SL, the "role-playing game"...is THAT what it is?

Most of the stuff I sell I originally created for fun and I started out just giving it away, and marketing was no easier three years ago than it is now. There is one difference in the past few months, and that's the global economy. But that's nothing Linden Labs can change by fiddling with Second Life.
That wasn't my example.
I think you're using that phrase in a sufficiently different sense from myself that we're probably not going to agree.

Not necessarely. You can also choose your avatar just because you like how they look or because you like what they represent (like in my case, a cat). As long as your basic behavior is consistent with what you are in RL (like age, gender, cultural background) I don't see any "roleplaying" going on. Roleplaying always means pretending. For example: Since everyone knows that I am not a cat in RL I am not pretending anything.

Actually, I would second him on that. I am slowly nearing my second rezz day, and in the time I've been inworld I learned one thing - that EVERYONE who spends a significant amount of time here has some friggin good reasons based in RL for that. (And I do mean people who are actually spending time, not the ones that solely treat it as a business platform and are just in here a lot for that reason).

I can see how this could be true to a point because people are multifaceted and quite frankly people are complex creatures. Some of the aspects of our personality we may not "play around with" or share with others in real life.

For instance, I would never dress as my avatar does nor would I ever have a boob job in RL, but I love the exotic clothing. And I have a boob job as a way of expressing that a women is not boobs! I'm silently protesting against the female beauty being twisted to suit a man's ideal. I don't think it's healthy to put silicone implants in one's body just to have big boobs as was the craze for about a decade at least.

But what I think SL really is that people are creating an ALTER EGO that they can control which is a little bit them and little bit fantasy and maybe even a little bit experiment or even sometimes subtle protest and that's where the role play aspect comes in.

I've often said this to residents inworld that LL needs better marketing and advertising of second life itself, such as why NO adverts on Google for instance? I just recently saw WoW is now advertising on Google, and I said SL should do that six months ago. So if SL is not advertising itself nor marketing itself, it's not the media's fault how SL is represented. SL and LL needs to get their own marketer's so that they can say "this is what second life is", blah, blah, blah, and click here for your free trial.

Not to mention it is wise to advertise your product, especially in a terrible economic downturn as well as keeping your prices affordable with the current serious economic downturn we are in.

WoW seems to be winning in this area regarding good marketing and affordability.

This is all vastly more complex (and, in a sense, optimistic) than is necessary to account for the data. Look, there's some proportion of real income that residents are willing to sink into SL, on average. Let's say that's 1% (which I think is very high). So, to sell things with the intent of taking money out of SL, it would take 100 residents with no such aspirations to make up one RL income--*if* nobody spends anything on land or other Linden fees. But I'd estimate that fully 90% of money spent in SL goes to land, one way or another. So it takes 1000 residents with no sales aspirations to generate one average RL income.

Has something changed to make these numbers more difficult? Well, yes, people probably spend more on land than they used to--the average parcel size seems to have grown. But that's not the real reason there's less point in starting to sell things now. Rather, it's because SL is no longer growing at the incredible pace necessary to keep pumping in those thousands of new residents lacking skills to sell.

The reason so many of the older generation were able to take real money out of the SL economy is that they got in while the population was exploding. They knew how to do something when literally a thousand times as many residents didn't. That's unlikely to happen again.

If we want to improve the numbers to make this easier, the only real hope is to get people to want much less land. But that's unlikely to happen, too.

So at this point, SL must appeal almost exclusively to folks with no aspirations to make any money from it. That's not a tragedy, it's just how it is now. And except for a brief bubble of astronomical growth, that's how it must always have been.

You're assuming that nobody who sells stuff ever buys anything.

Most of the people I know who sell stuff don't actually take money out of SL. They spend what they earn in-world.

What does your SL tax account have to say about this? :winks: lol

Yes, I'm assuming exactly that, but whether or not that assumption is appropriate is pretty basic to whether selling things in-world is "important" or not.

If the motivation for selling is to take money out of the SL economy--to net above tier--then the assumption is correct. If the motivation is to have money to spend in-world, then what price to put on anything? Ultimately, the relevance of a price is established by the cost of funds removed from world, either into Linden fees or to other merchants who sell L$s.

Sure, there is purely in-world economic activity, and there's appeal to the idea of better products being able to command a higher price. But every time L$s change hands, a very large "tax" (I think on *average* over 90%--and *usually* much more than 100%) goes to paying the Linden fees for the recipient's land.

So, yeah, a seller can be motivated to sell in order to spend in-world, but regardless, net of fees, it's an astonishingly inefficient reward of effort, and just not worth the trouble unless the population of sellers is vastly outnumbered by that of buyers.

Can anyone provide any links in which "manipulatives" is used in the exact same sense as it's used here?

"Manipulatives" seems to be educationist jargon for toys, or toy-like objects used to help teach math, from what I see.

"Visual chatroom" could apply to video chat systems, or to chat systems with 2D visuals.

"Visual chatroom with manipulatives" doesn't convey that users can make persistent changes in the virtual environment.

I don't think "visual chatroom with manipulatives" is quite as good at describing with SL is or distinguishing it from what it's not as it's repetition suggests the author thinks it is.

A 3D visual chatroom with X-rated manipulatives and poses.

is that closer

<deadpan>

Boinking, blabbing, and building.

</ deadpan>

manipulative






ma·nip·u·la·tive [ mə níppyələtiv,mə níppyə làytiv ]

adjective
Definition: 1. devious: using clever, devious ways to control or influence somebody or something
a manipulative personality

2. of manipulation: relating to or involved in manipulation
a manipulative technique


ma·nip·u·la·tive·ly adverb ma·nip·u·la·tive·ness noun

Closer, but "X-rated" is just a joke, and it doesn't mention user generated content, persistent changes to the virtual environment, avatars, micro-currency, and other stuff I'm not awake enough to think of at the moment.

The inapplicable definitions above are why I included the s a the end of the word, and asked for examples of where the word is used in the same sense as in the phrase "visual chatroom with manipulatives", not pasted definitions of it's use in other ways.

I think it's a mistake for SL to be labelled 'role-playing', game or otherwise.

Role-playing brings up many different ideas to many people. To some it might mean acting in the theatrical sense, exploring interpersonal roles in a situation like group therapy or team building, or to others even sexual role-play.

To me, role-play always meant role-playing games... first Dungeons & Dragons, then other tabletop rules & different settings, later "Live Action" role-play and eventually more free-form concepts. The role was usually self-defined and unscripted, and explored through actions taken and people encountered. Although it often included polyhedral dice or rubber swords it wasn't, in it's truest form, defined by them.

Then you have computer 'role-play', which for most of its life I wouldn't consider role-playing at all. As was remarked earlier in this thread, it only copied the tactical combat elements of paper & dice role-playing games. Your 'characters' motivations were merely to succeed, and even if you were the heroes it was accepted, and often essential, to wander into bystanders houses and ransack their possessions. Gradually this has moved closer to paper & dice role-playing, especially with the advent of MMORPGs. Even so, participants in these games can often be divided into 'players' and 'role-players'. I'd hazard that the people considered successful in these games aren't the ones with with well-rounded, detailed personal backgrounds and fascinating character-arcs explored in the course of play, but the ones with the most loot and XP.

Enough waffle, back to the thread...

SL is none and all of the above. The media might want to call it role-playing, but that's about as accurate as calling Dungeons & Dragons a dice game. It's easy to look at a few of the things SL is, tick some boxes and decide you have a definition, but you're back to the three blind men exploring an elephant. If people are so keen for a label for SL (and SL-like experiences), what's wrong with 'Virtual World'?

How about visual 3D chat room with various way to manipulate the 3D environment and/or chat/avatar interaction.

I understood what the poster was saying and how the poster was bringing it down to it's barest of bones example. SL is very much like a live chat but with 3D visuals. All the lol's are there as are other ways of communicating with text messaging on a 2D live chat minus some emotocons or visual sex. Cybersex was popular at one time as was flirting/sexual innuendos on 2D forums, such as fan club forums, for example. SL has simply provided a 3D animated part to that chat/flirt/text interaction, and even sometimes taken it to more than a triple X rated way to chat/flirt/text interact on the internet via it's visuals.

However, It still is the same thing whether with an s as in plural or not. Perhaps a chatroom with visual manipulatives makes more sense. lol

I don't have one, though one of my avatars is the Easter Bunny's accountant... but that's not something I'd ever role-played: that was a one-time joke I made a couple of years ago. The SL tax accountant example was, as I noted, not one I brought up... I don't know why you keep attributing it to me.

And I'm pointing out that you're making an unwarranted assumption there.
I set prices according what I think they'll sell for, of course. The price you put on anything is based on the elasticity of supply and demand (which in SL comes down to the elasticity of demand, since the marginal cost of production is zero), regardless of your motivation for selling it.
I'm not sure where you get that idea from. Land is an expense, not a tax, and it's not proportional to the volume of sales. There are people who have *no* land, either owned or rented, and whose only land-related costs are on the order of a few hundred Lindens a week for stalls in malls. Their land-based expense is a tiny fraction of their sales. There are other people who go out and buy entire sims before they've sold a single product, but that's not a requirement for selling anything.

In my case, the amount of land I genuinely need for my own sales could be covered by my premium bonus. The majority of my land has nothing to do with my business, I own and rent it because I want to, not because I need to.

And getting back to the original reason for this digression, whether or not you take money out of the game or not, building is not something that *costs money* to do, which is the point and the whole of the point that I'm making here.

That I have to very much disagree with! Three years ago, stipends were still universal and users - especially new users - were much more involved in the L$ economy. Selling things for L$1 was a fair strategy, and it wasn't uncommon to recieve L$ tips just for helping people out. There were no classifieds (and thus no L$100000 classifieds) or bots, no GSA, and there were camping chairs but thanks to dwell they didn't cost anything to run. Of course, the tradeoff was that the L$ exchange rate was lower (around L$310 to the dollar, I think) - but the exchange rate for "work" to "US$" was probably better than it is now.



Well it depends - if you are using it in the sense of what Primary schools call "taking your place", that is, fitting into a "role" in society, then I would say that's a way different sense from any in which it's used in discussion of "role-playing" and is practically opposite to it. "Role-playing" usually involves taking the role you want, not the slot society has for you.



As Argent said, it's not just about people who want to make an RL living, but about people who want to just have some L$ to spend - or, at least, to have SOME kind of score that goes up, because people like those. In fact at least some other VWs have implemented a system of twin currencies so that casual users can have an increasing score of some kind. But moreover, it isn't just the "older generation" who are taking money out of the SL economy, there are some new businesses succeeding, it's just much more work and an important aspect of that is marketing; just look at the posts here by people lke Phil and Jojogirl. Those L$100000 classifieds wouldn't be being paid for if they didn't work.

And the way to keep it happening would be, as I mentioned elsethread, to keep introducing new features. A new feature on the scale of "animations" adds a whole new skill to the world.

I really don't understand the "that's not a tragedy, it's just how it is", does something have to be unreal to be a tragedy?



I think that what Que is trying to say is that if land tier was abolished, but creators accepted the same net pay for their work that they do now, then goods would be much much cheaper - maybe an item that's L$100 now would sell for L$20. But what that means is that if you're trying to earn money in-world to buy that item, you earn L$20 which is what the creator really gets and then L$80 which just goes straight back into the land system. The effect of that L$80, which could apply to every L$100 you earn, is to make it much more work to earn that item which nets the creator L$20 each. You could probably calculate a "day" after which you have finished working for the Lindens rather than for the creators you are buying from

You'd be surprised with me though. The second line of my profile says, "If we get along and I see that you care; you will know about me... Probably more than you want to know. (^_^)" So, really, all of my personality comes out in SL, unfettered. Sure, I know that doesn't apply to everyone, but I bet there are quite a few like me here. (^_^)

As for being multifaceted... I think that's where my "adventures in avatar" shifting began. I've been taking on quite a few forms lately, depending on what facet of myself I want to visit. I can be a bratty kid, a sassy and creepy loli, a hoppy skippy neko, mechanical, and even lately I've gotten a Unreal Anime styled avatar. Each appearance reflecting a facet of my personality that I'd like to visit when I can. All of which are facets I just can't do in RL. My RL avatar has me "typecast" into a role that I can't say I'm completely happy with. I'm thankful that SL, in spite of some rules and limitations, allows me to visit these places of my person. (^_^)y

It is a "social experiment".

Ahh... the 'anything could be anything which would be everything' argument.

Lots of fun.

I am in fact playing a role... the role of a me that does not have to go to work every day, and has (almost) all the $ he needs.
and a better physique

the way i see it ..if the IRS can tax us for running a business in here but they can't tax a WoW player for selling the things they make..
that pretty much sums up real over role to me

To me, sl is a roleplaying game, albeit one where I have a 'main' personality and minor ones on various rp sims.

I won't try to debate anyone the existence of their opinion etc, they can call it a platform if the like but I go by this definition:


An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party games; word games.



Obviously the roleplaying comes to me by way of how I act.