwift needs to stop advertising. I am not paying more for them to buy more advertising. I pay for two subscriptions. Where is my family plan ?
There seems to be increasing problems with reliability in regards to reception over Bluetooth and ANT. Plus you have a display that looks much like n64 with more shadows. Would anyone pay 45$/month for this? They might pay for less users displayed on screen and advanced graphics.
It also seems like the zwift don’t understand racing. Most of the folks around me are alienated by racing. You can easily notice the rampant cheating. The different dynamic with everyone powering up immensely for the first 10 minutes and fake drafting make it unlike any experience in real life. The disconnect forces most of the real riders to avoid the racing. It’s a different segment joining zwift racing…
In regards to the community actually on the road, when would clubs be able to upload their jerseys? Several clubs host rides and provide jerseys for temporary usage. How about supporting all of the little clubs out there?
In tech you obtain more value over time. Why is zwift proposing less for more ? This would alienate everyone on ./ as it violates the ethos.
I definitely agree on clubs/jerseys – at a time when arguably that’s the most important thing they could do to increase subs (and thus revenue), focusing on really anything else is kinda odd. By having teams and jerseys within teams, and workouts within teams/clubs, it quickly convinced others on a team that might not be on Zwift to join, since that club might only publish group workouts/rides on Zwift.
It’s been 4+ months since Zwift rolled out Club Jarvis (beta testing teams/clubs), and while undoubtedly plenty may be going on in the backend, from a user facing viewpoint, basically nothing has happened in that realm.
For me Zwift was the best of the race. They are the most faithful. Power for 10 minutes? This is normal and you can drive at over 300 W for up to 20 minutes. Nobody is cheating. As for the graphics, see how many users there are !!! This is not a GTA with 1-10 cars in full screen. Here, even 100 or more. Poor graphics but reliable. Additionally, it is supposed to work on phones and other devices. T-shirts? imagine each one having their own outfit, how much this will weaken the computer and memory. Load 1000 T-shirts into memory! unreal.
Cheaters are everywhere. There are more top rated racers in zwift than exist in real life. Login into a zwift race and everyone is holding 5 w/kg. It doesn’t exist in real life. It isn’t a matter of holding it for 20 minutes. If you thought that it was a temporary surge over ftp, then you would see a much higher heart rate than actually recorded.
The weights of people are low and used to game the system.
Racing has attacks that can’t stick. A racer is trying to hold in the front of pack and can just shift into the front of pack and beyond without an intention to attack.
My impression of Art is that you could be in California. The rest of the US has little or nothing in racing. You can’t find a field of 75 racers in cat 2. You have to run combined fields such as 1/2/3 or 3/4. State championships break the categories in their own fields. Anyways, it goes to there aren’t that many good racers.
It isn’t 300 watts for the first 10 minutes. It’s 800 or 1000 watts for the first 10 minutes.
$45 seems high, but if that is a family rate or you could add your husband/wife, that would make sense?
One thing I feel is needed is a “family” plan, and this applies to Strava too – i.e. so spouses or all members of a household can be part of the same membership fee (albeit at slightly elevated price to single) similar to netflix, spotify, etc etc
??
It’s a money grab pure and simple (just as strava have done)…. but do as strava has done and take away features we already get for the significant monthly fee we pay and I for one will be off. It is such a shame that everything about cycling these days is just a money grab. I am not interested in pointless gimmicks like steering, braking, etc : I use the workouts, like the ability to create custom workouts and occasionally participate in multi stage events (for fun not racing)… running and rowing features are irrelevant to me. Zwift will do what Zwift will do… let’s hope Eric doesn’t sell his soul to the marketing spivs…
If they start raising prices and/or forcing me to subscribe to things I’m not interested e.g. rowing? I’ll probably drop them and go back outside when the weather is nice. I enjoy using Zwift because I’m an early riser and I can ride in the dark without worrying about someone hitting me. Even here in Japan you still get drunk drivers. It’s great to ride while it’s raining or snowing so I don’t have to reschedule a workout.
Most of the choices I read in your postings I would be selecting the no option.
I have never watched a race on Zwift.
They could spend some cash on adding more maps.
Let me switch rides or enter the settings without closing the ride I’m in.
ej
I think Apple’s Fitness+ is going to upend their desires to increase pricing.
£9.99
Or, £29.99 gets you a family of 5. Oh, and tv, and music, news, arcade and 2tb of iCloud.
I’d buy a more expensive trainer if the wife could use zwift, but there’s no way she’d get full price value out of it.
I agree on the $45 Zwift price, way to high. Completely disagree on you with the smart trainer, we got a Saris and it is fantastic, gives you a great workout. You’ll notice a big difference with a direct drive compared to a wheel on variety. Very quiet and the power is always spot on.
It’s hard for me to justify the £ on a smart trainer upgrade, if it were just me using it. (Not that I disagree that they’re good, but we all have competing interests on our discretionary spend)
But I can’t see her using it more than occasionally, and then only if something like Zwift were available to make it interesting. I think this is how Peloton are doing so well – expensive, but it can be used by the whole family – whether this ever happens in practice I suspect is quite rare!
Depending on what Apple’s fitness+ comes up with, I can see us going that route. I think their price point looks very competitive (it’s cheaper than an individual digital-only peloton sub).
I reached out to zwift a few times through their contact forms and through the forum and I would have to give their customer/ support service a -10 if I could but on a scale of 1-10 it’s a 1. They don’t listen to their subscribers one iota. I am trialling powerwatts international right now and really quite like it. It does not have racing but the plans seem solid whereas the zwift plans are how do you say it…shit!
Zwift over rate themselves and their ego and arrogance is apparent. There are other options out there like bkool and rouvy, sufferfest etc and they reply to your emails and questions.
Just got a survey from Zwift:
—
Hello! Thanks for being a loyal Zwift user.
We have a few questions for you about cycling, cycle insurance, and your attitudes and behaviors. It will take about 5 minutes of your time. If you’re willing to take the survey, please click the link below.
Zwift_Insurance_Survey
Ride On!
The Research Team at Zwift
—-
Email has no disclosure or privacy information and the survey immediately asks your for your email address. Poor practice at minimum. Don’t they have a legal team over there?
Why not just jump across to MyWhoosh. It has plenty of roads and is way cheaper (free) than Zwift and works really well with various pieces of hardware.
The support team respond back within 24hrs if you have any kind of questions, normally about 6hrs but being in NZ the timezone game is played.
You know Zwift is just testing the waters before the 2023 price hike comes along so start looking at alternative now.