A sizable group of Second Life residents (more than 1300 as of this writing, although there is some doubt as to the authenticity of the signatures) has signed an open letter to Linden Lab, to highlight five concerns related to the infrastructure of the virtual world:
* Inventory loss - this is a devastating problem that is worsening. We have no ability to protect our own inventories through backups, and are trusting you to protect that data. This is the highest priority. Sensible inventory limits (on non-verified accounts only), combined with better management tools and ways to protect our inventory ourselves would help to mitigate the problem as well. Regardless, this cannot continue - we will not accept financial loss as a feature of Second Life. It is your responsibility as service provider to ensure our data is not lost, and you are failing us.
* Problems with Find and Friends List - we continue to see search outages on a far too regular basis. It is bad enough trying to get anywhere without being able to use search, but many users are also paying money for classified ads. Our friends lists just do not work reliably any longer, after years without an issue with them. If America Online/MSN/Yahoo can provide presence information for hundreds of millions of users, surely there is a way to make our friends lists work again.
* Grid stability and performance - teleports fail quite regularly, especially under heavy load. Attachments end up in places they did not start out in, and sim performance varies wildly. None of this makes for a very pleasant experience for users. Long promised improvement to physics and scripting would help dramatically to reduce these problems, but there are a lot of other scalability issues as well. It often feels like the grid is coming apart at the seams. The promised use of limiting logins of non-verified accounts during peak load has been severely lacking. This would be an effective interim solution to load issues, but Linden Lab seems unwilling to use it.
* Build tool problems - the importance of build tools that actually work as promised cannot be overstated enough - we rely on them to create content. Prim drift, disappearing prims, imprecise placement, problems with linking and other issues with the tools need to be addressed. Too much time is being spent trying to work around the problems.
* Transaction problems - inventory deliveries are failing with an alarming (and annoying) frequency, leaving merchants with the burden of replacing missing content and having to try to confim the transaction in the first place. We trust that our L$ balances are accurate, but given recent problems, that is a cause for concern as well, and one we place our full trust in you to ensure its accuracy.
The letter demands that Linden Lab put off new feature rollouts until these issues have been addressed, but doesn't specify what action the group will take should LL not comply. It doesn't seem that these users can do much, beyond organizing more protests -- many have invested a great deal of time and effort in SL, and I don't think they would be willing to abandon the virtual world.
So far, Linden has not responded on the official SL blog.
I signed it in a show of support, though I don't fully agree with it. I do agree that LL needs to work on stability and scaling though.
I am one of those starry-eyed believers in the potential of Second Life in particular and the 3D Metaverse concept in general, and I think that if LL truly wants Second Life to become the ubiquitous 3D web they've been evangelizing, they need to start climbing all over the horrendously painful scalability issues they are experiencing.
Posted by: RobbyRacoon Olmstead | May 01, 2007 at 00:14
I didn't sign it, because I felt it was poorly coordinated (my signature was faked and I had to ask for it to be removed) and also because it put forth an idea that I find indefensible as a solution: that unverified accounts, i.e. free accounts that don't leave payment information, should be restricted as to inventory and log-ons.
I also find it fairly hypocritical that the same core people who drafted and pitched this letter are the ones who clamoured for, and got, features like "hide my status on line" which are huge drags on the databse, and professional-use camera and prim features for the content-making class, which isn't something 90 percent of the residents can use.
The signatures reached at least 1,500 and may continue. Linden Lab did respond, but in the usual bureaucratic way, telling everybody to read the newly-improved Knowledge Base (!) and come to their inworld office hours:
http://blog.secondlife.com/2007/04/30/project-open-letter/
also evident here is a dreadful confirmation of a really awful system they have had which is "vote only yes, and have no no vote".
This is now institutionalized and they are migrating proposals from the old feature voting tools to this new, even more culty JIRA tool.
When I tried to make a proposal that there should be "no" votes too, not just this endless fake happy positive "yessing" and "crowdwisdoming" (bleh), I was told that it "wasn't possible on JIRA itself" and I had to write to JIRA.
So I did. There, I found the same culty stuff that I find in a lot of geekworld, which is truly scary: no willingess to allow no votes, like the Soviet Union.
I was told by the JIRA geeks that in order to have a "no" vote in their software used by LL, I'd have to mount a proposal on their forums and gather "yes" votes for it. My God, this is awful stuff.
I call the folks who launched this open letter "limousine liberals," as they show up to protest only when really affected personally by some little thing (this particular round was caused by one prominent machinima maker losing her inventory, something that LL restored nearly completely, a fact now little noticed or credited by the protestors).
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | May 01, 2007 at 04:14
thank you very very nuch thank you very very nıce...
Posted by: evden eve nakliye | May 01, 2007 at 04:40
Shocking as it may seem, i find myself agreeing with Prok for a change, one on issue of those at least.
If you're going to have votes, you should really have against-votes as well as for-votes. If you're only going to show the positives, you might as well scrub the whole thing and go for honest fascism like everyone else.
The result is the same (and something that players usually value, i wouldn't know about "Residents" even though having once downloaded the client, i apparently am one), it just cuts out the bullshit.
Posted by: Rich Bryant | May 01, 2007 at 04:46
"...we will not accept financial loss as a feature of Second Life.."
Maybe Linden Labs should reply that they will not accept financial GAINS as a feature of Second Life.
But then the entire virtual pyramid scheme would come crashing down, wouldn't it.
Posted by: Thomas | May 01, 2007 at 07:35
I’d agree with Prok too, on the voting element. In a closely coupled system like a virtual world, on person’s fix can be another person’s nerf. So its pretty vital that any system modification provides space for cons as well as pros.
JIRA’s assumptions seems to hark back to a previous age of business systems design. That was when a big design objective was to make system features as loosely coupled as possible. So fixes to one feature didn’t cascade through the system. It’s a bit disturbing that Linden haven’t noticed this isn’t appropriate for something as interconnected as Second Life. I wonder if this error explains some of the stability issues?
Posted by: Hellinar | May 01, 2007 at 08:00
I find it interesting that no one actually understands that the system is not a "Yes" and "No" system, but rather one of interest. You know, how many people find the proposed feature interesting enough to implement?
Posted by: Reality | May 01, 2007 at 08:10
RobbyRacoon said:
Thanks for your comment, Robby. I am a great believer in the long-term potential of virtual worlds, but I am skeptical about Second Life. It's not just the creaky infrastructure, which requires a massive and expensive upgrade, but also the confused mission of this virtual world, and Linden Lab's attempts to appeal to a widely disparate population of users who have different needs. Even if Linden were able to tackle the infrastructure and stability problems, it would still have to deal with mission-related issues.
However, I don't believe Linden has to worry about residents abandoning ship. Where would they go? There isn't much in the way of competing non-gaming worlds for users to switch to, and even if there were, their characters and objects would likely be non-transferable.
Posted by: Ian Lamont | May 01, 2007 at 08:19
The "if they left, where would they go?" and "they have too much invested to leave" thing is interesting/revealing in itself.
Which is the stronger point: is there no real competition to SL? Or is it just that people have invested time (and money)in SL and don't want to start over? -Or are they both serious issues in themselves?
Posted by: Tripp | May 01, 2007 at 10:29
"I find it interesting that no one actually understands that the system is not a "Yes" and "No" system, but rather one of interest. You know, how many people find the proposed feature interesting enough to implement?"
Close but no cigar. Consider that people may have a negative 'interest'. For example the "...features like "hide my status on line" which are huge drags on the databse..." It's silly to only consider the interested (yes) votes without having an option for those who actively don't want something.
Posted by: JuJutsu | May 01, 2007 at 10:35
Ian: "...I don't believe Linden has to worry about residents abandoning ship. Where would they go?"
The blue room?
Posted by: Trevor F. Smith | May 01, 2007 at 10:39
Ian: "Where would they go?"
Surely there must be another 3D chat room that features porn, child play, and gambling. If not, talk about a market waiting to be exploited.
Posted by: thoreau | May 01, 2007 at 11:18
From, Mr. Ondrejka on January 8, 2007, regarding predictions for 2007.
2) Second Life’s peak concurrency, currently at 25,000, will reach 150,000
Could it be that the software design and architecture are approaching the "Full Monty" anti-pattern?
150K concurrent transactional user systems are rare even in finance and telecom, where allocating $25m to the database layer alone is not unheard of. And those systems generally have lightweight client requirements; these days mostly just HTTP processed through app server layers. They also usually employ middleware transaction layers like TIBCO or MQ.
Adding physics and streaming graphics to that is a herculean task. At least if "transactional integrity" is a design goal. Apparently, it may not be.
What do you think the response would be if your electronic assets vaporized in a banking, trading or network management system? Aren't L$ and those things purchased with them supposedly "virtual assets"? Quite an undertaking, to say the least. I'm not sure I'd have set a milestone of 150K concurrent users, to be delivered now in less than 7 months. I'm kinda conservative on such things, so I'd have instead opted for "stabilizing the system at the existing peak of ~30K".
Posted by: randolfe_ | May 01, 2007 at 12:42
A tiny answer from V.L. :
" ...i'm drunk today ( or was it yesterday ?! ) so i feel friendly enough to tell you this : i am not providing a service to you , i created a world , so please feel free to sue god. Responsibility is what you can enforce , not what you hope or wish.You have problems in game ?! Excellent , that mean you're busy ,immersed and interested in continuing your second life;dont forget to pay the fees.As for the other issues , are not issues but features . MSN/Yahoo & comp ....you know, we don't get that money from CIA , yet, nor from any other real big marketing corp. either. Have fun in game and a nice day .Oh and i've almost forgot : you could setup a conference , in game ofcourse , where to debate if i'm fascist, communist , capitalist, plain scamer or anything else ;i'd love to see a revolution too . Jeez, now i have to call my dev-team , bye . Thank you very much, you really made my day . "
Posted by: Amarilla | May 01, 2007 at 13:08
"Close but no cigar. Consider that people may have a negative 'interest'. For example the "...features like "hide my status on line" which are huge drags on the databse..." It's silly to only consider the interested (yes) votes without having an option for those who actively don't want something."
Nope. Please try again. consider that the way the system works is the same way services like AOL, Yahoo and MSN operate: They frankly do not care who is not interested in a feature. Do you know why?
It's counterproductive. See, they understand a rather simple thing: The entire user base is never going to agree on what features they want to see in their programs.
Their solution? find out how many people actually want a specific feature. Those that do not place a vote in for the feature are already counted as not wanting it or not caring.
Either way, that is how the system works. The old feature voting system added a twist to this by allowing you to place more than one vote for a feature, showing just how much you want that feature.
See how simple it is?
Posted by: Reality | May 01, 2007 at 13:35
I also find it fairly hypocritical that the same core people who drafted and pitched this letter are the ones who clamoured for, and got, features like "hide my status on line" which are huge drags on the databse
This makes no sense. Of all the data that a game like Second Life should have to store and view, this should be less than negligable.
In a closely coupled system like a virtual world, on person’s fix can be another person’s nerf.
This makes less sense, at least to me. The changes requested are: stability, database integrity, transaction integrity, and unusable social tools. Who, precisely, is going to vote against that? I don't fully understand whose being nerfed here.
Posted by: Damion Schubert | May 01, 2007 at 14:56
@Reality: A simple “do you want this?” is fine for simple systems. Once you get to complex systems, where a positive feature on one area can have negative effects elsewhere, you need to start asking “will this be bad for you?”.
@Damion: Sure, no-one votes against system stability etc. But systems go unstable when developer A adds a nice bit of reinforcement to the system in his area, not realizing the weight of it is going to crush a vital component is developer B’s area. If JIRA is being used for change evaluation, it should focus as much on the downsides of a change as the upsides. A least in the more complex, interconnected parts of the system.
A good system designer asks “Why shouldn’t I do this?” as much as “Why should I do this?”. A tool to control change should do the same. Maybe for marketing purposes you want to initially focus on what customers say they want. But before implementation, in something as complex as a VW, someone should be focussed on the negatives too.
Posted by: Hellinar | May 01, 2007 at 15:48
Tripp, you raise a good question. IMO both the lack of competition and the amount of time/effort/money residents have invested in SL will limit the chances of residents from voting with their feet.
Here's another way of looking at the situation: Comparing frustration with SL to frustration with operating systems, and the options that users have to switch. Customers who dislike performance in their Windows environments can switch to Macs, or Linux boxes, and maybe even port most of their data and files over, not to mention stay in contact (via IM, email, etc.) with their friends who are still using Windows. But many still put up with Windows because certain software (such as games or business apps) or functionality (such as support for peripherals that require drivers) are not available in the competing products.
Virtual worlds are far more proprietary. If Second Life is the Windows of virtual worlds, I am not sure what the Mac and Linux equivalents would be (maybe someone else on TN can help with some examples?) but the possibility of importing/exporting characters and objects between them would be extremely limited (see the Eightbar blog and 3pointD for more information). Giving up residency in SL would effectively mean giving up one's character, objects, and social and business networks. Rebuilding somewhere else is possible, but it would be difficult and many aspects of the SL experience would be impossible to recreate.
A question to ask the folks who signed the letter: What is your "or else" position? Is giving up SL for another virtual world an option?
Posted by: Ian Lamont | May 01, 2007 at 17:03
I find it interesting that no one actually understands that the system is not a "Yes" and "No" system, but rather one of interest. You know, how many people find the proposed feature interesting enough to implement?
No, Reality, that's just your individual/tribal take on it.
In a society, which this is, not a software development team, which it isn't (or only in very tiny part that), people VOTE on things. You know, like "Proposition X" with things like "Resolved: should city hall balance the budget by cutting hospital costs?" and people vote NO or YES. Because they are in the society, participating on that society's features, if you will.
The meme that this is somehow like a dev team's board where people show "interest" is silly, because people are discovering BUGS for one, not "showing interest" and also proposing FEATURES.
Both features and bugs are very political things. Who gets to have what bug fixed and which feature made are very, very political in a world like SL where it isn't just making the software, but whether there
That is, in Second Life, unlike "the Internet" or "my job" or "this open source project," you are *living inside it, looking at it in 3-d in the round from the inside out, it affects you.*
So if people say "oh, let's all have hide my status online" then some will say, no, that's going to take time away, and dbase space away, from other things.
The societies really ARE built on scarcity. This eludes many who think that there is endless rolling out of land and copying of everything in these worlds. They are forgetting that dev time and FPS and prim and avatar space -- these are all finite, cost money or time or both, and therefore are in short supply so that warring groups compete over them.
Of course, the dev types operate under an illusion that they are all in this one big IRC channel happy collective "all on the same page" all "thinking right" or "doing it what we like to call the right way". But in fact, there are many other competing groups inside the world, who don't see it as they do, and who don't find it fascinating to change the look of the sun or add weather (residents have made scripts for weather like clouds and rains which aren't in big demand, so the devs waiting time on this is just insane).
Therefore, for one, it's completely unjustified to take what is essentially the democratic expression tool of the society and turn it into a complicated tekkie and geeky "bug" report on JIRA, which is terribly offputting (and that may have been the idea) and it's also completely nuts to force this yessing and plussing in this Orwelling double-plus good nonsense.
Example: Someone proposals there should be voice in SL. Well, guess what! Such a proposal only got like 80 votes. But...the Lindens are putting it in anyway. And here, it would be helpful if everyone else had a *real* voice where they could put these 1,500 votes of protest, say, into a feature like that, and say, no, we don't want voice.
That means when the company goes and puts it in anyway, they realize they have no support, and actually have a lot of static.
Instead, every time we raise this, Cory Linden or other Lindens invoke the doctrine of "crowd wisdom" and also say they fear the voter "will get spammed". As if...it isn't spammed by yes votes by various flash mobs of fanboyz?! As if it doesn't then as a result of the idiocy of no "no" have multiple competing proposals, all of which sap votes away from each other?
Feedback is the one essential ingredient in an open society, and that has been deliberately suppressed in SL. Even if it were only a Lab making software with the world as an incidental byproduct, you'd think they would not want to cut themselves off from valuable feedback. They are trying to socially-engineer and Skinnerize the feedback into channels they find acceptable like "yes votes" or "the blog, where you can make one adulatory comment to get noticed" or "my office hours, where you have to spend 15 minutes doing fanboyz prostrations to my wonderfulness".
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | May 02, 2007 at 03:21
Prokofy, it's a computer program, not a 'society' not a 'world - it is a program and no amount of blustering otherwise will change that fact, ever.
No one 'lives inside' Second Life, such is literally impossible at this time. You can imagine that what you see on the screen is real and is alive but the fact of the matter is - it is not.
I realize you are incapable of facing this glaring truth Prokofy, but second Life is what it is - a program. I know it is very hard to comprehend such a thing but really you do not need to comprehend it.
Kindly go back to your business of renting out server space for others to use in parking their digital avatars, there is nothing 'political' here, no grand cause for you to champion.
There is only what is. The current facts sustain that Second Life is a computer program, despite subjective opinions to the contrary.
Posted by: Reality | May 02, 2007 at 04:38
So, there are infrastructure problems and improvements needs , but we march for free accounts. Well done.
Posted by: Amarilla | May 02, 2007 at 08:14
Prokofy has a point about the problems with an opt-in system of voting where non-participation is viewed as a default voting position, and there is no alternative voting option (ie, "no", "option B", "none of these"). In such a system there is a very strong built-in bias. Also, in such a system, it is too possible to engineer the outcomes, which is what I suspect is probably happening.
But I think Prokofy is ascribing attributes to Second Life that it has neither earned nor does it deserve. In reality, SL is a software project. It is a product. It is a means of producing future cash flows for the sole and exclusive benefit of the shareholders of LL. Everything else, no matter how warm, fuzzy, contentious, or ideological can be reduced to PR supporting profits.
That may be an uncomfortable epiphany for many true believers, fanbois, and honest advocates, but the critical flaw in the Second-Life-as-Metaverse meme is that it is not synonymous with the mechanisms that brought us the current internet and web infrastructures. I continually get the feeling that many are hoping or believing Linden Research's board of directors will someday happily say "here ya go" and hand over the keys to the kingdom, after which a thousand flowers will bloom. To this I say quatsch.
Nothing except the vote of a handful of VCs with board seats, who are beholden to their fund cycle and limited partners not the starry eyed, self modeled metaverse futurists, is preventing Linden from shifting their business model without regard to the current crop of virtual oligarchs and serfs. Today it's an artisan workers' camp utopia. Tomorrow it could be a strictly controlled storefront for the Gap and Macy's, operated with a specific commercial intent. And there's nothing any current day players could do, voting or not voting (or no voting no).
As to where do the current Second Lifers go, if they choose to or are forced to walk? I think by the time that question becomes more immediate, there will be more than a few viable alternatives. There probably won't be much reuse of code or specific designs, but the building and graphics knowledge will be transferable. The L$ won't be, but then again, I contend they never really were except in tiny pretend-play quantities anyway (for all but about 20 people, less than 9 if you believe Anshe "earns" $1mUSD per year in profits, as I keep reading even today in the straggler media).
Posted by: randolfe_ | May 02, 2007 at 12:39
@Reality: I'd agree that at one level, SL can be described as a collection of programs. But do you really see that as the True Description that makes all others false? That sounds more like an act of religious faith than analysis to me.
No matter how much bolding you do, I'd continue to believe other descriptions of SL have some truth to them. And all are, in some respects, "real".
Posted by: Hellinar | May 02, 2007 at 15:12
Hellinar, what I posted in response to Prokofy is based on current facts and evidence, not subjective opinion.
It is fine to view Second Life - on a personal level - as something more than what it is. To turn around and claim a subjective opinion is absolute truth is another matter and should be countered.
I have no problem with those who say "To me Second Life is ..." I do however have a problem with those who take that same subjective opinion and present it as an all encompassing absolute truth.
Posted by: Reality | May 02, 2007 at 15:21
Hellinar, Superman does not exist. At the higher level of description, SL is a business based on a collection of software. But ofcourse, you may have fun discussing in an Arts tabloid ,or a fanbois forum, about how Superman killed King Kong in a such a distastefull or undemocratically way. And yes, all other descriptions are basically false. Or , as you said , they have " some truth " and are " in some respects,'real' ".
You remember me of some old assertions , when a dude tried to tell me : "....Amarilla ,you-or anybody else-couldn't ever demonstrate the un-existence of a thing or the impossibility of a fact or status ...i.e. you cannot demonstrate the impossibility of being in two different places at the same time ". My answer was : i'm right now right here having my cat on my arms, and if there's another Amarilla with a Kitty on her arms in the other room, i'm very sure she's not me and that's not my cat. So, that sort of partially-truths and that sort of fantasies and sofism are wrong methods of analisis . Some facts and truths are so powerfull and persistent and influential that yes i can take them as Absolute True Descriptions making the others just sub-species and subordinated partialities. All these other descriptions must not and should not ignore the Absolute Truth of the very reality.All them can do is to describe aspects of the truth. And btw, Second Amarilla , you may kill that cat and you may kill yourself too , or ask or let LL to do that for you ; i'll have a nice funny discussion about that , in a fanbois forum. But at TN i'm interested in discussions about games-industry, design, trends , concepts , laws ,doctrines and the alike. I cry for Desdemona and i have a good healthy laugh in the hall about her bad taste dressing. Not to mention that the actress was fat.And the ticket was a bit expensive.
Posted by: Amarilla | May 02, 2007 at 17:26
@Amarilla
I don't think SL is a bank. If it is, then they are in violation of myriad US laws, state laws, and a number of international "laws".
I disagree with your definition of "currency". There is a specific, well agreed upon definition of "money" and "currency" in the economic literature. What you're falling into is the "fiat money isn't real" trap, which is often used by goldbugs (wiki it to learn about goldbugs) to scare people into abandoning paper money and buy gold. I've long railed against goldbugs and other conspiracy theories about fiat money.
All fiat means is "the currency is valuable because you have a reasonable expectation that *everyone* else (everyone being all but a few cranks) will also consider it valuable". The L$ fails on that front. Many people, myself included, either do not believe it is valuable or aren't even aware of it, and will not accept it for payment.
Further, the L$ has no value independent of its convertibility. If the Euro, Yen and Pound all went away tomorrow, the USD would still have the same (with some technical adjustments) value within the US. With it the US economy would continue to function. By contrast if suddenly you could no longer exchange L$ to/from any real currency, the value would become undefined, and over time, effectively worthless. This is because the RMT mechanism that feeds the zero-sum economy that is Second Life would become disconnected, rendering the "economy" (which is really a marketplace) purely fictional. At this point it would be no different than a big game of Monopoly, with the money being just play money. Fun to win and have a big fat stack, but not *worth* anything outside of the context of the fictional game.
This is from " Calling in the FBI ". Randolfe wrote it, and that thread is closed. I use his post and my further answer to that particuliar post in an attempt to make a point about how the makers/promoters use to twist between fiction and reality . Heeeeere it comes :
I dont think Al Capone was a burglar; if it were , then he would be in violation of myriad laws. I dont sell nor buy gold. The $L are exactely on that front : many ppls, myself included , i dont believe the yuan is valuable and i know a lot of ppls wich aren't even aware of it. But the yuan does exist and a lot of ppls value it , and the yuan is connected with the $ like the $L is. Further, the $L have value, because the $L is convertible and it is officially related to the $US. It is not independent , and if the Pounds/Euros goes away tomorrow, the $US and the $L continue to exist and to have convertibility one to the other.If the $L goes away too , then only the $US left. And ?! By similarity, if you nuke the UK , you could no longer excange the Pounds to any other real currency.Until then,you can use the $L for everything wich makes the Pound valuable. This is because the RMT is a real phenomenom ,a fact of life , and the SL is not a zero-sum economy. And the $US have no value independent of its converibility into goods, products, services,work, time,fun, and so on, either. At this very real point and momment, no matter what SL claims to be/not be , it is a place where the players make/lose $US and other values , and LL is making profit acting like many things including like a bank.
Lovely to see how some ppls like to label/define their activity and position , once inside the magic circle and then outside of it , just as the situation fits .
Posted by: Amarilla | May 02, 2007 at 21:04
Huh?
Posted by: randolfe_ | May 02, 2007 at 23:31
The letter demands that Linden Lab put off new feature rollouts until these issues have been addressed, but doesn't specify what action the group will take should LL not comply. It doesn't seem that these users can do much, beyond organizing more protests -- many have invested a great deal of time and effort in SL, and I don't think they would be willing to abandon the virtual world.
From what I've heard, I think the people orginizing the letter mean to use the press to put preasure on Linden Lab, not the most desirable thing if they're trying to attract big corporate customers.
I did not sign...one, because I've been out of SL for months, for reasons completely unrelated to Second Life or Linden Lab and entirely related to my personal life and broken computer. Two, I think the complaints are valid and need addressing, but the proposed solutions are not sound. (I'm also particuarly biased in the wake of the most recent feature anouncement which equates to 'import 3d opjects into the world' and don't want to see it killed.)
Posted by: Elle Pollack | May 03, 2007 at 01:34
@randolfe "The L$ won't be, but then again, I contend they never really were except in tiny pretend-play quantities anyway (for all but about 20 people, less than 9 if you believe Anshe "earns" $1mUSD per year in profits, as I keep reading even today in the straggler media)."
I think your definition of pretend-play is a lot higher than mine. I *personally* know at least six people who could live off SL income alone. And I don't get out much. With myself included, that makes seven. I doubt very much that there are only 13 more people in SL managing that. Perhaps your definition of "pretend-play" also includes "enough to pay your house, your bills and clothe and feed your family in comfort every month", I don't know. You'd have to elaborate.
Posted by: Ace Albion | May 03, 2007 at 07:06
Reality, true, Second life is a computer software first and foremost, but it is a software that facilitates human interaction. It creates a textual/virtual world in which its users can mirror the activities of the real world. So technically it somewhat emulates the problems that real societies have, the problems its users encounter with other users, the problems its users have with their governments (LL in this case). There are people who exclusively rely on SL for their income (not that I would condone this as it is a fairly unstable platform at the moment).
More importantly, half of Second Life is outside the boundaries of the world itself. Its users interact in various blogs, forums, IRC chatrooms. These spaces are totally outside of the confines of SL. So I am not sure that SL is merely a program.
Posted by: Burcu | May 03, 2007 at 08:17
Burcu, the external content created for use by those who have Second Life accounts aren't a part of second Life itself, not in the sense of being a part of the program.
That is another issue in and of itself, not at all related to Second Life being a program, or for that matter anything other than a 3D AOL/AIM/YIM/MSN/etc.
In fact it was much easier for people to realize and understand what all those other services were because they lacked that 3D element. second Life blurs that line in the minds of many due to the graphical element ... a dangerous path to travel down. especially for those who barely have a hold on reality as it is, in fact it seems to attract far more of the crowd which had a difficult time with text as it was!
I'm a Role Player who came to second Life right out of the text only services .... I understand all too well the dangers of confusing what is on the screen for reality, I've seen too many people in text only services that honestly believed they were their character! some of them were so unstable that if an In character relationship failed .... they committed suicide.
I cannot begin to count how many times I had to terminate a story line because I discovered that the other player took In Character events far too seriously or thought they were their character. What really gives me pause and makes me counter arguments like Prokofy's is that I have seen signs of these same types of people in Second Life.
People like that need serious help to bring them back to the realm of reality ....before it is too late, sadly for some it is already too late.
Just so we are clear on something here though: content linked to yet not incorporated directly into a program except by external link or application is not really part of the program - it's bonus content or content designed to make things easier/offer a few more things to the users. On the day that it is all usable from within Second Life then yes - it can be counted. Second Life user name or not - external content is being accessed by the computer user. posts made to a web log are generally made by the typist using their second Life Name as an alias, though there are exceptions to this. A post made from the point of view of the Avatar itself is like a post made on a role Play only message board or blog.
Before I lose my train of thought (haven't had my morning coffee yet) I'll leave it there for now. I'll come back to this later.
Posted by: Reality | May 03, 2007 at 09:14
Just want to comment on another request in the letter of limiting non paid accounts to certain restrictions, (time and inventory). I'm a paid subscriber, however when I went shopping for a virtual island, one popular sales statement offered to me from Region owners was, "and you do not need a paid subscription to buy/lease this land". I'm referring to private regions of course and want to just remind folks that non-paid members of the SL Community actually pay tier fees each month to a region owner, thus bearing their financial commitment to game user vs. LL directly. I believe restricting these accounts would have a negative impact on the sales ability of private virtual land. Should you lose this group, who could abandon land and leave the game, many people would be left with tier fees owed to LL as before, but without the financial support of their sales. If LL were to comply with this request, would it result in virtual foreclosures? It would be tougher to petition LL and get this changed back again, I think, and a lot of work spent rebuilding what you already have.
Just a thought to ponder.
Posted by: Savannah | May 03, 2007 at 10:22
I *personally* know at least six people who could live off SL income alone.
I know, I know. I've heard this over and over. I don't know what your definition of "live off" is, but for most people "live off" means cash, net of expenses and taxes, available for consumption.
I ran an extensive analysis on Feb. numbers published by LL (and not published in the same detail again thereafter). I didn't publish these findings on my blog, because I got a bit sick of fanbois sending me email threats.
But here's a short breakdown, from Feb. 2007:
Linden claimed 211 people were making $2K-$5K PMLF. PMLF is "positive monthly L$ flow". Another 116 earn more than that. Not bad, but a far cry from the thousands earning thousands per month that the fanbois kept screaming about.
But what is PMLF? I translated that into the maximum NMDI (my own term, net monthly dollar income) that anyone of these folks could actually be earning. I did this by simply applying the minimum conceivable expenses, taxes, and opportunity cost. I measured opportunity costs a couple of ways, one which compared to "making a living", ie. earning income a minimum wage in the real world. The other simply assumed you didn't play SL at all and instead put the money you pay in for expenses into a CD.
Anyway, the kindest analysis showed those 211 only earn about $598 per month, net. The other 116 earn over $10K per month.
So 116 are earning enough actual dollars to "live off" of.
But if you take those 116 and say 1 of them is earning NMDI of $83,333 per month -- earning a million a year as the media keeps telling me -- then that crowds everyone else out enough to only leave room for another dozen to be earning those $10K/mo.
Of course, we all know Anshe isn't "earning" $1mUSD gross or net per year. Her theoretical value of her holdings are maybe $1mUSD. So i was just using this as an example of how ludicrously uncoupled the SL myopic have become from objectified reality.
Posted by: randolfe_ | May 03, 2007 at 11:59
The word being : " Linden CLAIMED ". Nobody except Linden have the facts for an analysis of this sort. And you dont know what sort of financial agreement Anshe have with LL for advertising purposes. So , any analysis about SL/LL can be based only and only on the known facts : the EULA/TOS, the LL's attitude toward its customers and , the more important , the players' attitudes and acts.
Posted by: Amarilla | May 03, 2007 at 14:25
@randolfe : "But what is PMLF? I translated that into the maximum NMDI (my own term, net monthly dollar income) that anyone of these folks could actually be earning. I did this by simply applying the minimum conceivable expenses, taxes, and opportunity cost. I measured opportunity costs a couple of ways, one which compared to "making a living", ie. earning income a minimum wage in the real world. The other simply assumed you didn't play SL at all and instead put the money you pay in for expenses into a CD."
Now i translate that into the minimum STFU ( my own term, Sober The Fears United ): how the Fears can you actually know anything about anything about "...anyone of these folks ", their expenses ,taxes , opportunity costs and CDs , minimum wage and the real world , anyways ?!
So i was just using this as an example of how ludicrously uncoupled the SL myopic have become from objectified reality.
Posted by: Amarilla | May 03, 2007 at 16:23
How do I know tax rates, CD rates, minimum wages, and expenses? Are you kidding me?
I think I've wasted enough time being distracted by your incoherent comments. Welcome to my RSS-reader filter.
Posted by: randolfe_ | May 03, 2007 at 16:45
@Elle : "..From what I've heard, I think the people orginizing the letter mean to use the press to put preasure on Linden Lab, not the most desirable thing if they're trying to attract big corporate customers."
Ofcourse, why would we call the press or the police and risk the promised next big opportunity ?! Better let keep the dirty laundring in the family and better let keep it dirty , LL will take care of us as always before.
@Savannah : the business model you describe is :
The Theater have 100 seats , this limitation is imposed by the building's dimmensions and owner's capital.
a Theater ticket costs $1 , wich 1$ covers the owner's expenses/seat + the owner's profits . And the owner decide : let make the ticket $2 and let more 50 customers over the Theater's capacity enter and occupy seats for free ; these 50 freelancers will sell chips and Cola for $10/piece and will pay a fee to us for their commerce .And we supply the chips and Cola. And the Theater will look very populated and active.It will become a bit dirty and noisy , but the Theater is interactive and the paying customers have to eat and to drink and they already have too much to lose if they quit;especially if we implement this 30 minutes after the show already begun.
Posted by: Amarilla | May 03, 2007 at 17:00
randolfe , ask to your RSS-reader filter to tell us : how many players are in SL ? how many hours/day each of them play ? in wich countries does each of them live ? what are the expenses and the wages in those countries, for each of the players ? how much is my cost/hour of play ? how much does Linden pays me ? does Linden pays me with USD, with $L or with a combo ? And present us the verifiable facts.
Posted by: Amarilla | May 03, 2007 at 17:08
@Amarilla
As this is the last time I'll see your posts, I'll answer this question.
1. I know how many hours per day each play as an aggregation because Linden told me (and everyone else).
2. I know the countries in which each live because Linden told me (and everyone else).
3. I know the minimum wages in the countries constituting most players because they are published by their governments.
4. I don't care what your cost/hour to play is because I don't compute that as a direct opportunity cost or expense.
5. I know the minimum expenses you must pay to turn L$ into any other currency because Linden tells me (and everyone else) on the LindeX site.
6. If Linden pays you directly in hard currency then you aren't earning PMLF, by definition. Thus the "L" in "PMLF".
You may proceed to verify every one of those facts. I don't care if you do or don't because I'll never know. Best wishes.
--R
Posted by: randolfe_ | May 03, 2007 at 19:07
because Linden told me (and everyone else).
4. I don't care what your cost/hour to play is because I don't compute that as a direct opportunity cost or expense.
This was your answer to the thousand, million or billion players involved in SL. You actually know nothing, unless you are a high rank LL staff member. You dont tell me facts and numbers, you tell me the biased propaganda posted on LL's site frontpage. You dont have access to any relevant information wich would allowe you to make an credible analysis . If you have access to those numbers and facts, in that case your analysis is not credible anymore , until you prove the reality of your dates. Or maybe i should take your statements just like that , by word, because Linden told you ?!
Posted by: Amarilla | May 03, 2007 at 19:46
And to make it very easy for you to prove you're right and i'm wrong, tell me : how many Latvians are playing SL, what are each individual's expenses and how many US dollars each of them makes/month from playing SL ? Dude, dont forget to tell me how i can verify your " database ".
Oh, but i forgot : you dont read my posts anymore...
Posted by: Amarilla | May 03, 2007 at 19:54
@randolfe, something coherent for you :randolfe_ says:
How do I know tax rates, CD rates, minimum wages, and expenses? Are you kidding me?
I think I've wasted enough time being distracted by your incoherent comments. Welcome to my RSS-reader filter.
Now i translate that into the minimum STFU ( my own term, Sober The Fears United ): how the Fears can you actually know anything about anything about "...anyone of these folks ", their expenses ..."
The coherence is : is about THESE folks playing SL , about THEIR expenses. Until you can ID THESE FOLKS and until you prove your database to be true , you cannot claim " i measured ", "i analysed " , and you cannot sell your prtended conclusions : because you analysed CLAIMED numbers of FANTASY NOTION AS THE RESIDENT IS and you want us to believe your conclusions as about PLAYERS. There is something sick and pervers in your rationale.Your discourse is telling a lot more about LL , than your " analysis ".
Posted by: Amarilla | May 03, 2007 at 21:19
100% Free Sex Porn XXX Links Movies and Picture Galleries:
http://un-secret.com/main.html
Posted by: Larik | Jul 03, 2007 at 22:09