Subsidies.

This all seems silly really. People will do whatever they feel like doing in SL.

Some folks will use it to make money, but that's not required.

Some folks will use it as an artistic outlet, but that's not required.

Some folks will use it as a realxation/social outlet, but that's not required.

Some folks will use it as an experimental and technical playing field, but that's not required.

And many, many folks will use it as a combination of any and all of these.

I don't particularly like the money aspect of SL, and I feel I already pay far too much in tier fees, but that's just me. I have the choice of tiering down, moving to a basic account, or spending my time in other endeavors.

My biggest enjoyment in SL comes from creating builds that folks enjoy, and providing activities that they enjoy. A virtual smile and sincere thank you is more than enough for me. However, enough L$ in my pocket to continue to shop for items that enhance my enjoyment is great, and so from time to time, I will try to make a little extra L$. But overall, I really don't shop much anymore, and mostly when I do, it's for frivolous reasons.

SL is still capable of being just about anything you want it to be, and can still be dirt cheap, or damned expensive, as you choose.

its quite true that it looks like most basic accounts didn't find something to keep them here. a few weeks ago there 150,000 accounts only 30,000 were considered active. whether or not that is a lack of general interest in a non-hackandslash environment or a lack of things to do or other factors is debatable.

you can look at that as an 80% loss of use base, or you can look at it as a 20% conversion from window shopper to active player.

considering that ll hasn't started mass marketing, i'd consider it as the latter. that is to say that i don't think ll is trying to target "general" sl residents yet (aka consumers) just yet.

however, i think that sl is attracting many people who are intended as future "consumers". which would mean that ll needs to address this segment of the population ahead of their (presumed) schedule. which i think they are.

given ll's past history, when they want more "consumer" type players... they will probably provide incentives for residents towards that end. however, these subsidies will come and then go.

I'm both a creator and a consumer. I make clothing and the occasional $1 prefab, but I also buy those things made by other people, along with anything I don't find fun in creating myself.

I own a SL business, and I go and play Tringo from time to time. I go to Trivia when I feel like it, or I hermit on my land and build when I feel like that. Almost all of the other creators I know are also consumers, as well. (And my Account History proves this.) I tip my event hosts, and I donate to prize pots, because I do feel that their effort is worth as much as mine is.

I have no beef with folks getting subsidies for an event they've put their time and effort into. The beef I do have is with folks who feel that everyone else, Lindens and Residents alike, owe them something for spending their time in SL. If your effort is half-assed and only there to game the cash cow, then tough shit if you don't get as much money as you feel you're owed.

The Lindens don't pay me for an article of clothing that doesn't sell. They don't refund me the $10-$100 for upload costs. If you want money, put out some effort, and create or host something worth the money.

One of the main dividing lines I've seen between people is not whether they create or consume, but whether they view SL as a game or something else. Those who view it as a computer game are less likely to want to work for their rewards, and yet I would challenge them to find any other game where money and/or points are awarded just for showing up.

i think i'll go with that.

mind you i think ll will go with something else when the time comes.

IF the 30,000 are only the active players (active subscriptions or basic memberships) and the total number of people who have ever "joined" is 150,000, then my numbers don't apply.

Where was that said, though?

coco

Thank you, StoneSelf. But I wonder where Strife Ozinaka (sp?) got that information?

coco

ask strife, but i think you can find the number of closed lastnames, and multiply by 150 for a quick estimate. someone posted a list a some point, but i can't find it.

When events subsidies left us, so did many of the most practiced event hosts, most non-gambling or money recouping events, and some clubs. Some others popped up to take their place and a new breed of events host is taking the field: a host capable of asking for money from his or her audience or who is content to do things for free. Some clubs continue to struggle along, not quite breaking even, but still happy to compete for dwell (games model). I believe that those left in the events game are either hearty, damn silly, or genuinely working toward the common good (or a heady mix of all 3). What I know, though, is that if dwell goes (not even enough to pay for the events that are still, somehow, clicking along) then the only remaining tangible incentive for hosting events and making beautiful builds goes with it.

I know many extremely talented events hosts who do not ever get tipped. The reason is because they don't beg and people haven't yet been trained to tip. HOWEVER to my amazement, even though I only begged twice (usually I give up and walk away several hundred poorer for my efforts for hosting events) I got tipped at last night's event at the spa!!! YAYYY! Thanks you guys!

It doesn't have to be lots. One newbie tipped me $1 and I almost wept! honest! In total, for 3.5 hours of effort at the actual event (another 10 minutes or so for pre-event publicity) I made $161 L. For hosting the event that is. And you know what? I walked away feeling valued. It honestly isn't as much about the money for me as it is about feeling valued for the work I do. So folks, remember, if you have fun at events, Please tip your host! They appreciate it more than they will likely tell you, even if it is only $1 or $5.

As for Dwell, get rid of it and I think we will see the utter and complete loss of everything other than gambling, yard sales and malls. (Please help us keep dwell: it is the only thing keeping us afloat! and as it is the spa runs at a loss.)

Hope everyone has a great week! ~ CT

I think Jonquille raised a good point (well more than one, but I will adress only one). Maybe I was wrong about my assessment of the original dynamic tension. Maybe its more accurate to say there is a tension between those who see SL as profit making model, and those who see it as a game? Is the more accurate.

I mean some people think that LL is provideing a tool set where you simply show up and make money. That the the monthly tier fees are simply the membership dues in the guild. (in that case the forty bucks a month costs more per year than my bar dues!) It seems that SL is seen as a sink or swim, learn to script/build and market product. A classic example in a earlier response was somethign to the effect of "if you feel a need to entertain the casual player, then go do it." This is exactly the mindset I describe. The tension creating point is that a casual player does not have the time, skill or inclination to do this to beign with, and yet they are being told, in essence, SL is for the creators, if you don't like it go create. (frankly I think the casual players have set them self up as a market for somone who wants to exploit it beyond the clubs).

Other people (which includes my self, so figure I am biased here) seem to consider SL is a game, and that we should be rewarded "just for showing up." Now granted, I in fact diasgree with the notion of life time memberships for 9.95, so I tend to ingnore those issues, if LL wants to do that, that is thier business. I have a choice in where and how I spend my entertainment dollars. I choose to come to SL and not go to WoW. But SL must compete for my Dollar against WoW and other games. Since I choose to come here I give money to LL, and I spend money in the world, contributing to making some people very wealthy in game terms. I have not intention of every getiing any sort of a job for the purposes of sustaining my account, I come here entirely to be entertained. I cannot imagin that I am the only player who simply does not want to have all my free time sucked up in production, marketing and customer service.

For me the forty bucks a month I spend in tier are intended to bring a return on entertainment. People who entertain me should be subsidized and rewarded. LL has created an entire tool set to subsidize creators and desingers. What difference does a little bit of dwell and bonus make when given out to people who create opportunities to socialize?

If someone feels a need to put this in a capitalist model: I am a venture capilaist. I pay tier which creates captial, which in turn is used to provide a market for other people's products. It seems to me the only cogent argument I have heard against increasing the stipend is that it will devalue the linden against the dollar. There may be some truth to this thiere may not. But the question then boils down to its philosophical essence, is the right to make money more central to SL than the right to be entertained?

Ok so I poorly eliminated my bias, sorry.

One other point, I did notice that someone said SL must accomodate a variety of styles of play. I concurr entirely, I am not intending to rail against the capitalists (or should I say oppressive imperialist western capitalist bigs with the sweatshops and limosines?), but rather I think we are discussion how those lines ar drawn. It may well be an ongoing point-counterpoint discussion but the argument is evloving and being explored. Many of the issues discussed may never be resolved, but I think this has beein an interesting and informative discussion with good points being made by a lot of people, even those I disagree with. lol

i'm just going address this point, since the rest of the point depends on it.

sl-the-technology exists in an arena of market forces. thus if there is a demand for the things people have been saying, then if sl (the technology) were open sourced, people could create the markets people need for that.

sl-the-platform allows market activities, gaming activities, social activities, creative activites, teaching activities, hobby activities, etc. because it's so generic, it has problems in some of the specific areas.

sl-the-game as such does not exist. sl is not a game in the traditional sense. it is a place of potential and opportunity. it is the resident's goal/job to make something of that potential.

to that end ll has provided sl-the-world. sl-the-world is built with sl-the-technology creating sl-the-platform, and allowing people to games in sl. sl-the-world provides a sketch or the beginning of possible things to do, but ll lets the residents create the full experience in sl.

characterizing the varying directions of sl as a market versus game is inadequate.

I guess to me Stone, this over complicates the problem. I think you address the issue from a game mechanics standpoint, and in that sense you are right sl is not a game in that there is no way to win.

However in general SL is not simply an economic opportunity in the same way settling land in real life is. SL to me is not a complete economic system because ultimately participation is voluntary SL is competeing for market share with entertainment dollars and not investment dollars. I would postulate that the number of people who have realized any significant gain from SL is much much smaller than the number of people who play SL.

On that sense in my opinion, Sl is entertainment and not a professional association of builder and scripters.

I think its not enough for LL to say "we put this out there, now do what you will" Because in essence SL has heavily subsidized the creation/scripting process (the tools for that are part of the game after all) but has curtailed its subsidy of the entertainment aspect. I personally don't think that LL should be out there creating content and setting up game mechanics. By the same token I think the notion that communites for around telehubs was misguided. I guess to me this ties directly in with the notion of whether people should be rewarded for creating and participating in social events like slingo and clubs, and to what extent they should be rewarded for coming on and partcipating in SL (to me at least the stipend clearly shows a commitment to rewarding people just for showing up and paying tier. I think it should be doubled, but that is haggling over an amount, not arguing the principal).

So I guess my understanding of your point is that there is no room for the casual socialite gamer in SL? Or am I way off base and misreading.

way off base.

sl it what people make of it. ll is trying to promote certain things. just because they are promoting certain things doesn't mean they are saying no one else is welcome.

and yes it's complicated... because when people say sl... sometimes they mean sl-the-technology, sometimes sl-the-platform, sometimes sl-the-game, and sometimes sl-the-world. it gets confusing when people think they are taking about the samething or same aspect when in reality they aren't. so there is a lot of talking past each other.

As I mentioned before, there are those who see SL simply as a game; a place to come and entertain themselves, or be entertained by others.

Then there are those who see SL solely as a business opportunity; a place to make some cash and peddle their wares.

These are the two opposite factions that I most often see going head-to-head and coming up on vastly different sides of the economy in SL.

However, I believe that most of the SL population falls somewhere between those two polar opposites. We're not here expecting everyone else to do the work to keep us in brain candy, but nor are we here simply to make a buck and damned to anyone who doesn't pad our pocketbooks.

SL is closer to a game to me than it is an opportunity. Not a game in the sense that there's a goal I must meet to win, or even that this game is winnable, but a game in the sense that it's entertainment to me. It's a hobby, an outlet, a time-killer, and a place for me to play around with different ideas. I do what I enjoy doing, and it doesn't suck that that happens to pad my pocketbook and give me some mad cash.

If I had a problem with people who only wanted to consume, I'd be pretty damn stupid, considering they pay my SL fees and support my cheese-and-crackers habit every month. Most of the people I talk to feel the same way, whether they're creators or consumers, or more often than not, both. The only schisms I really see are those between the two opposing factions I mention above, (the extremes) or when someone deliberately tries to create that schism by generalizing and claiming that all Content Barons feel that all Hoochie Bling Pole Dancers are freeloaders, or some other claim that attempts to speak for a whole shitload of people they've never even spoken to.

The extremists always catch the spotlight. They are the squeekiest wheel in every faction, RL or SL. But they never represent a majority, and rarely even a large minority.

there is a population of sl that thinks having an economy was a bad thing, and they weren't thinking of sl as a game.

so i think trying to break sl into poles like this isn't very descriptive of the situation.
i agree

As I said, most of us fall somewhere between those two extremes.

Everything Jake said.

I don't think of myself as an extremist in any sense. Moreover, no one else in the world ever did, either.

And to me, SL is a game. TSO is a game, too, even though you can't win it. People have also made real money from it, in the sense of buying and selling Simoleons, real estate, etc., just as people have made real money on every other game out there. "There" isn't a game, either, nor is Rose, Sociolotron, and who knows what all else. All these non-game games are reality niche games.

People create and sell custom content on other games, too, so SL doesn't have the market cornered there, either. Contiguous maps - some games do this BETTER. Smooth and lag-free play - other games do that better. Cost - some games (such as Anarchy Online) can be played for FREE. Crashing - other games do that less. Griefing and lost content - some games have much better and more immediate ways of resolving those problems. Bugs - other games have fewer. The only thing I can think of that some other game doesn't have is the ability to tie into your website, and, concurrently with that, the ability to play streaming video from websites. (But I could be wrong about that being unique.)

If SL isn't a game - or is so much more than a game that somehow calling it a game is heresy - somebody should go tell the Lindens to stop allowing the entire rest of the world to list SL as a game in this and that web site, game site, magazine and newspaper. And to stop spotlighting all that publicity on the front page here.

And when my friends ask if I enjoy the game I'm playing, I should make sure to correct them that it isn't a game, it is so much more, and opportunity this and megaplatform that, and point out that this is serious BUSINESS here, and let's see how many of them flock to join me.

I know SL calls itself a "world," and that's fine, but *I* don't have to call it that. I think SL, just like every other game out there, is more properly called a game than a world. SATURN is a world. SL is an online environment most people pay for and go to expecting fun.

And if it's not about fun, it's gonna stay a very small world for a very long time.

If people are so worshipful of some Higher Purpose that they become hidebound in dogma and tradition, fun and creativity become hog-tied, and players will move on to other online environments. I can just about guarantee you that just because There and TSO are on their way down doesn't mean that somebody else isn't going to come along and do another online reality niche game.

And it is quite, quite possible to make rl money from an online reality niche game (or any game) without having to have a harsh, punitive, anti-entertainment, anti-game, hands-off mentality to it.

If LL makes us fight too hard - or pay too much rl money - for the things we need to have fun in this reality environment, we'll be off like a flash the second the next one comes along, and this, too, will go down the tubes, just like the ones before it.

Now - before you think I'm putting down this game, bear in mind that I spend all my leisure time here, and put all my gaming efforts into this one. I criticize aspects of it and push for improvement precisely because I don't want to see it go down the tubes.

Keep the subsidies.

coco

by the same token, not everyone else has to call it a game.20% growth month to month doesn't bear that out.

So it's going to "go down the tubes", if we don't do what Coco says.

Sorry Coco, you don't have anything to base this upon except your opinions.

You completely ignore the 20% monthly growth rate, you ignore the fact that MOST of the people responding are simply saying it's a game if you want it to be a game, and that it is whatever you make of it. But that doesn't lend itself to your campaign, so you handily and summarily ignore it. For you to succeed, you must divide us to prove that your ideas have merit. I would rather examine your ideas based on merit only. The SL population is NOT black and white with regards to style of "play", and I think it is selfish to try and divide us, to further a personal agenda which you try to sell as being for "we".

Until I see definitive polls or surveys that indicate that there is a contingent larger than just a few SLers who believe the populace is polarized, and that one pole is trying to drown the other out, I won't give this topic any more energy.

Because you refuse to let go of this supposition, this is where I exit this "debate".

In part I can see where coco is coming from - I've said in the past if it's not fun, then why bother? Why would someone PAY to not enjoy themselves?

To me SL is more like a lego set.... not quite a toy - not quite a game, but a lot of fun.

The thing to note is that SL is different things to different people... and that 'game' can mean different things to different people, and even 'fun' is a subjective term..

For me if they took the entire economy out of the game tomorrow I'd still be here building... but I can understand a lot of people may leave, as they aren't having fun anymore...

Honestly I think a lot of the tension is caused because a lot of people assume that others find the same things in Second Life as they do -- and that's just not the case.

Siggy.

I'm really not sure how I could make it any clearer that I was talking about two small factions of SL that seem to go head-to-head on this issue. I've used the smallest words I know. Sorry if it was confusing anyway.

Ignore my posts and carry on around them if they're going to get your panties in a wad.

If everyone bought a basic subscription and then refused to buy L$ or convert to a premium account SL would fold up like a house of cards. It's simply not sustainable that way. I have nothing at all against basic accounts but people have to understand what LL had in mind when they created them. They're counting on those people to tier up, subsidize content creation by buying L$, or create content themselves to sell to others. That's why they get almost no L$. Those are simply facts, but people have this bad habit of assuming that anyone who points them out is actually saying that basic account holders are no good freeloaders or parasites. It's that tendency of people to convert simple statements of fact into accusations of class warfare against basic account holders or people who don't create stuff to sell that causes the tension, in my humble opinion. People can argue the merits or wisdom of those design choices but there are very deliberate reasons why basic accounts get what they get and not more, and why subsidies are being removed. If that doesn't pan out and people just want more L$ automatcially then there would only be one possible solution... basic accounts would go the way of the dodo and the only way to play SL will be through a monthly subscription. That's just the way it is. I don't really see two extreme factions at opposite ends of the spectrum. I just see people who get the way LL set things up and their reasoning for doing it that way and people who don't.

No. No, you're wrong, Chip. They get almost no L$ because they're OPPRESSED! Can't you see it, man? The OPPRESSION, of the basic member? Can't you see the ribald bigotry involved here?! Open your eyes! These people want to pay just ten dollars... and get EVERYTHING THEY EVER WANT. That's not unreasonable! That's a right, my friend. It's a god-given right. One's desires need be their only claim ticket upon the effort of men! How insensitive of us to forget this!

Repent, Chip! And prepare yourself for your coming days of righteous bondage, that you might toil and sweat for the enjoyment of those who WANT YOUR SKINS. They WANT to look good, man. They NEED that sexiness. They *need* it, in order to feel good. You'd better get to work, my friend. You'd better get ready to stop expecting to exchange value for your hard work. The idea of just compensation is antiquated. We have miscalculated. Thank the gods for enlightenment that has reached some of our newer residents, that they may enlighten us with their blessed teaching and cleanse our capitalist filthiness.

For the hundred millionth kajillionth bazillionth TIME, I am NOT TALKING ABOUT BASIC ACCOUNTS. Basic accounts have nothing to do with it. NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING. I am not even a basic account anymore.

I am also not trying in any way to "divide" people. Where does this idea come from? I have never in my entire life done anything whatsoever in the way of dividing anyone on anything. If anything, I'm the opposite, being able to be friends with people of widely disparate ideas, who actually hate each other, though I wish they wouldn't. If I had a party in my house here on SL, you would be surprised at the widely divergent variety of people I'd invite.

And what the heck is this about oppression and capitalism? Did I ever say anything about people not paying me for the goods I create?

Must you all really scrape the bottom of the barrel in this way - "you basic member," "you divider," "you commie," and (gasp!) "you newer resident."

I get all that because I say (a) there needs to be more game to the game, (b) people need subsidies, (c) it would be good if there were more occupations built-in, (d) there should be some way anyone, including new members, can make a small amount of Lindens, dwell shouldn't be removed, (f) neither should the subsidies, and (g) entertainment needs built-in support. And nobody ever said physical content creators don't get the subsidies, TOO. It doesn't take away anything from US, the physical creators.

And from all that, you get that I'm a divider and the rest of that crap?

Surely you can do better than that. I begged for your best arguments in the other thread (the one that I accidentally truncated to read "This Topic:".

No, I'm not ignoring the 20% growth rate. I have been following growth rates and curves of online games for the past two years. Twenty percent a month is terrific. But add 20% of a dollar to a dollar and you still only get $1.20. Chump change. Nonetheless, sustained growth, at whatever level, is more impressive by far than any downard trend. I would like to see it stay it that way, and I don't think there are a potential million players who are willing to get in here the way the game is now, much less the way you all want it to go.

Keep the subsidies.

coco

A (1). It's not a game.
A (2). If you think there should be more, add more yourself.
B. Where will the subsidies come from? At what cost? To whom?
C. What occupations? Who will provide them?
D. How will they make them? What will give value to those L$? What will you say when the artificial creation of L$ leads to inflation and higher prices that then leave the "work" useless?
E. Okay.
F. "Subsidies" is a broad word. Please speak with specificity.
G. From where will this support come? At what cost? To whom? You have mentioned this many times before. You seem to think that "entertainment" should hold the same economic standing as that of finished goods and services. I will provide real-world data to demonstrate this fallacy:



You've spoken bitterly before about the "hegemony" of those who have applied themselves to learning how to use Second Life's most complex tools to create amazing things. Do you resent these people because you're unable to similarly master one of the toolsets? Do you demand "support" for things that the market has not requested because you're unable to participate in the market such as it exists?