Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Fusionbolt2000

Will SL really continue after the new platform?

Recommended Posts

The really good thing here is that the inventory loss bug finally has been fixed: It´s official strategy now!

YAY!

:matte-motes-sunglasses-1:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many actually heard what Ebbe Linden was saying. Day after day I listen to people whine that this or that isn't working or that Linden Labs is so evil for not letting on what their intentions are and do not listen to the customers. Now that they are saying that there is a need to fix things and be open about it, people panic and only see what they want to see.

Second Life is running on a platform created over a decade ago and has been patched god knows how many times. The language and data structure of the Second life structure is overloaded with internal conflicts from patching it and is also obsolete. It was great when XP was first coming out and everyone was excited over a Pentium 2 computer. If one were to really listen to what he was saying the only way to make Second Life better is to start from scratch and create it in a modern fashion and structure.

He also stated that keeping it closed source and not allowing inventory imports would not be allowed in the interim. He did not say it would always be so and how things went would be the determining factors. Part of what the current issues with our Second Life is some of the junk left over in inventories from years ago that do nothing but cause lag. The days are long gone where one needed a 250 prim hat with a 1000 poorly written scripts in it. Until there is a way found to weed out the junk they may need to limit what can be imported or a way to handle the old junk.

We all whined and complained over the years that Linden Labs was not doing anything and what they did do was totally wrong and never listened to us. Everyone is acting like Second Life will end tomorrow.....it won't. It'll take at least 3 years to have the new project viable in which most of that time will be devoted to which methods work best. Just remember we bitched and now they are saying “we hear you and we are going to fix it”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Just remember we bitched and now they are saying “we hear you and we are going to fix it”"

You listened to the interview all over again? I doubt it, cause you obviously missed the essential statement:

"It will run on many more platforms".

Which are the "many more" platforms?

Right, mobile devices like tablets and smartphones. Take a look at what actually runs and sells for tablets and smartphones. You will not find anything even close to the complexity and rich content even SL has to offer, not to mention high end games. And you won´t find anything like that there for at least the upcoming ten years.

Given this fact, all the already unrealistic whining for highest end supeduperhighendgraphics and complex 3D editing and presentations which even a professional 3D application can´t manage to render without a supercomputer will not succeed in LL  plans. And all this in real time online? You´ll be disappointed, in fact. It will not become the wet high end dream of the SLuniverse crowd, it will most certainly go mainstream tablet app. Dot.

Then there are consoles. This is a different story. I am not sure how far it might be possible to connect asset serveers of the size SL needs and all their functionality to the playstation or the Xbox. Not sure about the legal environment, licensing and whatsoever. I leave this up to the more tech savy crowd.

Allright, it´s just my suggestion, and who knows what´s on the master minds at the Lab. But I seriously doubt that a maisntream tablet app can match what SL is right now at all. It certainly will not be "better" in the sense of the ones calling for the highest end revolution.

In the end it´s not Linden Lab listening to you, it´s just Linden Lab listening to what they think is necessary for expanding their business.

"The only way to make Second Life better is to start from scratch and create it in a modern fashion and structure."

Tths might be true, but i do not see any valuable reason to switch almost any SL asset format to something different Basically this will leave LL alone with a mobile app lacking any substantial content, unless someone sees value in creating and selling content under a ToS which depraves the one who does so af any rights. And without an initial consumer crowd? I can see the "plan", if there is any, but i fear that Mr. Altman has a BIG gamble going on, and nothing but a big gamble. We´ll see. But I am far from being excited over this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


MB Robonaught wrote:

I wonder how many actually heard what Ebbe Linden was saying. Day after day I listen to people whine that this or that isn't working or that Linden Labs is so evil for not letting on what their intentions are and do not listen to the customers. Now that they are saying that there is a need to fix things and be open about it, people panic and only see what they want to see.

Second Life is running on a platform created over a decade ago and has been patched god knows how many times. The language and data structure of the Second life structure is overloaded with internal conflicts from patching it and is also obsolete. It was great when XP was first coming out and everyone was excited over a Pentium 2 computer. If one were to really listen to what he was saying the only way to make Second Life better is to start from scratch and create it in a modern fashion and structure.

He also stated that keeping it closed source and not allowing inventory imports would not be allowed in the interim. He did not say it would always be so and how things went would be the determining factors. Part of what the current issues with our Second Life is some of the junk left over in inventories from years ago that do nothing but cause lag. The days are long gone where one needed a 250 prim hat with a 1000 poorly written scripts in it. Until there is a way found to weed out the junk they may need to limit what can be imported or a way to handle the old junk.

We all whined and complained over the years that Linden Labs was not doing anything and what they did do was totally wrong and never listened to us. Everyone is acting like Second Life will end tomorrow.....it won't. It'll take at least 3 years to have the new project viable in which most of that time will be devoted to which methods work best. Just remember we bitched and now they are saying “we hear you and we are going to fix it”

LL makes millions of dollars a month on land tier alone.  No one is going to just 'give' that up to develop something unproven.  I totally agree with you, I want to see a new platform that runs more efficiently, has more options, so on-so forth. From a business stand point, it makes no sense to just close SL, and I really wish some of the posters on this thread would get a grip on reality.

  • Monthly Tier Estimates - Private Estates c.US$3.857 Million, Mainland c.US$0.871 Million

This number alone is why LL won't shut down SL immediately.  We all have called them greedy, so why on earth would you(the naysayers in this post) think that it'd be any different now?  Furthermore, stop with the dramatic posts about how it's the end of SL and any moment they could close.  I don't wear half of my inventory a year after I buy it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You miss the fact that there is NO content in this new world by default. You miss the fact that it will need more than the few really capable creators who are active in SL right now to fill up the hole in the sand. It took several years to fill Second Life with somwhat acceptable and attractive content - while most of content basics were laid down while Second Life enjoyed an overwhelming international media hype which swept in not only content, but consumers who were willing to buy this content. For the most creators in SL, which mostly were and still are pure hobbyists it took years to learn the tools, to learn the script language and whatever else.

Even just participating in content creation and trading of virtual goods in this new world will cost time, energy and money, and i doubt that enthusiasm alone will  be enough as a motivation there.

It´s easy to wish a world full of shiny new items, but, in fact, there are NONE and there will be by far not enough within the next years to come after the launch. There will be very few items which almost will do what the consumer will want to do, but by far not the bvariety and by far not the wide palette SL has to offer now. It´s IMPOSSIBLE, and that´s why any other attempt by any other company in building something like a "better" Second Life, based on user created content from the scratch miserably failed.

And this one will fail as well, my two cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Vivienne Schell wrote:

You miss the fact that there is NO content in this new world by default. You miss the fact that it will need more than the few really capable creators who are active in SL right now to fill up the hole in the sand. It took several years to fill Second Life with somwhat acceptable and attractive content - while most of content basics were laid down while Second Life enjoyed an overwhelming international media hype which swept in not only content, but consumers who were willing to buy this content. For the most creators in SL, which mostly were and still are pure hobbyists it took years to learn the tools, to learn the script language and whatever else.

Even just participating in content creation and trading of virtual goods in this new world will cost time, energy and money, and i doubt that enthusiasm alone will  be enough as a motivation there.

It´s easy to wish a world full of shiny new items, but, in fact, there are NONE and there will be by far not enough within the next years to come after the launch. There will be very few items which almost will do what the consumer will want to do, but by far not the bvariety and by far not the wide palette SL has to offer now. It´s IMPOSSIBLE, and that´s why any other attempt by any other company in building something like a "better" Second Life, based on user created content from the scratch miserably failed.

And this one will fail as well, my two cents.

Perhaps you miss the fact that LL now own all SL content, so they can take anything they want from SL and use it to create create cities and  villages in the Sanitised Life world, and build shopping malls there filled with free avatars, clothing, and various other stuff they have converted.

Wouldn't that be an offer you couldn't refuse, for $9.95 a month, as long as you registered your name, address, shoe size, and pizza topping preferences with LL?

"easy money"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you should as well re watch the interview. First when he refers to a platform he is referring to a business platform and not an operating system. He refers to the new project as a platform several times.  You can't take what he said about moving inventories to the new method out of context like that. Yes, he said there would be no importing but went on to say that could change after the world was working correctly.


Let's face it the code Second life is wrote in(C++) is not a viable choice anymore than running windows 98 on a new computer. C++ is notorious for memory issues where C# he mentioned they will be using(or JAVA) is designed to efficiently handle memory usage. Unless one enjoys memory crashes we all experience the only way to fix the issue is rewrite everything from scratch. One does not just throw a switch and change programming languages. It takes months or even years to accomplish. The choice of keeping the new world closed source and not allowing importing until finished is they only option they can do. After they have everything working he states they will consider allowing old content in once they find a way to keep the really bad crap out such as a 256 prim hat with a 1000 scripts in it.


Generating a panic by taking things out of context hurts us all. Belite hit the nail on the head with the comments about how much money Linden labs makes, and Ebbe Linden confirms this when he says Linden Labs is a business and the sole purpose of any business is to make money.  They are not stupid. They know that to keep Second life moving into the future they must grow, adapt, and upgrade with the times in order for the company to maintain a profit. So lets all be happy they are upgrading from windows 98 finally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always take what people say in the forums with a VERY LARGE grain of salt. The "zomg LL is teh evol and is causing me severe butt-hurt" crowd are especially entertaining. These people narrowly edge out the "this is the straw that broke my camel's back so I'm taking my dolly and going home never to return" crowd for entertainment value. In both cases I paint these posters as drama-mongers who NEVER go away, they just creat new alts and continue their drama.

The other perspective I keep in mind is that the people who post or read the forums and blogs make up a miniscule segment of SL residents. The crowd in the forums and blogs are loud, to be sure, but hardly representative of SL residents as a whole. Many times you'll find the loudest drama llamas stating that they haven't actually logged into SL in a long time. On the other hand, the vast majority of SL residents continue on with their inworld activites blithely ignorant of the continuous stream of announcements from LL and the drama it creates in the forums and blogs.

The one constant in life, be it RL or SL, is change. I embrace the change and get on with my hobby known as SL.  To stop participating in a hobby because of change or drama is folly and robs the hobbiest of the chance for an even more enjoyable experience. I am personally certain that SL, both my SL and SL in general, will continue for many years to come. I do, however recognize that LL is a business and could shut down at any time, without warning, for a multitude of reasons. Such is the nature of business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok not heard much or been able to find out anything as such on sl it's self, just this comunity platform. but here's a thought if your using vr helmet and alot of people can't afford that kind of money how are you suppose to type in sl in your not a touch typer and need to look at the keyboard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Cincia Singh wrote:

The "zomg LL is teh evol and is causing me severe butt-hurt" crowd are especially entertaining. These people narrowly edge out the "this is the straw that broke my camel's back so I'm taking my dolly and going home never to return" crowd for entertainment value.

Yes. I totally agree.  :matte-motes-big-grin:  Without those people the forums might be rather boring.  :smileywink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can say is people where spouting gloom and doom when LL made that Patterns game too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


SLAddict Allen wrote:

Its funny how people still dismiss the "I'm leaving" claims of users when peak time concurrency has dropped about 35% or so in the last few years.

They'not disputing the fact that people are leaving, just the "I'm leaving."

I've noticed a pattern:

The people who announce they're leaving Second Life usually end up back, often within a couple of weeks.

The people who threaten to leave Second Life unless something changes never actually do, no matter how much everyone else wishes they would.

The people who do leave Second Life?

Never.

Say.

Anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Parrish Ashbourne wrote:


SLAddict Allen wrote:

Its funny how people still dismiss the "I'm leaving" claims of users when peak time concurrency has dropped about 35% or so in the last few years.

When LL stopped bot farms that dropped the counts for some of the loss, and mesh plays a roll in it to, many content creators now spend most of their time building out side of SL, even just trying to learn mesh will take some one out of world for a long time.  So 35% isen't the real % of people leaving SL.

 

Fair point. But I would argue that even those working on SL projects have technically left, or reduced time online, even if by design of the misguided implementation of Mesh. People draw people. People come now and see 50K online at peak times. People used to come and see that at all times, with peaks of 80K. Which was more attractive and more likely to draw people in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


SLAddict Allen wrote:

Its funny how people still dismiss the "I'm leaving" claims of users when peak time concurrency has dropped about 35% or so in the last few years.

...

Fair point. But I would argue that even those working on SL projects have technically left, or reduced time online, even if by design of the misguided implementation of Mesh. People draw people. People come now and see 50K online at peak times. People used to come and see that at all times, with peaks of 80K. Which was more attractive and more likely to draw people in?

This hasn't happened. Please see the chart I've added below, showing Maximum Concurrency Per Day since 2011.

Each box represents one year, including one Christmas Slump - the second box doesn't end at year-end (since it's July) but includes the 2013 Christmas Slump. The values (pink) are accurate MIN/MAX values - the boxes are representations.

Since 2011 the minimum has changed imperceptibly - a differential of ~2,800 (~4% of the peak value) users at its lowest point (Christmas to Christmas) and only ~11,000 at its highest (~15%). The overall average has shifted only ~8,700 users (~14%, not 35%) in three years. My reading of this graph is that traffic has stabilised and is not growing, but is not decreasing in an aggressively negative direction either. There is nothing to suggest SL users are leaving in any kind of 'exodus'.

The range between extremes (max to min) has reduced by 28% (range of 29,067 decreasing to 20,793) - this is the largest possible number you can draw between sets, and still 7% lower than your guess. This range - of course - is not a very useful metric due to the high seasonality of Second Life in 2011 (due to a very low Christmas, and high initial peak).

2010 (not shown) was a different time, SL was on the narrow-end of the hype cycle and still had its core dev staff and the educational sector. But even then, 80,000 was an outlier, not an average concurrency. In 2011 concurrency was inflated artificially by Rod's joining LL - he improved sign-ups significantly during the first six months of his tenure. But even so, this 14% over three years is a reasonable quantity to lose to fatigue. Stability of course is a good thing, and the reduction in seasonality provides a much higher average concurrency (compared to the minimum) in 2014 than 2011.

Thanks to Tyche for recording this data. If you have your own data, I'd like to see it.

Concurrency11-14.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Freya Mokusei wrote:


SLAddict Allen wrote:

Its funny how people still dismiss the "I'm leaving" claims of users when peak time concurrency has dropped about 35% or so in the last few years.

...

Fair point. But I would argue that even those working on SL projects have technically left, or reduced time online, even if by design of the misguided implementation of Mesh. People draw people. People come now and see 50K online at peak times. People used to come and see that at all times, with peaks of 80K. Which was more attractive and more likely to draw people in?

This hasn't happened. Please see the chart I've added below, showing
Maximum Concurrency Per Day since 2011
.

Each box represents one year, including one Christmas Slump - the second box doesn't end at year-end (since it's July) but includes the 2013 Christmas Slump. The values (pink) are accurate MIN/MAX values - the boxes are representations.

Since 2011 the minimum has changed
imperceptibly - a differential of ~2,800 (~4% of the peak value) users at its lowest point (Christmas to Christmas) and only ~11,000 at its highest (~15%).
The overall average has shifted only ~8,700 users (~14%, not 35%) in three years
. My reading of this graph is that traffic has stabilised and is not growing, but is not decreasing in an aggressively negative direction either. There is nothing to suggest SL users are leaving in any kind of 'exodus'.

The range between extremes (max to min) has reduced by 28% (range of 29,067 decreasing to 20,793) - this is the largest possible number you can draw between sets, and still 7% lower than your guess. This range - of course - is not a very useful metric due to the high seasonality of Second Life in 2011 (due to a very low Christmas, and high initial peak).

2010 (not shown) was a different time, SL was on the narrow-end of the hype cycle and still had its core dev staff and the educational sector. But even then, 80,000 was an outlier, not an average concurrency. In 2011 concurrency was inflated artificially by Rod's joining LL - he improved sign-ups significantly during the first six months of his tenure. But even so, this 14% over three years is a reasonable quantity to lose to fatigue. Stability of course is a good thing, and the reduction in seasonality provides a much higher average concurrency (compared to the minimum) in 2014 than 2011.

Thanks to Tyche for recording this data. If you have your own data, I'd like to see it.

Concurrency11-14.jpg


Get past all of the interpretations of christmas and averages and everything else. Look at the beginning of the graph and you'll see a high they never reach anymore and a low at  the end of it that is considerably less than the 2011 drop, save for the odd drop in late 2011 that corrected itself. I remember it happening but don't quite remember why.

Those highs are clearly never close to being repeated. Your graph clearly shows that the highs of the last few months are similar to the LOWS of 2011, which was a period well inside Second Life's decline. Thanks for proving my point.

While I don't have data (I'll come back with it if I can secure it), I can tell you that in 2006-2008, the audience of Second Life was higher. No data but I watch the numbers on the log in screen. They used to hit 80,000+.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


SLAddict Allen wrote:

Get past all of the interpretations of christmas and averages and everything else. Look at the beginning of the graph and you'll see a high they never reach anymore and a low at  the end of it that is considerably less than the 2011 drop, save for the odd drop in late 2011 that corrected itself. I remember it happening but don't quite remember why.

Those highs are clearly never close to being repeated. Your graph clearly shows that the highs of the last few months are similar to the LOWS of 2011, which was a period well inside Second Life's decline. Thanks for proving my point.


I use averages because min/max alone doesn't actually tell you much. Removing grouping to look at singular data points tells you nothing of trends or deltas. You can't discard the spread of data throughout a range or the low/high density of collected data points - doing so would give you no useful information. If you want to discard seasonality then you're very quickly using bad data. As an example, the 'odd drop' you're probably seeing in 2011 is the Christmas Slump - it's outlying data because the SL population is artificially deflated (i.e., SL appears to be less popular than it is) - this contextualising is important when dealing with statistics.

Please don't reframe your point, or distort the data I've provided to reframe mine.

Your point was a decline of 35%, and this point has proven to be false. The truth is that new users are not replacing old users, but that it's happening at an incredibly slow, linear decline of 14% over 3 years - less than half the rate of your claim. My inference beyond this was that it's incredibly unlikely that this is due to any systemic problem - while you claim systemic problems are the cause - this point is yet to be proven either way. It cannot be proven by the data I've provided thus far, but you may choose to compare with other examples of exodus-like behaviour - my assumption is that you'll be disappointed.

Considering your willingness to distort statistics, I'm doubtful of your ability to accurately assess the Second Life population while it was underneath the hype curve (pre-2011). This assumes you understand what the hype curve is/was, and why Second Life will (obviously) never reach those levels of activity again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Freya Mokusei wrote:


SLAddict Allen wrote:

Get past all of the interpretations of christmas and averages and everything else. Look at the beginning of the graph and you'll see a high they never reach anymore and a low at  the end of it that is considerably less than the 2011 drop, save for the odd drop in late 2011 that corrected itself. I remember it happening but don't quite remember why.

Those highs are clearly never close to being repeated. Your graph clearly shows that the highs of the last few months are similar to the LOWS of 2011, which was a period well inside Second Life's decline. Thanks for proving my point.


I use averages because min/max alone doesn't actually tell you much. Removing grouping to look at singular data points tells you nothing of trends or deltas. You
can't
discard the spread of data throughout a range or the low/high density of collected data points - doing so would give you no useful information. If you want to discard seasonality then you're very quickly using bad data. As an example, the 'odd drop' you're probably seeing in 2011 is the Christmas Slump - it's outlying data because the SL population is artificially deflated (i.e., SL appears to be less popular than it is) - this contextualising is important when dealing with statistics.

Please don't reframe your point, or distort the data I've provided to reframe mine.

Your point was a decline of 35%, and this point has proven to be false.
The truth is that new users are not replacing old users, but that it's happening at an incredibly slow, linear decline of 14% over 3 years - less than half the rate of your claim. My inference beyond this was that it's incredibly unlikely that this is due to any systemic problem - while you claim systemic problems are the cause - this point is yet to be proven either way. It cannot be proven by the data I've provided thus far, but you may choose to compare with
- my assumption is that you'll be disappointed.

Considering your willingness to distort statistics, I'm doubtful of your ability to accurately assess the Second Life population while it was underneath the hype curve (pre-2011). This assumes you understand what the hype curve is/was, and why Second Life will (obviously) never reach those levels of activity again.

Hype or no hype, the audience was there. It isn't now. That 14% represents a slowing of the bleed, but a contribution to the loss of audience, and a gradually continuing decline.

When you can barely pull in an audience at peak times that that you used to never drop below, that says your audience is shrinking. That 35% is a drop in peak time audience. You can interpret that to mean whatever you will. I put more faith in it as an indicator than you do. Fair enough. But if you are asking me not to distort your facts, please show me the same respect.

And just for the record, I never claimed it made that plunge in just 3 years. How can I be distorting data that only represents a portion of what I was referring to?

If there comes a 3 year period in the future that begins with highs of 15K and lows of 7K, and then slides at the end to nobody online, how will you interpret that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


SLAddict Allen wrote:


Freya Mokusei wrote:


SLAddict Allen wrote:

Its funny how people still dismiss the "I'm leaving" claims of users when peak time concurrency has dropped about 35% or so in the last few years.

...

Fair point. But I would argue that even those working on SL projects have technically left, or reduced time online, even if by design of the misguided implementation of Mesh. People draw people. People come now and see 50K online at peak times. People used to come and see that at all times, with peaks of 80K. Which was more attractive and more likely to draw people in?

This hasn't happened. Please see the chart I've added below, showing
Maximum Concurrency Per Day since 2011
.

Each box represents one year, including one Christmas Slump - the second box doesn't end at year-end (since it's July) but includes the 2013 Christmas Slump. The values (pink) are accurate MIN/MAX values - the boxes are representations.

Since 2011 the minimum has changed
imperceptibly - a differential of ~2,800 (~4% of the peak value) users at its lowest point (Christmas to Christmas) and only ~11,000 at its highest (~15%).
The overall average has shifted only ~8,700 users (~14%, not 35%) in three years
. My reading of this graph is that traffic has stabilised and is not growing, but is not decreasing in an aggressively negative direction either. There is nothing to suggest SL users are leaving in any kind of 'exodus'.

The range between extremes (max to min) has reduced by 28% (range of 29,067 decreasing to 20,793) - this is the largest possible number you can draw between sets, and still 7% lower than your guess. This range - of course - is not a very useful metric due to the high seasonality of Second Life in 2011 (due to a very low Christmas, and high initial peak).

2010 (not shown) was a different time, SL was on the narrow-end of the hype cycle and still had its core dev staff and the educational sector. But even then, 80,000 was an outlier, not an average concurrency. In 2011 concurrency was inflated artificially by Rod's joining LL - he improved sign-ups significantly during the first six months of his tenure. But even so, this 14% over three years is a reasonable quantity to lose to fatigue. Stability of course is a good thing, and the reduction in seasonality provides a much higher average concurrency (compared to the minimum) in 2014 than 2011.

Thanks to Tyche for recording this data. If you have your own data, I'd like to see it.

Concurrency11-14.jpg


Get past all of the interpretations of christmas and averages and everything else. Look at the beginning of the graph and you'll see a high they never reach anymore and a low at  the end of it that is considerably less than the 2011 drop, save for the odd drop in late 2011 that corrected itself. I remember it happening but don't quite remember why.

Those highs are clearly never close to being repeated. Your graph clearly shows that the highs of the last few months are similar to the LOWS of 2011, which was a period well inside Second Life's decline. Thanks for proving my point.

While I don't have data (I'll come back with it if I can secure it), I can tell you that in 2006-2008, the audience of Second Life was higher. No data but I watch the numbers on the log in screen. They used to hit 80,000+.

They did NOT hit 80K+ in 2006. They didn't start getting those numbers till after the CSI NY episode that had SL in it. Which was in October of 2007. By mid 2008 there were numbers reaching 80-90K, but before that a busy saturday night was only 20K max.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Drake1 Nightfire wrote:


SLAddict Allen wrote:


Freya Mokusei wrote:


SLAddict Allen wrote:

Its funny how people still dismiss the "I'm leaving" claims of users when peak time concurrency has dropped about 35% or so in the last few years.

...

Fair point. But I would argue that even those working on SL projects have technically left, or reduced time online, even if by design of the misguided implementation of Mesh. People draw people. People come now and see 50K online at peak times. People used to come and see that at all times, with peaks of 80K. Which was more attractive and more likely to draw people in?

This hasn't happened. Please see the chart I've added below, showing
Maximum Concurrency Per Day since 2011
.

Each box represents one year, including one Christmas Slump - the second box doesn't end at year-end (since it's July) but includes the 2013 Christmas Slump. The values (pink) are accurate MIN/MAX values - the boxes are representations.

Since 2011 the minimum has changed
imperceptibly - a differential of ~2,800 (~4% of the peak value) users at its lowest point (Christmas to Christmas) and only ~11,000 at its highest (~15%).
The overall average has shifted only ~8,700 users (~14%, not 35%) in three years
. My reading of this graph is that traffic has stabilised and is not growing, but is not decreasing in an aggressively negative direction either. There is nothing to suggest SL users are leaving in any kind of 'exodus'.

The range between extremes (max to min) has reduced by 28% (range of 29,067 decreasing to 20,793) - this is the largest possible number you can draw between sets, and still 7% lower than your guess. This range - of course - is not a very useful metric due to the high seasonality of Second Life in 2011 (due to a very low Christmas, and high initial peak).

2010 (not shown) was a different time, SL was on the narrow-end of the hype cycle and still had its core dev staff and the educational sector. But even then, 80,000 was an outlier, not an average concurrency. In 2011 concurrency was inflated artificially by Rod's joining LL - he improved sign-ups significantly during the first six months of his tenure. But even so, this 14% over three years is a reasonable quantity to lose to fatigue. Stability of course is a good thing, and the reduction in seasonality provides a much higher average concurrency (compared to the minimum) in 2014 than 2011.

Thanks to Tyche for recording this data. If you have your own data, I'd like to see it.

Concurrency11-14.jpg


Get past all of the interpretations of christmas and averages and everything else. Look at the beginning of the graph and you'll see a high they never reach anymore and a low at  the end of it that is considerably less than the 2011 drop, save for the odd drop in late 2011 that corrected itself. I remember it happening but don't quite remember why.

Those highs are clearly never close to being repeated. Your graph clearly shows that the highs of the last few months are similar to the LOWS of 2011, which was a period well inside Second Life's decline. Thanks for proving my point.

While I don't have data (I'll come back with it if I can secure it), I can tell you that in 2006-2008, the audience of Second Life was higher. No data but I watch the numbers on the log in screen. They used to hit 80,000+.

They did NOT hit 80K+ in 2006. They didn't start getting those numbers till after the CSI NY episode that had SL in it. Which was in October of 2007. By mid 2008 there were numbers reaching 80-90K, but before that a busy saturday night was only 20K max.

Did I say it was in 06? No. I said they used to, prior to the period covered by the graph. I memtioned a range of 06-08 actually. I mentioned 06 because that was early on in the explosion of the audience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


SLAddict Allen wrote:

Hype or no hype, the audience was there. It isn't now. That 14% represents a slowing of the bleed, but a contribution to the loss of audience, and a gradually continuing decline.


This is typical of any product, whether it's an Internet service or a ball-point pen.


SLAddict Allen wrote:

When you can barely pull in an audience at peak times that that you used to never drop below, that says your audience is shrinking. That 35% is a drop in peak time audience. You can interpret that to mean whatever you will. I put more faith in it as an indicator than you do. Fair enough. But if you are asking me not to distort your facts, please show me the same respect.


Shrinking is natural beyond hype. Decline is typical over time. It's not inherantly bad. Your inability to recognise the hype cycle as significant likely contributes to your confusion on this point.

How are you defining 'peak time audience'? My data corresponds to Maximum Concurrency, i.e., the maximum (peak) number of avatars logged in during a 24 hour day. If this definition matches your definition for 'peak time audience', then your 35% figure cannot possibly be accurate. I don't know how you're deriving this 35% figure, but if it's not accurate, it shouldn't inspire blind faith.

If you have any facts beyond observation, you're yet to present them. Anecdotal evidence is only distortion. ;)


SLAddict Allen wrote:

And just for the record, I never claimed it made that plunge in just 3 years. How can I be distorting data that only represents a portion of what I was referring to?


You were vague in your statements, and continue to evade defining your periods and terms. I went for stable data in-lieu of expecting definitions. I've provided explanations for my choice to take your "a few" as "three", based mostly on the significant changes that took place in Second Life in 2010/2011. Again, I don't believe pre-2011 data would be useful, or interpretted fairly.

For your information, the average maximum concurrency of 2010 reaches 68,973 - still 12,000 users short of your guess of 80,000. The maximum within this range is 81,152 - but during the entirity of 2010, concurrency only broke 80,000 on eight days (of 365). This information is likely artificially inflated by a successful Educational sector, which LL chose to abandon. Since this was a business decision, I don't think you can add this to your 'systemic cause' assumption.

And again, if you believe you can do this, please go ahead. At this point I find it more likely that you want to cherry-pick time points and convenient data to prove your guess - that's not how this works.


SLAddict Allen wrote:

If there comes a 3 year period in the future that begins with highs of 15K and lows of 7K, and then slides at the end to nobody online, how will you interpret that?


A low of 7K would not end with nobody online. Assuming your hypothetical made sense, you could use averages and standard deviation to interpret that. Statistics isn't magic.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Freya,

Explain it away as typical if you want, its still a fact.

Call it what you will, I refer to peak time audience as the most avatars online, generally, in a given day. It used to be 80-90K (backed up by a previous post author), now its roughly 50K, maybe a bit above. I think we can even call 35% conservative math.

You took "a few" as three. So your assumption has distorted my facts. Yet you asked me to stop distorting yours.

You don't believe old data counts for much. Then this is simply a matter of disagreeing on that.

Here is what I was referring to in my last point.

The lows of 7K would be the valleys reached in the first part of hypothetical three-year graph. So, just for example, lets say the audienced varied from highs of 15K to lows of 7K during the year 2015, and by 2018 gradually made it to nobody online. How would you interpret that slide?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...