Could private estate leasing threaten the existence of the basic account ?

You must also look at it from a marketing standpoint. Like Coco said, when you tell other about the game, the $9.95 get them in the door. They having very little to lose. What is 9.95? about one movie ticket? I am sure that there are a number of players that never move up and stay on basic. But also, a percentange of them I am sure upgrade. Even the basic people that hang around have friends. By being in game, the friend that does pay the monthly fee is more likely to stay. Also, the more people that do play, the more people that will hear about SL. I think that the basic accounts are here to stay, and for very good reasons.

Two "L"s, please. And that's not animosity, that's a suggestion of where animosity might come from. Please don't attribute motive, thanks.

I agree with Coco. WHY are you thinking your 'game experience' will be worse if Lindens should be losing money on bandwidth?

Login problems? Okay, true, but that has NOTHING to do with basic people. There could've been 30 thousand PREMIUM people that could've not logged on. And tell you what: it would've been FAR worse for Linden Labs if you have 30 000 premium people PISSED at not being able to log in than just a few thousand (like now).

So Linden Labs kinda gets free testing for the game, because a basic people might complain, but he can't really say that he lost so so much money. And the premium people that can't log on? They get pissed, and they get jealous over the basic accounts.

Once again, it has absolutely nothing to do with jealousy. It has to do with LL giving out terabytes of bandwidth for essentially nothing, and it has to do with the longterm financial suitability of such a practice. This is the reason why most MMO games and communities charge for access. Bandwidth is a phenomenal expense.

Because LL is a buisness.

They have to pay for the bandwidth.

If they loose money, they aren't going to be able to pay for that bandwidth long term.

Thus, my game goes bye-bye because of people who don't want to pay.

THAT is how it makes my game experience worse, thank you very much.

Even worse, is that serious innovators drop out because they do not believe that SL is a stable business long term and do not wish to invest.

I agree Jillian, that any animosity that may exist comes because of this reason. Jealousy is in no way a reason someone would have animosity towards a basic lifer. Simply because there is really nothing to be "jealous" about.

I personally am undecided on whether I feel basic lifers are a help or hinderance to SL. I know these residents are mostly very active consumers (and some even have businesses), and that helps other established businesses and consumers in world. But if the drain on resources becomes detrimental to LL being able to fund resources (servers, bandwith, other hardware, etc) for the whole of SL, then I would have cause to worry.

Either way, I think this is a valid discussion.

Do you have any proof to back this up, i.e., polls or the like? I see you are speaking in absolutes. I would like more than just your word to back that up. I sure hope you're not projecting blazethink onto the rest of us.

shhh... it's a secret

Yes i agree Blaze, give us some numbers.

And Nolan, you can post examples of innovators using SL for something other than a toy. Those two things posted in the same thread will be quite interesting.

I heard of SL through a course that discussed virtual worlds and their possible value as an educational tool. Students, faculty and staff will be brought into the game at the basic level. Innovations that can promote higher learning will be developed by individuals with basic accounts. Some of these people may upgrade, some may not, but they will add value to SL in terms of content, recognition and growth.

This is an exciting prospect Katherine. My original investigation of SL was focused on using it as an eLearning tool for online tutoring and such. Our primary problem with this is paying for the students' basic accounts. Who is footing this bill in your case? Also, can you please define "innovations that can promote higher learning?" It's good grant verbiage, but I've no idea what it really means.

Although I have a premium account, I think Basic accounts are great. I gave a basic account (a gift certificate) to a real life friend. She lives on my land and hangs with me and it works out well.

Until this thread, I had not heard of any animosity between basic and premium accounts, just thought it was a matter of choice.

I bought land on a private sim and now pay tier to someone other than LL but I kept my premium account because of the stipend. I pay quarterly and it's cheaper than GOM.

What a great idea April!

Khamon... I'm in charge of working out details (like those you've mentioned). I've been given "go-ahead" and encouragement from my director, but I have doubts about the project. As far as payment goes, students pay for text books and other suplies; but also, doesn't SL offer extended trial periods to students? - (I've been waiting for more info from LL.) ... (I should start another thread on this topic though, ... I started a thead called "RL work in SL" to discuss this and related issues.)

I do know that SL is and will be used for more than a game, and the value of the basic account will be difficult to measure in $L or $US alone.

The viability of the basic account has been debated here before. Concerns about income vs. resources at Linden Lab are understandable, but here are some reason's why I think basic/lifetime accounts are a good idea.

Warm bodies - the most important resource for a healthy, thriving MMOG is people. The more green dots on the map, the greater the possibility of live player interaction whether it be social, financial, or creative. This is good for LL, as it makes SL a more robust experience, particularly since there are no NPCs in our world to otherwise occupy us. Additionally, because SL content is player-created, it stands to reason that the more players there are, the more content there will be.

Numbers - more basic memberships means LL has a bigger total membership number to quote to investors and potential customers. It lends legitimacy to the idea that Second Life is a viable world/business model.

C'mon in, the water's fine - $9.95 to play in a virtual world for as long as you want? Who wouldn't wanna at least try it out? The low price of entry is a great way to get people who are on the fence about the whole virtual world thing to take the plunge and join SL. And has been noted before, there are people who, once they try the sweet, sweet crack that is SL, will not hesitate to upgrade their accounts. Some of these people may not have even tried SL except that they can dip their toes in so inexpensively. How many times have we seen posts from newbies on these forums with subjects like, "How can I make money here?" One of the best ways is to upgrade to a monthly membership.

I think the basic account is grand for getting people into the game. I think that once you have decided it's for you, and if you then want to take possession of land to build permanent structures on, a subscription is appropriate.

The question is, should land renters, and even more so, land leasers, be able (as they now can in private sims) to use all the land tools as though they own, yet escape this subscription requirement?

At least perceptually, in the sales pitch, it gives land leasers an advantage over land sellers. Is this ok? Could it damage LL by reducing their RL income if it really began to catch on ?

Should we require a premium sub from anyone to whom a private sim land parcel is deeded, for instance? If not, wouldn't it be logical to drop the sub all together? What would that do? I find it all difficult to assess and decide.

Its also hard to decide how much weight to give to the fact that stipend seems almost to pay the sub. Thats true for us, but for LL's realworld income its seems not true, as L$ cost them nothing. Or do they ? It's subtle isn't it. The stipend affects the money supply, the money supply affects the exchange rate, the exchange rate is controlled by manipulating the land supply, the speed of land supply affects LL's RL income (in part). Full circle.

A long, slow loop. But the effect is there, I think. LL must employ at least one economist. I bet he or she is loving it. A little baby world to experiment on and control. Gotta be a PhD or two there, I think.

Umm, no. Leave it like it is. There is no problem. Even if they are on a basic account, some people still buy Lindens or contribute in some other kind of way. We don't need to force anyone into doing something they don't want to do.

This is strange. Has it escaped your attention that we force everyone who wishes to purchase land normally to pay a premium subscription, whether they want to or not ? If you say "leave it alone" you're saying "Dont compel anyone....oh...well...except just these people..."

I think I probably agree with your conclusion, but the way you reached it leaves me bewildered I'm afraid, Dennie.

Can't give up yet?

Nobody is holding a gun to anybody's head to play this game.

All residents are adults with credit cards and computer playing skills (or a reasonable facsimile).

Therefore all this cloying concern about the weak and fragile newbie waiting to be devoured by rapacious land barons (and LL itself) is out of place.

Having server space that manifests in the form of pixels you can do 3-D actions on costs money (bandwidth, labour, etc.). Therefore, it makes sense to charge more for that type of account than the basic.

I don't understand the concern that LL is losing out financially. They run a business and surely if the basic residents were becoming a burden, LL would do something about it? I think we should give them some credit for making such decisions.

Even though I have a premium account, I am selling my land and have started renting on one of Hiro Queso's islands. It's perfect and I know that no club or mall will spring up next to me. If basic residents can afford to do it, I don't see the problem. It means Hiro buys more islands, which means a lot more tier for LL.

If any of you are creators, especially clothes, where do you suppose a large amount of your business comes from? Yup, basic account holders. The majority of them fill your clubs and tringo events so I have to disagree that they don't contribute.

Someone suggested, if they decided to stay, 'we' should require them to pay for a premium account. Who's the 'we'? If LL have no concerns, why should anyone else?

Live and let live.

Alexa

this is an interesting thread.

Alexa, as an early stage company, LL is thinking long term and investing in the community and the technology. That includes taking a loss to build the community and get through the technology hiccups (or worse). You are right that we have to depend on their making sound design/economic decisions. Basic members do bring MANY benefits to the community. Do they put SL's long-term viability at risk by consuming LL computing resources without helping to pay for those resources? There is validity to this concern-- the trickle-down theory of basic users buying from land-owners who then pay rent to LL only works if basics are indeed buying from land-owners and not other basics.

As long as people want land (rent from member or rent from LL), then LL's current model will survive. If the ratio of premium to basic swings too far towards basic, however, they are going to have to rethink the current model. Long term, I would eventually charge a small annual fee for basic users. Lifetime membership is kind of crazy, from a business perspective. Even if you pay $10 a year, you get an incredible bargain (apart from going for a hike in the woods -- free! -- I can't think of a better deal) and LL at least has some sort of recurring revenue, however small.

I also think blaze raises a valid point and don't know why he got jumped on here. It is absolutely true -- if people question the longevity of Second Life, then fewer in-world entrepreneurs and creatives will invest their energies here. I do not think he was saying this is happening NOW, but that this is something that LL needs to keep in mind.

I agree with you forseti, there are way too many basic accounts nowadays. The economy is a very dificult thing to lok at, because you need to look at it in many ways. Too many basic accounts maens less money to LL, and more money to renters. Less basic accounts mean more money to LL, less money to renters, and more sales for the land barons. So the economy has multiple sides to it, and each side of the economy benefits one or the other.

I like the idea of not having a "Lifetime" account, but going $10 a year. It is still a great deal. it will eat up less drive space, as there is less inventory to keep on the server for basic accounts that have been inactive for a couple years. I still think think that basic acounts should be able to hold land, like it was before, but have to still pay a small annual fee.

The reason why LL created the "Lifetime Basic" account, was to draw people into the game. now that there are more people in the game, and many many people on basic accounts, we can drop the lifetime subscription, and go annual with the ability to own land, keeping with the fact that basic accounts don't get their free 512 tier.

Its all about the economy.

it's funny... pricing is one of the more challenging arts in business (and it really is more of an art than a science in most cases). Expanding people's options is wonderful for the customer, yet at the same time, you have to be careful you don't leave too much money on the table. I figure that is one reason why tier levels jump up the way they do, and don't allow you to scale in finer increments.

if the current Basic program isn't too much of a financial burden to LL, and they believe that it is fostering growth, then they should probably keep it for a while longer. After all, we are still very much in "early" stages here, both in terms of community and technology.

LL will have to decide when it has the critical mass of membership, in world entertainment/content, and technical stability/performance that they can afford to start charging annual fees to all new customers (I'm not gonna touch the retroactive membership issue with a ten foot pole! )

I'm not sure why the continued fussing about basic accounts, and especially fussing on behalf of LL, which itself isn't fussing. I guess we have to assume that if they found this loss-leader didn't benefit them, they'd dump it. Maybe they will some day. But meanwhile, there's no need to whip up any hysteria against the basic account holder even as an abstraction. Philip already put to bed the notion that they cause log-in jams -- other than that, what's wrong with them? They are your customers.

Games, this analysis of yours is based on both a notion of scarcity, and a notion of a rigid machinery, as if you pour water into one vessel, it displaces air, and takes away water from another vessel. But it is possible to think of all this flowing water as adding more water and bringing in more water and then creating more vessels to hold it.

In fact, as we've already pointed out, some basic account holders are the celebrated poster children of content here, adding considerable luster to LL's reputation and helping to sell the game. They are also a substrate of the consuming class, going to the clubs and playing Tringo and shopping. They are also a ready-made customer base for GOM, buying more than they sell.

As you note, they provide customers and business to landlords, but this isn't the evil thing anyone might be implying. It's perfectly fine if landlords rent out land and get fat off the land. Why? Because they don't just strip out the rent and cash out of the game, they plough money back into the game in the form of buying on the auction in Lindens to have the land to rent, buying houses and other supplies to maintain rentals. Even if they cash out, what of it, they provide the cash that those very basic account holders then buy. It keeps the cycle of the economy going.

As we've seen, landlords will never get TOO fat because the Lindens constantly produce new land and people constantly wish to buy land, not rent it. But let them alone, if they grow and prosper they only benefit the entire game because they help others to grow and prosper. They don't skim off money and land from the econony, exploit it, and gain only themselves (that's the scarcity ideology thinking that way), they add value, they enrich others, they enable others to save, they provide new business to other sectors like architecture.

When you create conditions for land owners and land dealers to prosper, you help the entire economy. It is keeping them in a cramped, right-less, arid space that causes the economy to stumble and not grow. You cannot have an economy only made up of content creations.

Indeed, you are right you can never look at some little static piece of the economic machinery and conclude that somebody is evil and somebody is up to no good. There are just too many correctives coming in from the Lindens, for one, and there is just too much benefit to be had by having a free land-based economy. Singling out this or that class or sector as the evil-of-the-day is senseless -- the self-interest of each sector is what drives the economy.

The idea that we have to worry about social justice type of regulation and other prudent regulations in *this* economy just isn't applicable given that we already have an economy heavily controlled by the "federal government* with all those issues in mind . If anything, we need to do more to free the economy.

It doesn't make sense to put basic accounts back to holding land; that's what premium accounts are for. It's useful to make the distinction. What's the distinction then if a basic gets a 512 and has a $9.95 "for life" or "per year" cost? All you've done is put something more free into that account and made the loss-leader greater. The premium account already has a discount for a year-long purchase bringing it down to $6.00 or so, so that's fine the way it is.



Many people aren't going to want to risk having something that is annual but costs more. And if they want the basic 512 tier, they get the premium and annualize it.



It's all about the ideology you use to analyse the economy.