Subsidies.

If LL didn't give away some "free money" to us Second Life would become nothing but content creators selling each other their creations and Second Life would cease to exist and if it did it would be one boring place.

Why do you think that American businesses love the idea of government welfare for the poor?

Our goods? You have stated before that you make no goods. You offer no solutions for problems which you cannot prove exist. You claim our numbers are dwindling but you offer no substance to corroborate that claim.

You lament that only by "building" or "scripting" can one make money in Second Life. You claim that this is a problem that must be fixed in order for Second Life to grow. Your lack of creativity is your own problem, however, as in any congration of men and women, one can make whatever opportunities they see fit. What you lack is not "technical skills" necessary for using some obscure creation tools. You lack the ingenuity necessary to initiate and maintain an entrepreneurial endeavor.

Let's clarify a few things.

A basic account member has bought a weekly subscription for fifty Linden Dollars. Their exchange of ten US dollars buys them fifty Linden Dollars a week.

A premium account member exchanges 6 to 10 US dollars monthly in exchange for five hundred Linden Dollars weekly.

In both cases, individuals exchange one sort of value for another sort of value. Stipends will score them more Linden Dollars, but the final result is the same: You exchange value for value.

You cannot consume more than you produce. "Production" can be the conversion of US dollars via Second Life membership or the usage of GOM. Production can also be the conversion of one's creative power into the value of Linden Dollars.

How do you intend to solve this minor problem? How do you intend to make value from nothing? From where will value come if not from the efforts of first life or Second? How will you make everything free?

Will you pay a development staff?
With what money?

Will you increase stipends?
What will you do when 500 of today's Linden Dollars is worth only a penny of US dollars?

Will you force creators to give the product of their creative effort away for free?
What will you do when creators no longer exist?

*I* stated before that I make no goods? I think not, Enabran. I believe I have stated quite a number of times - and likely in this very thread - that I do make goods.

That is what I do on this game.

Because being an entertainer doesn't pay.

And yes, I've picked money off trees. Probably got about $300 that way. Tedious, but I enjoyed seeing all the places (once, belatedly, I figured out how to cut down on lag), and I appreciated a way for the new player to make a buck. It was a smart investment, too, by the way - those establishments who put their own money into the trees get their money's worth. I always feel like those places I used to frequent the money trees of are almost friends of mine. Very, very good PR.

You know, it's not all as dire as you're making it out to be. It's a matter of balance. I don't notice any of you giving back your stipends, either. Right now, you're happy to take them. Before, you were happy to take event money. It doesn't have to be all either-or.

Simply stated, I don't think the vision of the game being totally self-sustaining can succeed because it is, after all, NOT a real world. People can't really make money in it by tending bar, manning the cash register, answering the phone, settling lawsuits, or filling teeth. In order to buy furniture and cars and outfits. Therein lies the rub.

That's why the deux ex machina of the Lindens will always be necessary, and why their doing so is the only way continual balancing and long-term game success will be achieved.

contentcreatorcoco

P.S. I would probably be the last person to ever do something so wrong as claim SL's numbers are diminishing, since I have been following Sir Bruce's charts for a couple of years now, and was happy when he finally included SL.

I said the numbers contain all those basic memberships. And, mind you - that was an EXCELLENT way for them to boost numbers, because in this business, numbers - and more especially, their constant climb upward, however slowly, is what counts. People will come to a game where the numbers are rising, and they will abandon the sinking game ship. Having basic members artificially increase the numbers (and after all, they ARE still playing, in that they haven't cancelled their basic accounts) is a good thing, especially when a bunch of them aren't really consuming any bandwidth on the game.

I can't open a daycare center on the world wide web. I can't open a massage parlor on the world web web. I guess we'd better make everything on the web absolutely free as well. It's obviously not real, after all, since I can't have a basketball career on the world wide web.

That doesn't follow, Ebranan.

coco

Of course it does. You claim that SL isn't real because you can't have a regular job (tending bar). You can't have a *regular job* on the world wide web, either. That didn't stop people making money on it.

If you declare that you can't make money in Second Life, then you never will. Wealth is created through effort, not through wishing.

Perhaps Second Life is not "real" to you. But the effort and ingenuity that passes through it is very real. You demand that this effort be made available free of charge, for "casual" people. I still await your explanation as to how to make this happen.

Then why do you insist on creating and propagating this ideology?

Will Wright does not equal Philip Rosedale. TSO does not equal SL. TSO is sinking into obscurity. SL is a rising star showing no signs of slowing down. All without the mega-hype ad campaign that EA threw into TSO.

Now you are speaking for the Lindens thoughts. Imagine that. I often wonder what it would be like to read the thoughts of people 1000s of miles away. Tell me, what's it like?

Consumers have a hand in production by virtue of spending. Not to mention, just as in RL, we ALL consume, and most of us produce, i.e., work. Inventing these artificial boundaries between consumers and producers is just so much empty rhetoric.

Eh, Cocoanut aspires to be a producer and you have a land sytem spanning many sims, hardly casual. I know, you're trying desperately to get this unsubstantiated group of the downtrodden masses to look upon you as one of them, but just because George Bush ate at a diner in Iowa, doesn't make him an Iowan.

I refute your claim that the "attackers" on the forums are some sort of Noah's Ark of producers. It's utter hogwash. First of all, you view anyone who disagrees with your snarky "reporting" as an "attacker". Second, many of us have never led any sector, including myself. Third, there are many of each of the types of producers you referred to who are highly successful.

Who in the hell ever said you had to "turn tricks" or "sit in Tringo"? There are a myriad of different avenues to take. Jeez, myself, I sell clothes, homes, mall space, my RL photography, etc., and my GF, who is also my business partner sells furniture, clothes and jewelry. Somehow, we escaped being relegated to turning tricks and tringo. I thought you liked Tringo? You get all huffy when anyone else takes the tone you just did with respect to it.

Divide, divide, divide. We are all SLers. You will never see that I fear.

You pontificate that it's "just a game" yet you feel such strong emotions about it?


After you take out the money changers, can I borrow your crown of thorns?

Stop to sell girlfriends in a box!!!

So much for embracing diversity. Reread Jake's original post which incorporated so many facets of the game and try to look for an angle other than your own. Everyone. There are a lot of points of view here and just as many dug in heels.

TSO is down the hall? Come on, your posts have been so much better than that. When you move on from a relationship, job, sport, or anything you do, don't you reflect on the good as well as the bad and try to bring what you've learned to the next endeavor?

What will you do when the creators are gone? Well, what will the creators do when the consumers are gone? Either new consumers will buy from the up and coming creators or you'll all be playing another game. Without one or the other, game's over.

It might be wise to reflect on the ease with which each side of this issue can take their input to another venue. There is a value received for the RL$ put in, but the coolness of the products bought with it is defined by the experience. Who needs to be all dressed up with no place to go?

Hahahaha!, that's what I get for using a run on sentence!

Now if she would just stop asking for a pillow and some food and water!

Consumers aren't going anywhere. They are growing. Producers aren't going anywhere. They are also growing. The system is not broken. It is my hope that no one changes that.

edit: Please preserve the context of my question, which was:

If you force creators to give away the fruits of their effort, they will go away.

If I were Panda, this is the point in thread where I'd post a picture of the see/speak/here no evil monkeys.

i think you went one worse than imprecise and just mischaracterized the situation all together.i've heard prokofy say this, but i don't know may "creator" class people who think stipends, bonuses, and free stuff are bad. i know prokofy has said free stuff is bad. and ellie i think. not most of the people i know who make content.

i think you're overgeneralizing here... and overgeneralizing from rhetoric you've heard as opposed to stuff you've experienced... imnsho.

Exactly, and I am weary of those who claim there is. I really wish people would knock it off already with the projection of their cynical views onto others.

The kids are alright!

I agree, I've never heard anyone call for an end to stipends. They seem, to me, a fair exchange of one sort of value for another sort of value. There is often distaste at the thought of increasing stipend size, but that doesn't matter too much, either. The currency an arbitrary thing. Prices will increase to match any sort of inflation that an increase in stipends promotes until the value equation has been balanced.

ps while i don't agree thanks for stating this without the big drama that usually comes with it.

i kinda agree with this. but part of the point of a subsidy is for the powers that be to promote things they want with an incentive they think/hope will promote those things.

using first life as a model, subsidies often result in a few people becoming quite successful in the area that was promoted. i think that's the nature of the beast.

fine tuning subsidies from time to time as the sector that is supported becomes success seems the right thing to do.

i don't think the lindens have had a good grasp of the various sl sectors as evinced by robin's confession that events are a big part of the sl economy. and something similar when philip mentioned a wholesale land market.

sl is a new kind of thing... and while first life provides some insight... sl it not fl. as moving targets go... sl is moving pretty darn fast which is probably why ll miss the market with their subsidies i think.

You know, you seem to know a lot about me for someone I don't know from Adam.

1. First, you think I'm trying to force creators to give away their goods. I never said that; never WOULD say anything of the kind.

2. Second, you said I don't create content myself. Well, hey, that's a surprise to me!

3. Third, you said i claim SL "isn't real because you can't have a regular job (tending bar)." No, I said BECAUSE SL isn't real, you can't have a regular job tending bar.


In real life, everyone has jobs that enable them to consume. In this game, only real estate dealers and scripters and builders are able to have jobs (in general), and thus the rest of the consumers have no income with which to consume, without stipends.

4. Then you say if I declare I can't make money in Second Life, then I never will, and go on to offer me the helpful homily that wealth is created through effort, not through wishing.

You really need to understand that I am not talking about MYSELF when I discuss these ideas. I am capable of doing practically anything I want. If I go into a game where it is impossible to make money without specialized computer skills, then by dang, the first thing I'm gonna do is prove that I can.

Which I did. But that was more or less testing the limits of the system - given the impossibility of making money, how does the most determined and confident of players make money? But what a hugely determined and competitive person can do on a basic account is hardly a yardstick for an ideal game system.

5. " You demand that this effort be made available free of charge, for 'casual' people."

First off, I don't "demand" anything. When I want to demand something, I will use the words, "I demand." I have suggested at length why I think stipends are necessary, as well as why I think the entertainment sector suffers.

6. Then you suggest, "Perhaps Second Life is not 'real' to you. But the effort and ingenuity that passes through it is very real. You demand that this effort be made available free of charge, for 'casual' people."

I am suggesting that the casual players have SOME REASON TO LOG IN. Not only stipends, but more productive activities for them than they currently have.

I don't see how any of this has anything to do with the extent to which SL is "real" to me. (Would it be better if it is, or if it isn't?)

7. And Nolan, you know a lot about me too. You think I aspire to be a producer. I don't aspire to be a producer. I WAS a producer (only in the online game roleplaysense, of course). Now I aspire to build things. Now I DO build things.

Why can you approach my ideas only through a filter of what you think I am personally all about? Especially since you are so wrong about most of it.

I talk about my ideas of what the game needs. But you both keep talking about me personally, deciding all kinds of things that I'm not and I don't think, trying to explain why I think what I do, I guess.

Not to mention talking to me throughout as if I were some sort of backwards child.

It was going better there for a while where Chip was addressing the ideas themselves.

coco

P.S. You may have never heard of a call for an end to subsidies, Enabran. But for the reader, I will fill in that just yesterday, a number of players were commenting in a thread that of course, the stipends were doomed. Or maybe it was dwell? In any case, I asked why. And was told that of course, eventually, there would be no support from the Lindens at all in any way. Meaning stipends included. My position here, as in the other thread, is that that is impracticable.

I officially give up trying to add my 2 cents to this thread as it has turned into a point counterpoint by two people who will remain nameless but should know better.

err let me amend that from 2 people to a few people.

If you're so concerned about these casual players, I encourage you to go out and create a reason for them to log in, if the lack of such is so dire that it requires so much noise. You claim a can-do attitude, but you speak in can't-do terms. Make it happen or talk about something worth talking about.

Yeah, I'll stop now. The issue is as old as capitalism itself. There's no need to keep on about it, I s'ppose.

stating a likely outcome (and there is much past history of subsidies ending in or being reduced in sl), is not the same as clamoring for the end of subsidies.

Praise the lord.

Oh come on.

"If you're so concerned about something, why don't you stop talking about it on the boards."

I AM making it happen, Enabran!

coco

P.S. You're probably right, StoneSelf, but coming in as I did, with things practically IMPOSSIBLE without a computer/graphics/coding/whatever background, to find that things have been cut just before you got in, then to be told that the idea is to cut them ALL out eventually - well, you might be able to see why I would be against that.

edit: Nevermind. I like puppies!