THIS topic:

opensource might bring in a bunch of alt accounts being botted by very thin clients.

Is there any good reason not to make the game a game that appeals to more people? Is there any valid reason why the Lindens should desire to decrease their involvement over time? (Given my arguments in my first post.)

So far we have small staff, and worries about the economy (this last put forth by me).

coco

because as a platform it has the opportunity to become bigger than the worldwide web.

a game is a narrow focus. sl has more potential than just playing around.

I understand about the potential.

But I also understood that having this game ongoing - and continuing as is or even more game-y than it is now - would not make a speck of difference when it came to open sourcing. Or would it? And I believe the Lindens said (see my first post at the top of this thread) that they could indeed keep "SL" going.

So what would be the point of trying to become leaderless? Of trying to make there less SL than is in SL now?

Just a sort of neat sociological experiment?

Is it necessary to turn over the reins NOW, when the game is picking up, and peoople are interested in the game as a game, and there are great potential PROFITS in that? Profits that could be applied toward making their dream of being the first to create the megaverse (or whatever you are supposed to call it).

I think "valid" reason #3 is - just to see what would happen. If it is not in the slightest bit necessary to adopt a hands-off attitude toward the game - eliminating stipends, dwell, and all the rest - in order for it to ultimately be transformed into the world-wide bigger-than-the-web thing (which would be used for playing around as well as not playing around), then it might be just interesting to see what would happen.

From what I know to this point, I say they can continue having a successful GAME for LOTS of people to play. I don't see how that gets in the way at all of ultimately using the same platform in a world-wide sort of way, while keeping SL on its own servers.

coco

I feel the need to clarify a bit on this, here, since you're speaking almost in parallel to the previous thread.

I do not feel "all subsidies will just go away" vis a vis the information presented. This is, in its own way, a false concept. Natural subsidies, monopolies, markets of scale, ad inifinitum all exist.

That said, I feel the myopia seen on these boards of "Dwell + 5 years into the future" is missing the point in a different way. I expect as Second Life grows, Linden Labs will attempt a more hands-off approach to "ease" us into their future goals, and in turn natural market forces and other groups/practices will take over.

Social Engineering and standardization of the system is also rife with opportunity, and if LL becomes anything but what they are now, I see it as becoming analogous to the W3C or the IEEE. By establishing certain standards of communications (and conduct), they can shape the future of what Second Life will become.

Will that be a success or failure? I'll leave that to you folks. Continue.

Edit: Also, personal pet peeve - "game."

Second Life is a game, a community, a platform, and an emerging technology. I feel calling it only one of these things is too limiting, so I just use "world."

OK, all that sounds interesting - for people who are programmers, which of course, LL people are.

I think they have a tiger by the tail with this game, though, and ITS potential, and I imagine their investors would like them to make the most of it.

When I said "all subsidies go away," I meant that the Lindens themselves would stop providing subsidies, dwell, or much of anything game-wise about this game.

OK, I now have four reasons for not supporting entertainers with subsidies, or people with dwell or with stipends, and/or anything else one might expect from the Lindens (except, given Jeffrey's paradigm, such things as developer awards, but I think in that case developer awards and other contests would consist entirely of rewards to those people who somehow improve the framework of the platform, rather than doing anything artistic or noteworthy in a non-technical way therein):

Reasons for making this game* less of a game**:

1. Lack of manpower/small staff.

2. Concerns about the economy and keeping the Linden steady by limiting (and eventually eliminating) all excess Lindens being infused into the economy through dwell, stipends, etc.

3. As an interesting sociological experiment - just to see what would happen, before open source might (or might not) happen.

4. To "ease us into" the state where, theoretically at least, the secrets of how the game works - the source - would be released to everyone.

In this last model, however, there would be presumably nothing special about SL at all by the time it became open source; i.e., there would be no "game" to it, and no "artificial" interference in any way by the Lindens, except possibly for a few functions, such as maintaining certain standards of conduct.

Any other reasons why the Lindens would be planning to remove stipends, dwell, and other such incentives?

coco

* or world
** meaning game

It's a tough case. If anything, what I want to see isn't "down with all incentives" and "down with everyone but coders" (as has been insinuated), but rather the dawn of self-suffiency.

I get annoyed at times when the only recourse is to go to the Lindens. My reaction: "Why don't we design this stuff ourselves?" I feel that much could get done if we cooperated in this manner, but that's a hard sell.

I'm also erked somewhat that I'm being characterized as "a tekkie/coder with no care for entertainment or arts," so let me elaborate on my side of things. I happen to also be a strong mesh artist (and arguably, writer) who enjoys art and fun stuff as much as anyone else. I'm fully aware of how difficult it is to walk this path, and I can offer some examples as needed.

The reason I code open-source 3D tools? I want to use them for my 3D art too! Life isn't all altruism and money.

Anyway, that's not the point. I like contests, and incentives, and games, and fun stuffs, and want them to continue - but I'd like us ("the people" to be the ones creating them over time. The event browser stands in stark contrast to this interest with its one-dimensional nature, and it upsets me.

Once again, this is where I stand. Unfortunately, either what I'm saying is not clear or it's being read in a different light, because when I'm paraphrased or quoted on these threads, it is rarely in the spirit of my message.

As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I don't get this. How can you sit in judgement of the Tringo event calendar, say you like incentives and games, and say the we teh ppl should be making them, but then...not make them? I just don't get it.

Quite easily. Follow what I write.

The problem here is perspective, Prok. Incentives of one party or individual do not need to be direct disincentives to another party or individual - and this, I think, is the conundrum Second Life faces as a persistent world.

We live in a digital culture where we can create unhindered in so many ways. I plan, for example, to create an offline building tool because sandboxes and bandwidth lines are congested. I go to personal sims because much of the mainland represents a handful of goals. You've written thread after thread after thread on the problem of poor neighbor behavior.


And I ask: Why does it have to even be that way? Surely, there must be a way in which we can coexist?

Here we deviate considerably in view. You seem to think it must be this way, and that's that. I just don't think so, from my past experiences. These things can work, but a paradigm shift is needed. Enter the point of my posting here to begin with; I offer a differing opinion that I feel is healthy for debate.




-------


Anywho. In my opinion, the creation of more deviation, intrigue, and utility out of what we have lies in a handful of changes that I see in Second Life's future:


1) Second Life embraces common standards of coding (C++, Java, Perl) and content (JPG2000 supports more formats; streaming features NURBs and Meshes).

Of these milestones, I think this is the most likely and attainable. It also happens to be the one I'm working to aid in my projects. I feel we should tap professional 3D artists and coders. We need more people with the creative spirit of the Lindens that aren't Lindens. We need more people like Robin Sojourner, Kermitt Quirk, Azelda, Eggy, et al here.

People not afraid to make a difference in the world around them. I feel these communities are rife with this type of person, and work hard to one day tap them.



2) Second Life becomes more decentralized.

Notice I'm not preaching open source here, even though that's one possibility. Decentralization, of assets both real and virtual, is a major stimulus to creativity.

Would you go onto the internet if everyone was funneled one-by-one through a handful of tools? Maybe if you really liked virtual sex and AIM-speak. For the rest of us, tools like Google offer ways for us to find everything we're looking for without sifting through endless drivel.

The future of the Find browser? Google technology. The future of connectivity in Second Life? Web on a Prim and Mono. Asset streaming? Untrusted protocols between open servers. The future of Second Life itself? More ways to have both privacy and connectivity on demand.

Are these concepts so earth-shattering? They've been tenants of online games and Active Worlds for some time now. Metacrawlers have come to represent the internet itself in how ubiquitous they are. Philip discussed untrusted protocols directly as needed for assets between decentralized servers. And the private sim handily allows early forms of privacy and connectivity on demand.



3) Second Life (or what it's called at the time) is embraced by the Rest of the World

I feel this is the culmination of the technology. The whole point of Second Life is to bring us together as a community, while being so simple that children can use it (on the teen grid). This phase seems more like the current internet in my mind, perhaps eventually integrated with Total Immersion Software.

I'll leave it here because this is already much speculation. The short version is all of these problems are interrelated, and they can be dealt with by those savvy enough to work with them.

This is all my opinion, to be taken in any way that you choose. You are allowed to disagree. That's the entire point - you should be able to disagree and form your own argument, content, or community itself without it being leveraged by only one unanimous view.

Viva la diversity!

Mommy can I have a cookie?


I felt like a child while reading this.. I read it fine.. but I now realize why I never got into politics, law, etc.

I don't like to debate. ROFL.. I would rather pick daisys or smell roses, or better yet run barefoot in the rain.

This topic was doing my head in.

Too many big words for me.

*I still need a cookie though*

Um, yes, that you're sitting in judgement and don't even feel the need to back away from such a posture a bit is proof in itself that I need to worry, as to scores of others.



In the abstract, I agree. But what you've done is make a tool, that you sit at the center of with Lindens, that *is* a disincentive to others from the "broader masses" who wish to come in the game and do other kinds of things than just hack around with software programming. You're willing to relativize this because you feel your place at that center is privileged and secure and you can even afford to be magnanimous.




When I hear this kind of tone coming down the rails, I know I need to head for the hills. Lecturing, setting-straight, pontificating. Who is "we"? And what is the "digital culture"? In fact, not everyone has joined you in this "digital culture" *as you see it*. Some people barely use the Internet tools just to get at what they do in ordinary life anyway, to dress up and socialize. They really aren't in some "digital culture" to any depth. Others are far into as they imagine it, but rather than creating a Brave New World they are creating a Cowardly Old World full of Dark-Ages fantasies especially involving the bondage of women. These two often go hand-in-hand, which is a tribute to the "Future Shock" we were discussing above.

I'm hardly going to cede to you the rights to define "the digital culture" or even "my digital culture" under the notion that Khamon Fate has said, that "those who know who to do this get to say how it should be run."



Why don't you just play Sims2? The offline sandbox thing is annoying to me because it represents more self-referentiality and less commonality and it means an end to the collaborative and creative culture of the SL sandbox in which many people learn from, and copy, what they see in sandboxes. You'll want to turn your back on that just to pursue your superior high-end building in peace. You'll want to upload your competed creation, never hampered by any critique en route, and foist it as push content on the unwillng world. Your main activity will then be to gather your niche buddies around to have a "show and tell" about your wonderful content, you'll plunk it somewhere, most likely with the meter running on it somewhere, and exit to make more push content LOL. Thanks!

I can't wait until I have to pick and thread my way around all the offline buildings and content made that is then pushed inworld with mainly an aim to extract cash from it, without living in the world and harmonizing with the rest of the people in a community.




My notion of coexistence is in fact the most open-ended system, whereas you advocate a closed system. With a mouse click, you'll ban the undesirables. With a mouseclick, you'll upload and push your content and set its functions to accept money. I find this prospect a bleak existence.


Deviation. Intrigue. Utility. Is this the FIC's new coat of arms motto?


1) Second Life embraces common standards of coding (C++, Java, Perl) and content (JPG2000 supports more formats; streaming features NURBs and Meshes).



I burst out laughing at this line. I have to admire such unabashed self-promotion!



We disagree on how you get them. I mentioned the class of 40 to create the one genius, you're still thinking you can just incubate the Eggies on your own with a few other Eggies.



Well if you believe that, how do you expect to find them when you are sequested in a niche, and in fact offline making content to push at the rest of us? What is the common substrate through which you will find these other bright souls?




Possibly. Possibly not. Centralization may be the only shred of hope to keep the whole climate civil and democratic enough that a bunch of assholes don't just use the technology to foist their tekkie fascistic vision on cyberspace.



The endless drivel is the product of freedom. You're free, too. Make something interesting. Put it up on the event calendar and shut up. Instead of completely destroying the event calendar, making some uber meta space about 350 meters up that only you and your friends get to be on the admit-list to.



What's narrow-minded about this silly cliche, Jeff, is your narrow-minded cliche that people who like virtual sex and AIM-speak are not the same people using google or amazon or web on a prim. They're your customers. At least some of them will need web on a prim. What, they self-select out by their use of AIM and virtual sex balls, you track them using technology, you keep them away from your yuppie web on a prim?



I'm wondering how they get the connectivity on demand when they have no means to communicate or find shared goals or even say hello given that you've just kicked out the centralized government.




I'm willing to bet right now that what becomes "Second Life" or the 3-D metaverse with manipulable tools inside it won't be this company and this bunch of beta testers unless they significantly recast their tunnel vision to lift beyond the sandbox of tekkies. When they are ready to embrace the rest of the world as the source of life, creativity -- and yes CUSTOMERS -- and stop calling what they produce "drivel" and putting them on ban lists, well, we might get somewhere.



Hmm yeah -- keep that list short, Jeff! There can't be too many savvy people in the world, that would cut into your lunch ticket, I guess.



Wow, thanks! I'm so glad in the proto-typing phases of this fascistic universe we are still "allowed to disagree"!


There's not going to be any diversity if you're in charge of it, Jeff, because you call what other people do "drivel". That's the crux of the issue right there.

Nothing to add at this time. I just wanted to state that this was a really great post Jeffrey! Thank you!

I know, Jeffrey, that my attempts to paraphrase what you say are not perfect. But that is because I didn't start this thread to debate, like someone else just said is now happening, but to learn. And yes, it hurts my head, too, to try to learn these things! But I've got to learn what's going on here before I can present cogent arguments for where I want to see the game go. And in order to understand the ideas better, I paraphrase, in order to see if I'm anywhere in the neighborhood of understanding them.

In other threads, I will argue and debate more because I already have most of my ducks in a row. In this thread, I'm still trying to figure out why, when I say "entertainment needs support," or "players need more to do," I have gotten, for all my three months here now, flat-out dismissals of, "because that's not what this game is all about or where we are going."

I want to be able to lobby for the changes I want without being in the dark on the possible reasons why they might not be desirable. That's why I'm lining up these various ducks - and asking everyone to help me line them up. So far, people have done a pretty good job of educating me in this thread.

I do understand why our doing something is preferable to the Lindens doing it. To illustrate: In TSO, our best fun, our greatest creativity, came from doing unexpected things with the (limited and completely unalterable) tools we were given. They didn't expect us to create the tongue-in-cheek religion of Orbism, for instance, using balls from the racketball set ("orbs" and having a whole heck of a lot of fun with it. And other examples abound. You drew in people with this kind of thing, and you were rewarded with (considerable) dwell.

SL is just as limiting as TSO was - but in the opposite way. TSO limited physical content creation, but had plenty of built-in incentives for creating non-physical content. SL has unlimited physical content creation, but needs to support the non-physical content.

I think a key problem in my disagreements with those who don't wish Lindens to interfere in ways such as subsidies for events and dwell - as well as providing some sort of way for new players to make money besides becoming escorts - is that I sincerely believe the tools are not here for entertainment, and can never be, in an online game. My shorthand for that is, "You can't charge for drinks," but there are many other factors involved, which I won't go into again here, unless asked.

Yes, it would be great if we could provide all things ourselves, and certainly people are capable of such creativity (even in TSO, where creativity was far more hobbled than it is in SL). But I think some things just can't, realistically, be done, without built-in game support. I still contend there is MUCHO built-in support for anyone to become a builder. After all, all I do is grab prims out of mid-air and put them together, and wham. I've made money that way. But there is NO way to make people pay to come play your word game, or your Bingo, or watch your show, or participate in your group discussion.

We can say until we are blue in the face that ideally, we SHOULD be able to do those things independently. But I say, due to the very nature of the virtual world, non-physical content is impossible to sell without built-in support from the game design.

We can say until we are blue in the face that ideally, newcomers can just knuckle down and get to work, whether it takes them three days or a year to learn building and or scripting skills, or should take to selling land or escorting. But I say, why? Why not provide something for people, especially beginners, who just want to plug along in some simpler way to make a few Lindens to buy the goods they want to buy? Or expand, through game design and support, other potential occupations? It will make for a richer environment.

Why fail to engage all those people and have all those people leave the game (and I know they do; I've talked to dozens for the past two years) over an unattainable ideal?

And I think it is unattainable, because (a) you can't charge for drinks in a virtual environment and (b) having essentially all your game income, and all your game productivity (people like to be productive) depend on only two or three specialized real world skills is limiting in the extreme.

That's why I want to understand all the possible reasons for "Why we can't do that," "This isn't where we're going," and "Why this isn't the vision."

From the reasons listed so far, how many are that convincing? For me - although I haven't finished reading this thread past Jeffrey's post above - they are understandable reasons, but not written in concrete; not enough to dismiss my ideas with a simple, "That's not the way it's supposed to be;" and not in the best interests of growing the game. And growing the game, I believe, is the best way to provide the profits to hire the people and move forward with the work that Phillip and company most want to do - be the first to make the metaverse. (Or however you put it.)

coco

This to me is a dangerous expression of what I have seen lablled as the tekki-wikki mindset. In essence it says SL if for those of us with the skill, hardware and know how to follow through on a very narrow vision. If you don't meet the criteria we will leave you behind. That someone people who play games are not included in the SL popluation because they all need structure, levels, goals and tokens, and the the thong contests and sex balls are inherently bad.

I am an average user. I play a lot of games, I don't need tokes and levels and structure to enjoy a game, but it is nice when people build stuff to dom and when I am alloted enough income for showing up that I can enjoy some of what the game has to offer.
Frankly I like thong contests and sex balls, and slingo, and not just because I am a newb who wants money.

It seems to me that with new technology, the original users start out with some vision of what the technology is meant to be. I remember when Internet Chat was not all bots and asshats on voice and cam trolling for cyber. At that time everyone thought it would expand and foster intelligent communication and discourse. In the early 1990's AOL was a refuge of literate and relatively technologically savvy people. When they went to a monthly falt rate and promoted the service, it grew in leaps and bounds, but at the cost of the original sense of community. Suddenly you had to take the bad with the good.

I know that Sl started out as some metaverse vision thing, and is brilliant. But the thing that strikes me is that programmers never really anticipate the way the technology is used when it hits the proverbial "street." To me it almost seems like there is a grouple of pople who has read snow crash and get what the metaverse is supposed to be. But then those same people have contempt for the "dummies" like me who come along and play at what is thought to be the lowest common denominator. They resist the notion that thier metaversal idea of radically altering communications will be usurped by the best thong contest. Thus while they are happy to accpet lindens from average players, they continue to marginalize them as not being part of the elite, and tell them "if you don't like it, get a job" and that SL is a tool and not a game.

Yet in SL there are more clubs than sandboxes and typically the popular clubs have more people in them than the sanboxes. Perhaps the reality is that a lot of pope come to SL to socialize, chat, load themselves down with bling and prim closes, and pour a lot of effort and emotion into making use of the sex balls. And entering contests they know will be one by regulars anyway, but enjoing the comeraderie of being part of a scene. These people spend the mony to buy the products, and yet they sometimes seem to be marginalized by the very talented people who make the products.

The danger is not in advocating that people should be allowed to create, or that SL wil revolutionize business telecommunications by letting all communication take place in a virtual world. The danger I see is in creating a model of any sort of virtual world that excludes those who socialize and have no interest in scripting, creating, or working. I could see it might be different if it were invitation only (after all you could control your environment) or if tier was not charged at all. However if you are going to expect people to pay tier to use your service on a monthly basis, and you are going to compete for people's "entertainment Dollars" then you need to reward and enourage those people who entertain, and you need to reward the people who are paying tier.

People are often saying SL needs to accomodate all styles of play, and yet the continually marginalize the social/non-creator as lazy, and not fitting in. Accomodating all styles of play includes us non-existent "average players"

First of all, I've looked over Prok's post in response, and I'm going to continue as though it never happened. It is so full of personal attacks and so diametrically goes out into left field that I simply cannot speak to it without "lowering myself to that level."

----

However, thank you for your post, Coco. Going straight to the point:


Feel free to contact me in-world if you wish to be brought up to date with where I'm coming from with this. It's simply too much data to post to these forums, even if some is drawn from them.

Second, there is no "easy out" to this issue, and this is not surprising. If there were, it would have come to light and created a "utopia" already.

The opinion I post, then, is one that draws on roughly four years contemplating these issues, seeing both what works and doesn't work, and guaging it as I see fairly. Prok's view, and indeed your own, is drawn on a different set of experiences - hence the difference in opinion. This is a good thing provided we avoid fighting one another. That's the first step. To your credit, you've avoided this in your more recent posts. Prok has not.

End transmission. ... .............

LOL *Must not make attempt at lame pickup line with cookies must not make lame pickup line with cookies.*