The Rampant Anti-Business Climate in SL

How did you know?

LOL!

Barnes, now why am I not surprised that you're "with Ingrid on this one" lol. I know she's wailing terribly thinking I said her houses were shite. But they aren't shite. They are great. But they don't rent. A lot of my land doesn't rent sometimes either. What can you do? I can only try harder. Some of your houses rent. Others are just decorations that help people decide to rent but then they put out their own houses, usually ones they've selected themselves.



Well, thanks for reminding me of my roots, Barnes! But I think you know all too well *who ruined that for me by overrunning all my lots with higher aestheticism*. In SL, you can't just hack around as much like that, at least, God know, I couldn't in Igbo *where I was forbidden to put down so much as a prim, let along build something* *cough cough*.

I'd like to make those enchanted, immersive worlds here, too. But you can't, it costs too much. You don't have the scope unless you pay a lot, and you can't get the tools to work as intuitively or as quickly as you could in TSO. Many people think that because I say that, I'm a whiner and a struggler. No. I'm just someone who doesn't waste time on that, or else learns it very slowly but goes and *does other things that are way more fascinating that putting a sauna with a capuchino machine*. What would they be? Well, things like making it possible for somebody else to build a whole waterfalls with spray, or a theater, or a community center, or a huge house that graces the waterfront, or any number of other things I draw encouragement and joy from in the game. It's just different. And I don't completely drop my Flamingo Court, as you can see if you would just get out to visit my pink box in Cecropia.



Actually, Barnes you have at least $200 if not $300 or $400 for every empty Barnesworth Anubis Pre-Fabulous House you have seen owned by me.

Well, some of them rent, but some of them don't. Probably more don't than do. For example, SUCH a mistake to put them out in Stump, they just weren't right for that area and I should have realized that, but I try to learn from my mistakes. You can slam me for not knowing better than to use your houses (LOL? Is that hilarious or what? The ultimate insult). But I *have them* because I support you, and because they have costed like $200 or $300 whereas other people might charge $1500 for their prefabs. I do see them in the wild, too. When I was just starting out, it was a big help to me. Mainly, your prefabulous houses are there to give people the idea that they can have a house, and they can even have that one, or another prefabulous house or their own. So they served their purpose. I know you're quite capable of building really high-end non-prefabby houses, but you don't want to take the time to work with me because you chose to work with others, which is your right. My loss. But I'm fortunate to have a big choice in SL and fortunate that others have taken the time to work with me.




Well, but they're good houses, some of them. Some of them *do* have privacy. And Ingrid's too, too. And honestly, just when I give up hope that they won't rent ever, someone takes on of them. Amazing. They look good in a community. But they don't rent as much as they texturey prefabs. So when I get to another stage when I can invest more in those papery textury prefabs, I'l have more of them. Again, my loss, and I'll be sure to hear Ardith Mifflin bitching about picket fences even if there aren't any (it's what her fellow human beings chose most).



I do that. You just maybe never saw me do that. Honestly, I'll be you don't know half of what I do because you are busy with your own friends and projects.



I am. You just don't see it. I just wish that once you and Ingrid and the others would spend more than one minute fixing a door and take some time to see what I am actually doing.

I know that. But I'm looking at somebody else's object -- I'm looking at their menu. On their menu, it says YOU CANNOT MODIFY THIS OBJECT for that Siggy prefab. I realize I have to own it. But if I'm looking at someone else's object, it's going to say that too? Ok, you must be saying that it does work that way.

But then...how come nobody ever modifies it?

Yes drop me the freebie and I will send you the $250.

I don't think it's pedantic hate-mongering at all. I think it's reporting on the pendantic hate-mongering of others like yourself who are terribly condescending and sarcastic, especially to newbies and non-aesthetic types.

We've been told we can't "attack groups" like we can't "attack individuals". It doesn't leave you with a lot of room on the forums.

If you remember what you are talking about any more, please contact me in game and I will lay it out to you.

EXACTLY.

We all see the same set of facts. Many people have the same opinion as you, Prok, that this feature or that feature ought to be improved, or that some change or other should have or should not have been made.

Can we discuss problems and solutions without all the he-said-she-said, who's a fucktard, who's out to get who, conspiracy theories, and non sequitur bullshit?

Frankly, I'm embarrassed to say "I agree with Prok" on something. I don't want to have to sign on to the litany of blame in order to talk about an issue. Prok, you actually repel a lot of your potential allies that way. Fine, if all you want to do is attract attention, but it's not a strategy for getting anything done.

Buster

That is not a 'philosophic stand'.
It is a simple Econ 101 fact, that in any given free market, the price-free (P0 where P0=0) availability of a given commodity C, posessing a given utility U, drives out the priced (P1 where P1>0) commodity, also of utility U. Please note that the decrease in the price of the commodity is not necessarily in direct proportion to the trade volume of C(P0) / C(P1).

Meaning: Giving away free products hurts those who rely on selling similar products, to some extent not easily determinable.

BTW, I had this post reviewed before posting and it was considered to be not only true, but a painful belaboring of the obvious. I'm posting it anyway. The most common initial reaction was "well, duh!".

I'm not wailing so much as mooning you right now. You can't see it, but I'm doing it.

Panda I need a big 'ol ass picture right now.

EXACTLY.

I predict Prok will add this:

Subsidising and encouraging those who are giving away free products hurts those who rely on selling similar products, to some extent not easily determinable.

(I'll let him speak for himself, but I think my version of his opinion is more focused than his will be.)

Buster

[joke]

Go look at Prokofy's blog, maybe he has a picture of himself on it.

:rimshot:

[/joke]

hehe i'm sorry I couldn't resist.

You wonder why there aren't more economics students in here, given all the economic stuff. I guess these are all people who never took Econ 101? Because they usually scream and me that I've committed a crime by railing against freebies. But it is just Econ 101. Thank you. The problem is that Econ 101 is not relevant to people who want latter-day socialist economies.

Another thing Barnes. You and are other little SimArtians are also caught in a time warp. The time warp is in October 2004. This is the litany of one very malicious individual as you know, but you've all absorbed it. It goes like this. You all came in the game a little earlier and got adapted, but I came a little later and didn't, then I had a week away on a job overseas, then when I came back I was "even more behind". This is the meme that has gripped all your brains and you can't let it go. It shapes and colours your every perception of me, it's a filter for your examination of my every deed.

But...it's all wrong LOL. I didn't "get behind" I just didn't want to do the things you wanted to do. I know when you come from a small town and you're in a small group and you go to an even smaller town and hang with a small group, well, it's scandalous when somebody wants to do something different. But I wanted to buy land and learn about real estate. So I did. I just went off in another direction. It doesn't mean that I became a failed, bitter, fucked-up, talentless loser who can't build like you all. It means I chose something else to do that was way more fun and interesting to me. None of you can seem to get over it so you fuel this endless judgemental invective against me among yourselves and older players with this old saw, to the effect that I'm a frustrated builder manque. It's just not true. I look at this game as open-ended, if steep, and it's something that is always there to do.

Buster, you've said in about 20 different ways lately that you agree with me but I'm too flamboyant, weird, pedantic, colourful, forceful, wrongheaded, whatever for you to associate yourself with me. OK, don't then. But you know that I'm perfectly intelligent so if I've become flamboyant, weird, pendatic, colourful, forceful, and wrongheaded, it could be because I'm up against those 6 forum fuckards aforementioned. N'est'ce pas?

I'd love to get the thread back upon my essay. I've repread it, and I think it is brilliant. I think it is seminal. I even sent it to Ted Casanova. Sure, it could use some editing, but that's why I have Walker Spaight. Read it again, try to bracket out all the crap, and think about what I said. You can ascribe all the good will in the universe to LL and its best beta testers, but there are consequences to their actions, over which they may have no control, and among them are: a rampant anti-business climate in this game.

Meaning: Giving away free products hurts those who rely on selling similar products, to some extent not easily determinable.


EXACTLY.

I predict Prok will add this:

Subsidising and encouraging those who are giving away free products hurts those who rely on selling similar products, to some extent not easily determinable.

(I'll let him speak for himself, but I think my version of his opinion is more focused than his will be.)

Buster

Buster, do you want to just take over now? I'm tired. I think you could carry on, and maybe more effectively.

No, I would only say that TOO but not ONLY.

I do agree that giving away free things hurts those who could be making a profit by making stuff that could be just a few dollars.

And yes, I believe the issue is subsidizing the freebie-sters.

Like you get these older players. They style themselves as the Wise Men of the Sim. The Lindens call them and run game changes by them. They make money in a vendor in a store somewhere or 30 stores. They take money out of the game. They do selfless good deeds for newbs on Sunday afternoons. And they give away a lot of free stuff for the vanity of it. They uphold a certain culture that makes it very hard in our world to get a real economy going.

I really find it quite comical when I see those older players who are making a good buck off the game, getting loads of Linden stroking, running a couple of angles, helping newbies for glory, and also giving away freebies to get glory. So I say, you know, your privileged position is a bit of a stumbling block. Loosen up the access to the economy, let somebody make something and sell it without you smothering everything with first your freebies, then your monopoly expensive thing.

Free items only harm the market for other positively priced items of equal or near similarity meaning if you want to sell something that is similar to the free one, just make it better functionally, market it better, package it better, or one of any number of things to ensure it sells. They don't hurt innovation.

Great. Then cite some examples where the free products are damaging and destroying the economy, becuase frankly, I don't see it.

For example, I have the following free items:

- small alpine cabin
- greek gazebo
- futuristic 'tubular' house
- lighthouse

If your (and Prok's) simple Econ 'fact' is true, then my freebies should be completely destroying the market for items similar in nature - right? So, show me examples of the destruction.

Juro... don't question Prok! It's not allowed! He'll spank us.

As I read this thread I see nothing about price. I admit being a fairly clueless newbie at SL (at the time of this writing) but price/utility ratio seems to be intuitively understood by virtually everyone. I don't know enough about SL to have any specific suggestions, but, perhaps at least the *idea* could be discussed here?

Who, exactly, is subsidizing it, besides the original creator?


I disagree. The number of free items pales to what is priced with a $L for sale. I simply don't see a low number of freebies, most of which are consumed by new users, as hurting the economy.

When a new user comes into the world, they have limited resources. Many times, those limited funds are used acquiring land. They have no established business yet, so they rely mostly on the weekly stipend for income. A freebie here or there gives them access to goods that they would not have. It DOES NOT stop them from buying additional goods. Freebies, for the most part, are not on a quality or feature level of goods that you'd actually pay for, so again, I see minimal impact.

No, mommy, not the wire hangar!

I think that free items do "hurt innovation", because fewer people are going to invest time and money into improving free things. Who wants to sell improved ice to eskimos?

I think it would be wildly wrong to say free items "end" innovation.

I have nothing against residents who give things away. I love free stuff! But I wouldn't want to see Linden Labs *encouraging* it, or *subsidizing* it too much.

A lot of fun will be gone from the game if the market is so swamped with freebies that nobody ever wants to buy anything. On the other hand, a lot of fun would be gone from the game if nobody could afford anything.

Wrong.
It's about indirect damage to individuals (via reduced demand) and indirect damage to the economy (via reduced incentive to build). I didn't use the term "completely destroy" and niether should you, when referring to my statement. At best it's a misleading mistake, and at worst it's a hypocritical lie.

Having said all of this, and that which I said in my previous post, I suppose that I could be wrong...but I'm probably right (IMGHO)

That is the concept of The Market: Supply matches demand via price. Don't worry:
Everyone can afford something.
No one can afford everything.

And what about the free items that new players get that motivate them to stay in the game, tier up and become consumers?

And point me towards those free items that are at the pinnacle of their development and can't be improved anymore (like ice.)

Actually ice is a bad example... you can freeze flavored water and have superior ice

First, Nashville.. I never quoted you on 'completely destroy'.

I personally think you and Prok and anyone else who thinks freebies are bad and doing damage (directly or indirectly) to the economy are worrying far too greatly about it.

I started giving out those freebies a loooooong time ago - yet, there are plenty of alpine cabins and lighthouses and gazebos for sale. It certianly doesn't seem to have stopped any innovation or creativity or, more importantly, the market for those items.

So, again I say.. show me some examples. Support your assertions by providing evidence that an industry has been harmed by freebies or that the demand has been reduced.

I agree with Prok. Ever since hobags entered SL, my escorting income has gone way down and dropped me off the leader boards.