|
Cocoanut Koala
Coco's Cottages
Join date: 7 Feb 2005
Posts: 7,903
|
06-30-2005 13:31
That membership dealie applies to SL, too - all those $9.95 accounts.
Which is one reason why I think those accounts were - and are - a great idea. Great for subscriber numbers and charts.
The other reason is that it gets a lot of people to give it a try who might not have before, and go on to become Premium accounts. I know I've gotten people here by the sheer fact that they know it's only ever gonna cost them $9.95, one time, and even if they don't like the game, they can always drop in and visit me in it, or maybe play a night or two when they get bored with their other games.
oops . . . i seem to be talking about (money)
coco
|
|
Seth Kanahoe
political fugue artist
Join date: 30 Jan 2005
Posts: 1,220
|
06-30-2005 13:40
From: Cindy Claveau I don't use the sandboxes. And when I see how much the police blotter is filled with ARs from sandboxes, I'm probably not going to start. It's why I have a premie account. I play with prims on my own land. Sadly, when I had a house I could often not create the things I wanted because I ran out of prims. Solution: delete prims, get a smaller house or buy more land. None are very good options. From another thread: "These sorts of policies give lie to LL's marketing SL as a fantasy - a place where people can have a life they want. A broad base of users with diverse interests and financial abilities do not all necessarily want to live in a competitive free market paradise defined by consumerism. Many do; many don't. Such policies whittle away at the potential user base: the more LL defines the character of SL, the more people may find that it does not meet their desires or expectations." Sorry about the arrogance of quoting myself. From: Cindy Claveau I want to address the question about the future of SL, though. One of my dearest friends in SL has been here since the beginning, and has seen the changes. Discussing it with her has confirmed my gut feeling that SL has and will continue to naturally evolve as the subscriber base grows. SL will move away from being a small, elite (in a good way) group of scripters and builders into a more popularized, dumbed-down world. It is already happening. The rise of the Tringorati is the first symptom.
Success in SL will become contingent on appealling to the lowest common denominator, just like commercial network TV. Second Life is on the cusp of the change, moving away from a brilliant content-creation platform into the realm of games like Sims Online. And again, there are significant numbers of people who do not want to be involved in dumbed-down games. So - again - as SL is characterized more by these sorts of decisions, it will lose its broader appeal. Begs the question - how do you develop SL ecumenically - so that the appeal is as near-universal as possible? LL's idea was to let the users create the content. But LL's policies do shape the content - and that shaping process is, by definition, restrictive. |
|
Cocoanut Koala
Coco's Cottages
Join date: 7 Feb 2005
Posts: 7,903
|
06-30-2005 13:45
I agree totally with that paragraph you quoted of yours, Seth. But I look ahead happily to as many members as SL can get, and to what other people call the diluting down, and dumbing down, and lowest common demoninator and all that, because (a) I don't believe that having SL more inclusive and appeal to all types does that at all, and (b) the greater diversity there is, the more the level of achievement actually rises, as more diverse challenges for entertainment and productivity are met, and more people arrive to meet them.
The ratio of wheat to chaff actually remains constant, but the greater numbers mean that the top wheat is better than any wheat before.
coco
|