Remember, you saw it here first

Hiyah, Tiger. That's a very generous offer coming from you! The only facet of it that is a little hard to understand ...

How come you are offering it to Linden Lab "For FREE" and are bemoaning that a reseller "probably won't pay" for such skills? Both "stand to make a profit from such work" and in both cases the final result would be for "the public" or the final owners of the land. Why are you making such a differentiation?

BTW: If you are interested in a landscaping job, just IM me or Lara Bunin. No, you won't have to work for free.

I couldn't disagree more ... that would be like saying that someone doesn't have the right to complain about poorly planned streets, just because they dont cut their grass.

This thread is not about building aesthetics, but about landscape. Buildings in SL are hyper transient. The landscape however, is not, per se. It can be modified in minor ways, but once these new sims reach lock-down, what we see is what buyers get. No fixing it.

So, its my view that discussion of building aesthetics is generally going to be a distraction and irrelevant in a discussion about terraforming new sims. A limited use would be the building skills of those who will be doing the terraforming, as an example of what we might expect to see. Based on reports, it appears that that is a mixed bag. Anyone else's bulding skills are irrelevant.

Finally, my position continues to be that if you /start/ with a sand flat, cut with a regimented grid of drainage ditches, that foundation will forever stamp what terraforming comes later.

I think some people should remember Anshe Chung took a commercial risk in purchasing all those new Sims. In essence it is not the Lindon dollar profit that is the issue (as the exchange rate varies) but the real US dollar cost of renting all those servers per month

30 odd Sims at $195 per month pretty soon adds up, of course some aspects of Anshe Chung's life are now in the public domain. So we know that she is based in Germany and therefore ultimately thinks in Euro dollars to make a profit.

But think about it, Lindon Dollars to US Dollars to Euro Dollars for her exit. As it happens I am based in the UK and therefore think in Sterling. Also I have a basic understanding of exchange rates as my real life job in the UK is connected with money. At $1.76 to £1 my own charts tell me that the dollar may be getting weaker.....but who knows, even Warren Buffet (the Sage) may have lost $500 million on a bad dollar bet.

By the way for what is is worth I think the Euro is getting weaker against the US Dollar, which is a trend that started back in 2005.....

Finally if Anshe is successful in selling all those sims there will be a lot more people in SL buying goods and services which will benefit everybody else.

The next post reproduces financial thinking on game companies in general. The source is not my own work but I agree with parts

*In order to get the context right this was an article published in a trade only leisure software journal about three weeks ago. Thought I may as well post it in light of the EIDOS warning*

Why the city doesn’t like playing games

I have read with interest many letters and articles bemoaning the lack of city understanding and hesitancy with stock market listed “games” companies.

Well in short I could summarise it in a simple paragraph, the city likes companies that return excess cash to shareholders (in one form or another) and hates companies that consume cash (for whatever rationale).

But that’s a bit shallow, I would like to give you something to chew over.

"The ills of production costs"

Many years ago I was the perennial spotty school whiz kid. I started on a Zx81 back in those halcyon days when the UK was making great strides in the home computing industry. For a moment it looked like the UK could lead the world in its field. I was keen to be there to help it.

Many nights I would slave away with a friend of mine to produce various bits of software and test the limits of our ability. We were common back then, assembly language programmers. Two guys in a bedroom churning out code relentlessly, each time pushing the boundaries of our and our tools capabilities.

Very often we would come up with a sufficiently good idea that it would merit marketing it. Though back then our concept of marketing was a simple one. Stick an advert in the back of popular computing weekly for a few quid with a few words of text and ask then to send a cheque for x quid to me! Simple!

However as computing became really popular the business model certainly became more complex. Back in "The good old days" all you needed was some imagination, a concept, two guys and a few weeks work (including nights).

All of a sudden you needed a creative director, musician, graphic artist etc. Etc. Etc.

I remember seeing the adverts from competing companies. There was me with my column centimetres at the back and there was a company called Imagine with their full page colour spread in a prominent page on the right leaf of the magazine. Of course back in those days Automata always had the back page of Popular Computing Weekly. I remember watching a fly on the wall documentary on TV when Imagine collapsed. When I saw the number of people they had working for them I figured there cost base may be a little too high. However, it was the trend so I knew my days as an independent software house was over. The market had changed and it was all about marketing, guile, upfront, big hitting, big balls marketing, advertising and production.

Those clever, technically component, or should I say, geniuses, sat in the bedroom were about to get crushed.

So ended my programming days in the industry, I moved into more sales and marketing roles and have been there ever since though I often pine for my programming roots. Unfortunately they are a little out of date now unless anybody wants a Z80 or 6502 assembly language programmer?

Unfolding before my eyes was a strange new world where big budgets and egos where needed to bring a product to market and it felt like Hollywood. Indeed it was more like Hollywood than I thought. When I started, big name licenses were rare and everything was original. Now everybody was bidding like mad to get the next big name and the quality of games was showing. But not to failing to promote one upmanship soon to follow the big license deals were big budgets for all aspects of development and technology.

Of course this was Hollywood stuff. A simple strategy, if you want people to watch your film, spend a fortune getting a big name in, then spend a fortune on the filming and special effects. Not least promote the hell out of it.

Of course not all big budget films are box office winners and the converse is also true.

Too risky

Producing a game that will provide a really good economic return is difficult now. So much money goes into a production you take on a huge risk backing a company that has to rely on its next big hit to bring in the money. Then a shortly after that release interest in your product, at decent margins, has evaporated and it’s been relegated to a budget title. Worse still you don't own the media nowadays so the owners of the format could really play hard ball if they wanted to and your business would be in trouble. At least with publishing a book your platform is clearly defined.

Other industries that publish, like music and books, have a (generally) lower production base to work. But they obviously suffer from time to time some similar ills like piracy or over lavish production and marketing.

Companies that need to re-invent themselves on a regular basis are good users of cash and in investing terms that's a nightmare. You want your investments to work the other way around, producing cash for you not taking it from you. Sure there are some great technologies and companies out there but winner there are many losers and therefore you have to pick your subjects carefully.

Things that dictate how much margin and indirectly, cash, you can take out a business is governed by competitive forces.

What is the bargaining power of your customers, suppliers, the extent of competition in the industry, Ease of introduction of substitute or replacement products?

If you run over that sentence you can see several weak points on the list that you can identify in the leisure software industry. Over time all companies and industry default and reduce to common denominators, that’s a fact. It is then that these factors come into play more strongly.

Chewing over a good investment

Lets chew over this, in fact, lets chew gum. Wrigley’s gum.

Everybody has heard of chewing gum and in fact most would have heard of Wrigley’s hewing gum. Brands such as Juicy fruit, Spearmint, Airwaves, Orbit etc. etc. etc.

Not an exciting product and one that has changed little over the years, forsaking new developments in addictives and sweeteners. In fact it’s a boring business, dreadfully, boring.

If you were in a lift or a diner party and started talking about chewing chum to your friends they may go off you pretty quickly. I mean what is there to talk about with chewing gum?, it isn’t particularly cool to discuss, your heart doesn’t race faster when you open a new packet, You don’t hear people saying, Have you see the new release from Wrigley’s its out on October 2nd.

It’s remained the same basically for decades. The machinery that makes it hasn’t really changed. The production of it alters as new technology comes in, but it’s no quantum leap to produce. In fact anybody could produce it using pretty standard equipment. So why am I getting excited over a small packet of consumable convenience “food”.

Well, it’s a great business. Something which a lot of business in the leisure software industry aren’t.

Though “only” publicly traded since 1923, the company has been led by the Wrigley family since it was founded in 1891 by William Wrigley Jr. In all, four generations of Wrigleys have led the company. It now has a market capitlisation of 10.56 BILLION dollars.

Over time many companies have passed into history, so why not Wrigleys?

Well first the cost base is pretty fixed and they don’t need to replace it very often. There was probably equipment in place producing gum in 1985 that is still in place and that equipment that has been replaced is probably due to wear and tear and / or is more productive.

I now play my old Spectrum games on a Java platform on my PDA that only costs a little more now than my spectrum did back in 1985. Much technology and investment in production has flowed under the bridge along with copious amounts of cash to get us to this stage and how has that been funded, with investors money, hurrah. Thanks to that investment I can now have masses of computing power for a fraction of what it cost a few years ago.

Second, How many different types of Chewing Gum can you name without naming a product made by Wrigley’s?

Wrigley’s is synonymous with Gum. Their branding has created an image and word in your mind that has taken years to build.

Anybody know how much a packet of Gum costs? Off the top of my head I couldn’t tell you how much I paid for a packet this morning when I filled up my car, 30 or 40p?. If inflation went through the roof I doubt if I would care paying a few pence extra for it either. This is what economists call price elasticity (quite appropriate description for Gum). Basically people are pretty insensitive to the price of chewing gum, it’s an impulse buy.

Now, how many weeks do I have to go back in the trade press of the leisure industry to see a debate on pricing, Hmmm not very far.

Gross margin at Wrigley’s for the last financial period (12/2003) were 62%, They spent just as much marketing and selling the gum as it cost to make. Markdown of property, plant and equipment was 4% of turnover (and looking at the accounting policies this is probably aggressive). Net cash from operating activities was $645.5m.

They used some of that to buy new property, plant and equipment, returned $195m to shareholders and bought back some of their own shares, leaving free cash flow of $230m to re-invest in the business.

So, shareholders happy, business happy, customers happy.

There are plenty of companies that generate a lot of cash. But as we know, especially if they are technology companies, the future is always uncertain and very often new technologies come along and replace old ones. In order to keep up in the game these companies need cash and lots of it. They need to constantly innovate or they face disaster when a new company or technology surpasses their products or concepts.

If there is a big fight for market share then competition will ensure margins are kept under thumb and therefore the business struggles to maintain decent margins. Which of course reduces there capacity to push more cash into the business to grow. Hence why it is often the big guys that win. Often it just becomes a process of attrition, who runs out of money first!!

So you now know why the city hates playing games, The platform is unstable, not well defined and needs constant investment. The end product is generally not very price elastic. The future is pretty uncertain also, what will we be playing in ten years time?

If only?

Now only if we could charge for game playing a different way, have a stable platform or push out or disown some of these costs that would alter the playing field a bit.

It’s not all doom and gloom, there are some good companies out there. But there are many challenges ahead, all of which have been seen before.

I’m not suggesting for a moment that you abandon technology, that is progress. Nor would I suggest not investing in technology companies, you just need to be aware of the risks of doing so. I for one would miss technology tremendously. If it takes two batteries and fits in my pocket, I’ll buy it. Also there are demonstrable benefits to new technologies. I couldn’t do what I do know without technology I would still be ploughing a field (often that seems like a better alternative!!)

However, if you want investors to love you, then hopefully I’ve given you something to chew over.

I think some people should remember Anshe Chung took a commercial risk in purchasing all those new Sims. ---Paulismyname Bunin.


Interestingly, the OP is a member of a group founded by Anshe Chung known as "Concerned Citizens".

How concerned can they be when they put builds like that in Bora?

Do your homework. Concerned Citizens was not a land holding group nor was it associated with ANSHECHUNG.COM. If you still persist in believing otherwise, ask Aimee Weber about the builds in Bora since she was an officer in that group at the same time that Anshe was.

Oh I'm sorry, I meant the group Concerned Residents. Founded by Anshe Chung with the following motto...
We take Second Life seriously and don't merely see it as a game. Therefore we lobby for justice, fairness, minority rights and ask for accountability of those who run the platform towards those who base their second lives on it.

My mistake as well, it is Concerned Residents indeed that I was speaking of.

Uh, I haven't been paying attention to this thread, so if this is no longer relevant, disrgard. But yes, Margaret is correct. That group has no land holdings nor was it ever intended to.

So any hypocrisy is entirely on the OP (refers to exhibit A.. the wall in Bora) for being a member of a group with that moto. Fair enough. I wonder if they are aware?

Some Anshe-haters made alts and joined the groups she founded. I am not saying anyone on this thread falls into that category, but feel free to draw your own conclusions.

Join date: october 2005
Posts: 2
In world profile: mostly empty, one rating, born 5/7/2005

The new sims are selling like hotcake. People are voting with their wallets

Very true the .raw file would of taken some time to prepare before hand but worth the time.

Done sim by sim assuming that its just going to be resold. I would think a couple of weeks due to rl jobs and lives.

Cat

Imo, the Concerned Residents group was never relevant to this thread, Aimee. I just referenced you to help make that point.

Glad to be of service

I dont see any hypocrisy .... what gets built on land, and how the land is terraformed to begin with are two different things.

Such claims are typically used as red herrings to distract from the real conversation ... which is the extent to which attractive, cohesive terraforming can be done in a week, and the willingness, or lack thereof, of large-scale land purchasers to do more than lay down a sandbar, separated by drainage ditches, laid out in a rigid grid.

I urge people to keep their eyes on the ball of this conversation and not be distracted by attempts at slight of hand.

Actually, if you read the OP, it was a personal attack on Anshe and a general attack on the taste of most SL residents, not a discussion of terraforming artistry. People might want to judge the validity of these attacks by considering the taste and motivations of the attacker.

I've re-read the OP ... several times, and again just now.

I respectfully disagree with you. My position remains unchanged.

I've made my own opinion as clear as I can. Repeating it would just bore everyone.

I trust most people will see how it is and draw their own conclusions. No slight of hand needed. Its glaringly clear in that Bora pic

More people attend professional wrestling venues than purchase the works of Shakespeare.

Does that mean Shakespeare is less culturally relevent or significant than Hulk Hogan versus the Rock?

Which will be remembered 300 years hence?

LF

We use our customers money responsibly and deliver a great product to their liking. English aristocrats who spent their commoners' tax money on theatres while people were starving in the streets of England are not a role model for us. We believe in the power of the consumer and not in imposing our likes and tastes on others.

Lordfly, I am not sure if Anshe and Guni are striving to be remembered in 300 years. Maybe. Who knows.

On the other hand I am rather sure, that letting your personal taste of esthetics decide the product strategy of your company has rarely been sucessful (with exceptions) - especially if you go for market share.

Interesting sidenote: Did you know that Shakespeare (like Mozart and many others) have been accused of "appealing to the masses and creating just popular crap" in their times? No, I am not implying that the Metaverse will remember Islandia in 300 years. It was just a sidenote.

I see the ppl are wanting more nightclubs and malls

Unless ---bleep--- keep it as bland as ---bleep--- got it. Which ---bleep--- didn't. ---Bleep--- had then imposed --bleep-- likes and taste on those buying ---bleep--- land. Although not much change was made except; parceling out the land then adding; sand trees, bushes, concrete walkways. The fact however remains it was a sandy tropical theme because ---bleep--- wanted it that way.

*covering my own bleeping arse

Sorry... I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Sim sale and people charge arm and leg for land.
ever heared keep land cheap!

Originally Posted by Guni Greenstein
We use our customer’s money responsibly and deliver a great product to their liking. English aristocrats who spent their commoners' tax money on theatres while people were starving in the streets of England are not a role model for us. We believe in the power of the consumer and not in imposing our likes and tastes on others.

--------------------------------------------

English aristocrats under the feudal system were directly accountable to the King. Rule by inherited right within the framework of a constitutional monarchy can (and does) work although I am not sure how it would apply to SL…..well maybe King Lindon I