Subsidies.

Creating content is not equal to producing content?
Making goods is not producing goods?
Not sure if this is for me or Enabran, but I will field it. I was only going on what you had previously stated in this thread an others. I know that you are irked because entertainers, as you put it, can't succeed. Did you not want to produce entertainment?

I should also point out here that there are probably quite a few Casino and Club owners that would disagree with you on this premise.

I had none of those backgrounds either. We were taxed up the wazoo, our stipends were capped (if you had over 3500$L TOTAL, you didnt get your stipend on payday), we had no dwell or developer incentives, and there were no money balls.

Yet here I am, over two years later, still rolling with the changes.

I learned Photoshop, Paintshop Pro, building, texturing, etc. I spent money and time at this. I met other SLers who encouraged me and gave me pointers. I didn't expect LL to make sure I was having my personal idea of fun or that my business would succeed. That's up to us.

hmm... neither garth nor pituca were big computer geeks when they arrived... garth didn't know how to script but he taught himself. and i think pituca is still not that good... but they have one of the biggest commercial empires in sl.

and i know other people who have learned to do things without a computer/graphics/coding/whatever background. (i bet i could get flamed for starting another poll about that... )

so practically impossible is just hyperbole. people are doing it.

Bravo. I wish I could have said it was as much grace as this.

You mean I misunderstood you about "producer?" I thought you meant game show producer, lol. I was the "Producer of the Game Show Channel" in TSO. But you meant producing goods - I see where the misunderstanding came from now. I don't think of producers as making goods, I think of them as content creators.

And yes, it is all admirable the way people learn the ropes of the making and scripting and all that, and I'm learning them, too. I'm saying just that there needs to be more to initially grab people, and the stipends are part of that. They give people money to at least buy some of what they see. And the truth is, I may be able to learn these things, you may have been able to learn these things, and we both may enjoy it, but others don't, so that's not enough.

Yes, I'm irked because entertainers have a hard time succeeding. I mean, think about it. I came in right after they had lost their subsidies. And shortly after that, the events calender got new restrictions. Didn't look like good things for entertainers - who can't really sell much - to me. And then talk about getting rid of dwell.

I like making things. I'm just as content to sit around and make things forever. I don't need to be an entertainer. Turns out I'm going to give that a go, though, on someone else's property. And yes, it will be working within the confines of the system.

I hardly think that asking for more support for entertainers (and educators), and asking for subsidies to remain (or even be raised) is nearly as heretical as people here are making it out to be.

Understand that I am wanting what I think would be good for the game. I get to do that, and to advocate for that.

And all I have said was said much more briefly by what Susie Boffin said in her "by golly" post.

coco

P.S. And to add my usual disclaimer, God KNOWS the absolute worst thing that could ever happen would be getting taxed on prims! ANYTHING but that!!!

i don't know why you're so worried about this. they already took it away. when they implemented it it was a disaster. i seriously doubt they would bring it back. but if you're still concerned, post to the hotline and ask the forums if they will bring it back.

No no, don't even want to put the idea in their HEADS about it again.

coco

i suspect that ll is still focusing on content because they want the resident to povide the compelling reasons to come to sl. ll doesn't have the time to develop sl's platform and make sl content. this is speculation on my part.

i think sl is still in the "early adopter" phase. they aren't looking for the general internet population to come to sl yet. again i just suspect this. but if ll were looking for get the general internet population to come to sl... i think they would be doing more marketing on the web, paper media, and even on tv.i think the long term goal for sl from ll is to remove all the subsidies... or as many as they can.maybe you could talk to the sl dj and people like astrin few who has a very successful live music event

well maybe if you mentioned it less. they do read the forums.

"i think sl is still in the "early adopter" phase. they aren't looking for the general internet population to come to sl yet. again i just suspect this."

I think so, too.

coco

My apology Coco.

I did think you meant a producer in the sense of producing content, whatever it may be.

I was a circuit board mfg. firm's production manager for many years during one phase of my career. Possibly, this is why I mistook your interpretation.

We also have the GNP, which includes all production in a country. Ahhh, sweet English, it lends itself to these types of misunderstandings.

All in all, I think we are much more alike than we are different Coco.

Doubtless that's true, Nolan! After all, we are all playing this game!

coco

Enebran, that was really well said. If and when SL ever gets a proper user's manual, the above should be somewhere in the first few pages.

Heheh, thank you Chip, but I somehow doubt it'd make it there. The whole idea of being unable to consume more than you produce is something yet to be understood in society at large, much less a tiny community like SL.

There does need to be some infusion of Linden Dollars into the economy. Stipends really are a good way since everyone gets them.

It seems the most fair way to grow the supply .. yes there will be controlled inflation. Thats necessary in a growing game.

Dwell payments are not balanced but rather a "reward the most popular" I think these will evntually go away. This will allow Lindens to basically control Inflationwith the Stipend.

Rating payments are somewhere between the two .. they also reward the popular - but on an individual basis.

It would be good to remember with controls on inflation and the money supply will probably eventually lead to a price stabalization

I do not see why the average player needs more than $500 a week? I didnt understand the comparison. For $500 a week i can buy 2-3 ourfits or 2 hair styles, or any number of things.

When I started I purchased 5k lindens .. So i "bought SL" for a total of $30 US .. I paid another $20 later to get some things i decided were worh while. So SL has cost me $50 USD. Not that bad for a game thats ever changing.

I dont get $500 a week or even close. I have a job basically helping to manage a small club. I dont make hardly anything. Is not big deal I dont need a huge ammount. I go shopping every few days, but I live within my means. Which means many days I just window shop.

Im hardly anti club. I spend most my time socializing. I instead can see tho that Dwell payments and other subsidies will eventually lead to higher prices. Since stipends are a fixed income. This is not good for thse who want to live on it.

Like was said . The RL time of the content creators has a value that the game cant control.
The content will cost whatever it takes to keep stuff being created.

If there is a major devaluation of the $L they will be less inclined to choose to make content rather than watch Americal Idol.

my 2 cents/bananas/coconuts:

/120/8b/49044/1.html#post520469

"An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced."

R.I.P. Ayn Rand

But what would Ayn Rand say about someone who produces more (i.e., pays $40.00 a month in tier, getting the same stipend as someone who pays $10.00, or someone who pays $195 in teir getting the same as someone who pays $40.00). One of the core points I have taken a stance on is that people who pay teir contribute to the econnoy and don't simply need "to get a job" In effect i am not only spending money I buy on the GOM, bvut I am subsidizing people who pay less tier, or no tier. I think at the very least people who pay tier should be recondized as providing a meaningful contribution, even if they don't build or script, or such.

And Stone, I sort of fingured we would disagree on this issue. And I respect that. One of the lessons that needs to be fostered here on the forums is that not everyone who disagrees with us is an idiot. My characterization was broad, because I seek to discuss a dynamic that runs generally through the SL community. To be sure everyon is a consumer and a creator, but sometimes a broad stroke is useful. From there it can be moved to specifics. But specifics should never be applied generally.

As far as the basis for my opinion, well i think it is a real, and not imagined tension., I have directly expereinced in SL, and it is very evident from posts on both sides in the forum. I don't think it is tearing SL apart, but I think it is a dialouge the community needs to have with itself, even if it is not resolved. I don't in my opinion, think i am coming out of left field with this. though obviously you disagree.

In general I agree on SL being different than real world models, and i think theyere are two key bases for this that I have not really seen adressed: One, people chose to spend time in SL, and do not have any choice as to whether they want to spend time in SL. Because of this, SL is a product, and I think consumers should be rewarded for thier participation in a purchasing a product; Secondly there is a very limited skill set being rewarded in SL, whereas in RL there is a much broader set of skills that are rewarded. Not all players will bring to the game the handfull of skills financially rewared by the SL engine (when we have lawyers or dogcatchers, and librabrians in SL I'll alter this), Further more, not all people who make stuff will actually be able to sell it, bue to oversaturation of the market.

Thoughts and commets, besides the fact that you think I am an idiot and don't have a clue what I am talking about? What do you think about this points? True? False? Irrelevant?

Again, not everyone who came from other MMORPGs was pushing cheese buttons. I had a place and entertained people and in my old game that paid all my bills. In SL, one seems to find a public that expects to be entertained as entitlement, and a company that no longer wishes to pay entertainers. So in other words, the division of social player and content maker doesn't quite fit in the case of events hosts or club owners. People go to them (my traffic is pretty high so I think I am giving people what they want) but don't want to pay for them and that isn't changing right away. I think the only way it will change is to look at these social venues as a place where these two diverse (and intermingled) crowds of creators and consumers meet. I reeeeeeeely don't want to charge people to come on land just because of the horrid way it sounds (to proceed onto this parcel you must pay . . . ) sounds evil. Whenever I have encountered such a message I said no and went away. I imagine everyone else will too.

So, in other words, this paradigm isn't working for me because I don't fit into either spot. I work hard: a minimum of 2 hours every single day making content for SL. But because most of that content is experiential and not 3D, I am more vulnerable than most to "entitlement" mentality. It is okay to give some things back to the community and the game. I try to do that by providing jobs, events, and even some 3D content for sale at my store. And in return I get some awesome entertainment. I guess I should quit expecting more. I just hope that some day I make enough money in game to afford one of your skins, Chip! but at this rate it might be a long long time.

They might go away, but they go away slowly. Generally, we're a stubborn lot.

Ah, but of course. Those who adore productive achievement live by a certain assumption of "I can do it." There's not much thought behind it, it's just a simple fact. This stubborn assumption is how people become successful in the first place.

perhaps I should comment that I myself draw a distinction between creation and production. When I talk of "creators" I mean people who actually make a virtual tangible object (lol) or someone who scripts it, or animates it (these things are initmately tied to objects).

A producer is someone who some how adds value to the SL expereince and contributes or obtains wealth. I think of entertainers as "producers" but not creators. I would also think of someone who buys and spends a lot of lindens on the GoM as a "producer" and not a creator. I myself am a "creator" in that I make houses. But i get no economic reward from them, so in terms of mind set I am a consumer.

But these are my definitions, feel free to follow, ingnore or argue them as you wish.

i don't think you're an idiot. i just don't agree with you. if i thought you were an idiot, i'd tell you so.

consumers, as you put it, are being renumerated with access to sl. i don't really see a point to ll subsidizing that. ll might if they want to increase the rate of growth.

wanting more for what one pays seems natural, but getting more subsidies for just accessing sl? hmm... i find that fishy.

aside from that... i think ll needs to consider the possible shift in demographics - that is there might not be enough to keep non-content-creators occupied. i suspect that now isn't the time ll was expecting the shift.

Glad to hear you say that last, StoneSelf.

If consumers don't find themselves renumerated with something a bit more exciting than sheer access to SL, they are likely to avail themselves with exit from SL, and in short order.

Now here's a thought to ponder:

As I said before, those who bought a Basic Membership aren't likely to go to a lot of trouble to cancel it (which can be done); can we agree on that much?

Add to that the statistic I read somewhere that only 12%, I believe it was, of players actually own land. Can we agree that that figure was somewhere between 12-20%? Let's make it 25%, just to be generous.

Add to that the fact that a number of Premium Players don't bother to buy land. Would we agree that 10% might be a generous allowance for those? Or 25%? Let's make it 25%.

Now take the 30,000 players in SL. According to our generous figures, only 7,500 of these own land.

Now, adding the 25% of the base of regular players who don't own land, we have only 10,000 current true players.

What happened to the other 20,000? Well, let's assume 5,000 are still basic players and are still playing. Then, what happened to the other 15,000?

Well, maybe they didn't find enough to keep them occupied. And I think the above figures are quite generous.

coco

I'm another one of those content creators/consumers. I enjoy making plants, gardens and animals.

I don't enjoy making clothes or skins, so I buy them. I built my own house, but I bought a lot of the content. The last think I would ever want to build is a vehicle, but I think they are cool and I bought one one.

If someone has created something for sale that is very cool and appeals to me, why would I try and duplicate their creation? I'd buy it.

You will always find some people who create everything, others who's focus is on socializing and create nothing and a whole bunch in the middle who do a little of both.

.