Second Life goes mobile!

[Jo Yardley]

There is sex in SL?!

 

[Jo Yardley]

---

Sassy Romano wrote:

 

The OnLive platform doesn't deliver 200 fps either.

 

---

 

The developers at OnLive have managed to get 200 fps on a private island in SL/

[Wooja]

---

Jo Yardley wrote:

---

Sassy Romano wrote:

 

The OnLive platform doesn't deliver 200 fps either.

 

---

 

The developers at OnLive have managed to get 200 fps on a private island in SL/

---

This hollow bragging is usually labelled "benchmarketing".

Wooja...trustausedcarsalesmansword

[Dillon Levenque]

---

Deej Kasshiki wrote:

I kind of doubt that this so-called "new generation", who are more casual gamers accustomed to F2P or $2.99 apps, will be very gung ho to pony up an hourly fee to connect to a 10 year old virtual world with a questionable reputation. SL ain't Candy Crush.

I'd also remind you that OnLive has yet to prove that their concept has a viable market and has gone under once. If streaming PC games to low-powered mobile devices was such a big deal, why hasn't OnLive generated massive buzz? Where are the crowds clamoring for this service? Where are the tech gurus hyping this as the next paradigm shift? Where are the investors? Most of all, where are the

paying customers

?

Call me a member of the Geritol set all you like but, I know a bad idea when I see one and this is a bad idea. Just because people have been asking about SL on tablets and phones for a while doesn't suddenly and automatically make this a viable business.

---

 

I knew something was missing from the discussion but I could not remember what it was. Thank you for refreshing my memory (I need to increase my Geritol dosage, probably).

You're right. Without somebody talking about a paradigm shift it's as if nothing has even happened!

 

[Geddy Overlord]

$2.50/hr? 

 

1995 called. AOL want's their antiquated pricing structure back. 

[Sassy Romano]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

---

Sassy Romano wrote:

Although the same ones who are unwilling to invest in hardware are also probably as unlikely to see any reason to spend at an hourly rate to be in SL.

---

I don't see the connection between those two.

---

The connection is for the faction of users who say "I can't afford to upgrade my PC", they're probably the same group that won't be prepared to pay by the hour.  Other than that, as I said, it's just another service offering, same as chargeable WiFi connections are, you're not forced to use it, if you do, there's a cost involved and I don't disagree that some just don't need a powerful PC or to be logged in all the time but equally for those with minimal usage, they're probably also happy trundling along with a several year old PC with less than stellar graphics capabilities but can cope.

 

It will be interesting to know what the actual uptake is beyond the free beta.

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Sassy Romano wrote:

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

---

Sassy Romano wrote:

Although the same ones who are unwilling to invest in hardware are also probably as unlikely to see any reason to spend at an hourly rate to be in SL.

---

I don't see the connection between those two.

---

The connection is for the faction of users who say "I can't afford to upgrade my PC", they're probably the same group that won't be prepared to pay by the hour.

---

Yeah that's what I see ad the biggest flaw in the concept.

Bloke A: I can't afford a $300 laptop, only a $400 tablet. Should I also pay $2.50/hour for something I could pay $0 if I had the $300 laptop?

Bloke B: I paid $300 on a laptop, my SL is free.

On the NWN blog Hamlet notes this is aimed at existing users. If existing users are already able to log in to SL, a logical assumption given that they are... existing users... then why are they going to need it on a tablet?

On the other hand, if it was intended for new users, you go to the Google Play Store and see apps where you pay $0.99 to $9.95 and then you're done paying unless you buy in game things...

- Here you want them to get the app, then pay an MMO subscription fee of $2.50/hour, while other MMOs charge like $14.95/month... And in subscription MMOs I don't have to pay to get loot... I get all the content free as a part of my sub. So if thise thing doesn't come with a legalized verision of Copybot AND a free sim... why does it have a subscription fee?

(And obviously we can't have a legalized version of Copybot, even if LLs new TOS means they can do it now... it'd kill SL in a flash.)

 

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Deej Kasshiki wrote:

I kind of doubt that this so-called "new generation", who are more casual gamers accustomed to F2P or $2.99 apps, will be very gung ho to pony up an hourly fee to connect to a 10 year old virtual world with a questionable reputation. SL ain't Candy Crush.

I'd also remind you that OnLive has yet to prove that their concept has a viable market and has gone under once. If streaming PC games to low-powered mobile devices was such a big deal, why hasn't OnLive generated massive buzz? Where are the crowds clamoring for this service? Where are the tech gurus hyping this as the next paradigm shift? Where are the investors? Most of all, where are the

paying customers

?

Call me a member of the Geritol set all you like but, I know a bad idea when I see one and this is a bad idea. Just because people have been asking about SL on tablets and phones for a while doesn't suddenly and automatically make this a viable business.

---

I don't think it's bad per se.  I see nothing wrong with having it available.  There will probably be some people who will use it while they are away from their computers.

What I found was bad was touting it as the next BIG THING.

---

 

How exactly was this "touted" before the announcement? All I saw was a tweet (not even a blog post, mind you) from a blogger that was posted on these forums by a troll. I was excited because I thought it was going to be a different announcement about another project that I have reason to believe is coming soon and I was disappointed that it wasn't that, but I can't blame that on anyone involved with this particular announcement or the run-up to it.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Sassy Romano wrote:

The connection is for the faction of users who say "I can't afford to upgrade my PC", they're probably the same group that won't be prepared to pay by the hour.

---

But you overlook all the groups I mentioned. The people that aren't willing to pay for SL (by investing in hardware) obviously aren't in the target market. Given the fact we're talking about a company, not a charity institution, the devs expect to make a profit, or at the very least are willing to take a gamble on that. I'm pretty sure they weren't looking for customers that don't want to pay for anything.

I honestly don't think the market will be very large and I certainly won't be part of it. I'm just intrigued by the technology and its potential for the future. Imagine a SL without any whining about performance or questions about settings every day in the forums..oh wait, maybe that would be too boring:)

[Wolfee Yaffle]

I'm just going to continue using the Lumiya viewer for android. 1 time payment, free to use after. Pretty advanced for a mobile viewer. I recommend everyone else do the same. Don't waste your money.

[Cully Andel]

but I'm guessing that the vast majority of users (just read this thread) wont be using tablets to access Sl so no it's not. Point is we need this on the viewers we have - not on tablets

[Innula Zenovka]

Maybe this isn't really aimed at tablet users.   Perhaps the idea is to provide people who've not before tried SL with, for 20 minutes, at least, the experience of SL with some decent kit, and then, once they're hooked (if they're going to be) then they've got the option of paying so much an hour or updgrading their graphics card/whole PC sooner or later.

I can't be atypical of people in this forum, or at least people who've been here for while, in that I first discovered SL when I had a machine that really wasn't suitable, but I still had enough fun to realise that it would be worth my while, when next I needed to upgrade the machine, to get something with considerably better graphics and gaming capability.    Maybe this will provide a bit of an extra impulse to people to stick about and upgrade in that they will be able readily to experience how much more fun SL is on a suitable machine.

[Deej Kasshiki]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

---

Deej Kasshiki wrote:

I kind of doubt that this so-called "new generation", who are more casual gamers accustomed to F2P or $2.99 apps, will be very gung ho to pony up an hourly fee to connect to a 10 year old virtual world with a questionable reputation. SL ain't Candy Crush.

I'd also remind you that OnLive has yet to prove that their concept has a viable market and has gone under once. If streaming PC games to low-powered mobile devices was such a big deal, why hasn't OnLive generated massive buzz? Where are the crowds clamoring for this service? Where are the tech gurus hyping this as the next paradigm shift? Where are the investors? Most of all, where are the

paying customers

?

Call me a member of the Geritol set all you like but, I know a bad idea when I see one and this is a bad idea. Just because people have been asking about SL on tablets and phones for a while doesn't suddenly and automatically make this a viable business.

---

 

I knew something was missing from the discussion but I could not remember what it was. Thank you for refreshing my memory (I need to increase my Geritol dosage, probably).

You're right. Without somebody talking about a paradigm shift it's as if nothing has even happened!

 

---

Assuming you're being sarcastic you've ignored the other far more important points I made.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Cully Andel wrote:

but I'm guessing that the vast majority of users (just read this thread) wont be using tablets to access Sl so no it's not. Point is we need this on the viewers we have - not on tablets

---

So this might be a first step? Rome wasn't built in a day...

[Dillon Levenque]

Sorry if it seemed sarcastic; it was not intended as sarcasm. I was just enjoying your use of that overworked phrase in precisely the right context to be using it. I didn't ignore your points, in fact I agree with most of them. I'm not sure I'm ready to call it a 'bad idea' but I certainly don't think it has the makings of a sensation.

[Sassy Romano]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

But you overlook all the groups I mentioned. The people that aren't willing to pay for SL (by investing in hardware) obviously aren't in the target market. Given the fact we're talking about a company, not a charity institution, the devs expect to make a profit, or at the very least are willing to take a gamble on that. I'm pretty sure they weren't looking for customers that don't want to pay for anything.

 

---

I didn't intend to give that impression, I was only giving the example of those who won't pay.  I do agree that there is a potential customer base but I don't think it's who LL feels it might be.  I'm just not sure who the customer is or what that customer does if they're someone who only needs to log in infrequently for example.   I'd have thought that anyone with that little use wouldn't really care too much about the quality of the experience?  I don't know and I don't think LL does either.

Obviously they can't provide it free, I stated the same when the beta started, of which I was part of.  Lets wait and see how it pans out, i'm not wishing to appear negative about it.  As i've said, it's an access method, time will tell as to whether it's one that works out.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

I didn't want to give the impression that I didn't understand the connection between people not wanting to pay for one thing and not for another:) I know I litterally said it, just thought that was so obvious there might be more to it or something.

I simply thought of some scenarios where people might be interested in SLGo. I can think of more and I'm sure there are plenty I can't think of .The biggest potential market is somewhere I never expect it to be probably.

What I certainly hope is that people have a good first impression of SL, for themselves and for SL as a whole. Everybody knows the poor souls wandering around "how did I end up here", "why is everyone gray", "I can hardly walk" etc. A full experience without any hassle might help. Still, as I said, I'm curious where this technology is headed.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Deej Kasshiki wrote:

I kind of doubt that this so-called "new generation", who are more casual gamers accustomed to F2P or $2.99 apps, will be very gung ho to pony up an hourly fee to connect to a 10 year old virtual world with a questionable reputation. SL ain't Candy Crush.

I'd also remind you that OnLive has yet to prove that their concept has a viable market and has gone under once. If streaming PC games to low-powered mobile devices was such a big deal, why hasn't OnLive generated massive buzz? Where are the crowds clamoring for this service? Where are the tech gurus hyping this as the next paradigm shift? Where are the investors? Most of all, where are the

paying customers

?

Call me a member of the Geritol set all you like but, I know a bad idea when I see one and this is a bad idea. Just because people have been asking about SL on tablets and phones for a while doesn't suddenly and automatically make this a viable business.

---

I don't think it's bad per se.  I see nothing wrong with having it available.  There will probably be some people who will use it while they are away from their computers.

What I found was bad was touting it as the next BIG THING.

---

 

How exactly was this "touted" before the announcement? All I saw was a tweet (not even a blog post, mind you) from a blogger that was posted on these forums by a troll. I was excited because I thought it was going to be a different announcement about another project that I have reason to believe is coming soon and I was disappointed that it wasn't that, but I can't blame that on anyone involved with this particular announcement or the run-up to it.

---

I was referring specifically to Daniel at the bottom of the sea Voyager's premature blog post.

Then you have little facts like Jo couldn't even wait till they posted the official announcent to start this thread.  Notice the exclamation point in her header?

Mind you, I'm not against this. But it's very hard personally for me to get excited about it right now.

[Storm Clarence]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

I  was referring specifically to

Daniel at the bottom of the sea Voyager's

premature blog post.

---

Hey, what's your problem with Daniel? That's twice now, what's up? if you don't like him then don't read his blog post, but chill the ***bleep*** out.   This dude adds more value to the SL experience than 99.9% of these forum posters -- including you and me.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

I  was referring specifically to

Daniel at the bottom of the sea Voyager's

premature blog post.

---

Hey, what's your problem with Daniel? That's twice now, what's up? if you don't like him then don't read his blog post, but chill the ***bleep*** out.   This dude adds more value to the SL experience than 99.9% of these forum posters -- including you and me.

---

I know, I'm being mean.  I'll chill out.

[Czari Zenovka]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

---

Czari Zenovka wrote:

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

What's with the negativity here?

The possibility to run SL in high quality on very low specs.

Doesn't anyone see the bigger picture?

(I do not like the $3 an hour rate, but for people who spend 4 hours a week in SL on the weekend and have no other need for a $1500-$2000 machine, it's actually very reasonable.)

---

Ummmm...the PC I use to run SL cost me approximately $800 USD.

---

That PC won't run SL on ultra settings with 200 fps, will it?

Mine even doesn't (unless I'm on an empty platform), while it cost me EUR1500 excluding VAT. It's quite a bit faster than yours, especially the video card. That was one and a half years ago, but for a high end CPU you still pay ~$300 and a high end graphics card still costs $400 or more. I don't think you can buy a case, PS, motherboard, operating system, harddrive and all the small bits for the $100 that are left. You can wait for sales and get the number down a couple of 100 bucks, but that still leaves you without a monitor, keyboard and mouse.

Now if either of us wanted the same specs, but on a mobile device, the price would go up some more.

Anyway, the point wasn't the exact price for good hardware, it's the fact some people aren't willing to invest in hardware just to run SL.

---

Your point appeared to be that one needed to invest $1500-$2000 for a PC just to run SL for 4 hours a week.  THAT is what I was addressing, not how many fps a PC gets, which you later threw in.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Czari Zenovka wrote:

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

---

Czari Zenovka wrote:

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

What's with the negativity here?

The possibility to run SL in high quality on very low specs.

Doesn't anyone see the bigger picture?

(I do not like the $3 an hour rate, but for people who spend 4 hours a week in SL on the weekend and have no other need for a $1500-$2000 machine, it's actually very reasonable.)

---

Ummmm...the PC I use to run SL cost me approximately $800 USD.

---

That PC won't run SL on ultra settings with 200 fps, will it?

Mine even doesn't (unless I'm on an empty platform), while it cost me EUR1500 excluding VAT. It's quite a bit faster than yours, especially the video card. That was one and a half years ago, but for a high end CPU you still pay ~$300 and a high end graphics card still costs $400 or more. I don't think you can buy a case, PS, motherboard, operating system, harddrive and all the small bits for the $100 that are left. You can wait for sales and get the number down a couple of 100 bucks, but that still leaves you without a monitor, keyboard and mouse.

Now if either of us wanted the same specs, but on a mobile device, the price would go up some more.

Anyway, the point wasn't the exact price for good hardware, it's the fact some people aren't willing to invest in hardware just to run SL.

---

Your point appeared to be that one needed to invest $1500-$2000 for a PC just to run SL for 4 hours a week.  THAT is what I was addressing, not how many fps a PC gets, which you later threw in.

---

If you change what I had in a microfont (for a reason) into superfont, it certainly appears that way. My point (in normal font size) was that itś now possible (for some, in some places) to run SL is high quality (which includes high fps) on a low specced machine. According to the claims made by the devs, higher quality than what my EUR1500 machine produces.

If you want to buy a computer just for 4 hours of SL a week, you would be either pretty well funded or pretty stupid if you'd buy what I have hiding under the desk. Personally I'd settle for something a lot cheaper than $800. I was content (nothing more than that) with my med specced one from 2007.

[Canoro Philipp]

there are a lot of people that have never seen shadows, or local lights, or transparent water, and they cant go beyond 64 meters without the viewer crashing.

they would probably pay for a chance to see SL the way the others see it, for at least an hour, maybe just to take pictures, or to go to a beautiful art sim, maybe for just an event.

if some people will pay the price ocasionally, instead of paying to use it all the time, im sure they can afford 2.50 a week to give themselves that treat.

[Wooja]

---

Canoro Philipp wrote:

there are a lot of people that have never seen shadows, or local lights, or transparent water, and they cant go beyond 64 meters without the viewer crashing.

they would probably pay for a chance to see SL the way the others see it, for at least an hour, maybe just to take pictures, or to go to a beautiful art sim, maybe for just an event.

if some people will pay the price ocasionally, instead of paying to use it all the time, im sure they can afford 2.50 a week to give themselves that treat.

---

This reminds me of when a local churchman was brought in to school to give us teenagers a lecture on the perils of casual sex without contraception, climaxing [see what I did there!} with the exhortation that "an hour of pleasure isn't worth a lifetime of regret".

One of my mates put his hand up and asked: "How do you make it last an hour?"

Wooja...thinkthatssortofmoraltalkwassomewhatpremature

[KarenMichelle Lane]

---

Wooja wrote:

---

Canoro Philipp wrote:

there are a lot of people that have never seen shadows, or local lights, or transparent water, and they cant go beyond 64 meters without the viewer crashing.

they would probably pay for a chance to see SL the way the others see it, for at least an hour, maybe just to take pictures, or to go to a beautiful art sim, maybe for just an event.

if some people will pay the price ocasionally, instead of paying to use it all the time, im sure they can afford 2.50 a week to give themselves that treat.

---

This reminds me of when a local churchman was brought in to school to give us teenagers a lecture on the perils of casual sex without contraception, climaxing [see what I did there!} with the exhortation that "an hour of pleasure isn't worth a lifetime of regret".

One of my mates put his hand up and asked: "How do you make it last an hour?"

Wooja...thinkthatssortofmoraltalkwassomewhatpremature

---

Insert 8 more Quarters in the Parking Meter or 4 Quarters in the Motel Room Bed Massager