"Cutting them some slack"

As a point of research a friend and I have decided to pursue (especially after reading the forums here and at EQ2 for the past week), regarding SL and LL...

Do you think...

- the product is suitable for "public release" (i.e., do you think it's finished and stable).
- if no, do you think it ever will be, based on what you have seen over the past two years?
- the advertisements meet the reality.
- you're getting your money's worth.
- it's fair that a clause in the EULA stating that there is no guarantee of any kind that the product will actually work is a suitable model for excusing a broken product.
- LL is properly focusing resources on fixing what is broken.
- the users are given a fair assessment of the state of the game by LL.
- LL responds properly to the legion complaints of bugs and other breaks.
- you are getting the features you were told you'd be getting.

And if you answered "no" to any of the above...

- what would you like to see done about it?
- what have you done about it as a customer?
- if you have done something (written a letter, etc.), were you entirely satisfied with the actions taken to answer you or rectify the situation?
- why do you continue paying?

And lastly...

- Taken from the perspective of a general consumer, do you think something is wrong with the way companies can advertise and introduce an online product vs. what they are obligated to deliver (the point being, they can tell you pretty much anything they want and fail to deliver on those statements 100%)?

FYI I am posting this same set of questions on a variety of boards to try and get a general feeling for what is going on here. If you're interested, I'll be posting the results on my website sometime in the near future.

I'm in complete agreement with all of LF's answers

I don't think any MMORPG will ever be perfect, it is constantly evolving just as any other technology. There are good times and hard times and you'll always need a can of Raid.

Disclaimer:
1. I'm still a noob and the SL honeymoon isn't over for me yet.
2. During the last crash, I was able to log on just fine the 2+ days it was down for everyone else. I got a lot of work done but I missed out on a lot of potential sales for my SL business, so I felt the effects of the crash indirectly. I also relog about twice a night during my SL session due to glitches.
3. I'm a vicious bitch of a consumer when it comes to dealing with corporations that I feel have screwed me over. My god, do I have stories.


- the product is suitable for "public release" (i.e., do you think it's finished and stable).
Those two statements do not necessarily have anything to do with each other. Microsoft has been messing with the Windows OS for a decade now and they still don't have a completely stable product. I demand stability when its reasonable to expect it out of a product or service. I don't freak out on Dish Network when there's a storm and I lose my signal for 15 minutes. I DO freak out on my car dealership when my car's clutch goes 2 weeks after I bought it. I DO freak out on Verizon when it takes 3 months to get my phone installed.

- the advertisements meet the reality.
As much as anything could, I imagine, when you're dealing with something with as large a scope as SL. Everyone will take something different from it. If you're implying that LL needs to start putting "MAY CRASH OCCASIONALLY, STILL SOME ISSUES" on all their advertising, then there are scores of other companies that should be doing the same thing.

- you're getting your money's worth.
Yep.

- it's fair that a clause in the EULA stating that there is no guarantee of any kind that the product will actually work is a suitable model for excusing a broken product.
Wha? They aren't saying "suck it up, we're never gonna fix it, neener neener". They're working on it. They aren't making excuses, as far as I've seen. If anything they've owned up to their mistakes a lot faster than other companies I've dealt with.

- LL is properly focusing resources on fixing what is broken.
How the hell should I or anyone else besides the Lindens know what they're doing with their resources? Its in their best interests to fix the issues, so I'm working under the theory that they are.

- the users are given a fair assessment of the state of the game by LL.
I'd have to read what assessment you're speaking about.

- LL responds properly to the legion complaints of bugs and other breaks.
Again, "properly" is subjective. In the experiences I've had with them, yes.

- you are getting the features you were told you'd be getting.
Yep.


- Taken from the perspective of a general consumer, do you think something is wrong with the way companies can advertise and introduce an online product vs. what they are obligated to deliver (the point being, they can tell you pretty much anything they want and fail to deliver on those statements 100%)?

I have had problems with at least 50% of ANY business I've had dealings with. My cell phone contracts were filled with ridiculous fine print and I've had money taken from my account when I was due a refund after 4 supervisors told me that it would never happen. I've had to contact the Better Business Bureau and the NYS Attorney General's Office when Verizon couldn't get their act together enough to install a new phone line on my road for three months after numerous promises that it would be up the next week. Continue ad infinitum. I am a magnet for getting screwed over by Big Business.

My point is, I have a problem with ANY business that promises the world, but is either so ignorant and ill-organized within its own inner workings or so offensively neglectful of their consumer base that I have to take extreme measures just to make sure I don't get royally screwed.

I haven't had that experience with Linden Labs. The help has been courteous, my experiences have been positive. I understand that shit happens sometimes, and when it does I have no reason to think that the LL staff just closes up shop early and all go to $3 pitcher night at the corner bar. They honestly seem to be trying - and when you compare that to the ever-growing number of mega-conglomerates that act like its your duty to keep replenishing their coffers even when they lie, cheat and sometimes steal with little recourse on your end - an honest effort is good enough for me.

I'm seeking answers to these questions, which I will compare/contrast with the hundreds of posts on this topic throughout the boards. Please do not state justifications ("there will always be rough patches", or what is commonly known now as "fanboy" statements, as it is precisely why people are so willing to defend that I am exploring.

Be careful what you say in their defense, for example, saying "I would need to see such an assessment to read it..." means that one is not available to you. Comparisons with Microsoft are flawed as well...if you could not save a file on Windows XP, or could not log onto your machine for two days, I am willing to bet you would not be forgiving. Suffice to say I am warning you away from this approach to defense because it is a loser.

FYI, I worked for Microsoft for five years, and left to start an independent consulting and development effort, of which I had hoped to make SL a real tool. Twice I have proposed the software for interactive training media development, and twice it has been rejected because of the instability and bugs...and yes, they do advertise it as a developer platform. MSFT have given away millions and millions of dollars in consulting and product to make up for even minor flaws. They do it ALL the time. You would not believe the abuse they endure. SoE pro-rated every single EQ2 account three free days to make up for 1.5 days of downtime. WoW gave everybody that was affected by a specific inventory problem a free week. Jeez if SL gave everybody with an inventory problem a free week, nobody would have to pay.

FYI, yes, I have sent emails to the developer heads of Atari, Blizzard, Bioware, and received direct responses (not from SoE though). In fact I correspond with a couple of people at Bioware now regarding a into to game dev class curriculum I'm creating (IMHO, as a teaching tool, NwN is an outstanding tool to explore game design and development, better than SL because...well, it works. SL was my first choice, but I eventually had to reject it). Suffice to say I consider their input more relevent than a CEOs, who is more concerned with the fiscal realities of making the business succeed than anything else.

Please keep it simple and direct. If you need something restated, ask before you answer. I will be watching for the next few days.

- the product is suitable for "public release" (i.e., do you think it's finished and stable).

As long as there is still ghosting this answer will always be a "no". Ghosting is a pathetic embarrasment for LL.

- if no, do you think it ever will be, based on what you have seen over the past two years?

As long as they fix irrelavent things like round corners on the chat box instead of a real problem like ghosting... then no.

Do you think...



-To answer the actual question yes it is sutiable for "Public release"
-To answer the bracketed question, No its not finished but a intermediate platform to a much grander vision. No its not stable but neither is Microsofts Windows for that matter.



-Not being rude or snide but to answer a question with a question is Windows or the internet stable? No neither are so that can never truly be guarenteed even in boxed and "Finished" game that is released as every platform they play on is inherently different from the next.



-This is a point that can be argued either way but its primarly a individuals point of view. For me yes from the initial stand point that got me here.



-For me yes I am getting what I pay for.



This has to be in place because of what I mentioned earlier about the diversity of platforms people are attempting to run the program or programs on. Is it viable as an excuse not really but it does keep them from getting sued from Johnny Numb N.ts because he has the most archaic system in the world that has multiple other problems before trying to run that particular program.



-this stirs mixed emotions as the focus clearly seems driven from a marketing standpoint than that of a technical group standpoint but this is merely, and observation on my part and cannot be construed as a true statment or insight.



-Again Yes and No, they do give out a list of updates on the update patches However, this doesnt constitute a full disclosure as to known bugs and apparent continual problems.



-They respond but just not in the mannor of my or the publics liking.



- I don't know as I was told they are working on them. The inquiry was clearly defined but a difinitive date as to when they would be completed or released never was released.

And if you answered "no" to any of the above...



-more emphasis placed on previous content promises and focus on current underlying issues such as the server crash and down time in building redundant systems to take care of things. Prior planning could have prevented that down fall with fail safe redunant systems.



-In the past during beta I was very active in this endeavor of notification and communication however, recently have reverted to an observist standpoint.



-In all honesty, my friends and the abilities that I still have not yet dove into at this point.

And lastly...



-Simple responce on this-BUYER BEWARE is all I can honestly say as wording can be misconstrued to anyway people want to read it and a clear difinitive can most assuredly be excused by vague advertisement practices. Unfortunately that has been going on since the Snake Oil sales days. Thus is not likely to change in the near future as consumers continue to respond to the grandious.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Candy I think Tcoz was looking for specific answers to his questions not a generalized retort. Touche'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Well said, LF. Well said.

I also think it is wise for LL to scale up carefully, and use their $8M investment carefully. Yes, lots of things people want done, but too many cracks form when you try to do too much too fast. I was as frustrated as anyone last week but only because I'm so into what LL has done that "I want it when I want it". I advocate patience. Who knows if SL will pull it off, or if a next generation metaverse will instead take its place, but I'm rooting for LL.

Articulates like Catherine Omega and Gwyneth Llewelyn have had plenty to say in discussions like this before. It's quite redundant at this point; while well-meaning, there are a lot of misconceptions as to what's actually going on with LL, and unless you're a Linden or have dropped by their office a lot to get a good idea , it's hard to claim any "frontline vision".




From: /120/cd/29912/1.html




From: /18/a4/31370/1.html#post327133

There is a proverb that goes:

Watching someone on fire feels differently than being on fire yourself.


And in some strange, intangible yet consequential way . . . are not human beings very much the same, in that we grow, we "mature", but we are always works-in-progress?

I would be able to answer your question better, then, if you provided the said assessment for me to read. While I understand it is probably available somewhere I'm not going to go out of my way to find it if you don't provide it, or at least the relevent quote from it you want discussed.




I work for tech support for a very small software company. We have clients that have lost valuable information and business because their Windows machine goes nutty on them. Yet they go out and buy another Windows machine because that's all they know and all they feel is available to them without investing time and energy into learning to use another OS. Lately around the forums it seems its "cool, even fashionable" to hate LL. The difference is people bitch about Windows because their jobs generally rely on using it. When it breaks, it can cause massive damage. SL is a game - there's no reason to use it unless you enjoy it.


My point with listing the other companies I've had problems with before is to show that relatively speaking, any SL/LL problems I've had are FAR and AWAY outweighed by problems I've had from companies that were providing much more vital services to me and my family.

Fangirl gushing? Voice of the Willfully Ignorant? You judge. You did ask for what we think, i.e. opinions on how we feel about these issues, and dismissing statements that don't mesh with how you feel about the topics does not seem to be a good way to conduct a survey of any sort.

Although I would think this is obvious...input from Linden Alts, or people affiliated with LL, is not valid, as they will naturally choose to defend. Employees, relatives, and affiliates are not eligible for this contest, as it were.

Not to mention the fact that quoting somebody is a way to avoid making your own statement. Please try to avoid it.

I'd really like to be able to participate here, but it appears you are looking for simple answers to very complex questions. Perhaps from your point of view this seems perfectly reasonable since you already know what you have in mind as the purpose behind all your questions, but please realize for those of us who live outside your head, these questions cannot be answered so simply as you request.

Also deliberate or not, there appears to be quite a bias at work here. You ask for details to follow up answers of "no", but not for answers of "yes". You even go so far as to warn people to "be careful what you say in their defense."

Further, many of the questions seem designed to illicit certain responses. For example, your question, "Taken from the perspective of a general consumer, do you think something is wrong with the way companies can advertise and introduce an online product vs. what they are obligated to deliver (the point being, they can tell you pretty much anything they want and fail to deliver on those statements 100%)? " is impossible to answer directly. It is a leading question which assumes way too much. Any direct answer to the question as it is stated affirms that companies do indeed fail to deliver on their promises. You make no room for the possibility of a company behaving properly. Clearly there is an agenda here.

You claim to be trying to explore "why people are so willing to defend", but you do not appear to want to eantertain the possibility that such defense may be justified. Perhaps you should also explore why people are so willing to attack.

Anyway, I'll be happy to participate if and when you change the wording of the questions to demonstrate truly neutral, unbiased inquiry instead of the slanted, purpose driven assumptions that they currently appear to be.

Ok Inez, I'll take this up.

- Sprint failed to forward me voicemail for several days a few months ago. This was BRUTAL to me. They provided me with a month of free service, AND a code to knock 5 percent off my billing for the NEXT YEAR. This is absolutely true.
- My Sprint phone broke, out of the blue (couldn't dial out). I walked into a Sprint store, showed them the phone, they looked it over, and upgraded it to the next model. FREE, and immediately.
- Two days (just about) of downtime in EQ2, and all members, whether affected or not, were given three free days. The problem as not recurred. If it does, the same compensation can be expected.
- People who reported a specific inventory problem in WoW were given a free week.
- MS has given away MILLIONS in free services and product to right wrongs that are demonstrated to be the direct result of the product itself (not because replacing a system file suddenly caused instability).

What compensation is being offered to demonstrate acknowledgement?

SL is also "only a game" when it is convenient. The fact is, it is a platform and is advertised as being a medium to generate real money via a new venue for business, as well as being "just a game". People indeed lose money when the game goes down. How are they compensated? Are they? And how about SoE and Blizzard...these really are "just games", yet they are compensating people in some fashion when they goof.

This isn't a survey, I never said it was. There is a mechanism for posting surveys. Perhaps another time. Warning you to be careful in your defensive statements is entirely to your benefit. I would also say the same for negative...if people post ridiculous negative statements, I will warn them not to. I myself frequently say I admire the technical ability and vision of LL, and have attempted, twice, to represent the software as suitable for specific distance learning tasks. You are assuming that I am all negative, and that is not true at all.

For instance, I consider the first post in this thread after the OP very relevant. No quotes, just personal experience and feeling. I fully intend to represent that data exactly as it stands. There didn't seem to be any problems answering the questions at all in a very pro manner.

- the product is suitable for "public release" (i.e., do you think it's finished and stable).
It's fairly stable for me, but there seems to be a good section of the population who have serious stability issues. It's obviously not finished, they keep adding and changing things.
Short answer, no.

- if no, do you think it ever will be, based on what you have seen over the past two years?
It will never be finished. I still hold out hope for stability.

- the advertisements meet the reality.
never read the advertisements.

- you're getting your money's worth.
Yes, I payed 10 dollars once for the ability to play. I pay 40 to have property in world. I truthfully don't know if that's a fair price for virtual land, but I pay it, therefore it's worth it to me.

- it's fair that a clause in the EULA stating that there is no guarantee of any kind that the product will actually work is a suitable model for excusing a broken product.
Yes

- LL is properly focusing resources on fixing what is broken.
I don't know. They have fixed a few problems since I started, but a lot of major problems remain unsolved. What I don't know is if they're working on fixes but it's this time consuming or if they aren't working on fixes at all.

- the users are given a fair assessment of the state of the game by LL.
Yes

- LL responds properly to the legion complaints of bugs and other breaks.
Technical bugs and breaks yes. Social ones no, but in the social case I'd prefer they not step in unless there's no alternative. They're responses seem to be a little inconsistant but I haven't been on the recieving end of the inconsistancies so what I know is second hand.

- you are getting the features you were told you'd be getting.
yep, I've gotten a few I wanted. Still holding out for new Havok. There are a lot of features requested that get no response. I would like it if they'd say no, or way down on the list, or almost done to every request.

And if you answered "no" to any of the above...

- what would you like to see done about it?
I would like to see a development team set the task of building secondlife 2 or whatever name they dream up for it. starting almost from scratch using what they've learned in sl.

- what have you done about it as a customer?
I make suggestions and bug reports as I have idea and find problems.

- if you have done something (written a letter, etc.), were you entirely satisfied with the actions taken to answer you or rectify the situation?
I've reported a few people. I get an email amounting to "We recieved your report", that's it. I would like to have some follow up as to what was done about the report. LL seems to think no answer is better than a "No" or "We won't do anything about it, because...". I'd rather have any response.

- why do you continue paying?
Because there is no alternative game where i can build, script, use those creations, and share those creations with others as readily.

- Taken from the perspective of a general consumer, do you think something is wrong with the way companies can advertise and introduce an online product vs. what they are obligated to deliver (the point being, they can tell you pretty much anything they want and fail to deliver on those statements 100%)?
This is what trial periods are for. As long as I have at least a week to test without being charged I won't complain. I ignore most targetted advertising anyway.

I do not think "Finished" is a requirement for public release. But stable, yes. My answer is yes.
Yes. I read advertisements with common sense.
Yes
Yes. I read it, and accepted it.
No.
Yes
Not sure, Haven't filed many complaints. The only feature suggestion I instigated was implemented.
Not sure. What was I told I would be getting? I don't believe it 'til I see it.

Minimum resources into the teen grid, unless the teen grid earns LL more cash. Of course, I realize a start-up amount is required to get the teen grid up, so LL has a grace period. After that, resources spent should be relative to income produced by either grid.
Nothing, I'm pretty happy with SL.

I don't believe LL has failed 100% with SL. You need to learn how to formulate proper questions for research purposes. A few of yours are loaded.

Uh oh, that disqualifies me because I'm a Linden alt, relative, and affiliate... 3-in-1 triple thread. <--- kidding of course.

Seriously though, Tcoz, to clarify, if you were referring to my quotes of Cat and Gwyn, I was using them simply because I consider them paragon examples of what is often said in a discussion like this. It's going to come up time and time again, so it's redundant. I could say it no better than them. I can't personally relate nor do I "get" a lot of the techyness because I revel in simple pleasures like sunrises and beanbag chairs, but I do get good vibes off of SL and LL.

I didn't answer your questions because although I liked them, I have found it easier to answer it if was laid out on a website in the form of a submittable survey or something with texty fields. Hey, if you tabulated everything in a database, that'd make for easy info access. Might get more people to send in data too, instead of breaking quoteboxes up.

What do you think?

Cheerio

Thanks, Torley, but I don't think that's quite what Tcoz was after... I wrote that in reply to one in a long line of posts that seemed to assert that (for example) the reasons there are problems with sim borders is in some way related to a Liaison not knowing the specifics of some LSL function. Like any company, employees of Linden Lab each have a job description and a reason they were hired. A business degree does not teach you the same skills as a degree in computer science, and vice-versa. Being hired as a Liaison does not mean you get write access to the CVS server.

Tcoz is well aware of the various roles in modern software development, (certainly more so than I!) and knows that simply working at the same company does not make one interchangeable with all other positions.

And now, Tcoz, your questions:
If I can answer these two together, it would be to say that no, I question whether or not it is suitable for public release. If it is, it's not by much. The current design isn't scalable, and I think they should have planned for this better. SL's growth spike effectively crippled the entire world, and it's not like it hasn't been obvious that this is what was happening for a few months, at least. I know that they're working on it, but I do think they need to be

As for the recent "just shut it down and stick in a new hard drive" disaster, I think it's exposed a lot of problems with the current database/sims/client system, and I have high hopes for some of the improvements

The advertisements do all describe things that exist within SL, but I don't think that the actual experience is one that can be readily conveyed in ad form, if you know what I mean. The ads make SL appear to be much less annoying than it can be. Obviously, this is hardly different from any other advertising, and given that they haven't claimed anything that isn't true, I can hardly condemn it.

Definitely. Granted, I'm one of the rare people that have actually profited from SL, but even excusing that, I think it was definitely worth it.

I don't know that "yeah, well... we never said it would work" is actually something that the Lindens have ever said. Besides, as far as I know, isn't the "interruption of service" clause boilerplate in these sorts of agreements?

I've written several letters, of varying degrees of nit-pickiness. So far, they've all been received fairly well, at least as far as I can tell. Several of the suggestions I've made have appeared in later versions, meaning it's either because of coincidence (I admit, I have made an awfully large number of suggestions) or because they were genuinely motivated, either by "hey, we never thought of that!" or "yup, there's another request for that; we should move it up the schedule." Either way, I have to say that yes, I am satisfied with the response I've received personally.

I don't, I have a lifetime account. Even if that were not the case, I would still continue to pay, as my fees would never exceed the money I can make from SL, and even if THAT were not the case, I still find it fun.

Did you have a specific company in mind here? I don't believe that the SL advertising campaign actually does fail to deliver what it advertises. It just throws in a lot of limitations as well. I don't believe that the Lindens have ever failed to deliver on a promise 100%, and I think they've actually done a reasonably good job, Q4 2004 notwithstanding.

If you're looking for an excuse on their part, I guess they use the "we were hoping to get it in by 1.x, but it's not done yet" has come up a couple times. I don't know if that's truly what you're after, though. If all development were ceased on SL, then yeah, I'd be pretty disappointed. I'm far more tolerant of feature delay than feature abandonment.

In my opinion, the biggest problem Linden Lab faces is and has always been one of communication. Too often, users see varying qualities of response depending on situation and the individuals involved. At times, it certainly does seem like luck of the draw as to whether or not your bug report will actually be read, and if read, whether or not it will be relayed to anyone that cares. I'm sure that's not actually the case, but it's too easy for a user to become jaded in the face of such a problem.

"You should report that," I say.
"I would, but they never reply when I do," the SLer responds.

This is not good. Neither is the opacity of the account termination/suspension/review process. Yes, most suspended users know full well what they did. Or if they don't, they can guess. Was it the sexually abusive language in the Welcome Area? The swastikas all over their house? Who knows?

More importantly, by not actually saying anything beyond, "you know what you did!" it allows for far broader denials, not just by the abusive user, but by their friends, acquaintances, random passers-by, and pretty much anyone who cares to throw in their two cents. I have always maintained that this is detrimental to the "community" and to Linden Lab as a company.

In terms of internal communication, it's hard for me to say, as I don't work there and certainly don't know the office dynamic, but at times, it feels as though stability and compatibility issues go unchecked simply because the developers aren't aware of them. I could be completely wrong here, but this is just the "vibe" I've picked up from watching what gets reported and what gets fixed.

So yes, I think the Lindens do a good job, but that Linden Lab as a whole needs more... glue. Does that make sense?

Catherine

Do I think:
- the product is suitable for "public release" (i.e., do you think it's finished and stable).

No, there are promised major changes coming up, so it's certainly not finished, and it certainly is not stable, both in that it is updated frequently and in that I never have a session which works without error, frequently an error that requires restarting the program.

- if no, do you think it ever will be, based on what you have seen over the past two years?

There is a fair chance that it will fail and go out of business. During my year I have seen many bugs go unfixed, documentation errors not corrected, and behavior from residents that makes me find it quite plausible that SL will fail, especially if it gets some competition.

- the advertisements meet the reality.
No. I seem to recall reading an ad which suggested that the streaming technology allowed one to always have the world there when you turned to look at it. This is simply not true for me, I am always having to wait for things to appear. The avatar customization is not as flexible as some of the claims would suggest. As I write this I am unable to login, despite the recent update to enqueue logins, and I don't recall this sort of problem being mentioned in any advertisements.

- you're getting your money's worth.
Yes and No. Despite the many problems, if you enjoy this sort of thing at all there's just no way to go wrong on the one time ten dollar deal. If you can't get ten dollars of good out of SL then you probably just don't like this sort of program. I pay 15 bucks a month for land fees and I am not using my full tier, so that is wasted money, and I don't spend any signicant amount of time at the the land I do own. I pay because I like the product and I don't see how LL can possibly be making money on the one time ten dollar fee.

- it's fair that a clause in the EULA stating that there is no guarantee of any kind that the product will actually work is a suitable model for excusing a broken product.

This question is not well worded. The clause in the may be fair and legal, but that is no reason for exusing a broken product. The chronic errors the program exhibits are are a fact and cannot be altered by law or by a Pollyanna attitude. From a moral point of view I would say that LL fails short of delivering what it claims, and for that there is no excuse at all.

- LL is properly focusing resources on fixing what is broken.

I have no way to judge that properly except that they certainly should not be making any cosmetic changes at all such as the tinted background on the chat and the alteration of the appearance of the popup information.
- the users are given a fair assessment of the state of the game by LL.

I have no way to know that one way or the other.

- LL responds properly to the legion complaints of bugs and other breaks.

The only useful way to respond to bugs is to fix them, and there are plenty of well documented bugs that have been around a year now, so I would have to say no, they may be trying but they haven't succeded.

- you are getting the features you were told you'd be getting.

I think LL uses advertising puffery and exxageration as do many companies. The most serious failure to deliver promises is the failure of the streaming technology to provide the world on demand as it is claimed to do.

And if you answered "no" to any of the above...

- what would you like to see done about it?

Make the streaming technology work as claimed, fix the bugs, correct and improve the documentation.

- what have you done about it as a customer?

I file bug reports, but I don't file all possible bug reports because it gets kind of repetive and dull typing the same thing for the hundredth time. I tiered down from 75 dollars a month to 15 and may tier down even more.

- if you have done something (written a letter, etc.), were you entirely satisfied with the actions taken to answer you or rectify the situation?
I haven't written a letter, the bug reports should be sufficient.

- why do you continue paying?

I want to do my part to help this venture, and paying them is the best thing I can do.

And lastly...

- Taken from the perspective of a general consumer, do you think something is wrong with the way companies can advertise and introduce an online product vs. what they are obligated to deliver (the point being, they can tell you pretty much anything they want and fail to deliver on those statements 100%)?


It may not be a legally actionable matter but it does pretty much suck big time from a customer's point of view.

Pardon me, my apologies, Cat -- I should clarify. I did not mean your quote in response to Tcoz -- but rather, I quoted it because I think it's a fine example of something that comes up time and time again in a discussion like this. It's a tangential thoughtline but inevitably gets brought up when someone screams "HOLY MOTHER OF INVENTION! LINDENS SHOULD FIX THE BUGS INSTEAD OF WASTING TIME ELSEWHERE!", for whatever inexplicable reason. ^_^

Blah Blah Blah... you're all windbags... who really gives a sh*t about what any of you think?

Its a simple decision: If you can roll with LL's issues then stay. If you can't then leave.

Simple as a pimple.

Goddamn people love to complicate simple, simple issues.

I would say "yes" to all your points and endorse what LF put.

It's already publicly released, BTW if the public can access it and it is no longer labelled "beta test".

At a certain point Linden Labs will have to change their name from "Labs" -- implying experimentation and endless testing and guinea pigs -- to say, "Linden Servers".

When they change their name to "Linden Servers" they will explicitly brand what they've already established an excellent reputation for -- service. The double entendre in their name will actually serve them LOL. Compared to TSO and many other online games, they've got way, way more interaction with players and accommodation to their wishes than anything out there, including even just photo archive web sites.

They will have to bite down at some point and realize they are not really just about coolio cutting-edge tekkie experiments but more about publicly-accessible servers with virtual estate, and they should just make these servers work as well as they can, provide as much flexibility as they can, and try to pre-avoid player disputes by more explicit zoning of servers -- think of the grief they'd be avoiding now if they had put as much effort into establishing residential servers as they did a teen grid.

It's my own private and uneducated opinion still-in-formation that Linden Labs has not created or extended the technology to serve as a WWW of games. The game-within-games or projects they've subsidized just don't work well enough and just don't have that quintessential "suspension of disbelief" factor to enable them to claim that they can step back and provide the tools to thousands of game makers to use them as a WWW. Maybe when they get Havoc 2...and lots of other "maybes".

I think they should have the courage to realize what they do have: a great system for auctioning and serving virtual estate. What many potential customers would do with that is come online and set up suburban or village-type picket-fence "banal and mundane" communities with "nations of shopkeepers" selling mainly vehicles and av and home decorations. It's not as glamorous as all that tekkie stuff they wanted to do, but it's a great business and they could be cashing in more on it with stuff like "Live online first and try out your Internet date before you meet" or "try out your business model in a virtual world" sort of stuff.

I didn't fly in a jet plane exactly but the Morpheus thingie with the car/copter/sub was damn near that experience. I just wish I could steer it better.

blah blah blah windbag blah blah blah bullsh*t blah blah self serving rhetoric blah blah blah

Do you think...

- the product is suitable for "public release" (i.e., do you think it's finished and stable).
Barely suitable.... probably equivalent to a point 1 release in my book.
- if no, do you think it ever will be, based on what you have seen over the past two years?
The jury is still out on this one. I am betting my monthly tier that it will eventually be suitable for what I want.

- the advertisements meet the reality.
Nope. Not even close.

- you're getting your money's worth.
My response to this varies on the status of the sim I am in and what I am doing on an hour by hour basis.

- it's fair that a clause in the EULA stating that there is no guarantee of any kind that the product will actually work is a suitable model for excusing a broken product.
Legal and fair have nothing to do with each other. It is legal. I don't consider it fair.

- LL is properly focusing resources on fixing what is broken.
Without a detailed account/first hand knowledge of their actual resource allocation, I have no clue.

- the users are given a fair assessment of the state of the game by LL.
I don't believe we are, but I don't expect us to be either.

- LL responds properly to the legion complaints of bugs and other breaks.
50/50

- you are getting the features you were told you'd be getting.
About 75% - the key non-"feature" that I am not getting is stability. The second most obviously "missing" feature is a working physics engine/sim-sim border crossing handler.
And if you answered "no" to any of the above...

- what would you like to see done about it?
See my answer to the "resource allocation" question.

- what have you done about it as a customer?
Bug reports filed

- if you have done something (written a letter, etc.), were you entirely satisfied with the actions taken to answer you or rectify the situation?
Entirely? No. Did I expect to be entirely satisfied with the response.actions? No.

- why do you continue paying?
It's what is available.

And lastly...

- Taken from the perspective of a general consumer, do you think something is wrong with the way companies can advertise and introduce an online product vs. what they are obligated to deliver (the point being, they can tell you pretty much anything they want and fail to deliver on those statements 100%)?
Worded that way, yes. But you are back to a question of "being legal" versus "fairness".

blah blah blah blah impotent complaining blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah impotent complaining blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah impotent complaining blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah impotent complaining blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah impotent complaining blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah impotent complaining blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah impotent complaining blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah impotent complaining blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah impotent complaining blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah impotent complaining blah blah blah blah