1.2 - Absolutely necessary

I'm sure I'll get a few flames for this, and I probably deserve them as I'm going to be controversial.

For the record I think the changes in 1.2 are absolutely necessary for the good of the game.

But first, I need to lay out some assumptions which I'm pretty sure are accurate:
- The posters on this board represent less than 10% of the SL user base.
- This is the same 10% who own the majority of land and wealth.
- New sims are consumed as fast as they are put up by the Lindens and they are largely consumed by the same group.
- There is 'nothing to do' in most sims but fly and shop.

Further:
- New users generally never get to own land due to $L cost
- New users fly around, get bored of looking at stuff and not being able to own anything and quit
- New users are never hard-core enough to hop on new sims as they come out.


Frankly, I'm not really surprised by these changes. LL realise that stickiness in Second Life comes from gameplay/interactivity and socialisation and so they are trying to add to both in-game. Unfortunately for many people on this board, the hard-core users who are rich in land and L$ this will kill their SL experience as LL can no longer afford to maintain their 1/4 sim tribute to Sartre or whatever they dream up. To do so means constantly adding new sims to try and entice new users to build and stay, and as covered already, that doesn't work and is expensive for LL. I actually think there are probably too many Sims already for the number of users and I bet LL are thinking the same.

Whats more, all that land and prim usage ends up as a real and hard cost to LL in the form of bandwidth. LL is VERY bandwidth intensive. There's a good chance that all the prims you own, delivered to the visitors to your lands, aren't paid for by the $15 you pay each month. I bet the numbers show them they absolutely have to increase the number of users while reducing the ammount of stuff the top tier own.

What will these changes mean for average-Joe SLer who never visits these boards?
- A tidy piece of land
- No L$ hassle ever again
- Guaranteed chance to build
- Less monthly cost, if not zero.

I think, although will never know as we don't hear from these people that they don't give a toss for land this, and tax that but love the idea of not paying anything each month! It's a bold move by LL.

What this means for the hard core?
- Shops will be fine. Chances are you can run a big shop for the same as you're paying now and you never have to be taxed on it. Your game experience won't change.
- Projects will flourish. Projects like DL, the dead Myst project, LW, even the cyberpunk city could do just fine as the interactivity is there.
- People who own land just to own land will have to cut back on how much they own. I absolutely believe that LL is happy about this and it is required. If this wasn't the case natural evolution would eventually mean a few people owning the majority of land (I'm sure we're already on the 80:20 rule with 80% of land owned by 20% of people.. Not good). Essentially LL is now saying 'justify your land ownership'. If you can, you will break even or even get some cash back in your pocket. If you can't you better be happy to pay some more each month.
- Hard core socialisers will possibly be better off. A regular house party at your 10 buck plot could net you 40 bucks back in your pocket each month. Even casual socialisers will do fine and probably end up paying less.

The real test of this change will happen a month after launch when we see how the shape of the world shifts. Frankly, the discussion on this board is going to be almost irrelevant as the people who this really affects in a positive manner hardly visit. The results will only be apparent to LL and maybe to us as we see more people, more interesting builds and less junk filling the world.

We'll just have to wait and see

Pirate
*ducks*

Bravo! Extremely well written post, and I agree 100% - there is not a single point I would dispute.

Well said Pirate *wanting to get in before the flames do*.

After watching the concerned citizens at Ahern tonight I wanted to add one pont that I think isn't being readily understood: RL purchase of server resources does not hurt those who don't. For example if you or Jrandom Resident can afford to support 10 sims all for you, good for you. Indeed, probably good for me too because you've just freed up resources that I might have used for my little build. So yeah, some people may choose to buy a whole bunch of land but the only negative impact I can see from that is the emotional one if keeping up with the Joneses is important to me.

On a slightly related note I've heard that v1.2 causes cancer/infertility/impotence, anyone know if true?

what he said! nicely put!

Infertility and impotence, but not cancer. It's kind of hard to have kids in Second Life

Actually, that is Mountain Dew.

No flames from me. I think you're absolutely right. I also think the very visceral responses tonight were entirely predictable. The 10% that post here are a pretty passionate bunch who have a lot of time invested and relationships built here, so we are also predictably unsympathetic to the "hi. I just got here but I deserve as much as you have" crowd. The tax system was supposed to do exactly what the new changes are designed to do... but more forcibly. I don't think they quite expected people to prosper in the L$ economy (and therefore resource usage) to the extent that a lot of people have. If LL has proven one thing to me in the time I've been here is that they really love SL and the community that's grown up inside it. They wouldn't make sweeping changes if they didn't think it was ultimately the best thing to do. They've earned the benefit of the doubt from me, and then some. Anyway, excellent post Pirate.

I really do agree with the important parts of that post, though I don't think it's the L$ cost that's preventing new users from owning land.

There's actually tons of extra land, and I personally bought a little land my first or second paid week. The issue is actually being able to build something on that land, as buying land doesn't presently guarantee you a single object.

Olive would've took care of that problem, the additions in 1.2 will take care of the 'buying up the whole sim' problem. They can do it, but they'll be paying LL's bills.

Agreed.

The costs are not just the land, but the ability to use primitives. The changes are what is needed to prevent a top-heavy distribution of resources. (Minor percentage of players controlling a maximum amount of resources.)

Well summarized Pirate - I wish I had read it before my lengthy how-the-money-flow-works-by-maxx-monde post.

heh.

No flames! I must be blessed.

Now that Phillip has said you can pay for your land with L$ instead of US$ if you have the cash then that is even better news for players I think.

Pirate

Just another "You said it, man" me-tooish kinda post.

Yeah Lindens!

Alright.. I'll flame you...

How dare you make such a great post!!!

hehe.. Seriously though. I've been reading through every single post in every thread dealing with this subject. Yours is one of the best I've seen yet Pirate.

Me personally, anytime the mention of RL money being needed for a game is introduced, it scares me because of my finacial status. But the more I'm reading what the Lindens have to say on this issue, it really seems that RL money will come into play only to purchase more land. And even for land you can still use L$ if you don't want to use RL money.

That means as a store owner, I will still be able to sell my designs and other items for L$ and will still need L$ to buy any of the wonderful objects that others create in SL. My RL money won't buy me that super cool plane I want to get from Cubey. My RL money won't buy me that fur coat I want from Frankie. My RL money won't buy me a dance, a drink, or a friend to hang out with. My attitude and actions will be what make me succeed in SL, and my L$ will buy me my comforts.

What the heck? I've been basically saying alot of the same stuff and nobody agreed with me (I don't think)...lol

hehe.. your posts were good too Garoad! I just felt this a safer thread to post my opinions in..

Hehe. I must admit 'real money' made sirens go off in my head too. I hate the idea of playing a game constantly thinking "Can I really afford that item?" instead of happily paying for something I know and have planned to afford.

But this way I think once you're happy with a certain level of cost you won't need to think of it again which is cool. As long as you have control over the max you're willing to spend and can easily determine what that is I'm happy

Pirate

Well, I just started a new thread saying most of the same stuff. Glad to see someone else came up with the same basic reasoning that I did, Pirate. And everyone feel free to flame me for not noticing this thread first.

In all seriousness, I'm glad people have calmed down a little and looked at the probable motivation from LL to do this.

If anyone wants to read my little dissertation, it's here:

One man's analysis of 1.2

Yes great post!

The positives certianly out way the negitives here.

I agree that was a great post. Personally I'm going to wait and see about 1.2 before I make any decisions rather to quit or not.

For sure!
Well said Pirate, and everyone.

You know, I'm reminded of a conversation I had with a friend I introduced to SL months ago. We both thought SecondLife was the closest thing yet to the 'metaverse' described in the story 'Snowcrash', and at the time I remember saying that I would love SecondLife to get even closer to that...
I'm kinda curious as to how many other people also has similar thoughts in the past, and I wonder how many of them have lost that vision and are posting rants as we speak.

I have to say that, barring the fact that some people I like may leave because this big change, SecondLife has lost no lustre whatsoever for me. It is still the best 'escapeism' I've ever found, is home to some of the nicest people I've met, and I'm looking forward to watching SL evolve even more over the years.

Lindens: have you received my xmas card in the post yet?

Great post Pirate!

I think that all of this change will be beneficial, but I wonder if the Lindens should have waited to make this change when they could also up the prim count per server. I think that this single addition to all of the changes would have put to bed alot of issues for some people.

Pirate, congratulations on an awesome post

I agree that 1.2 makes a great deal of sense. (Although I disagree with some of the assumptions that Pirate laid out in his original post. I actually don't think those are necessary to reach the conclusion he did.)

Regarding the greater role of RL$ in SL, here are my thoughts:

I believe Philip Linden once said that the exchange of RL$ and SL$ would inevitably arise if SL became popular. If a game becomes popular, resources in that game become desirable, and people are always willing to pay for something desirable with RL$. Everquest never intended to sell their gold pieces on eBay, and when it first happened, most people were shocked: "Paying real money for virtual items?" But as Castronova and other observers pointed out, it really did make sense: it was just another way of spending money to save time (time spent playing the game performing gold-generating activities). In that regards, it was no different than paying someone to mow your lawn.

From another angle, it has always been possible in SL to pay for multiple accounts and gain more SL$ that way. This was never a secret. People here on the forum have discussed exchange rates based on the price of a subscription and the weekly stipend. So again, there was another way in which SL$ meant RL$.

And, of course, there's the matter of server and bandwidth costs. The reason there were taxes in SL in the first place was to place a limit on object creation; virtual objects required real processing power and bandwidth to exist, and taxes were one way to reflect that. So again, SL$ were a reflection of RL$ costs.

If you consider all of these in combination, it becomes clear that RL$ was always hiding behind the curtain of the SL economy. The changes of 1.2 can be seen as a way of making the relationship explicit.

Obviously, the announcement could have been handled better. Remember the reactions when people first heard about buying Everquest gold on eBay, and then consider what would have happened if people were told this was actually _required_. If the announcement had first described the economic changes purely in terms of SL$, and mentioned RL$ only at the end, the response probably would have been much better.

Jake -- Eloquent and thoughtful, thanks for the perspective.

Pirate -- What all those other people said. Oh -- and a 1/4-sim tribute to Sartre? Damn, what a great idea! I'm on it!

Group huggggg!

Pirate

Yeah, me too! What you all said!

I applaud the coming changes; I think they'll bring better balance to the game.

Also, no matter what economic model is chosen, it will never be "fair" to everyone. Maybe this is too harsh but it seems to me that "fair" is often defined as, "I get what I want." We in SL have competing desires, and different interests and strengths, and yes, even different RL budgets. Why should it all be fair? It's a virtual world, not a virtual heavenly utopia.

That said, for me, anyway, SL is as close to heavenly utopia (I can fly and have a tail and make things that couldn't exist in the real world!!!) as I could hope to get, and there's no reason for me to expect that to change.

Thanks to Pirate and everyone else in this thread for your smart and well-reasoned posts.