do you consider basic accounts to be inferiors?

Maybe you put them off with your attitude towards Second Life? Or even created an alt to get away? *shrug*

The "on this subject" is extraneous. Yumi zooming off into the wild blue yonder of Negativeville based solely on "maybes", and "what ifs", to the exclusion of actual facts, is hardly limited to just one topic.

i think your more intent on picking apart my point then anything else.

this isnt necessarily a debate.

First off Real world advertizing would Pay Linden Labs for the ability to advertize in Second Life. I imagine they have their own copyrights and trademarks figured out, thanks

Secondly , yes of course it is illegal for copyright infringement but look around youd be surprise how much RL imagary you see. ...

And i wouldnt ZONE FOR Real life advertizing id zone area where it wasnt allowed, the assumption that many commerical areas it would be fine.

Like a bilboard next to the aformentioned mini mall ...

Thanks

BTW --

If Html on a prim is coming were getting RW (net) advertizing reguardless.

Oh, I'm sure they do. But the level of server load required to support that is vastly less than the server load need that must be created by having to send the prims for every object.



That's very true - but as I've mentioned, there's the accessibility issue too. Other online environments have much less diverse content, but once you've paid your subscription you can access it all. In SL, the same amount of money per month will only buy you access to a small proportion of it. Some aspects of it will be out of reach forever.



I'm not saying that consumers are "oppressed" - that would imply people were taking active action against them, and they certainly are not. I would hope that the technical aspect of evidence is obvious, though: an awful lot of SL's technical infrastructure, including its limitations, is designed around (and a result of) the need to allow people to build things freely. People who don't build things thus suffer all those limitations in exchange for a benefit that is of no interest to them.

Perhaps I didn't clearly express myself. I don't have that problem. Still there actually meant, still on the list and relatively active.



I am aware that SL is not yet profitable, but that certainly doesn't indicate a lack of success. In fact, most companies operate in debt for the first few years. I also never said no change is needed. Don't put words in my mouth. Change is part of the development process. What I said was, if you are unhappy... leave.



You really need to stop making asumptions. Do not make the mistake of labeling me as part of the "nothing must change" mentality. That would be foolish on your part. I have no issue with change. I simply stated, if you are unhappy... find something else.

I am all for positive changes in SL. But if someone is not happy with SL, rather than try to change the whole system to what "they" want, that person should leave and find something that is more their style. Nothing can be all things for all people, and the sooner people start looking for what they want, instead of trying to force their personal wishes on people, the better.

Why do you think I have a negative attitude to SL as a whole? I don't.

I will help new folks to succeed in any way I can. But there's a world of difference between that and expect everyone to be able to, and want to, succeed.

If someone wants to be a consumer, I'll tell them how to buy money and how to find places to shop (I won't send them places, though, because that would be eeevil "funneling" ). But only a very small number of people I've spoken to do want to do that - most of them want to make the money for themselves. I've helped folks build their first things, or referred them to classes, in those cases.

But from the whole-world point of view, it's clear that we do need consumers and we have to think about why there are so few of them, and the details of the "deal" they are getting is one of them. If I'm responding in a negative-sounding fashion here, it's because I'm being pushed onto the defensive in a forum discussion.

If you can be clear that you are talking about just one individual, then yes. But if there are many other people who're unhappy for the same reason as that individual, then no - that's something that the system might need to think about changing for. And if you don't scrutinise their reason for being unhappy - if you just wave them off with "if you're unhappy, then leave" - then you'll never know if either of those is the case.

If you try to scrutinise my reasons for being unhappy, you won't be able to do so, because I'm not unhappy. On the other hand, the infamous user retention figure suggests that quite a few people are. Can't we try and figure out why?

wait... you can do a find to see when the last time people have logged in?

I think, only if they're in a group with member lists published... or a group you're in.

hummm... i can see people that are online but the people who arent, it just says offline, not when they were logged in last. Maybe im missing somehting. This would be a wonderful feature, a /whois for SL!

Contact me inworld and I'll show you

Please forgive me for saying so, but it seems you did not get past the first part of the post. I realize that I tend to be somewhat verbose, so I apologize that wading through what I have to say can sometimes be a chore.

Anyway, I was never saying that ideas, entertainment and community are all you need to maintian a successful product. I was saying that you have a stronger product by having the balance--those who contribute directly and indirectly, monetarily and creatively, intellectually and socially, etc.

The issue isn't either/or--it's all the different things together that make the product stronger.

You are correct in pointing out that idealistic and insubstantial business plans were one of a number of factors that weakened fledgling internet firms in the wild days of yore, but being too literal-minded or narrowly focussed in developing and following a business plan could also sink a newly launched ship. To some extent, I think this is what you are doing when you focus so exclusively on the idea of account fees as the primary foundation of the product's profitability. It is an important buidling block, to be sure, but I suspect that even under the best of circumstances, the profit potential of those fees has distinct limits.

It is also important to keep in mind that LL is by no means a "startup" anymore--it was founded in 1999, so in internet years (similar to "dog years" it seems to have already outlived the average dot-comedy, and does display some interesting evidence of growing maturity and complexity. This is indicative of a business plan with some depth and range, as well as unique vision.

Like most of us here, I have not seen LL's business plan, but their actions are suggestive of certain possiblities, not the least of which is that they seem to be thinking beyond making a product that would simply run reasonably well and make its money from fees charged to the users.

They clearly are not in this for a short run--they are going somewhere with this experiment. And while that destination is a bit of mystery to those of us who have not seen the business plan--it is probably safe to say that where they are going is going to be different in many ways from where it started. SL feels not only like a product in transition--it feels like a transitional product.

There is risk in what they are attempting--for themselves, for investors, and for us--but that's part of what makes this so interesting.

Meanwhile, back at the subject of massive generalizations--your point about accountants and "the bottom line is the bottom line" brings up issues of balance again. The jolly little bean counters, if given their narrow-minded way with a business, have been known to kill a company just as thoroughly as when the happy creative types are given too free of a hand.

Been there, watched it happen.

Accountants, bless their hearts are no smarter than the design, engineering, production, sales, and customer service folks, but when we listen to each other the overall chances for corporate survival do tend to increase slightly.

I was premium for a year but that was really just for the stipend. It ran out five months ago.

We do get away with a lot as basic users but it ties back into Yumi's post about adding value, adding value doesn't make you money but for a virtual world where content is entirely player created it is important to be able to have a sizable player base. You have to gather basic players and then convert them to land owners or get them to use the LindeX to increase your bottom line.

Really I only see them doing more things like LindeX which supplement the world and also make money.

a member of a group your in

or if they are an officer in any group

True

and I am renting a small store (+150 prims for me) from someone for almost $6 US, per month.

I have no desire or need to "own" land. At this early stage in the game, I can't see why I would want to - other than to rent it out at a profit to me (not Linden Labs).

How is it that my $6 is less valuable, in the larger economic sense, just because I don't pay it directly to Linden Labs? I figure I'm actually paying more into the system - and using fewer resources - than someone who "owns" at 512m +234 prims. The space I'm renting is somewhere less than 512m - and uses about 200 prims, including the lanlord's pre-built structure.

By my calculations, (and being a complete newb, I know my undersatanding is limited), I'm paying fair market value, while using a minimum of prims - and somehow considered a second-class citizen by some who "own" "land" for doing so. So are we talking staraight math (including the myriad variables) - or are we talking someone's opinion/agenda?

Seems to me that there are so many more factors involved in one's impact on the economy of SL, aside from simply whether or not you pay LL $10-$200 a month directly, to "own".

This feels like a case of justifying prejudice and ignoring specifics. A caste system, essentially. IMO, There are too many details and variations from one situation to the next, to make an accurate blanket statement here. Granted, I am biased by my own POV and experiences, so far.

Bottom line is that I'm still learning about how SL works. Please correct me if I'm not seeing the bigger picture. I'd rather be enlightened, than right!

Phil Moore

Are you paying the US$6 in real money or in L$ equivalent?

If it's real money (which I got the impression it was), then it's less valuable to SL because it doesn't all go to Linden Labs, and the middle-person's profit margin probably doesn't enter the SL economy. (It might do - depends on who it is and how they do business!)

I bought Lindens for $1 US per L$309 with my credit card and I pay a rental box thing. I was just using the US$ equivalent to compare my $6-ish to the $9.95 spent by a premium member.

Is there really that much of a difference that I should be considered second class in Second Life? My gut feeling is that it has more to do with people's personal fears, than being a legitimate economic problem.

From over here in Newbville, it looks like Linden is equally happy to recieve an owner's $9.95 in US dollars, as opposed to L$. They certainly want me to pay them in RL currency for a premium account . . .

Here's another aspect: If I was to feel discriminated against and alienated by "owners", simply because I don't operate the way they choose to, why in the world would I pay more than I already do, to join a group that looks down it's nose at me? So I can justify my own superiority complex? (This is how it looks from here, without the benefit of experience - not meant as a personal attack on owners in general.)

It's easy to justify prejudice by wrapping it in an altruistic "cause". Do you really think LL is hurt by having more people in the game and as a result, greater exposure IRL? My guess is that their business model supports a large number of "basics" - maybe even requires them in order to create the volume necessary to keep the SL economy working.

I don't hear Linden Labs complaining about this situation - and it's their decision at the end of the day.

I wonder how many of those who look down on basics, are all too happy to make money from them, while still discriminating against them in other ways? Maybe those who don't like us "basics" should find a way to sell/rent and interact with only other prems? I'd be genuinely curious to see how their business ventures would be effected by that kind of limitation?

Phil

I consider EVERYONE to be inferiors.

There's people here comparing basic members to tourists and considering it a bad thing! Get off your PC and look around at the real world! In RL, my island would be dead without tourists. Tourists are GOOD! They spend MONEY! They are also a pain in the arse stomping here there and everywhere but SL probably needs them as much as we do in RL.

Thank you Ewan ... ive been one for 2 years ... lol .. it the rules and regullations ... here too it not the type of account you have or anything ... no matter who you are we all put money in here no mater what type of account you have here ....

pure and simple its all about ... the words SUPPLY & DEMAND ..... Even in the real life stuff we buy same as to the Stuff we get Virtually .....

i beleive there is .. so few ... the really complain about this .. saying it not fair ect .... who better then who ...lol What are we in JR high School ..lol The Jocks .Nerds.Cheerleaders lol It all so stupid ..... Get past this and things will be good *ShakesHead *


All i can really say is Put up or be quit and stop complaining .,.... lol .. im not going around Bitching cuz the Rl Gas prices went up lol i just pay ... and that it .....

Please bear in mind that the thread jumped its title pages ago. I don't "look down" on basic accounts, but I do believe that incentives should be found to encourage people to upgrade to Premium. I think that applies to a number of the other Premium defenders who have posted here too.

On the other hand, I do see your point(s). Irealize that getting a few more days under my belt may reveal some aspects of the discussion I am not seeing.

I don't want to be a freeloader - and I'm not. Just don't want to be mistaken for one on an over-simplified basis. I build at least one thing each day, I'm learning LSL, and I do spend a fair amount of Lindens in SL (relative to my small budget). I'm even refraining from using some of the more obnoxious real-world promotional techniques I was considering at first - because I really do care about other people's enjoyment of this "place".

I certainly agree with the concept of supporting Linden Labs/SL to grow and improve. As a 23 day-old, I am deeply impressed by what I've seen - and still kind of blown away that such a thing exists.

I should probably try being a premium member before I get too defensive about being a freebie. I guess I'm trying to think of my endevours in SL as a business venture - which does make me inherently self-interested and cost concious. But hey, what successful business owner isn't focussed on profit?

Anyway, I guess this one struck me as a little personal, being a basic newb with only the best of intentions. Sorry to re-flog your pre-flogged dead horse! Regards!

Boo!

If more things like the Warner Brothers inworld album occur,we may have a new category of people to add to premium and basic, namely, "Visitor". Then we can have a four tier caste system:

1. FIC
2. Premium
3. Basic
4. Visitor