Should basic stipends stay or go away?

Yes, it's inadequate to do much with on its own, but it's better than nothing. There are already plenty of complaints about how difficult it is for newbies to make money, and how difficult it can be for newbies to have fun because of that lack of money. At least now, though, there's a small trickle of reliable income. We've got enough to upload a texture or two, if we want. Or we can save for a few weeks, and perhaps buy a nice pair of shoes or some hair. If events start charging for admittance, we might be able to go to one or two a week.

What are newbies supposed to do for income if the stipends go away? Rely on the money we get initially? That's not much, and once it's gone, it's gone. If you blow it in a fit of newbie mistakes, that's it -- you're broke for the foreseeable future. Sit on camping chairs? Oh, right, those are going away. Pick from money trees? You can barely scrape together anything from those. Sell content? With no money, you can't upload textures. Sell services? Not every newbie has a skill set that lets them be a wedding planner or what have you -- at any rate, they're newbies; most of them are not going to know the system well enough to put together a good service, and even if they did, what are the chances of them knowing enough people to get good word of mouth advertising? What's left? Oh, right, stripping and cybersex. (And when the major way for newbies to make money is through that, you're going to get self-selection for the people who are content to do that.)

Are some people going to stay and buy a premium account even if there were no stipends? Sure. Would some people not buy a premium account even if there were no stipends? Sure. But it's the people who aren't quite decided that this would affect. These are the people who will plunk down their money if they're having fun (and see benefits in upgrading), but want to make sure that they actually are having fun before paying. And it's harder to have fun when you can't afford or make anything.

If people are bound and determined to eliminate the basic stipend (which, again, I don't think should happen), could you at least consider giving newbies a stipend for... I don't know, their first four or five weeks or so? Long enough that new players have time to build and buy some things, and figure out whether or not it's something they're willing to fork over RL cash for.

(Why haven't I bought a premium account? Because I'm stubborn, and want to make money on my own. Also, I'm not sure how long I'll be around.)

That's really not a good reason to buy or not buy a premium account. Don't do it for the money, do it because you like Second Life and will enjoy the benefits of owning land.

Additionally, I can't imagine how I would have ever earned the money I earn now if I hadn't bought a premium account. I wouldn't have had a store to display in, I wouldn't have had saved stipends to pay for scripting assistance. Premium membership makes business administration much easier. It's a matter of spending money to make money and I think premium is a sound investment if that's what you really want to do.

I don't see any indication of people being bound and determined. I think your limited time period stipend idea is very good. It helps people get started minus the expectation of eternal support.

My solution: Eliminate stipends.

I've been thinking about this and here's where the problem I have lies. Most of the posts like this which I've read and put stock in over the past year are based on imaginary numbers. The lack of imaginary numbers in my post does not make it any more based on the fuzzy feel good than yours is. I just don't take this and suppose that to make it seem like I knew more and my opinion is thus more valid than anyone elses. You know what I mean, Enabran?

No thanks

The Base Pay should be raised to 1000 a week and the Bonus should return.

The numbers aren't imaginary. We know that:

- There are 100,000 users who have logged in and used SL in the last six weeks
- Premium membership is a small percentage of this (I've seen between 15% and 7%)

So, while I don't suppose that my 50,000 users is the exact number, it is very unlikely to be over-estimating the truth and very likely to be under-estimating the truth.

Beyond that, we know the rest of the equation: The factor of time is adjusted according to the scope of the example we wish to examine and the amount of L$ stipend is a constant.

So, I'm not sure that I can agree that the resultant numbers are imaginary, as the inputs have been derived from factual evidence.

For the sake of argument, however, let us assume that Enabran is incorrect by 50%. We're still talking about a difference of at least US$250,000 over the course of one year (assuming an exchange rate in the L$260/$1.00 range).

That's a whole hell of a lot of money whose evaporation I simply cannot endorse -- particularly not at the dubious encouragement of a few folks' feelings -- without having a fuller picture of the total ramifications involved.

I'm not claiming to know the outcome. I'm only stating, and I don't think anyone can refute this, that we're talking about a truly enormous lever with significant consequences. It's simply not enough to say "We need to turn off basic stipends," because the effects on the currency supply will be dramatic, no matter how you try to slice this.

Oh, Magnum,

For people like me that prefer to not use RL money to buy stuff in SL, the stipends can't just go poof. I can understand if LL ever decides to remove the stipend on basic accounts, since those accounts are totally free now - but then if I decided to sell my land and drop to basic, I'd have to purchase L$ with US$. Hence, I feel the L$50 stipend is fair.

Leave stipends the way they are.

Lies.

One year ago Philip announced changes to the payouts which would reduce the amount of new currency flowing into the Second Life economy by approximately L$4.5 Million per month. The median loss to the basic player would be $37.50 per week, and the number of active basic players expected to be effected was 2400. To the best of my recollection, at that time the number of users was about a quarter of what we have today. We did not hit 30k until May.

How can the number of basic accounts effected be 2400 if the number of "active" residents in the previous 6 weeks was about 10 times that amount? I question the numbers thrown around for active users. You say 6 weeks, Flipper says one month in another thread. The website says 100,000 residents with no period of time indicated.

Still, a $4.5 million per month reduction of currency with about a fourth the amount of people overall did not cause the sky to fall.

My suggestion: put Magnum and Jamie in the Thunderdome and let them fight to death. The winner becomes the Financial Czar of SL and let them determine all the important LL policies.

---------

Actually, in this matter, I think our opinions are kinda irrelevent. LL is going to do whatever they want to the SL economy. I'm assuming they will choose programs that they think will most grow the user base and the economy. And you know what, they are the only ones who really have enough economic data to really understand what is working and what isn't.

---------

Also, coco, I hope this puts to rest your feeling that there are a bunch of forum posters gunning for stipends. There are a few, but as your poll shows, the vast majority of people want stipends to either stay the same or increase, not go away.

No. It did cause the Linden to soar to US$4.25/1000. Which proves my argument that we're talking about an enormous lever.

Moreover, we're not just talking about reducing the amount of money already paid. We're talking about the cessation of payment altogether. So rather than have a chunk of the currency pool grow at a slower rate, we'll be excising the chunk altogether. What kind of effect are we looking at if we do this?

I think that stipends - as a concept - should stay. I think its Second Life's 'poverty line', noone wants to start out at something new and have it impossible to progress.

I think having a few bucks in your pocket helps see some of the fun things you can do, and promotes a 'worth' of them.

However - how much that should be? I don't know - I don't see the 'Big picture'.. I'll leave that to LL to work out. Somewhere between 'none at all' and Magnum's 'As much as we want'

Or sell tickets to watch - and use the money to fund events.. thats a coffer that would never run out

On the contrary. My polls are rarely to "put to rest my opinion" although I realize others hope for that result, and it is a comment invariably made after I have posted a poll. The polls are more an academic exercise, to see what people are really thinking.

For instance, the poll someone else started in the New World Notes forum has been very instructive as regards what people think should be done about the Divine situation. I could have posted the same poll, but I don't think its ultimate result and certainly not its overal importance would be in what notions of mine might be "put to rest."

And anyway, polls don't typically result in my "putting to rest" anything, lol - I'm sure you know that by now.

Actually, this poll did nothing to put to rest my notion that there were people who would like to see the stipends ended. There ARE people who would like to see the stipends ended. What is more interesting is how many would like to see us get a raise!

I haven't voted in it myself yet.

Of course all our opinions and viewpoints are entirely irrelevant. But of course they are also entirely relevant. Without us, there is no SL. On TSO, there were those who felt like what we thought didn't matter, but it does - we influenced even EA (finally). We also influence what the Lindens do. They are not some omnipotent people up in the sky who don't pay any attention to our opinions - in fact, they actively solicit them more than any other developers I've ever known.

Even if that weren't the case, it's often illustrative to post a poll so that we get a more accurate idea of what our fellow residents think on an issue.

coco

I never suggested it would be inconsequential. Philip himself indicated that the change implemented a year was quite significant at 25%. Your post and its huge numbers and the follow up feel good fuzzy comment give the impression that the removal of the basic stipend is hardly a possibility. The action taken a year ago was brought forth to show that significant changes are not implausable or without precedent. It also served to exemplify a basis for my imaginary numbers comment. A lack of data provided to us is a common complaint.

I am not bound and determined to that LL remove the basic stipend. I think that debating the idea here will not effect LL financial policies. I am certain that forum posters with paltry bits of data are not high on their economic advisor list.

The point of my original post was primarily to suggest a reason why the minimal amount of basic stipend may not be having the effect intended. Imo, it was thought to be like those tasty morsels presented in the grocery store. Try it, you'll like (and buy) it. All I did was suggest that, in contrast, it may be acting to set an attitude of expectation that one will be paid for showing up.

I don't predict that it is LL's intention to remove the basic stipend but if they did, I could understand it better in this light. I am giving thought to the initiail finite compensation for new players which was suggested. That would be more of a rearrangement of the basic stipend distribution rather than the elimination of it and seems quite feasible and good on many levels.

The problem is that a poll in the forums doesn't tell you what "our fellow residents" think. It tells you what a subset (those who will respond) of a tiny subset (forum readers) think. And that doesn't take into account if the poll is well designed, which few are.

An important distinction when talking about issues that affect everyone.

Some useful general info on questionnaire design, for those who are interested in such things. Hits some of the high points.
http://www.websurveyor.com/pdf/designtips.pdf

Okay, last time I'm going to explain this to you:

If the base pay was raised to 1000 per week and bonuses were returned, the value of a single Linden would drop DRASTICALLY. Then the content creators would raise their prices to be able to continue to do things like pay their tier and make it worth their while to create compelling content. By flooding the market with $L, as you propose, you'd cause runaway inflation which would be really bad for everyone. A stable economy is the way to go.

You know who tried your scheme? Hitler, at the advent of World War II. Germany printed tons and tons of money and completely ruined their entire economy. At one point, 40 million German marks were worth one U.S. cent. For more historical perspective on your "solution", please see this link:

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=536

"Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it." - Santayana

Learn your history, Magnum.

Regards,

-Flip

Right, but it is the only such poll we have. (Though setting up such polls in game and distributing them occurs to me might be another really neat thing that I don't think has been done before, for YUMI!!)

My own experience with games, forums, and polls is that - although it is a subset - it is usually pretty on the mark as regards the general population. Even a scientific poll which selects respondants as randomly as possible doesn't require a huge number of participants in order to have a very low and acceptable margin of error, so the total number of participants is rather meaningless. The subset of participants, is, of course meaningful.

But when it comes to games and forums, I tend to think of the readers here as a subset of "very interested" and often, but not always, "vocal" players. (In fact, anonymous polls on forums are a better way to hear from everyone, including lurkers, than anything else.)

As such, it's kind of like politics. Those who are really interested will voice their opinion, while many of those who don't visit the forums, and don't voice their opinion on polls there, aren't as interested. And as irl, the ones who are really interested are the ones who speak for others, whether that's a good thing or not - as irl, those who don't vote don't have a voice, but generally they don't care about it anyway, so it's all right.

I have found, in a non-scientific but experiential way, that general sentiment on forum polls most often - but not always (depending on the forum and the issue and the strength of the interest groups doing the voting) - does reflect general sentiment in the game, among those aware of the issue.

Take for instance the Divine poll I mentioned earlier, the one over in New World Notes. I think that probably does reflect the general consensus (among players who have even considered the issue) reasonably accurately.

And in any case, limited data though it is, it IS data. Someone could invent an ingame polling machine that could appear lots and lots of places - and put in an issue every few weeks or so. Someone good at making these polls, that is. And that could be a very interesting sort of thing to do, and interesting for all of us.

coco

But Coco, what if Philip sees it and makes critical decisions relavant to the future of SL based upon it? Think of the children!!!

But Coco, what if Philip sees it and makes critical decisions relevant to the future of SL based upon it? Think of the children!!!

Well, the Lindens should take this sort of data into account along with all the other methods they have for taking the pulse of resident sentiment.

I certainly do - and I don't forget the results, either. Well, I forget the exact numbers, but I could always go back and find them again - I mean, I am informed by them, and may trot them out again in later discussions.

And while we are on the topic, interestingly, the size of the various responses are not always the most interesting aspect. For instance, in Hank Ramos's poll above, thus far two people have agreed with the option stating:

"Yes; Linden Lab should be immune from criticism."

To me, it is startling that even two people could think such a thing! Course, maybe they don't really; maybe those responses are just sort of protest responses, stating their opinion regarding the whole cause of the poll creator.

But in many ways, the answers in polls are illuminating. I was surprised in this one to find so many think we should get raises.

To be more clear - I was surprised so many forum readers would think so. It wouldn't surprise me at all to discover an even greater proportion of non-forum-going players would agree with that, but forum readers tend to have already been steeped in forum culture, which includes a lot of people talking about that sort of thing hurting the economy, etc., while people in game would not have been exposed to so much of that.

coco

Agreed! Certainly not. I'm merely stating, for the purposes of this discussion, that I could not happily endorse such a dramatic move myself.



That's definitely a valid point. Expectation-setting is critical for a situation like ours. We currently are surrounded by a populace who will expect to be paid just for logging in. I don't think that's a very good thing at all.

But it's what we've got. We may have a rickety foundation beneath this house, but removing it altogether poses more complications than I can effectively predict.