Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive

These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE

Stipend Rate Drop should be reflected with price changes

Surina Skallagrimson
Queen of Amazon Nations
Join date: 19 Jun 2003
Posts: 941
05-05-2005 04:08
This entire thread is moot. Why? Stipends HAVE NOT CHANGED.

Premium accounts get L$500 a week, always have since 1.2
$9.95 'lifer' accounts get L$50 a week, always have since 1.2

Where is the drop in stipend?



If you're talking about the 'rating bonus' then that is a different matter entirely. So lets take a closer look at the rating bonus breakdown... (again).

In order to get any rating bonus at all you have to be in the top 50% of one or more of the 4 lists. So while it is possible that half the population could get a bonus from 2 lists and the other half a bonus from the remaining 2 lists, the implication is that half the population will get no bonus at all. THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE.

Of those that actually get a bonus, the first bonus level was L$75, now cut to L$38. Again, half of those winning a bonus will get this amount.

So of the entire population, 50% never get a bonus, and 25% have only lost L$38 a week income.

Do you really think it makes that much difference?


Question, Why was the rating bonus cut in half? There are two reasons, one political and one economic.
Political: The rates have been abused for as long as anyone can remember. According to the tables there are some incredible noobs that learnt to build like Gods in just two or three days. They must be Gods because their building rates are off the scale compaired to most 'seasoned' builders. This is obviously BS and the rates are BS so the Lindens cut the payout AND raised the rating cost to discourage this kind of abuse. Has it worked? No.

Economic: The Lindens have decided that the simplest way to 'stabalise' the economy is to have a roughly fixed ratio of L$ to users. Philip stated in a town hall a few months ago that the target was around L$4500 - L$4700 per user. So for every new '$9.95 lifer' account that is created, L$4700 has to be added to the system. Since the demise of Event Sponsorship this is now done in three ways, the account is given a starting balance, money is injected each week in Stipends AND rate bonus, Dwell is paid daily. Each day when dwell is calculated the 'dwell pot' is adjusted so that the payout maintains the L$4500 - L$4700 per user.

Remember, this is an average of all users. You are not expected to actually have L$4700 at any one time... There will always be rich and poor. The currency exchanges alone account for a large chunk of the available L$, so most people will always have less than this figure.


Alternatives? You could cut the dwell pot and increase the Rating bonus... or remove the dwell pot entirely and increase the rate bonus even more... or you could totally remove rate bonus and increase dwell payouts...

Whatever happens, if you're a L$50 a week, $9.95 'lifer' and you want to buy a L$4000 av then you're gona have to either earn the L$ in world or buy them on GOM, (other currency exchanges are available). Complaining that the Stipend has dropped (when it hasn't) just won't get you anywhere.
_____________________
--------------------------------------------------------
Surina Skallagrimson
Queen of Amazon Nation
Rizal Sports Mentor

--------------------------------------------------------
Philip Linden: "we are not in the game business."
Adam Savage: "I reject your reality and substitue my own."
Newfie Pendragon
Crusty and proud of it
Join date: 19 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,025
05-05-2005 07:26
From: Jake Reitveld
I seems they miss the point... if you properly fund the lazy, they will make the industrious rich.


*scratches his head* Ummmmm, wha?

Please, do explain this theory in more detail, because this one zoomed straight past me. In my simple naivety I was thinking it'd be more direct to just properly fund the industrious. How would funding the lazy benefit the industrious?


From: someone
Which brings me to the final point of my diatribe. Peopl like the games within a game. SL is for most of us, entertainment, and we need something to do. Hence the popularity of slingo and tringo, etc. Building is tedious, texture mapping on templates bizzrely arcane, and scripting imposssible for anyone who has read a Jane Austen Novel. So what is left for the people who want to hang out and have fun with freinds: Sex, Clubs, Tringo and slingo. Like it or not we lazy people need to be entertained too.


SL isn't a game. It may have the capability to have games within it, but SL in of itself isn't a game. If the lazy want to be entertained, then rent a movie, or play WoW, EQII, etc. But the content in SL doesn't materialize from thin air, it comes from many hours of hard work, effort and dedication by some of the most creative folks on the net.

If you want SL to be an enjoyable place, then everyone in one way or another has to contribute to the whole, either via a monthly payment, or by creating content/hosting/etc. Torley herself is a fine example of how a basic-paying member can become one of the more well-recognized and enjoyed people in SL. But there's no god-given right to entitlement to being entertained in SL, especially for those not willing to contribute to the SL society.

If that sounds too much like work, then maybe SL isn't the place for you. Please feel free to try out any over online multi-user virtual world that gives lifetime access for a one-time fee of $9.95. If you can find any others, that is. Most every other one I know charges a whole bunch more.


- Newfie
_____________________
Arcadia Codesmith
Not a guest
Join date: 8 Dec 2004
Posts: 766
05-05-2005 07:39
From: Newfie Pendragon
Please, do explain this theory in more detail, because this one zoomed straight past me. In my simple naivety I was thinking it'd be more direct to just properly fund the industrious. How would funding the lazy benefit the industrious?


Trickle-up economics. If you fund social welfare programs generously, that stimulates the economy by enabling more consumers to consume. It works better than the disasterous voodoo policies of certain US con-men and is significantly less vindictive against the most vulnerable segments of the citizenry. The drawback is that the rich don't get richer, as the trickle-up is circulated back down by the mechanism of taxes.

Oh wait, did I call that a drawback?
DNA Prototype
Mad Scientist
Join date: 8 Aug 2004
Posts: 179
05-05-2005 09:28
This thread is a dead beaten old horse. Go back in time a few months ago and post your views.

DNA
_____________________
DNA DEMENTED CIRCUITRY LIGHTING AND DJ SUPPY
SL's finest speakers, DJ gear, lasers, killer club lighting & effects.
Newfie Pendragon
Crusty and proud of it
Join date: 19 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,025
05-05-2005 10:15
From: Arcadia Codesmith
Trickle-up economics. If you fund social welfare programs generously, that stimulates the economy by enabling more consumers to consume.


Which in turn stimulates the vendors to jack up their prices, as people are more capable of paying a higher price for the goods. Inflation occurs, and the economy settles into a higher value level, where those at the bottom, though having more money, is no more able buy goods than the level they were at before.

So I reitererate - please explain how handing out money to the lazy will benefit the industrious?


- Newfie
_____________________
Arcadia Codesmith
Not a guest
Join date: 8 Dec 2004
Posts: 766
05-05-2005 10:40
From: Newfie Pendragon
Which in turn stimulates the vendors to jack up their prices, as people are more capable of paying a higher price for the goods. Inflation occurs, and the economy settles into a higher value level, where those at the bottom, though having more money, is no more able buy goods than the level they were at before.


Most prices in SL have a high degree of intertia in response to market forces, which is understandable in an arena where virtually everything is a "luxury" good. Note also that inflation is produced by increasing demand on a limited supply base, which is an alien concept in an environment where you can produce infinite copies of any object at zero cost.

Currency devaluation DOES come into play in the land market, because that is a limited resource. Producers who see mall rental fees increase or who routinely exchange Lindens for dollars might be tempted to raise prices if the Linden is devalued. But increased volume of sales, again with no production cost beyond making a prototype, might offset any loss from devaluation.

It would be interesting to increase stipends for a limited time period and chart the effect on prices, sales volume, land auctions and currency values. If the trends are positive, it might be worthwhile to make the increase permenant.

And "lazy" is inexact. "Non-mercantile" would be better, as a great many people outside the commercial arena are rather industrious in their chosen fields of endeavor.
Jake Reitveld
Emperor of Second Life
Join date: 9 Mar 2005
Posts: 2,690
05-05-2005 16:09
Um Second life is a trickle-up economy. The origin of the money spent in the game is the stipends, as far as I understand. There is no Federal reserve releasing blocks of lindend for sale on the gom. Besides even if the lindend god down in value you can make up for this loss in volume (hence wall mart makes more money every year than tiffanies.
Also in SL there is only disposable income, no taxes, no food, power water. And almost infinte resources...(well resourced are tied to tier, which happens outside the linden economy. SL is a luxury goods only market. Even the vaunted creators do not produce wealth they sap wealth. The fluctuations on the gom are realtively meaingingless unless you area hunge position player, so doubling the stipend would have a minimal effect on the market.

How does increasing the casual player's stipend enrich the industrious? Wel simpley put the industrious in SL are not geneerating the wealth, they aren't generating the income, they are takers, not makers of money. This is fine. However if you double the money to the casual player they will spend more as all thier money goes right back inot the economy, and you will sell double the volume. This is contrary to what you might think based on Real Life, but hey, SL is no RL, in case that detail escaped you.

Thus the crux of the debate is should SL appeal to the casual player like me, or to the tekki-wikki's and the content barons. Is this a game (yes it is a game-it competes for entrtainment dollars not investment dollars) for people who want to make things, or is it a game for the causal player who can pursua is fantasies in the ofte mediocre enviroment generated by the tekki-wikkis?

If you keep things as they are then most new players will leave once they get frustrated at the relative paucity of jobs, and the long hours and low pay invovled in an SL job. A few will stay ebcause of emotional attachments, or because they enjoy the construction process and are willing to play to do it. The tekki-wikkis will feed off each otehr and the game will remain a relatively small niche. Its a question of do you dominate a small niche, or do you open wide for the whole market?
Arcadia Codesmith
Not a guest
Join date: 8 Dec 2004
Posts: 766
05-05-2005 17:52
Psssst, Jake.... I'm mostly on your side, but "tekki-wikki" is a petty insult coined by a petty person. Let it die.
1 2