|
Jeffrey Gomez
Cubed™
Join date: 11 Jun 2004
Posts: 3,522
|
11-12-2005 21:56
From: Satchmo Prototype I loved the Game Dev contest and we didn't even win. It was really fun to work hard with a team like that to build a game that hundreds of people enjoyed playing. But then again... we were never in it for the money. Neither were we. We did it both because making games is a blast and the land they offered would allow our team to continue building. Then we brought in AlwaysBlack and the rest is history. The process from Point A to Point B is the problem. And, frankly, RCR should've gotten more than an "honorable mention" for the hard work you guys put into it.  From: Satchmo Prototype You make it sound as if it's a game or an open standard. Not all "platforms" are open standards. I can think of the biggest, most ubiquitous platform in the world, and it's very very closed. Perhaps I should clarify. When I say "open standard," I'm referring to opening the protocols that Second Life itself uses. Essentially, this would relate to giving residents an API, two-way XML-RPC, and so forth. It does not mean making the entire platform of Second Life open source software, but it certainly can work that way. Using Google again, they function largely by drawing on the intelligence of other people. They fiercely support OSS in an effort to spread their product, and make Google itself modular to the point there are entire games based on their technology. Google, in context, would be an example of an open standard, simply because they allow open hooks into their software. From: Satchmo Prototype But in the over-arching picture, I think most successful companies have become successful because of "Intelligent Design". Every business decision should be carefully weighed and thought through. Even google which started out as a really good alogrithm has manuevered themselves into a blue chip company making decisions about IM, desktop search, news, email, etc... I completely disagree. Companies become successful by listening to their userbase with a grain of salt and giving them the ability to find what they want in the product. Using the games industry, the only successful games that still "work" two, five, ten years down the line, are almost always due to a strong modding community. This sort of functionality - harnessing the power of other people without "using" them - is exactly what they should be focusing on. Not inciting residents to action for penance. Not kicking the tools we have down because, hey, that one guy crashed the grid. But instead, finding a way that all of our effort can condense itself to help their product without screwing over the ones that do. And just for relish, 1.7 broke Primmies. 
_____________________
---
|
|
Satchmo Prototype
eSheep
Join date: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 1,323
|
11-12-2005 22:02
From: Jeffrey Gomez Companies become successful by listening to their userbase with a grain of salt and giving them the ability to find what they want in the product. Using the games industry, the only successful games that still "work" two, five, ten years down the line, are almost always due to a strong modding community.
All points well taken. Congrats, it's not often I'm swayed by a forum debate. I agree API's are key. I was on an API kick a few months ago when the whole GOM thing went down. API's is 2005 thinking, the "oh yea, API's we'll get around to those scary things eventually" is very 1990's. p.s. 1.7 broke RCR too! It's a simple fix, but a low priority. I imagine for Primmies it could be a WAY more complex problem. |
|
Nexeus Fatale
DJ Nexeus
Join date: 28 Aug 2004
Posts: 128
|
11-12-2005 23:20
Maybe it's me here, but the way I look at it... name one online something that is perfect.
Ohh, do me a favor now, name the next online something that takes the bold that it does and is perfect.
I say those comments not to sound like a fanboi but to make this larger comment here. When AIM first came out, it was bugged, when FireFox came out, it was bugged (YES, and I'm a huge FF supporter here). Things are bugged, the better they get they also get more and more bugged.
The problem is this, everyone online falls under one simple premise that it is on a bugged system. Yes, everyone, welcome to the realization that the internet, although amazing and a vast universe and has been around for 10 years, is bugged. There are still disconnects, severs still crash, problems still happen.
This post that your reading probably is bugged (because there are spelling and grammatical errors in it).
Point is this:
For your #1 point I can only point to what happened with Internet Explorer and Netscape not FireFox. Just because the parent company eats it up, doesn't mean that the other endeavor had to give up. That's not an SL problem, but one more based on the owners of who made it. Hey IGE, among other linden to real dollar retailers are still around.
For your #2 point, no one, at all, can please anyone with every single patch. These things take time, and each patch adds something new, unique, and interesting, it then gets finalized until the next major patch.
For your #3 point, yes there is load balancing issues, and scalability issues. How do I know that, I distinctly remember the lindens mentioning that it is a problem that they see and are looking for means and ways to fix it. Hummm....
For your #4 point, I don't think they are screwing anyone around. Okay yes, real time is being put into these projects, and yes people are getting paid in Lindens, which you can transfer into real money. You can also invest those lindens into new clothing, tools, animations, land, or resources that you can make even more money with. Also ask this question - if people are doing these projects, what makes you think its the only thing they are doing?
For your #5 point, I would love to see some examples of how recent system exploits have not been policed properly? I really don't know, at the same time, what would you enforce? How would you enforce it? You enter the question of what is and is not enforceable in SecondLife.
For your #6 point, yeah, I do agree with you, there should be a backup system for the things that you build in world. Only problem is what is the backup for a building? Sure textures, clothing textures, etc can be saved by those who make them... but what about the rest? Say I loose a sim? Okay, how did I loose it, did I violate some form of Terms of Service or not pay for it? If so, I bet there's ways the Lindens could make those things available to me if I ever lost something? (Rollbacks are nice aren't they?)
For your point #7, last I remember, there is talk about making SecondLife open source - I could be wrong, but gee, I clearly remember Phillip saying that at the SLCC... hummm...
All in all, these are interesting points you bring up, but your cause for worry and what seems to be mass mobilization to change them all doesn't worry me at all.
Maybe if I’m so unworried I shouldn't have responded to this post. Ahh well, I'm going to take my non-worried self to the wiki, so I can develop some new things to help improve SL for my needs, and possibly people's needs to.
_____________________
Website: www.nexeusfatale.com
[nf_d]: nfd.nexeusfatale.com
|
|
Elex Dusk
Bunneh
Join date: 19 Oct 2004
Posts: 800
|
11-13-2005 06:47
From: Jeffrey Gomez Problem #1: Competition within your own system.
The GOM-versus-LindeX battle is just the tip of the iceberg. In the pursuit of profits and expediency, you face competition within your own system if users are only given marginal control. This competition is needless, because users that understand the task far better than you and are empowered to do so will ultimately be better at it.
I do believe, having not traded a single Linden, that the GOM was inherently better at managing resident finance than Linden Lab will ultimately be. Simply, they specialized in their field using dedicated staff members that generally knew what they were doing.
The only benefit of a Linden-driven system is one that should have been present for GOM: The ability to trade within the system. The lack of any ability to modify the client or access resident data hampered this process enough to drive the GOM away, a premature but not quite foolish decision on their part.
The inability to modify the software on an opt-in basis is the root cause of this problem. Had the GOM been able to place a hook into the client, their business would continue to flourish. GOM's demise was brought about by a lengthy period of "soft" XML-RPC calls over the month of September. This caused GOM to literally leak money and at the same time increased the amount of customer service involved with blown transactions. At a certain point GOM felt enough was enough and pulled the plug. The creation of the LindeX does not prevent other currency exchanges from existing, persisting, or being created from scratch. Nearly any kind of business can be launched within Second Life, however, Linden Lab, as it quite literally controls what Lenin termed the "Commanding Heights" of the economy, nothing prevents LL from competing against or replicating resident-created enterprises. For the most part, LL exercises little "government control" and lets the free market within Second Life's framework to work all this out on its own. From: Jeffrey Gomez Problem #4: Company Benefit versus System Benefit
Linden Lab is a company. It must pay its employees, its tax collectors, its creditors, and its investors. In doing so, anything that makes this process easier or more lucrative is in the company's best interest.
This places a conflict of interest in the higher levels of corporate culture. It has led to several "contests" and "bids" for real work under the assumption that the residents would be paid peanuts for what it is they do.
Even in the case of the Bedazzle bid, the majority of monies earned were meager in comparison to the actual time investment that went into Wells Fargo. You could make more working an entry-level job than what they were paid.
SLTV is another interesting farce. Bids were taken from residents that offered very real time, under the assumption they would be paid Linden Dollars and be given server rights for their work. They were not paid, and so SLTV was canned.
Do you think these residents are going to be fooled twice? I doubt it.
If you are going to benefit your company, do so through the ultimate realization of the system. Capitalize only on the tenants of it (bandwidth, storage, and niches). Screwing over your investors and main users will only ensure they're not there for you in the future. This is more a failure of a "house of engineers" in maintaining a relationship with their actual customer base. As _technical_ priorities shift ever more rapidly and certain kinds of _technical_ problems persist it becomes more an more apparent that meeting the needs of the Premium customers (they're where the revenues come from) is falling by the wayside. From: Jeffrey Gomez Problem #5: Enforcing the Unenforcable
Second Life is a small company with only so much to pay their lawyers. They refuse to go after even the most flagrant offenses to their system, simply because it would be too costly.
And yet, several recent cybercrimes have been committed. A more open system, awash in new capital, would be able to pursue these malcontents and bring them to terms with the real damage they caused.
Justice may be a lost cause, but when someone can crash the entire grid or break into major investments, I know I would want blood. This presumes that the person(s) involved are within a jurisidiction in which they can be prosecuted. If they're not, then they can't be prosecuted. Even if criminal or civil litigation were to go forward it doesn't ensure victory. Whether LL wishes to pursue such litigation is entirely their own decision. From: Jeffrey Gomez Problem #7: You aren't allowed to "do anything"
Second Life is a world that says you can do anything. This is not true. While it allows users sufficiently more control than MMOGs, I can think of at least a dozen things that cannot be done without having to majorly alter the system.
And yet, we aren't allowed to do this. Some have, yet they cannot come forward with their inventions in fear LL might delete all of their work.
We should be allowed to do whatever we wish with the client so long as it is in good faith. If we cannot, then "you can do anything" will remain as a false cause. You're allowed to do anything within the framework that exists and that LL provides. However, the framework can't be changed solely because this would better meet the needs of _one_ or a _few_ customers. Customers want as much value as possible from a product, but if the amount of value exceeds the revenues generated from the relationship then Linden Lab loses money. Another way of putting this: The customer isn't always right. From: Jeffrey Gomez Conclusion:
As Second Life exists now, it has neither the ability nor the will to become the "metaverse" it first set out to be. In order to make this happen, there must be a paradigm shift for all involved.
That being, we must all be empowered to handle our own data in the ways we see fit. Second Life must allow sufficient access to its inner workings and to competition for the niches forming around it. If they cannot, Linden Lab will spread itself too thin as a company and the entire thing will go to hell in a handbasket.
And, as someone that puts considerable effort into what he does here, I'm worried. Well, Linden Lab might already be spreading itself too thin. The chronic refrain appears to be "understaffed and overwhelmed." However, by all appearances, the in-world competitive environment remains healthy. And we can't have it both ways: revealing the "inner workings" (allowing third-parties to extend the client; "ownership" of data" might lead to more attacks or catastrophic "oopsies." Nothing wrong with being worried. We all worry about the things we love and Second Life is very lovable (along with being highly addictive). But we can't demand that someone else embrace and make certain changes soley because we feel it would better suit our own individual needs. The best we can hope for is that Linden Lab continue to embrace and make whatever changes they feel are necessary and that these changes will also benefit the in-world population. |
|
Forseti Svarog
ESC
Join date: 2 Nov 2004
Posts: 1,730
|
11-13-2005 14:04
From: Satchmo Prototype But in the over-arching picture, I think most successful companies have become successful because of "Intelligent Design". A lot of great companies I can think of didn't have a strategic plan they stuck to -- rather they got into business with what they thought was smart, and stayed both reactive and proactive to the market... often finding themselves in quite surprising, albeit successful areas. The Art of War is one of the most horribly cliche'd business teaching tools ever, but that phrase "no plan ever survives the enemy" ... or in this case, "the market" is a true one. we might not be disagreeing here... perhaps I'm just not sure what you meant above by "intelligent design" |
|
Icon Serpentine
punk in drublic
Join date: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 858
|
11-13-2005 18:27
The original points made in this thread seem a little premature and incited by current frustrations -- I cannot say for certain, for intent is not something we can perceive accurately -- but having read the entire thing and many of the responses... I can't really say I agree.
First of all -- the whole premise of this thread relies on SL's supposed evolution into some great 'metaverse.'
I've addressed the issue regarding use of the word 'metaverse' -- it is a flippant meme that means different things to different people.
All I can say is -- if SL isn't what you expect it to be -- surprise.
As for OSS and customization -- it's not universally valuable in application as it seems to be in theory.
_____________________
If you are awesome!
|