We need to help LL

See, the reason I think they have done the open registration thingy is that they are afraid they may not hit 1,000,000 accounts by 2007. And since they promised their Vulture Capital, I mean Venture Capital, firm that they would hit that target, the suits there are very bent on seeing it hit.

If LL does not hit it, the VC firms may decide not to further fund LL or to even try to get some of their investment back. That could mean the end of SL at worst, or maybe higher monthly fees to all of us. Which would suck.

So, really, the thing to do is to help LL hit the 1,000,000 mark. That way, things will stay the same and we can go on living in this wonderful virtual world.

Just my random thoughts. LOL.

OK, so if everyone in SL registers 100 alts each would that help? That would be fictitious registrations that prolly log on once a year if even that. But if it helps, I'll do it.

Actually... that's sort of a valid point.... Kind of scary if a VC group actually put that contingency on things. And seeing as we aren't even at 300k by mid year... this could be an issue.

If this were true, it'd make some sense as to why they're so adamant about keeping it.

Perhaps the number isn't 1 million; perhaps it's something like "100% growth", but i wouldn't be suprised if this had something to do with what's going on.

Number of signups is irrelevant.... its how many of those actually remain and play - especially pay - that is what matters.

Out of 275,000 players at most 6,000 are logged in? That's pretty poor actually.

What is really needed is improving the in-world experience for the committed players, to enable them to provide stuff for the newbies to enjoy and hopefully upgrade to become a part of the community.

Unverified account creation is NOT one of those ways to improve the in-world experience.

Lewis

Depends on the wording of the contracts, Lewis. Something we don't get to see. Not saying that "for sure" this is what's going on, but Cow brings up a good point: it could be "something like this" that has LL 'running scared' to hit a certain signup benchmark.

With the current setup LL with hit a lawsuit before they hit any registration / sign-up targets.

Not neccessarily. The teen grid is, in a way, "due diligence".

I'd hate to have to watch LL lawyers argue that against a team of ambulance-chasers and a witch-hunt jury who think they've hit a jackpot.

Just out of curiousity, where are you getting this number/date?

I disagree.

If I opened up a liquor store and a soda store next door to each other (here in the US) and put a sign up saying that kids are only allowed to buy from the the soda store but I didn't check ids of anyone buying from the liquor store, do you think I could claim "due diligence" in court, based on putting up a soda store and a sign?

not if the VC are morons with more money than sense

I thought that was part of the requirement?

Lewis

Well, I have read it in a number of sources such as the BusinessWeek article that brought me here, lol. And Philip Linden is the one who keeps saying it. LOLZ!!!

Well, local liquor laws and serving to a minor aren't exactly the same as the COPPA law. You can't really compare the two; and this absolutely has to do with COPPA.

Having the teen grid may be 'compliant'. I don't know. But I do know that LL has a lawyer, Ginsu, and last time I spoke to him he *certainly* had the interests of LL as a priority, if you know what I mean.

This is usually the case. LOL. I mean look at all those dumb .coms VCs funded during the internet bubble years. LOLZ!!!!

Manny of us have read said articles. I don't remember such a statement in any of them, do you guys?

I don't understand. COPPA deals with what information you can collect from a child under 13 and when you have to get parental consent to collect that information, right?

I was posting under the impression that the lawsuit comment was implying parents would sue LL for not doing enough (anything) to keep children off of the mature grid...but that could just be me misinterpreting Alazarin's post.

Really? Because I recall an article about Jerry Paffendorf’s J-curve estimating that level of growth, but no indication that any such promise was made to VC.

No, no... Philip has never explicitly said that it is required, but I suspect it is. Its just my gut. LOLZ.

My gut says "LL has seen the last VC it ever will" or "I'm hungry" - I have trouble interpreting it often.

Freyr, that is the sort of scenario I see waiting down the road for LL now that unverified registration is the order of the day.