do you consider basic accounts to be inferiors?

I wonder how much people the anti-basic people would be if LL would start charging $50 for the client, and $15 per month + tier.

If you have a problem with basic accounts... get a premium account, and mind your own business.

Too many people are concerned with other people's legitimate dealings. I wish everyone would take all that energy and apply it to something worthwhile.

lol this was a thread bound to stir up the nest, wasn't it?

i'll post my support for some comments already made. Basic vs premium tells you very little, because basics can indirectly pay linden lab through rentals, can directly contribute to the economy by creating content/entertainment or buying L$ from the currency exchange, and can indirectly contribute to the success of SL by adding to the network effect and simply being a participant within the growing world.

so "basic" in and of itself really tells you nothing at all about someone's involvement and contribution to Second Life.



wait, that wasn't controversial enough was it?

Actually - i thinnk many people miss something in this whole debate.

A serious potential of Second Life is to attract First Life advertizers.

This attraction would be inflated not reduced by more actively used accounts, free or premium.

Since Advertizing = Money to LL that doesnt come out of Our (the users) pockets, it would have the potential of the Lindens eventually being able to offer us more for the same we pay now.

Controversial? Absolutely not. Your post is dead on accurate.

If, as you say, you have nothing against basic accounts then why use such inflamatory words such as 'freeloading' as you have done in your above post.

It's up to Linden Lab how they want to structure the way people pay for their offering. They want growth, content creators want growth, event hosts want growth. The system needs growth. So if Linden Lab are offering basic memberships and people take advantage of them it's basically good for all of us. It's a refreshing angle to market themselves with and a fantastic way to entice them in. If they can get the enjoyment they want to from staying at basic and not buying any L$ or renting land etc. then more power to them.

Let them use the environment as they see fit, without being labelled as something less than worthwhile by people like you. Worry about your own Second Life experience, not those of others.

Interesting point.

Well, LL will not be able to post advertising on privately held land, and people complain enough about all of the signs you see in-world. I know that I will not allow real-world commercial advertising on land I own, and I could see the plastering of real-world ads driving people to private isles, and out of SL altogether.

I will be seriously dissapointed if LL ever allows real-world advertising into the place that is a refuge from real-world.

Just thought I'd post this quote again for those who style themselves as veteran "content-creators" and yet have so manifestly missed a major point of SL. Maybe that includes Lindens, and maybe it doesn't - I don't know them. But I do know that this is why SL hasn't become the biggest online feenom in history - because a lot of people don't even recognize the duality, let alone try to figure out how to reconcile it.

Bitch-slapping consumers and those who march to a different dream-drummer just don't bring in the profits.

Just thought I'd post this quote again for those who style themselves as veteran "content-creators" and yet have so manifestly missed a major point of SL. Maybe that includes Lindens, and maybe it doesn't - I don't know them. But I do know that this is why SL hasn't become the biggest online feenom in history - because a lot of people don't even recognize the duality, let alone try to figure out how to reconcile it.

Bitch-slapping consumers and those who march to a different dream-drummer just don't bring in the profits.

But this is the dreadful fallacy that caused exactly the problems with so many internet startups.

"Adding to the value of the product" does not count unless it is actually getting you more money. "Gaining residents/customers" does not count unless they are paying you. Having a great, exciting, growing product is a wonderful thing for attracting venture capital, but those folks are sooner or later going to want back more money than they paid in. As accountants love to say, "The bottom line is the bottom line."

That doesn't mean that we don't need basic accounts at all. It is true, they do add value to the game. But it does mean that we need to deal with the situation where basic accounts can get everything a premium account can get, often actually cheaper or free, and where doing so is seen in gamist terms as a "success". Yes, SL isn't a game, but that doesn't enable us to ban people coming into it from seeing it in gamist terms - even real-life business is a little game-like, after all.

Once upon a time, the great Lord Linden created a world, and with it he created a great stone token, and the name of the token was "paying our profit". The bigger the world became, the heavier the token got. And one day, Miss Landowner came to Lord Linden, and Lord Linden said, "If you will take this token from me, I will give you the power to shape the land as you see fit, to set the sun and moon in place, and to choose what may remain there." Miss Landowner took the token, and soon made wonderful shapes and patterns and designs on the land.

Then, Mr Content went to Miss Landowner, and Miss Landowner said, "If you will take this token from me, I will give you the power to create wonderful, beautiful, and sophisticated things and place them on the land I have shaped, that others may view them." Mr Content took the token, and soon the land was filled with designs and houses and gadgets and fountains (and rather a lot of brothels and Tringo halls, but everyone has their off days).

Then, Master Consumer arrived, and looked around rather confusedly. Master Consumer went to Mr Content, and Mr Content said, "If you will take this token from me, then you may have copies of the things I have made, that you can do with as you will." Master Consumer took the token, and soon he had his own copies of many of the things he saw around.

But a few days later, Master Consumer threw the token onto the floor. With a crack, and a clap of thunder, the ground began to tremble, as with the groundswell of a great earthquake. Lord Linden looked down to see what had happened. "Who has let my token fall to the floor?" he cried. "This world depends on somebody carrying it!" Master Consumer replied, "I threw down the token, Lord Linden. For when Miss Landowner took the token, she got the power to shape the world; and when Mr Content took the token, he got the power to design and place whatever he wanted. Now I have to carry the same token, which is even heavier than it was back then, but all I get to do is make copies of things Mr Content made!"

"But you can do those things as well, if you choose to.", reassured Lord Linden. "I choose not to," replied Master Consumer. "Perhaps I lack the skill, perhaps I lack the time, perhaps it's simply my decision of free will; but I choose not to." "But if you choose not to, why do you expect to get the same things they got?", replied Lord Linden. "I don't," replied Master Consumer. "And for that reason, I don't expect to have to carry the same token. If it is my choice, then the bulk of the weight of that token is only giving me options I do not want. The fact that it gives me less than others makes me unwilling to carry it; the reason why it gives me less than others does not matter, nor does it matter whether you can do anything about it or not. You have given us free will, and that is my choice."

The token is still on the floor, and is still steadily growing. The earthquake has not come yet, but nobody can say it never will.

- do you consider a basic user is inferior to a premium user? No
- do you think LL should push the basic accounts to move to premium?push? no, offer incentive to do so...yes.
- do you think the basic accounts should get more restriction as an incentive to move to premium? more restriction other than the inability to own land?? no
- do you think it would be a bad way to have a script function allowing to detect if someone is basic or premium by it's key? (it used to be written in the profile) definitely a bad idea. Why is it anyone's business what type of member someone is?
-what do you think of the charter accounts? I think they are fine. I have a lifetime membership to a gym that no longer offers life time memberships. Should I get other than what I paid for because they changed their policy? absolutely not.


if you are a premium:
- do you feel you are paying for the basic accounts? No, I'm paying for my account. LL is paying for the basic accounts
- what is keeping you from going back to basic? (except the land) My stipend

Hope that helps

Wow Yumi, you're really over-thinking this. And drawing over-the-top conclusions because of that.

Well, sort-of. But I hope my basic argument got through that: most of the big landowners, and many content creators, really want to earn back their tier (ie, for someone else to pay it for them). Their argument, which is by no means unreasonable, is that they shouldn't have to pay to do work to entertain others. But then the consumers, on whom the burden of payment winds up falling, are getting least out of the deal. SL's servers, because they support building, have to be less traffic efficient than those of other online games: consumer users have to pay for that inefficiency even though the benefit (free building) does nothing for them. Content is a worse deal in SL than in most other online games (since the majority give eventual access to all their content for a single subscription fee), but it has to be because it supports SL's business model: but a consumer gets nothing out of that business model, since they aren't interested in making money. The only benefit a consumer user derives from these aspects of SL is a "wide variety of content" and it would be interesting to see a genuine study showing how this compared to accessibility.

Before I started producing content in SL, I was perfectly happy to wander around and check the place out and socialize. Having come from more traditional online gaming, I found SL to be refreshing, different, and vastly more diverse.

If you are unhappy with the business model, or the way SL is, then find another "game". It's very simple.

I personally am not unhappy, but other people are. The number of new people I never see twice tells me that.

And if all those people find another game, then who pays the bills? The "if you don't like it then leave" attitude is a luxury SL can't afford if it's not making money yet...

I find it is best in life to let people speak for themselves. If others are unhappy, let them state as such. And considering that there are so many people in-world... it isn't uncommon to see new people once only.

There will always be people coming in, and people leaving. That's the nature of any game/platform. If someone is unhappy, the should leave. There are enough people happy with SL for it to have made it this far. Imagine how much further it could go if there were less unhappy people taking up LL's time trying to change the nature of the animal.

SecondLife is what SecondLife is. It will progress in the manner LL wants it to, and that's the end of it. Much like the television, if you are unhappy with what's on, change the channel.

"All those people"... a rather broad statement, full of implications, and with no supporting data. Please present factual and sound information when making a point, no need to confuse the issue with wild claims. This is in no way intended as an attack, or to offend.

Actually i see Real world advertizing as a serious way to make second life very proffitable

However i can definitely see a reason to introduce some zoning so as to minimize the aggrivating nature.

I dont see , say, an in game ad for Coca Cola (in a controlled way) any less of an annoyance than a badly done Minimall (which isnt controlled atm).

Well done Mini malls, i actually enjoy ^^.

I also might like ads which used clever scripting and intelligence.

I see providing a quality platform where people can escape from the real world as a very profitable endeavor. I see real world advertising as destructive to the "escape" factor which so many people look for in SecondLife.

I would rather see 1000 horrid minimalls than 1 CocaCola machine officially sold as advertising.

Keep RL in RL.

um .... too late .. unless we can un upload the 1000's of RL photos, etc i you see all the time in SL. Not to mention many products already copied from RL items.

Zoning could help alleviate your want for an escape where the Real world influences dont occur.

But in any system where users can upload whatever they like, its really imposible to keep SL "Sacred"

Might I remind you, using textures, images, or marks which are protected by copyright without express written permission is a crime.



Who would visit a zone specifically set aside for real world advertising?



Users can upload anything they like so long as they follow US and International copyright law.

Not sure why not seeing a new person again tells you that they are unhappy. It's a big wide virtual world out there, what makes you think they stopped using it? And besides, even if they did stop using it, to suggest that that's because they're "unhappy" is a leap anyway.

There are so many wild conclusions coming from such a small amount of inconcrete, presumptive evidence in your posts.

I'm talking about new people who I see in the new people's areas, who I then try and help, and where I often succeed and they seem excited and keen, and they add me as a friend. A few weeks or days later, I notice their name hasn't been bold for a while, and soon enough, they're no longer on Find.



However "far" SL has made it, it's not making a profit. Therefore, it would be a good idea to try to make more people happy.



But people are trusting that LL will not put its "vision" ahead of SL continuing to exist. How would a major content creator like to be told that all their profit, all their work, etc. has just vanished for ever because LL valued a vision above business realities?



If the people who are unhappy with SL leave, who pays the bills?

You mentioned that you were "perfectly happy to wander around and socialize". Were you paying LL any money for that? Would you have been prepared to?

I think she's saying there's nothing stopping someone getting permission from an RL advertiser to put their boards up in SL. (Since it's been established that advertising billboards in-world do not violate the TOS against advertising.)

Interestingly enough... I don't have that problem. Most of the people who I put on my friends list are still there. New or veteran SL'ers.



Do you work for LL? Or are you just speculating on the choices and business practices of LL from the outside? Don't presume to know why they operate the way they do. It is up to LL to let us know what LL intends to do with LL's platform.



You certainly like to make assumptions.



Actually, yes.

You know, taking such an alarmist/extremist position without much information supporting your position makes you look a little paranoid.

Actually the "free building" benefits everybody. It's the same mechanism that allows you to rez any object in-world, change it's size, or re-color it (and before you say "but they don't do that" - I can tell you from experience with my skates, for instance, that they most certainly do). Move the parts of your house, place a chair here and move it or rotate it to get it where you want it to be. Are you telling me the consumers don't use those tools? If so, you are 100% mistaken.

How on earth could content be a worse deal in SL? It is abundantly obvious, without need for any real detailed examination, that the sheer scale, scope and diversity of content in Second Life vastly overshadows content in company-provided online environments.

You need to start backing up your ideas, portents of doom, descriptions of mass depression of the consumer (the oppressed masses!) with some figures and facts. Basically something solid, because at the moment it's all so much hot air. The more you post on this subject, the less attached to reality you appear to be getting. Maybe step back and look at it again in a couple of days, digest what you've said and what others have said.

I didn't say they weren't on the list (ie, "de-friended". I said they weren't in bold - ie, not logged into the world. A Find search usually reveals they haven't logged in for weeks.. and then they disappear from Find entirely.



If you applied this standard generally then 90% of discussion on this forum would be moot. I am doing what most other people here do - discussing what might happen in the future of SL. And in response to your claim that "no change is needed, people who don't like SL can just quit", I've responded "a change is needed, because SL is not profitable". That's not any speculation on LL's business practices, it's an observation based on one of their own press releases.



Why is "we should try and make more people happy in SL" an extremist position? I think that the supporters of the "nothing must change" model are far more extreme in that view.