SLOG: Sitting On A Goldmine

I don't really have a problem with money chairs. I personally think the practice is a bit tacky and I don't think I'd have felt comfortable as a noob using one. That said, if people want to give their money away that way and feel that someone with their ass planted in the chair and AFK for six hours is a good return on investment, who am I to argue?

The real problem with them is bigger than a question of ethics. One of the most frequent complaints heard about SL's economy is that events aren't varied enough and as a result people who don't like to build or club or shop don't have much to do... and the reason for that is there's no return on investment for event hosting. People don't want to charge admission to events to make it worthwhile believing that people aren't going to be willing to pay. They may be right, because things like the camping chairs train a whole generation of noobs that event hosts should be paying them to attend.

In the long run, camp chairs shoot everyone in the foot. They might be a short term sure-fire way to get people on your land, but I sincerely believe in the long run they'll work to the detriment of not just the places who host them, but the entire SL culture.

There's already another version... money dance balls. They're like money chairs with a dance animation. I'll bet you there's money "couples poseballs" as well.

It isn't just that, though. People don't refuse to pay for events because they've been conditioned to expect them to be free. They refuse to pay for events because they're severely short of money and money spent on events is gone forever once the event ends. Yes, people pay for transient things in RL, but that's RL and real experiences, not just getting to chat (which they can do anywhere) among a different bunch of prims.

People who run successful businesses might have plenty of money to attend - but are often too busy running those businesses to actually do so.

My guess is that while avie in the chair appears to be a zombie, the person at the computer is anything but. What do you think you look like when your afk or busy because you're in im, working on textures, or scripting? It's not worth your while to seek out a chair because you're already successful. But a new or basic player may figure that whatever they get extra while doing these perfectly valid activities is a bonus. In less than an hour a basic player has doubled their weekly stipend. The cost of electricity and broadband is irrelevant if you're in Sl anyway.

Consider the person who likes to play games and socialize. Instead of playing a game for an hour and leaving as before, now you sit a spell and im with your friends. Maybe they're getting some chores done irl during this time. Why insist on portraying the person in the chair as a zombie and nothing else? Torley has pointed out that she plays tringo and chair sits, yet you can visualize her as positive, fun, and doing things in SL.

I'm really not getting the difference between drawing someone to a shop with a money tree, being paid by a money ball to afk dance, and camping chairs.

Placing camping chairs is pointless, except directly for pursuit of cash from the Company.


Many have a spare home computer (or five) sitting on a home network - usually last year's model.

It might be used for the printer, or the spouse, or the business - but largely has computation cycles to spare.

With one alt each, that 'do nothing' computer (or five) makes $L.



Camping chairs in some form will always exist because dwell and its rewards exist.

We should expect newer, more efficient and creative ways for folks to 'milk' $L from the system, until such system breaks.

- - - - -

And for those who wonder - no, I don't do this myself.

The hassle of updating, logging in and such on the spare computer saps me of any motivation - for the same effort I can make far more just by making another antique or two.

There isn't really any difference, except that I think the intent with the money trees is less about generating dwell and more about helping new users get a few bucks. When it comes right down to it though they're mostly the same thing. I donate to the money trees now and then. Dunno, they just seems a bit less cynical to me.

yes, it's not necessary either. Desmond has a cool anecdote, but people manage to get a little business going in all sorts of different ways. Zillions of different ways, including bootstrapping themselves with no ones help.




They're not staring out into space. They log in, set this up, and go do something else. It's an attempt to make money while they sleep/watch movies/do laundry/walk the dog etc etc.

and yeah I believe in a world where the most talented, the most hard working, the most clever rise to the top. That doesn't mean it's a zero-sum game -- i.e. nothing for anybody but the best -- but it doesn't mean handcuffing the success of the best and brightest so that success can be an entitlement to anyone who decides to yawn and click "login".

a world of the lowest common denominator would be a crappy world indeed

Sure. The point still remains that not everyone's going to want to run a business, not everyone who might want to run a business will have the necessary skills and time to do so on top of their RL job, and not everyone who might want to run a business will be able to find something that SL wants and that they enjoy making. And, I'm sorry, but I don't consider people in any of those categories to be "lazy" or "broken" and for it to be "their own fault" if they don't enjoy SL, or for them to have a "undue sense of entitlement". If you think it's unreasonable that they expect a little free virtual entertainment then, well, you haven't been to many places on the web. Remember, you're not just competing for their L$ - SL as a whole experience is competing for their leisure time against other stuff in the real world. And at the moment, in many cases it's losing that competition badly.



But what is "success" in SL terms? If by "success", you mean cashing out, then sure. If by "success" you mean becoming a leading light in the community, then sure. But if by "success" you mean being able to actually enjoy SL then no - and remember, everyone's definition of what they "enjoy" is different, and might not include making things.

It just baffles me that some of the more clueful and knowledgable business folks on SL are seeing people walk into the grand mall and arcade that is SL, look around a bit, then walk out the door, and instead of trying to make things appeal more are shaking their fists at them as they leave and screaming "You oughta have worked! You oughta have bought L$! You oughta! You oughta! You oughta!"

There is no requirement that anyone do business or make things in SL. I don't judge people negatively in SL if they don't do these things. SL offers wonderful freedom -- do whatever the heck you want!!! My point for months on these forums is simply that while SL is a fantasy, BUSINESS is not. A virtual business is still a business. You either have a free market or a game... but it's hard to have both. Personally, I don't think most people are cut out to be entrepreneurs or would enjoy it, but I'm all for anyone who wants to try their hand at it going for it.

I also don't pre-judge "success", and stop assuming i'm judging people based on misconceptions in your head. Success is having a goal and accomplishing it... big or small. Success is having fun at SL.

I don't say anyone "OUGHTA" do anything in SL. Live and let live. It's a free-for-all. Takes a lot of self-motivation to enjoy SL right now, regardless of whether it's on the creation, social, or business front.

No, I don't think SL is for everyone RIGHT NOW. There are a lot of things that need to be done to improve SL's retention rate, and some of that equation comes from LL, some from existing residents, and some has to come from within each prospective customer as well.


I only had two points to you:
1. don't try to boil down business success in SL to "sandbox luck", "oldbie help", etc. People create neat little businesses in all sorts of ways, and quite a lot of it is due to self-sufficiency and clever partnering.
2. you either have a free market and user-based content creation, or you have a game where everyone becomes a mogul and free money for all, but you can't have both.

You, personally, may not. Others seem to. Look at any number of the posts saying that people "won't do the work necessary", "won't do what's required", and even one saying "if you don't just repeat your RL job in SL, you are choosing a poorer SL so don't complain about it".



No, that's not true. Or rather, while you technically can "do whatever the heck you want", you can only meaningfully do it on SL if you can get other people to participate in it - after all, who wants to sit on their own on the SL world talking to themselves? If those other people are sitting in camping chairs, you can't do that. If they're having to chase money because they have to pay to get into events, you can't do that. If they're having to chase money so that they can have it to make themselves an attractive venue for future money-chasers, you can't do that. Even if they're chasing money by running a successful in-game business that's supporting hundreds of people, they're still not socially supporting the roles of others, which is probably just as important to retention. Bear in mind that in many ways, SL actually impedes freedom. There are plenty of social talkers where you can have a luxury marble house without having to pay real money for it and tier. By making you pay for it SL throws another obstacle in the way.



So am I! I have nothing against people who want to try and make things, run businesses, etc. I'm trying it myself and I've even joined NCI helping others who do. My point however is that we can't just write off the people who don't want to. For all we know, all those folks sitting in camping chairs would have left SL otherwise - that's why I wanted to do a survey.



Well, if you are suggesting that "success is having fun in SL", then you'd better reconsider the claim that "not everyone in SL can be successful".



I don't try to boil it down that way. I've never said these are the only way people can succeed. I have said, and I continue to say, that they are unsustainable in the long run and that they tilt the market in a way that discourages those who don't get them, but only "discourages", not "destroys".



I don't want those two. I want a game where we have a free market and user-based content creation, but at the same time, everyone has fun.

valid point. I see "success" as a complex thing, because we all have more than one goal, no? (well usually!) And when it comes to something like SL, I think it's important for people to try to have fun too, that's why i added it. If you are not successful at one thing, you can try again, or do something else. The latter can be within SL or somewhere else.

but yeah, not everyone will be successful in SL as in having fun. Some people find SL boring as all hell. I don't think Linden Lab is at a point yet where it needs to fight for those people. It has too many other problems to solve first.



it's really hard to build one system where everyone has fun, and SL's technology is a LONG way from providing the flexibility that in-world activities are so diverse that there will be something to everyone

under LL's current business model (which is an over-riding given on top of which all this is built), I see the best path through improving the technology and then fostering incentive structures to ensure the best content (activities, clothing, entertainment, objects, land layout, etc) possible...

it's a classic chicken and egg problem -- build the cool world so people come, or have people so that the builders of the cool world come

And I don't agree. I think that we aren't going to reach a point where everyone in SL can have fun without some shaking around of the economic model, which needs to be done before too many people start to depend on it.



Well, that's just the stinger though. "Incentives" are all well and good, but if it's going to be done by people paying, people need the money to pay with. I myself, last week, was ejected from a free house I'd recieved on a private island build on the grounds I wasn't spending time there, and I had to say, "well, fair enough - it was free in the first place after all - but I couldn't spend time in your build because there's no way of earning money there and I needed money to furnish the house".

fair enough

If you've jotted down your suggested changes to the economic model, paste a link and I'll take a look.

If someone's not having fun, why should they even be in SL?

Some peoples' definition of fun is being paranoid and miserable, and not taking the time to smell the roses.

Regards,

-Flip

Well, exactly.

If the poorest person in SL can't have fun, they'll probably leave.

Then there's a new poorest - and one less customer for everyone else.

A few thousand iterations and Anshe is alone on the grid.

Not really. If they weren't going to spend money, they're not really a lost customer. SL is the cheapest massive experience online. If someone doesn't want to part with a few pennies for the optional glitz, well, they're free to move on to something that costs a whole lot more.

Create and consume, create and consume... I still think LL needs to come up with something in between for people who want to do neither.

Should WoW come up with something for people who don't want to pay to play it or don't want to craft, quest, or hunt?

They did that. It's a total free account that lets you hang out with your buds and explore a new world.

I didn't say they weren't going to spend money. Being the poorest means they have less money than everyone else, not that they have zero.



Why should they want to pay extra pennies for the optional glitz if there's nothing in it for them?

What's the attraction in someone who doesn't have art skills paying real money for L$ to make the best AV they can, if they can't show it off because someone who does have the skills can just make a better one of their own without spending any money - and have it be unique?

There's always "socialise". Or "play". Socialising is pretty well catered for, and more to do with residents than the structure. Play is a bit underdeveloped to be honest IMO.

But WoW is most definetely a game and not a world-platform.

People are prepared to pay to play WoW and not SL. That's a market issue. Forcing it won't help.

Anyone can craft, quest, or hunt in WoW. Not everyone can in SL. Even if they could learn by practice (oh, and big thanks for your recommendation of "Drawing on the right side of the brain" - first time I've been inspired by a book about art since I couldn't see over a desk) not everyone has the time.