Introducing T Linden. What would you do to improve Premium subscriptions?
|
|
Gabriele Graves
Always and Forever, FULL
Join date: 23 Apr 2007
Posts: 6,205
|
11-22-2008 02:33
From: Ciaran Laval An advert on the teleport or startup screen really shouldn't be problematic. An advert that you have to click to complete your teleport would be problematic. You and I will have to disagree on this as I see it differently. I hate being blatted by adverts in almost everything we do in modern society and so seeing adverts on tp is not acceptable to me. I would prefer to see the world as I tp and not a black screen at all. Some might not care so much, like you Ciaran, but I bet there are some like me who don't want it. The good thing is that it cannot be done so that the viewer cannot be altered to remove them, then the advertisers would in effect paying for nothing. Not a great move. |
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
11-22-2008 02:43
1. Increase the size of tier-free land.
2. Sell Homestead sims in ones, without the need to already own an island. ***important***
3. Charge tier per 1k, 2k or 4k, and get rid of the huge tier jumps.
|
|
Gabriele Graves
Always and Forever, FULL
Join date: 23 Apr 2007
Posts: 6,205
|
11-22-2008 02:44
From: River Ely Hi [Enter name of new hire], Welcome to Linden Labs. I recycled the above, I used it for a whole bunch of other people who have come to the forum and said “I am new but we are going to change things for the better, we need to listen to you, give us your ideas”. And we do, we give you all ideas, concepts, suggestions. Some good, some awful and some not worth printing, and every now and them, we come up with a terrific idea and somehow, after all is said and done, it turns into just that, “Just Another Good Idea” (JAGI). Your product has a lot of rough edges, is sloppy in some parts and is broken in others, the JIRA tells you that but I understand it will cost money and brains to fix a lot of the issues and that could detract from immediate income generation. So a new JAGI needs to not detract from Income Generation while at the same time, fixing something that is broken. Your ideas over the past two years have been perplexing, Windlight, Voice, Banning Gambling rather that create local servers, updates needing a whole package to be re-downloaded instead of a module for that package (huh!) so a new JAGI would have to have a value and a point and that could be implemented with minimum disruption. You product has a huge addicted user base. No matter how much you mess up (and admit for once that mistakes in judgement are too frequent), we are still here. If you ever had a company that needed customer generated feedback, it is this one, but it seems no one at Linden Labs listens to their customers here. So a new JAGI needs to come from listening to us, your user base. (We are for the most part friendly, but remember, we outnumber your stakeholders a million to one). To round up, a JAGI needs to continue to generate income and hopefully improve it. A JAGI needs have value that does not require disruption or a change in infrastructure. A JAGI needs to be easy to implement, (Those are the best kind, low outlay, huge return) And a JAGI has to be borne from your customers. Here is my JAGI Premium Accounts The value of the premium account is miss understood when compared with Non Premium account holders. I would change little for the premium account holders. I would make a change to non premium account holders to widen the gap between account holders and non account holders. 1) I suggest that non premium account holders, Alts, Bots, Campers, Greifers etcetera are rewarded with in inventory scrub every 24 hours. ( yes, remove all created and or purchased content). Reason: if the account is to be used to sample SL then it is no loss, allow the character to be persistent but with an inventory cleaned out after 24 hours. 2) Allow non premium account holders to forcibly expire after thirty days. With the name being locked for 30 days more against re-use. How many times do you need to log in and explore before deciding you want to retain inventory and a name? 3) Remove the option to hold funds from non account holders. That way they can’t be ‘gifted’ funds from other avatar accounts and buy weapons or other things that can be used to reduce the quality of game play for those of us who invest into Second Life. 4) If the account is an ALT account, and the account is riding on the strength of a premium account, then for account purposes, it should be part of that account and counted as the main avatar. So if there are 40,000 logged in and 10,000 are ALTS camping or taking up numbers, the true account of logged in accounts should be 30,000. Or 4a) If an premium account is logged in, and an alternative account for that holder tries to log in, the premium account avi should be bumped off. Restricting one avi to one user. If the second account is a premium account, then allow the second avatar to add to the total number of avatars on line without bumping off the first or primary avatar. Remove negativity I am not suggesting Camping Avi’s should be banned, but if you want to set a dozen or forty avatars to camp to swell the numbers for your sim, then pay premium for each one, then we will see how ineffective campers are and Linden Labs will make a tidy sum in the process. I am not suggesting that people create alts for negative reasons, or for attacking those who have displeased their owners, but if you had to pay premium for your avi in order to attack the other player, then losing your accounts upon detection would be a far more costly process. Resolve Simple changes, they have defined values, they increase the revenue for Linden Labs and go some way to creating more visible numbers with more accuracy. It means little or no change for the vast majority of users who already contribute heavily to the success of Linden labs, and the removal of some free accounts ability to grief, camp or clutter, would be an impact appreciated by every premium member that ever existed. Please vote for my JAGI. ref: http://rivers-rock.blogspot.com/2008/11/just-another- good-idea-jagi.html From: Argent Stonecutter Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes!
Every time someone says "take stuff away from Basic accounts" I want to slap them. <=== Yeah That |
|
Gabriele Graves
Always and Forever, FULL
Join date: 23 Apr 2007
Posts: 6,205
|
11-22-2008 02:46
From: Phil Deakins 1. Increase the size of tier-free land.
2. Sell Homestead sims in ones, without the need to already own an island. ***important***
3. Charge tier per 1k, 2k or 4k, and get rid of the huge tier jumps. None of this matters now, the world is about to end and hell has frozen over as you and I have agreed upon something *panic*  |
|
Bumble Parx
Registered User
Join date: 2 Jul 2008
Posts: 10
|
The current cost is a good deal, so what's going to change...
11-22-2008 02:49
First, please refer to us as customers, not residents, when discussing the parts of SL that we pay for. Maybe it's just me, but I find the tone of the announcements directed at 'residents' as quite patronising. Particularly when it's a post that includes a lot of 'corporate speak' (think holistically, balance priorities, strive for delight...) And if you're going to use quotes, include the source  ("The best way to predict the future is to invent it" - Alan Kay, 1971) If the premium account needs improving, from your perspective it needs to be more profitable. Paying $72 annually actually only costs $12 is the first year and then $15 per year after that, assuming people spend the weekly stipend of L$300. Why not simply sell it at $15 per year without the stipend, for starters? You might get a lot more signing up (and you could probably get away with a price increase too, albeit not 67%). Personally, I think $15 per year is a pretty good deal for access to what is one of the most advanced virtual worlds. But agree with others, there aren't much in the way of benefits. It's just a requirement to purchase mainland. Some of the other suggestions skimmed over seem good - increase the number of groups, have the option to be invisible online when you're working (like with IM clients). There is one sweetener that would probably secure a lot of premium accounts - let premium accounts buy homesteads without first needing at least one full sim. Ignoring the squabbling, a lot of people who contributed to the open space debate agreed that a price rise was not unreasonable, just the size of it. And the ones most affected are those who rent one from an estate and already paying a margin (renting usually costs $90 - $100 per month currrently). For me, $125 is a heck of an increase, but not so much if it meant I could own direct. As it stands, the prospect of my open space rent increasing from $90 to $150 is over half way to a full sim and therefore not worth it (at least, not until you increase the price of full sims). Adding to the challenge of any price increase at the moment is a fall in currency. In July, the US$:UK£ exchange rate was 2:1. It has now dropped to 1.5:1 An annual premium account in July cost £36 + VAT. Now it costs £48 + VAT. Myopen space was costing me £45 in July. Now it costs £60 per month, before any price rise even kicks in... |
|
Les White
sombish
Join date: 7 Oct 2004
Posts: 163
|
a little late
11-22-2008 02:50
I can't be bothered to read this thread at this point. It's like saying you love us after you rape us.
Want a clue for success? Send your complete board home and lock them out. Fire the people who don't have a clue...jack, katt, and zee would be a good start.
There is no trust after the OS bait and switch. Like a light switch you have seemed to have killed SL.
You ignore the hole in the bucket because more water comes in then it can hold anyway.
After 4 years of fumbling and gouging...enough.
So, yeah...another master of words, big f'n deal. Talk to the empty sim.
|
|
Ricky Yates
(searching...)
Join date: 28 Jan 2007
Posts: 809
|
11-22-2008 02:51
Get rid of premium altogether and start charging tier at 0 sq (0-512 sq ... US$6 per month, etc.). Restrict current premium support option to landholders.
Thus you make the system much clearer and save a lot in administration costs by getting rid of stipend, renewals, etc., too.
A more gradual tier system would be nice, but I could understand if you don't want to go that way (for profitability reasons).
|
|
Ciaran Laval
Mostly Harmless
Join date: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 7,951
|
11-22-2008 02:56
From: Gabriele Graves You and I will have to disagree on this as I see it differently.
I hate being blatted by adverts in almost everything we do in modern society and so seeing adverts on tp is not acceptable to me. I would prefer to see the world as I tp and not a black screen at all.
Some might not care so much, like you Ciaran, but I bet there are some like me who don't want it. The good thing is that it cannot be done so that the viewer cannot be altered to remove them, then the advertisers would in effect paying for nothing. Not a great move. I really can't see why anyone would be so vehemently against a revenue stream for Linden Lab that would help to pay to improve the user experience. We're back to thinking holistically. Whether or not the teleport screen would provide effective advertising anyway is a different point, it probably wouldn't due to the short space of time that screen is on for or the way SL interacts with the internet anyway. When I'm watching telly if I don't want to watch the adverts I turn them over or go make a cuppa. Adverts pay for the channel to provide services. When I'm checking my mail or searching google the advertising doesn't ruin my user experience because of the way it's implemented. When I get pop ups, or click here to continute past the advert, that's annoying and I'll think twice before using those sites again. |
|
River Ely
Fabulist and working hard
Join date: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 32
|
11-22-2008 03:08
May I add to... From: Bumble Parx First, please refer to us as customers, not residents, when discussing the parts of SL that we pay for. Maybe it's just me, but I find the tone of the announcements directed at 'residents' as quite patronising. ... Another JAGI from River Ely: This might sound odd, but please change the wording of "Selling Land". You do NOT sell land, selling implies the buyer has something they can take away and or something they own, We don’t 'own' anything in second life, things don't actually exist. Refer to a new island cost as a "Set up fee" for that is what it is. When a land owner sells land onto the next owner (or more often on mainland, speculator), they are transferring the 'setup cost' plus a profit margin of their own. When an island owner rents space to a user and charges them a tier, they are actually sharing a proportion of the expected tier, to Linden Labs, plus a profit margin. But they don’t actually sell land, they share the cost of server time rental, nothing more, nothing less. How about Linden Labs calling it what it is, instead of fancy real world names that imply something that doesn’t actually happen. Example Say I 'buy' a region of mainland, then I should have the option of having that region lodged on my home computer system or another place I choose. Say I buy a collection of primitives, (math coordinates with image textures stretched between nurbs), and I should be able to store that collection of information on my own system, so that I become responsible for its retention and or subsequent loss. If I am not buying, as you suggest, but renting or gaining the freedom to use, then state that. The concept of buying things is well understood in society, so is double talk, smoke and mirrors and clever people cheating less clever people to make a profit is something most of us do not like. Change the wording Linden Labs, You don’t sell land, or islands, you charge a set up fee and you charge an ongoing maintenance fee (tier), My JAGI, call things what they are, not a fancy name that alludes to something completely different. http://rivers-rock.blogspot.com/2008/11/just-another-good-idea-jagi.html
_____________________
=^.^=
*R.E*
|
|
Algared Beaumont
Registered User
Join date: 3 Nov 2007
Posts: 8
|
11-22-2008 03:09
From: Emerson Sweetwater
Most posts talked about increasing the free tier limit of the Prem Accounts. I have to admit, having 1024m is alot better than 512m. You can barely rez a half decent house with furniture on a 512m plot. Increasing the free tier to 1024m is a sensible move to attract more people to the Premium Accounts.
Indeed, the 512sq.m lot is very small, but I gather the intention intially was to encourage premium users to increase to a 1024 size and pay only a $5 tier. In and of itself this isn't that bad. Yes, I like the idea of increasing the tier free bonus. which in the long run is the only debit LL really incur when they are used, however many residents with premium seem not to use their tier free bonus of mainland. From: Emerson Sweetwater
There are also lots of calls for increased stipend. Some people are suggesting 500L per week. This is a good thing for the SL economy from the point of view of stimulating transactions. From reading the previous posts, some people evidently wouldn't go out of their way to buy L$, but are happy to recieve some every week and spend that amount.
However 500L is 2000L per month. That would be approx US$8 per month, almost the premium account fee in itself. Combined with just 512m of tier LL would be at a loss. Increasing the tier to 1024m would mean LL is missing out on US$5 or US$8 per month in revenue. So an offer of 1024m in free tier and 2000L in stipend would put LL at a loss of US$4 to US$7 for each Premium Member.
If LL actually bought $L for the stipend, then the point about the stipends and LL loosing $US through the stipend would be more valid. But since it the stipend is doesn't find itself being accounted for in the books while the income from the premium accounts must be listed ,arguming that an increase in the stipend results in loss to LL is nullified. Howver, this is not to say that an increase in stipend buy LL printing more $L wouldn't have an impact, and it is this that must be gauged against the benefits. The stipend is used by residents/customers of the product and this can stimulate the sl economy. From: Emerson Sweetwater
To compound the issue, some only take up premium accounts for either the stipend or the free tier and mainland ownership.
But what if tier and stipend were sliding scales? If you have no land, then you recieve 100% of the stipend. If you had 1024m or more of land, then you would recieve no stipend. When your land holdings decrease, you stipend increases accordingly.
So you are advocating product devaluation... gee thanks. I would have to say I would like to see the product increased in value making it more appealing to people. If premiums are immaterial then then either put a halt to renewals until you sort yourselves out. And open mainland to everybody. Once you decide how to make premiums actually premium without reducing the basic package then launch or reelaunch your product. But DO NOT repeat your OS debacle BS. From: Emerson Sweetwater
To make the premium account more attractive, you could be offered 1024m of free tier for use anywhere on the mainland, special Premium account only auctions for land in Linden designed places like Nautilus, and other special inworld opportunity offers from LL. Perhaps some Linden designed places like the Nautilus Estate could be made available for ownership to Premium Accounts only (with businesses submitting an application for exemption of this requirement).
I thought this is already the case as only premium account holders can own mainland. Sorry Sweetwater if at any time my responses seem overly negative and argumentative. But i have to admit the BS and over all poor management od the OS affair really has left myself and many in the comunity feeling jaded, and yes i must admit to being concerned LL will screw over those immaterial premium account holders. I like to think I'm wrong, but knowing humans are basically Godless, backstabbing so-so's I must admit I have little hope, or trust in our supplier at present. |
|
Paola Tauber
Registered User
Join date: 7 Apr 2008
Posts: 5
|
homesteads without full sim ownership
11-22-2008 03:10
Seen this proposal posted before, just want to add my vote to it... I'm premium, I ain't gonna buy mainland. Too cluttered, full of awful buildings. To me, as premium, being able to buy and own a private homestead without having to own a full sim would make an interesting proposition.
|
|
Gabriele Graves
Always and Forever, FULL
Join date: 23 Apr 2007
Posts: 6,205
|
11-22-2008 03:11
From: Ciaran Laval I really can't see why anyone would be so vehemently against a revenue stream for Linden Lab that would help to pay to improve the user experience. We're back to thinking holistically. Whether or not the teleport screen would provide effective advertising anyway is a different point, it probably wouldn't due to the short space of time that screen is on for or the way SL interacts with the internet anyway.
When I'm watching telly if I don't want to watch the adverts I turn them over or go make a cuppa. Adverts pay for the channel to provide services.
When I'm checking my mail or searching google the advertising doesn't ruin my user experience because of the way it's implemented. When I get pop ups, or click here to continute past the advert, that's annoying and I'll think twice before using those sites again. You do not see my point of view that is evident but that does not mean it is not valid. Trying to convince me it is not so bad when I find them to be intrusive and inappropriate is not going to work and will only lead us to arguing over pointless things. To clarify my position though, if a service has to be supported by adverts for people using it who pay nothing then that is something people using it for free have to decide about. Is the service is worth them being exposed to those adverts?. Once you have paid for a service however you should not have to see them at all, why in fact should you? In that circumstance you should have to pay me to show me your adverts as well as paying LL for the placement of them. I doubt anyone who is thinking of the $$$ due to extra advertising opportunities would be prepared to pay the viewer to see them. I am the type of person who would rather pay to make adverts go away if I think the service is useful to me than remain a free user and see advertising. This is also how many web sites work in fact. If LL went down this route then I suppose even though I personally would not like it people would have an option, if they don't like it then pay, with the above proposal for the tp screen you would have no option regardless of payment status and that is where I have the biggest issue. This would be the motivator for people like me to make a advertless viewer and distribute it. |
|
Whispering Hush
™
Join date: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 277
|
11-22-2008 03:29
From: Nimbus Pau How about increasing the "free" tier for every year that you're premium... that is, reward your long time premium members and provide an incentive to remain premium?
Year 1: Tier-free 512
Year 2: Tier-free 1024
Year 3: Tier-free 1536 ... and so on.
(oooo... in 128 years, I'd have a tier free mainland sim... woot! LOL) This. |
|
Whispering Hush
™
Join date: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 277
|
11-22-2008 03:32
From: Atashi Toshihiko Here are a few suggestions many others have made in the past, to make Premium subscriptions more attractive.
1) Increase the land benefit from 512m to 1024m
2) Increase the number of groups from 25 to 50 or whatever. More groups is one of the most-wished for enhancements in the JIRA I think.
3) Some others have suggested free or reduced-costs for uploads, so how about L$5 for uploads instead of the L$10 that everyone pays now?
I really feel that you need to reward long-term customers for their loyalty and support, so I would like to see some increased benefits that kick-in after someone has been Premium for a year, two years, etc.
4) On every year anniversary of premium, add an extra 512m of land allowance. Yes this might cost money in that some residents will be paying less in tier each month, but for those who have premium without holding any land, it's a free gesture.
5) An L$ 'bonus' at the premium anniversary, say L$1000 or L$2000. It is a 'token' amount, but sometimes that's all it takes to make a customer feel appreciated.
There are a number of other wished-for features, which could perhaps be added as a perk or bonus for premium accounts. The following suggestions would require some technology in the viewer and server software before they would be possible, but if we're talking long-term plans then IMHO these should be considered too.
6) How about the ability to rez mega or micro prims, as a premium benefit?
7) How about enhanced control over the avatar 'appearance editor'? Like being able to make avvies 2x bigger or 2x smaller than currently possible?
Really, you could just go through the JIRA feature requests and the older new feature vote system to find what was popular, and flag them as premium-only options, and I'm sure you'd get a lot of people considering that upgrade for the enhanced inworld feature set.
For what its worth, this topic is very timely for me. My premium membership is due to renew next month, it would be my 2nd year anniversary as premium, except my plans right now are to cancel it. I plan to cancel because there is a lack of value in it, and because currently I feel that LL does not value its customers.
Katt, if you guys can announce an enhanced benefit in the next 2 weeks, I'll renew my premium. Seven suggestions here, any one of them would do it. What do you think?
-Atashi also this |
|
Kristina Simon
Registered User
Join date: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 67
|
11-22-2008 03:33
Speed up your service for us premium members! I don't wanna repeat how much you have disappointed your customers with this OS story but its even more disappointing how long i have to wait for merging OS now. 2 weeks and more. Loosing close to all my renters was one thing, but now i have to pay tier for land noone can use because it has to be empty before its getting combined. Ok. you guys have a lot to do at the moment but this was the same before this OS-desaster: Waiting ages for a service i have to pay for. Your concierge team needs more employees. Or snail avatars  I want "planable" longtime prices for land and services. I am absolutly not interested in having mainland. Sorry but i hate this horrible mix of styles, advertising and so on. So i bought private estates and have now the third time the feeling to get slapped into my face: All changes in land should be announced 6 month before so i can plan and not declarations over night without warning like increasing or decreasing prices for sims and landtier, adding Vat and so on. And spoiling out so much mainland has effects on the landmarket at all. I pay a lot of money for my sims but i am close to give up because of this all. I like the idea that bots have to be premium members to restrict their number to a normal amount. The traffic system is absolutly useless to find out if a shop is worth a visit or not at the moment. This restriction would really help to bring more transparancy into the market again.
_____________________
NEON ROCKT!
|
|
WADE1 Jya
SL Pets Creator
Join date: 3 Dec 2006
Posts: 43
|
11-22-2008 03:51
Welcome to Second Life, T! The idea I like best is to increase teir allowance from 512 -- to 1024. My mainland spot seems so claustrophobically small - as it probably does to any island owner who is premium..... the contrast in size is a joke! Better Lindex Exchange rates..... I like that idea too! Now, as for my own ideas.... ADD SOME PREMIUM-ONLY SHINIES: Why not release 'whatever-the-next-shiny-in-the-works-is' as a premium only feature. It would be a big incentive, at least for any content creator, if premiums could build (or script) in ANY ways that free accounts could not. I would have become premium long before I did, if that was the way SL was set up, that you could create better stuff as a premium. Other ideas that would work best here (IMHO) are getting rid of upload charges for premium. Everyone (especially newer users) dislikes paying upload fees! Myself, I'd prefer to get free uploads, instead of the current stipend. Maybe give a choice of free uploads OR a monthly stipend.... not everyone is a creator. I also love the idea of improved avatar meshes for premiums (maybe with more fine-tuning and slider options in appearance) - not a big one for me personally, but I think it would work REALLY WELL as an incentive to be premium for most people. A lot of people in SL, just want to make their avatar look really fabulous.... and that's about it! Getting something in the mail from LL once a year, anything, even if it was kind of hokey, like a pendant or keychain or whatnot would be neat, I think.... but maybe that's just me! I know I'd feel special. LL could give out better gifts the longer you stay, perhaps virtual and/or real..... maybe the premium user could pick what they want from a small selection of cool LL goodies. If they hate the entire selection they could choose a token L$ amount applied to their account. Basically the ability to CHOOSE YOUR OWN PERKS is what I am suggesting here, I guess. Everyone is different. Everyone likes the power of choice. |
|
Lord Sullivan
DTC at all times :)
Join date: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 2,870
|
11-22-2008 04:02
From: Oryx Tempel
3) First Land parcels are grouped around stable Infohubs that are staffed by Mentors who have ban/eject rights on those Infohub parcels. This will create a sense of community for new users.
I hope LL never ever gives Mentors that power as to many would abuse it imo lol however bring back First land as that is what got me on the land ladder.
_____________________
Independent Shopping for Second Life residents from established and new merchants. http://slapt.me  slapt.me - In-World HQ http://slurl.com/secondlife/Bastet/123/118/26
|
|
Hern Worsley
Registered User
Join date: 11 Aug 2006
Posts: 122
|
11-22-2008 04:07
Further thoughts as the whole concept of this sinks in..
Again please people do realise that any suggestions you make here you are simply allowing LL a great excuse to charge you more for improving the functionality of the platform something every user should expect.
I say this because paying premium is no real indicator of what people currently put into to SL either financially or with creative and community contribution its quite possible to be a basic account and putting a lot more resources into the platform than be paying premium and not putting in much.
So whats the real issue here?
LL want something extra from us to get more out of the platform.
This is true because as things currently stand we are all aware having a premium account has little if any benefits in comparison to not.
For those already paying premium this decision will ofcourse make no change in fact they will likely welcome it but i would say to those people why have you been paying premium? Is it because you thought you needed it to "own" land? Owning land in SL is a false concept tier is rent to LL and the consequences of not paying your tier is usually worse than not paying a solid and trustworthy landowner...Landowners cant suspend your account for one. Ofcourse for those who wish to rent out land they have no choice but to pay that tier and pass the costs to thier renters. So really premium accounts are only of any use to those people imo.
For the majority however what this post is really all about is LL want to give "benefits" at a greater cost. My point is these benefits may well be new features and or improvements to the client i personally have been expecting/hoping to occur anyway for all users.
So yea LL want more money from me to help improve the product thats what it seems to boil down to. If what they decide to implement is of any use or gives any kind of advantage as to make premium "worth" having then i may have no choice but to pay more for it but then i already contribute a lot to LL and SL with my basic account so why should i pay more?
So ok maybe LL do need more money to make greater strides.. if this is the case here T Linden please do come out and say it.
Any benefits to one user type will penalise the rest.
Im not sure if im getting my point across i dont mean to be negative or whine here i just see this as a move that should be given a lot of consideration on how it will impact everyone.
SL for me is a business venture amongst other things so to remain competitive i need to have all the functionality that my competitors do so will i be forced to pay more to keep up? This ofcourse depends on what the benefits may be.
The best solution as far as our pockets are concerned would be to completely scrap the concept of premium entirely and open the whole platform up and continue to improve the clients functions and features for all users! ( although imo this will also benefit LL's pockets long term)
The best solution for LL's pockets would be to make premium accounts so superior that those without them would be at a disadvantage to those with them which basically means if you want to use SL to its full you pay more to do so.
If LL dont make them so superior then nobody will go for them making this whole concept moot.
Again id like to re-iterate paying premium is no indication of how loyal you are or how much you contribute to this platform.
Hope my point comes across.
|
|
Lord Sullivan
DTC at all times :)
Join date: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 2,870
|
Welcome T
11-22-2008 04:18
Hi Tom as an ex Adobe employee and after recently spending a long session with Ben Rassmussen and team giving input into how we could improve things at work it worries me that you are doing the same thing, as Ben never listened to a thing we said but just paid lip service to us and then swapped operations to india and laid lots of us off. I hope that you haven't brought the Adobe mentality with you and that you genuinely want to improve things. Then with the recent fiasco with the the OS's you are going to have to go a long way to prove yourself as someone at the lab we all can trust. Please read the replies as it seems LL doesn't' care anymore about its customers, so it would be great if you proved us all wrong Please do not get rid of stipends or at least grandfather them, change the tier structure so that we can own it in smaller chunks and that includes when we get over a Sim full of mainland. Lastly please don't devalue the product as LL seems good at doing
_____________________
Independent Shopping for Second Life residents from established and new merchants. http://slapt.me slapt.me - In-World HQ http://slurl.com/secondlife/Bastet/123/118/26
|
|
Thasius Vaher
Registered User
Join date: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 33
|
11-22-2008 04:19
1) Increase the "freebie" land given from 512 to 1024
2) Free/reduced price uploads, maybe $L5
3) Stepping tier, instead of the "huge" jumps, more incremental steps. Every 512 for instance.
4) Avatar prim/script limits for none premiums.
5) More groups
6) Friend list "folders" for organization of friends.
On a separate note, ban, BAN LINES. You might find more people willing to buy land if they could get around the mainland without flying into walls.
|
|
Stone Semyorka
Registered User
Join date: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 12
|
Give premium members an increased limit on groups
11-22-2008 04:23
By happy coincidence, premium users and highly-active users are mostly the same residents. Many highly active people for quite some time have been asking for a limit larger than 25 on the permitted number of group memberships. To improve user experience and provide a premium for premium membership, why not give premium members an increased limit of 100 groups?
That would be very enticing and you would get rave reviews for doing it.
Thanks!
--Stone Semyorka
|
|
Looloo Beck
Registered User
Join date: 22 May 2007
Posts: 1
|
11-22-2008 04:35
What would make the experience a delight for us creators? Well, as you may know, content theft in SecondLife is discouraging creators to keep up their work. Many have closed their doors already. We need to feel supported by LindenLab or there wont be place for original creators in SL sooner or later. Stolen content like clothing, hair, skins, boots/shoes, houses are being large distributed in SL as full perms. We work a lot and contribute massively to SL economy, and the only thing we have is the DMCA wich is NOT enough to stop them! Something must be done or SL will be a boring place with no fresh new things to see or buy. We wont be working so hard day and night for others to steal, we need SUPPORT, security for business in world.
|
|
Lord Sullivan
DTC at all times :)
Join date: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 2,870
|
11-22-2008 04:48
From: T Linden From: Ciaran Laval
<snip>
I saw someone the other day who has his real name, how much does that cost? You could offer that as part of a premium package if it's not cost prohibitive.
</snip>
<snip>
Maybe you could introduce a premium membership option for such resellers.
TE]
</snip>
Real names... interesting. I'd be curious if that is too controversial? Naming is such an interesting concept in Second Life.
And mobile me (apple's pc/iphone synch service) has a box that they sell in the apple stores... good idea!
I use my real name as an avatar but i was lucky when i joined my surname was in the list lol However for many i think this option would be an excellent idea for some maybe not but then they don't have to use that option, but for RL businesses in SL i think its a great idea and one definitely worth considering. I also know a couple here in RL that joined together and there RL surname was in the list so they have them here
_____________________
Independent Shopping for Second Life residents from established and new merchants. http://slapt.me slapt.me - In-World HQ http://slurl.com/secondlife/Bastet/123/118/26
|
|
Lord Sullivan
DTC at all times :)
Join date: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 2,870
|
11-22-2008 04:49
Or if your RL surname is in the listed surnames as mine was then its free lol
_____________________
Independent Shopping for Second Life residents from established and new merchants. http://slapt.me slapt.me - In-World HQ http://slurl.com/secondlife/Bastet/123/118/26
|
|
Gabriele Graves
Always and Forever, FULL
Join date: 23 Apr 2007
Posts: 6,205
|
11-22-2008 04:54
From: Looloo Beck What would make the experience a delight for us creators? Well, as you may know, content theft in SecondLife is discouraging creators to keep up their work. Many have closed their doors already. We need to feel supported by LindenLab or there wont be place for original creators in SL sooner or later. Stolen content like clothing, hair, skins, boots/shoes, houses are being large distributed in SL as full perms. We work a lot and contribute massively to SL economy, and the only thing we have is the DMCA wich is NOT enough to stop them! Something must be done or SL will be a boring place with no fresh new things to see or buy. We wont be working so hard day and night for others to steal, we need SUPPORT, security for business in world. You talk about the DMCA like it isn't the 100 pound lump hammer it really is, everything else you have to fight copyright violations with in SL is a teeny hammer by comparison and always will be. The reason the DMCA is not as effective as people would like is that LL choose not to enforce it in the way that content creators would ideally like. |