Linden Labs taking a more active role with the economy again?

Don't let the door hit ya on the way out. Do you need any help finding it?

Since I posted here once I will add a further few comments.

First of all lets not continue to fire bullets at Lewis. He is entitled to his view and perhaps he can afford to have that world viewpoint. After all the guy who made the Internet possible in its modern form (Tim Berner-Lee ((pardon my spelling) did not charge for the first efficent web surfer (Mosaic I think) and today I understand he is very well respected. Reward can come in more than one guise.

But I also think that other people who came after him and utilised the net for commercial gain also deserve some respect. One example springs to mind...anyone here remember Lastminute.com a UK online travel company. Co run by the remarkable Martha the company proved to UK investors it was possible to make good commercial gain from the net and also provide a service.

There is room for both sorts here (I think) and it will be interesting to see how virtual economic worlds grow.

OMG !!
Free entertainment will kill the SL entertainment virtual industry !

Stoooop ! stooop that !
* drop water on the camp fire *

You mean I have to keep my customers and offer them good value for their money ? THE SHOCK, THE HORROR

Just wait till the RIAA wants their royalty payments for
unlicensed broadcasts of their copyrighted material.
Those broadcasting land plots better get their attorney's
ready... I hear a subpoena coming..



U.S. Copyright Law {Title 17 U.S.C. Section 101 et seq., Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2319} Federal law protects copyright owners from the unauthorized reproduction, adaptation, performance, display or distribution of copyright protected works.

Penalties for copyright infringement differ in civil and criminal cases. Civil remedies are generally available for any act of infringement without regard to the intention or knowledge of the defendant, or harm to the copyright owner. Criminal penalties are available for intentional acts undertaken for purposes of "commercial advantage" or "private financial gain." "Private financial gain" includes the possibility of financial loss to the copyright holder as well as traditional "gain" by the defendant.

Where the infringing activity is for commercial advantage or private financial gain, sound recording infringements can be punishable by up to five years in prison and $250,000 in fines. Repeat offenders can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. Violators can also be held civilly liable for actual damages, lost profits, or statutory damages up to $150,000 per work.

I think it would be more accurate to call it "copypriviledge".

Have you ever noticed that people who are convinced that there is ONE TRUE WAY (theirs), and speak in absolutes, also hide behind "we."

I got to discussing my ideas about using a per/poly purchase idea for downloading models on a different thread, but it got me thinking about the virtual econmony in general, and thought about how the a dollar became attached to gold in Fort Knox for stabilization.
If land was a "natural resource", you could have a poly count that could be attached to the land. You would have to purchase to "dig up" this natural resource, but no more than the max the land would allow <a constant per square> that could only be "dug up/purchased" by the owner.The polys could be traded for cash or goods or remade into new objects. Even if you didn't allow for new geometry to be imported by being purchased/converted from your poly stockpiles count you could have the same concept with primitives.
Only so many primitives made from a plot of land could be "made/purchased" by the owner. This would make more money for SL but keep the poly counts down to a reasonable/predictable amount.

/108/a5/82919/3.html#post963460
-Bastage Beeks (newbie extrordinaire)

Certainly he is entitled to his view. But he will remain a troll in my mind as long as he continues to dictate that we aren't entitled to OUR views. "When a game becomes an income, all the fun and purpose of playing it is lost." As many times as he's been told otherwise that statement is trolling pure and simple.

Well, by "slowly and carefully," I think they mean not so quick that people will tier down en masse.

But I don't think premium members will get anything at all to make up for their loss of $500 a week. I would love to be happily surprised by being given something that makes up for it, and maintains the same value to the premium membership, but I'm not holding my breath.

I have always thought they would do this - simply because the entire time I've been here, all they have ever done is take away things. As some residents cheered. But I have also figured they wouldn't take the stipends all at once.

Here's why: Let's say they first lower the premium to $450. I would think to myself, "No, I sure don't want to give up my whole shop just because of that. $50? Pffft! I'll be getting less, but it won't be too bad."

How about $250? Well . . . probably I could rationalize that, even.

Whereas imagine if they went from $500 to nothing. I would think I would be a FOOL to keep paying for premium. After all, my land is a luxury - I don't need it to continue to build and sell my things. I could rent space in a store, and continue to live on Azure Islands, where I pay in Lindens.

But you know it is going to to zero anyway! They are telling us they are going to take away the stipends. They are going to take away traffic. They are going to take away everything. All that we will have left is the right to pay them a subscription in order to own land, and pay them tier on that land.

And like I said, I don't really expect we will get anything in return, because what is there to get that wouldn't cost them profit? But I could be wrong.

By doing it gradually, they will prevent a sudden land devaluation as everyone tiers down at once. They will (a) eke out lowering the stipend, as only a few would tier down at each level of lowering tier, and (b) gradually accustom us to not getting anything for premium except the ability to own land.

But at least they have told us that this absolutely is going to happen to us, and my guess is sooner, rather than later.

The smart person would sell her shop land now, while the gettin' is good. I just don't know if I can bear to do it.

The ultimate result will be a greater discrepancy between the haves and the have-nots, I think. More landlords, fewer landowners. Fewer businesses.

For those already established and rolling in money, not getting a stpidend won't make much difference at all, and they will probably be happy that it will be harder for others, and thus less competition for them.

For those who aren't established, or for the smaller businesses, it won't be good. You will be less able to work your way up, by being patient, and spending only stipend money. It will be more necessary to literally buy your way up. (Unless this talk about jobs that I haven't read carefully pans out somehow.)

Ultimately, when everything finally gets into the hands of a few, it will be game over, I guess. But maybe by then there will be new, similar games out.

That players are happy about the same service costing me more money pisses me off, too. But then, I've been pissed for a year now, at players with established businesses and lots of money being anxious to take away the things I have depended on. I've also been hugely irritated by the entertainment venues taking such hits, and I don't think charging an entry fee is ever going to work quite like some people think, though I could be wrong.

And I think shopping will take a huge hit, on the part of the casual players. Because it will depend heavily on people wanting to buy from Lindex to get everything, and I'm just not convinced that this paradigm is quite as appealing as the wealthy players and the Lindens think.

Psychologically, I don't think anything about paying $800 of my stipend money for something, but I would think twice about putting $3.00 on my credit card for it, and I don't think I'm the only one with this psychology. To me, it's like having to pay for every ride separately at the fair, versus paying once and getting to ride everything endlessly at Six Flags. There's a reason why Six Flags, Disney, etc., operate on the pay-once basis.

On the other hand, I'm not sitting here with the Lindex stats, and they are.

All this kind of talk in this thread reminds me of when LL first gom'ed GOM. "Oh, the Lindens aren't making any profit off it, really," people said. "They're just charging handling fees; it's not like they're getting a cut of it." And now it's taken for granted that of course they are making profit off of it.

You can be assured that these changes will help increase that profit, probably in more ways than one.

coco

One option would be to get rid of the premium account entirely and make eveything entirely tier-based.

That is, someone who currently had a premium account would simply be moved to the 512 tier level at $3 a month, and so on up the line. (Since there'd be some weirdness if you're close to your current limit and the extra cost from going up a level wouldn't be absorbed by the sudden $10 discount, this plan would need obvious refinement that I'm not up to working out right yet.)

Morning all,

CoCo, what you're desribing is almost exactly the basic money model for There.com, and they're still afloat (sort of). I've been rather convinced that LL is looking at those models and modifying them for use, just like There had begun to look at SL's land models and put *it* to use. Search my weblog (Kind Healer) under the catagory 'There' for detailed musings.

Aliasi, that is an interesting idea. I've considered that too, but another thread (that I've not seen yet) looked better to me - having a larger 'starting tier' for the same cost.

:link:

I can see there a danger in that people will stop committing to business models, or to any major investment in SL, until they know that the changes are all done.



I'm not so sure. In order to be able to "roll in money", they have to be selling stuff regularly, and if everyone else has lost their stipend, it'll become harder to do that.

Another problem is that effectively, doing this could cause the end of the L$! If L$ become directly representative of US$ - which seems to be what LL are going for - then it's likely some places will just start selling in US$ directly. It's no different to the customer (since in this model they would have had to pay US$ for those L$ anyway) and for the supplier it prevents the situation where they take lots of L$ but then have to compete again to cash out. They'll soon realise that effectively, they are selling people L$ to spend at their competitors' stores, and that it's far better for them to just take US$ directly.

That would help the economy but hurt Linden Labs.

This would be equivalent to getting rid of premium accounts completely, and just have accounts... that can subscribe to land (tier) and money (stipend).

Let's see.

170k residents.

Let's say, 10% are premium.

That's US$170,000 a month from premium accounts.
There's, what, 500 private islands? That's another $100000 for island rent.
Plus... maybe 1500 sims in the Linden Estate. various amounts of tier, lots owned by Governer Linden so it doesn't provide income, let's say it's equivalent to half that number of islands. Another $150000.

So that's about 1/3 of their income from the 'printing press'. I can't see them doing that.

Yes, it reminds me of There as well. Which is a major reason why I didn't like There, and quit.

My sales will fall as a result of this. That much I'm certain of.

coco

No surprise why I'm stepping away from SL then, eh? Only reason I've still got the account is to keep a pulse on various trends in SL, and continue my link between here and Uru.

Still working on the extrication, completion target is almost there though.

:link:

"We" refers to those of us who care about the situation. If you don't care about the loss of stipends and the damage to the economy and game overall through a) people downgrading their account or land holdings, b) less money to spend therefore less income for everyone, then feel free to not be included as a concerned resident.

You may currently be running on a level where your income from sales in-world but with less income people spend less - and you will feel the pinch too.

Right now I am happy with what I do in game and the money I spend - but lose my stipend and have to buy L$2500 a month extra may possibly be enough to tier down, because i simply cannot justify spending another $10 or so a month on entertainment - especially if there is no other way to make that income up.

Lewis

I wonder if the loss of stipends won't create an interesting phenomenon that LL would probably like.

More people forming strong cohesive groups so they can share the cost of tier paid in L$ sold on Lindex.

I suspect though for this to work one would need not only a strong group but better group management tools with safegaurds for contributors to avoid some of the all too common disasters we currently see.

Or maybe I am not awake yet and still dreaming