Before I start this thread, I'd like to make it clear that I'm not suggesting that Linden Lab are wrong to do this - as I posted on my blog several days ago, my days of bashing them are at an end.
As we're seeing, more and more people are using Second Life for RL companies, developing content for them, using the system for a variety of reasons for business, both their own and for outside interests. Does the L$ sink for texture/sound/animation uploads actually make much sense any more? Is it an unncessary barrier? A pointless cost? Should it be changed to US$?
My reason for asking this question is that it's suddenly struck me that, if part of the future of Second Life is as a development platform, a L$ charge that adds nothing to the funding of Linden Labs would seem to be either un-needed or an inappropriate form of charge for uploading content.
The poll has a few options. I'm not suggesting that any of them is correct, and I'd love if feedback was provided to backup whatever poll option you vote for. If my poll options are incomplete, I apologise.
Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive
These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE
L$ For Texture/Sound/Animation Uploads - Right Way To Be? |
|
|
Moopf Murray
Moopfmerising
Join date: 7 Jan 2004
Posts: 2,448
|
03-19-2006 13:36
_____________________
|
|
Enabran Templar
Capitalist Pig
Join date: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 4,506
|
03-19-2006 13:53
Given the finite nature of storage hardware, there really needs to be some kind of throttle on uploads. The nature of that throttle is definitely open to to re-evalution, though.
_____________________
Furthermore, as Second Life goes to the Metaverse, and this becomes an open platform, Linden Lab risks lawsuit in court and [attachment culling] will, I repeat WILL be reverse in court. Second Life Forums: Who needs Reason when you can use bold tags? |
|
Moopf Murray
Moopfmerising
Join date: 7 Jan 2004
Posts: 2,448
|
03-19-2006 14:10
Given the finite nature of storage hardware, there really needs to be some kind of throttle on uploads. The nature of that throttle is definitely open to to re-evalution, though. Yes, that's the thurst of where I'm coming from. If we accept that there needs to be a throttle and, in essence, the storage requirement has a direct correlation to cost for LL, is L$ the correct method of collecting funds for that storage, especially as we're looking at a single charge for persistant storage into the future and that charge actually makes no difference to LL's income. _____________________
|
|
Ordinal Malaprop
really very ordinary
Join date: 9 Sep 2005
Posts: 4,607
|
03-19-2006 14:30
This sort of question is rather hard to answer without knowing how many terabytes of assets are actually stored on LL's servers (something I suspect we will never know). Disc space, though, is cheap. I suspect that the value is more in terms of a money sink really.
|
|
Yumi Murakami
DoIt!AttachTheEarOfACat!
Join date: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 6,860
|
03-19-2006 14:34
I think if a US$ charge was used, it could be very bad for the economy. It would remove a L$ sink, and remove money from people's SL US$ budget that could otherwise be spent buying L$ and keeping the demand up.
|
|
Moopf Murray
Moopfmerising
Join date: 7 Jan 2004
Posts: 2,448
|
03-19-2006 14:51
I think if a US$ charge was used, it could be very bad for the economy. It would remove a L$ sink, and remove money from people's SL US$ budget that could otherwise be spent buying L$ and keeping the demand up. Although psychologically it may feel different, isn't charging L$ having the exact same impact on people's SL US$ budget? As for the economy, I wonder if others feel that an economy that requires the money sink of uploading textures/animations/sounds to help balance it is actually to be considered that stable or serious? Treating SL a a platform for development and business, surely the charge would be best being US$ to support the platform creators? _____________________
|
|
Moopf Murray
Moopfmerising
Join date: 7 Jan 2004
Posts: 2,448
|
03-19-2006 14:53
This sort of question is rather hard to answer without knowing how many terabytes of assets are actually stored on LL's servers (something I suspect we will never know). Disc space, though, is cheap. I suspect that the value is more in terms of a money sink really. Yes, I agree. I don't know whether L$ or US$ or anything would be the right decision, I'm kind of just interested in seeing where other people lie, or even think, about the subject. As for it being a money sink, I do have to wonder about the validity and stability of an economy that requires such charges in order to balance it. It seems a little forced to me. I could be totally wrong about that, and it's the way that the system has evolved as much as anything. But, going forward, whether people think that is right or not, is a different question. _____________________
|
|
Jonas Pierterson
Dark Harlequin
Join date: 27 Dec 2005
Posts: 3,660
|
03-19-2006 15:01
Its a money sink..helps keep the money in the system down and in balance, at the same time as stopping a huge fre eupload overload on their resources.
That being said I think the -bulk- uploads should be payable in US$ , for the same amount of Linden dollar value (based on current market) plus the transaction fees. While would cost no less, people could upload bulk files without having to go through the exchange step (it would be automated) and worrying about their Linden balance. |
|
Midnite Rambler
Registered Aussie
Join date: 13 May 2005
Posts: 146
|
03-19-2006 15:25
If upload fees were changed to USD, it would severely disadvantage non-US residents, who then have to usually pay more in their own local currency to pay in the USD.
eg, I pay $8.00 USD tier, but this month was billed $13.85 AUD, which while it doesn't sound like much, quickly adds up to paying quite a bit extra, if one then also buys $L (which I rarely do), or has to pay for uploads in USD (which I spend at least $1000L a month on). |
|
Yumi Murakami
DoIt!AttachTheEarOfACat!
Join date: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 6,860
|
03-19-2006 15:30
Although psychologically it may feel different, isn't charging L$ having the exact same impact on people's SL US$ budget? No, because it means that the L$ get bought from another player who was selling them. If you just pay US$ directly to LL, then the L$ don't get bought, so people start selling them cheaper, so they go down. |
|
Jonas Pierterson
Dark Harlequin
Join date: 27 Dec 2005
Posts: 3,660
|
03-19-2006 15:34
Midnite, I only said to make it an -option- to pay for bulk uploads with US$ L$ uploads would not be changed.
|
|
Moopf Murray
Moopfmerising
Join date: 7 Jan 2004
Posts: 2,448
|
03-19-2006 16:26
No, because it means that the L$ get bought from another player who was selling them. If you just pay US$ directly to LL, then the L$ don't get bought, so people start selling them cheaper, so they go down. Yes, but for an economy to be taken seriously, isn't a false money-sink such as that a barrier? If you cannot balance an economy without such a forced money sink, what dcoes that say about the economy? (I'm playing devil's advocate here to a certain extent, so don't take what I've said as a gosel I believe!) _____________________
|
|
Eboni Khan
Misanthrope
Join date: 17 Mar 2004
Posts: 2,133
|
03-19-2006 16:37
Taking things from $L to US dollars seems nice, until you remember that if some activities in SL were using USD they would be illegal, like the gambling. Bringing USD in world any more than it already is, would be sliding down a slippery slope we don't want to see.
|
|
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
|
03-19-2006 17:30
I think if a US$ charge was used, it could be very bad for the economy. It would remove a L$ sink, and remove money from people's SL US$ budget that could otherwise be spent buying L$ and keeping the demand up. I wanted to vote "Yes, but it should be modified". Like... Textures: L$5 up to 64x64, L$10 up to 128x128, L$20 up to 256x256, L$40 up to 512x512, L$80 over that. Exception: direct screen shots remain L$10. Sounds: L$10 per 5 seconds. |
|
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
|
03-19-2006 17:31
As for it being a money sink, I do have to wonder about the validity and stability of an economy that requires such charges in order to balance it. |
|
Dianne Mechanique
Back from the Dead
Join date: 28 Mar 2005
Posts: 2,648
|
03-19-2006 18:12
If upload fees were changed to USD, it would severely disadvantage non-US residents, who then have to usually pay more in their own local currency to pay in the USD. eg, I pay $8.00 USD tier, but this month was billed $13.85 AUD, which while it doesn't sound like much, quickly adds up to paying quite a bit extra, if one then also buys $L (which I rarely do), or has to pay for uploads in USD (which I spend at least $1000L a month on). _____________________
.
black art furniture & classic clothing =================== Black in Neufreistadt Black @ ONE Black @ www.SLBoutique.com . |
|
Kyrah Abattoir
cruelty delight
Join date: 4 Jun 2004
Posts: 2,786
|
03-20-2006 06:29
http://secondlife.com/vote/index.php?get_id=1139
good proposal for a scalable pricing of texture upload _____________________
 tired of XStreetSL? try those! apez http://tinyurl.com/yfm9d5b metalife http://tinyurl.com/yzm3yvw metaverse exchange http://tinyurl.com/yzh7j4a slapt http://tinyurl.com/yfqah9u |
|
FlipperPA Peregrine
Magically Delicious!
Join date: 14 Nov 2003
Posts: 3,703
|
03-20-2006 06:42
I love it Kyrah; here's a similar idea I posted a while back:
Linden Lab is currently doing everything they can viewer-wise to increase frame rate and provide a better user experience… except giving incentives to people building to do it efficiently! One idea for textures, to give incentive to keep size reasonable, AND create a new L$ sink... pay by the pixel! 256x256 (65536 pixels) texture or smaller = L$10 to upload 512x256 or 1024x128 (131072 pixels) textures = L$20 to upload 512x512 (262144 pixels) = L$40 to upload ...etc... do the math for all in-between texture sizes possible 1024x1024 (1048576 pixels) = L$160 to upload If the texture includes an alpha channel (32-bit targa), increase the price by 50%; not only do they take more space, they cause the Second Life viewer to have to do a boatload of math to figure out texture ordering which significantly lowers frame rate. Some people upload all their textures as large as possible, 32-bit targa, not knowing these things. This would make people more responsible about using reasonable texture sizes instead of always going for the big ones.  I've seen people with 40 object boxes in a mall setting with all 1024x1024 textures - not because they're evil, just because they don't know any better! The boxes were LESS that 1m x 1m. This would force the learning curve.Regards, -Flip _____________________
Peregrine Salon: www.PeregrineSalon.com - my consulting company
Second Blogger: www.SecondBlogger.com - free, fully integrated Second Life blogging for all avatars! |
|
Nolan Nash
Frischer Frosch
Join date: 15 May 2003
Posts: 7,141
|
03-20-2006 06:45
Yes. Americans don't realise this ever, but it needs to be said. There are lots of people, (myself among them), that do not want to have to pay in US dollars and would consider leaving the game over it. This goes for uploads and all sorts of things. If this were true, I suppose it wouldn't be much worse than speaking in absolutes about an entire nation. Something some (read: not all) non-Americans like to pin on America. _____________________
“Time's fun when you're having flies.” ~Kermit
|
|
Yumi Murakami
DoIt!AttachTheEarOfACat!
Join date: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 6,860
|
03-20-2006 07:18
I love it Kyrah; here's a similar idea I posted a while back: That seems just plain unfriendly. Why shouldn't SL itself compress the textures better once uploaded? |
|
Travis Lambert
White dog, red collar
Join date: 3 Jun 2004
Posts: 2,819
|
03-20-2006 07:21
I'm not sure how I feel about the US$ vs L$ charge for uploads - but I most definately agree that there should be a relationship between Texture Size (Resolution) & Upload Fee.
_____________________
------------------
The Shelter The Shelter is a non-profit recreation center for new residents, and supporters of new residents. Our goal is to provide a positive & supportive social environment for those looking for one in our overwhelming world. |
|
Phoenix Psaltery
Ninja Wizard
Join date: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 2,599
|
03-20-2006 07:32
This sort of question is rather hard to answer without knowing how many terabytes of assets are actually stored on LL's servers (something I suspect we will never know). Disc space, though, is cheap. I suspect that the value is more in terms of a money sink really. According to Philip on the video when he and Cory spoke at Google, user content in SL amounts to 15 terabytes of data. P2 _____________________
 |
|
Moopf Murray
Moopfmerising
Join date: 7 Jan 2004
Posts: 2,448
|
03-20-2006 07:42
According to Philip on the video when he and Cory spoke at Google, user content in SL amounts to 15 terabytes of data. P2  and that's with just 150,000 people here!_____________________
|
|
FlipperPA Peregrine
Magically Delicious!
Join date: 14 Nov 2003
Posts: 3,703
|
03-20-2006 08:41
That seems just plain unfriendly. Why shouldn't SL itself compress the textures better once uploaded? It does, but many people simply aren't educated in why using 1024x1024 textures on a 1 meter by 1 meter prim is a bad idea. As we've seen over and over again, unless you hit people in the pocketbook, they often won't have the impetus to learn to make things as efficient and lag-free as is possible. Regards, -Flip _____________________
Peregrine Salon: www.PeregrineSalon.com - my consulting company
Second Blogger: www.SecondBlogger.com - free, fully integrated Second Life blogging for all avatars! |
|
Maeve Morgan
ZOMG Resmod!
Join date: 2 Apr 2004
Posts: 1,512
|
03-20-2006 08:48
I like the idea of a sliding scale for texture size, but paid in $L only, cause I don't have a real credit card, I use one of the netspend prepaid ones for buying stuff online.
_____________________
|
