Dear Ebbe Altberg and Philip Rosedale - Public Vote Request

[Amethyst Jetaime]

Ebbe already said SL will continue and continue to be improved as long as it is profitable.  What would make it not profitable?  If a large portion of SL residents migrate to SL2 and don't maintain a presence in SL1 and spend money in SL1.

If another company built a virtual world that offered the same freedoms and the things we love about SL now but it was a LOT better and all the bugs  design flaws, old tech  were gone a lot of people from SL would leave and go there and then SL might not be profitable and shut down.  So, it really isn't any different.

You will have plenty of time to decide if you want to migrate OR maintain an account in both worlds OR just stay in SL1. It will take time for the new grid to have all the content that SL1 has, so i suspect that only people that don't mind pioneering or that are creators will move there and not maintain their SL1 account at least until they are able to have the toys and things they have in SL1.

LL is a for profit company and not a democracy. SL2 is going to be built and that is not open to discussion. I agree they need to listen to residents of SL1 as they design the new world, and Ebbe has already said he plans on doing this through a continuing dialog.  This is better than voting as pros and cons of a particular feature or way of doing things can be discussed.  Voting is a one or the other proposition.  Discussion  allows people to suggest ways of doing things or features that might be a lot better in the long run then what has been thought up so far that a simple vote wouldn't accomplish.  There even may be surveys and voting on certain things as the choice is narrowed down after the discussion.

If you want input on the new SL, then join the discussions on these forums and watch for posts by Ebbe as more information becomes available.  It's early in the process and some things aren't known yet.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Vivienne Schell wrote:

"I do remember an LL poll - about the V2. The had the poll and then ignored the results and went ahead with it anyway."

The original polling, introduced by Linden Lab in 2004 was done on an at least monthly, if not weekly schedule (any other oldsies left here who remember the exact schedule?) and abandoned before your avatar was born.

But it´s plain wrong that Phil Rosedale did not listen, the opposite is true. At that time Lindens were present and actively communicating at every newbie hub and we had a lot of fun bashing them for their beards. Even later on a friend of mine set fire under Oz Lindens bottom during an office hour. I think that they gave up on it once the big 2006-2009 hype let first SL and theri their servers explode, which exposed their fragile pixel psyche to public wrath in a too unpleasant way (or maybe they were as fed up as we were by the scheduled thurdsday blackouts!).

"There should not be a poll on SL2. It has nothing to do with SL, except that it's a new model."

I agree that there should not be a poll on the technology. But other aspects would probably be enlightening for the Lab.

Like:

Do you want to be able to port your inventory to SL2? YES - NO.

:matte-motes-oh-rly:

 

 

---

Why would anyone need to ask "Do you want to be able to port your inventory to SL2?" We can safely presume the vast majority would answer yes, and save ourselves the effort. The question is too simplistic and therefore the answer both obvious and useless.

The problem is that porting inventory will be a technically complex thing. We won't know the tradeoffs, and so our opinion will be uneducated. Who wants uneducated opinions? LL has been operating SL for a decade. If we don't believe they understand SL, it would be fair to doubt we can educate them.

You suggested that my professional experience must have been based on short term memory. If you're right, I'm probably in no position to disagree. But, as I've mentioned elsewhere, innovation rarely results from asking customers what they want. If you don't believe this, read a few biographies. I'll suggest Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Steve and Steve Jobs for starters. They were keen observers with disdain for focus groups.

In my own career, I discovered firsthand that asking people what they wanted wasn't the best way. The president of my company refused to allow the marketing folks to run focus groups. He simply sent them, and the design engineers, out into the field to spend days or sometimes weeks with the customer, just watching them. As proof that "polling" doesn't work, the president suggested I write up some questions to ask early in my customer visits, and to compare what they said with what I saw. I couldn't believe how wrong the customers were.

They'd say they wanted improvements in a feature I never observed them using or that they were using because of a defect in some other aspect of the system, like wanting "undo" in a system that is hard to operate correctly, when simply making the thing easy to use would eliminate the need for "undo". I'd then say something like "wouldn't it make more sense to make this easy to do right, than easy to do over?". "Oh, that would be awesome!". Had I sent them a survey at the start of the project, I'd have sent them a lemon at the end.

In my internet connected designs, I installed software probes that reported back on various aspects of system usage, such as the frequency of use of various functions. I'd then compare those measurements the informal feedback from customers and once again discovered that they were asking for the wrong things. By watching what they were doing, right or wrong, I was better able to discern the needed changes than they were. But that's how it should be, improving the thing was my job, not theirs.

So, I stand by my assertion that polling isn't the best way to success. I can hope that LL has been measuring the effects of things they've done over the years with more specificity and sensitivity than I. I only watch concurrency, which shows storm clouds on the horizon, and I believe explains why Ebbe and the Lindens are building a new ark.

[Vivienne Schell]

"The question is too simplistic and therefore the answer both obvious and useless."

So you declare obvious customer/consumer will being useless? Where do you live? Between the code lines? It certainly cannot be on this planet.Oh, and the phones you installed, i guess the customers just wanted to phone somehow. Oh, what an obvious, useless and simplistic declaration of will.

 

[Amethyst Jetaime]

---

Vivienne Schell wrote:

"The question is too simplistic and therefore the answer both obvious and useless."

So you declare obvious customer/consumer will being useless? Where do you live? Between the code lines? It certainly cannot be on this planet.Oh, and the phones you installed, i guess the customers just wanted to phone somehow. Oh, what an obvious, useless and simplistic declaration of will.

 

---

What phones and phone calls are you talking about???  PROBES is what Maddy said.  You didn't even get what she was talking about.

I agree with Maddy.  Some of the most inovative and successful products or product features turn out to be things people didn't know they needed or wanted.

 

---

Vivienne Schell wrote:

I agree that there should not be a poll on the technology. But other aspects would probably be enlightening for the Lab.

Like:

 "Do you want to be able to port your inventory to SL2? YES - NO."

 

---

 

Forcing 100% backward capability of all inventory items would be like insisting that the manufacturer of MP3 players make them so they also play CDs, casset tapes, 8 track tapes, vinyl records, gramaphone records etc.  It could be done but the resulting device wouldn't be small, sleek and able to fit in a pocket, while holding hundreds or thousands of songs.  It would be large and lumbering and take a truck to haul around.

 

This is not to say that there should be no resident imput, but not voting -

[Phil Deakins]

---

Vivienne Schell wrote:

"I do remember an LL poll - about the V2. The had the poll and then ignored the results and went ahead with it anyway."

The original polling, introduced by Linden Lab in 2004 was done on an at least monthly, if not weekly schedule (any other oldsies left here who remember the exact schedule?) and abandoned before your avatar was born.

That was at a time when they were still developing SL into what it became, so it made sense to ask what users thought.

But it´s plain wrong that Phil Rosedale did not listen, the opposite is true. At that time Lindens were present and actively communicating at every newbie hub and we had a lot of fun bashing them for their beards. Even later on a friend of mine set fire under Oz Lindens bottom during an office hour. I think that they gave up on it once the big 2006-2009 hype let first SL and theri their servers explode, which exposed their fragile pixel psyche to public wrath in a too unpleasant way (or maybe they were as fed up as we were by the scheduled thurdsday blackouts!).

Then came a time when SL had settled into what it would be and business considerations took over. When a car maker makes its first car, they would do well to ask the public what sort of car they would like. When they've made and sold the car successfully, they may do the same again for the next model, but they would not ask the public whether or not they should make a next model. But that's what the OP suggested.

"There should not be a poll on SL2. It has nothing to do with SL, except that it's a new model."

I agree that there should not be a poll on the technology. But other aspects would probably be enlightening for the Lab.

Like:

Do you want to be able to port your inventory to SL2? YES - NO.

Yes, I'm sure that LL could become enlighted by finding out what users actually want in SL2, but that's not what was being suggested in the OP. The OP suggested asking users whether or not they should go ahead with SL2.

---

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Vivienne Schell wrote:

"The question is too simplistic and therefore the answer both obvious and useless."

So you declare obvious customer/consumer will being useless? Where do you live? Between the code lines? It certainly cannot be on this planet.Oh, and the phones you installed, i guess the customers just wanted to phone somehow. Oh, what an obvious, useless and simplistic declaration of will.

 

---

You're missing the point. Of course people would like to port their inventories to SL2. That goes without saying, so it would be a useless question to ask. If porting inventories meant that SL2 is not as good as it could be, then leave the inventories behind.

Inventories will still be useable in SL, and SL will be continuing, so there's no problem. We will be able to choose which platform to use - SL1 or SL2. In SL1 we'll still have out existing inventories. In SL2 we'll have some of our inventories but probable not most of them. The choice is ours. LL isn't taking anything away from us when SL2 comes about. We can choose to continue as normal, or we can choose to move on. Everything is good

It seems to me that those who think it will be wrong not to be able to take their inventories with them are just being very self-centred. They want the new platform AND they want all their stuff from the old platform. They want to be able to have everything. It's a very self-centred attitude.

[Vivienne Schell]

 "If porting inventories meant that SL2 is not as good as it could be, then leave the inventories behind."

This is not a matter of formats. It´s a matter of content quality. If Linden Lab really wants to have better content quality in SL2 why do they base iit on user created content then? Even if they switch to different formats: How can they expect that the "next generation" content will be of better quality while being made and uploaded by the same crowd who made the content for SL1?

"It's a very self-centred attitude."

Of course it is, but that´s totally okay. Linden Lab´s attitude is as self centered as yours or mine or everyone else´s. It´s all about compromising. "No backwards compatibility" isn´t a compromise, it should be and certainly is negotiable.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

Quick question...

Did Microsoft ask ANY of its users if they should keep XP support going? Any of them, just one?

/me waits for the crickets to stop.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Vivienne Schell wrote:

 "If porting inventories meant that SL2 is not as good as it could be, then leave the inventories behind."

This is not a matter of formats. It´s a matter of content quality. If Linden Lab really wants to have better content quality in SL2 why do they base iit on user created content then? Even if they switch to different formats: How can they expect that the "next generation" content will be of better quality while being made and uploaded by the same crowd who made the content for SL1?

"It's a very self-centred attitude."

Of course it is, but that´s totally okay. Linden Lab´s attitude is as self centered as yours or mine or everyone else´s. It´s all about compromising. "No backwards compatibility" isn´t a compromise, it should be and certainly is negotiable.

---

I'm not aware that LL said that "it's a matter of content quality". It isn't. It's about doing something better before someone else does, so that LL can be the one to reap the rewards. It's nothing but business. We haven't been given any indication about content quality.

LL didn't say that there will be no backward compatibility. They said they wouldn't make SL2 suffer for the sake of backward compatibility. Ebbe also said that some stuff would go over but he didn't know what yet.

LL doesn't exist for we users. It exists to make money. SL only exists so that LL can make money. Users don't come into that equation, and rightly so. So LL is totally right to be self-centred by doing things to make money, because it's ALL about LL making money as a business, whereas we are not justified in being self-centred over it.

You need to realise that LL is creating a new platform and not an update to SL, so there is no reason at all to think that stuff in SL should port to the new platfrom. If you want to use the new platform, then do so when it arrives. If you prefer SL, then use SL when the new platform arrives. It's perfectly simple. You can't have it all. Not only that, but you've had, and will continue to have for a long time yet, plenty of enjoyment from the stuff you paid a pittance for in SL Loads of pleasure. Don't be so greedy

Surely you're not thinking that, if you'd know you'd only get 3 or 4 years of pleasurable use out of that virtual chair you paid 25 cents for, or that skin you paid $2 for, you wouldn't have bought them. That's how silly it is.

[Vivienne Schell]

"Did Microsoft ask ANY of its users if they should keep XP support going? Any of them, just one?"

Did Microsoft stop you from using SL on their new OS? Or better: Your assets as pictures, documents, movies, any kind of essential core content? Formats as jpg, avi, doc....

Di they? Of course not, cause even asking you would cause irreparable damage. The real world isn´t stupid enough, you know.

[LaskyaClaren]

---

Vivienne Schell wrote:

"The question is too simplistic and therefore the answer both obvious and useless."

So you declare obvious customer/consumer will being useless? Where do you live? Between the code lines? It certainly cannot be on this planet.Oh, and the phones you installed, i guess the customers just wanted to phone somehow. Oh, what an obvious, useless and simplistic declaration of will.

 

---

Maddy can answer for herself with regard to the weight she places upon customer will.

However, her suggestion that the simple question, "Do you want to be able to port your inventory to SL2? YES - NO" is simplistic is dead on. 

Why would anyone say "No" to this question? Having choices is always better than not having them . . . until one begins to consider the ramifications of having that choice.

I myself have very little in my inventory that I would particularly want to carry over to the new grid -- a few outfits, perhaps, and some hair. Maybe my skin and shape? But even though I'd frankly be fine with leaving it all behind, I'd probably still answer "Yes" to this question because it always seems best to have choice.

On the other hand, if you asked a more nuanced question, my answer would change. For instance:

"Do you want to be able to port your inventory to SL 2, even if complete portability means that the new VW will not be as good as it might have been, and may possibly be little different from SL 1.0 as a result?"

In this case, I'd definitely answer "No." And so would most people, I suspect.

Anyone who has ever set a test, survey, or questionaire knows that the form of the question will impact upon the answers.

[LaskyaClaren]

---

Vinten wrote:

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

I have some sympathy with this idea, although I don't of course think it would ever be considered.

I'd be curious to know, however, how many SL creators, including those who might support this kind of direct input into LL's decision-making process, would be willing to apply the same "democratic" principles to their own customers?

---

 There are many creators that take direct input from their customer base to shape their products. Cheshyr Pontchartrain at Novatech is one example amongst many. he's always in his group taking suggestions and answering requests from his purchasers.

Fanatik Architecture is another example of a vendor that let their customers shape their products.

Many Many more . . . 

---

You are comparing apples and oranges here.

The instances you give above involve the use of what are essentially marketing surveys, focus groups, and the like.

What you are asking for, on the other hand, is a binding democratic vote.

I'll stick to my original contention on this one: I know of no businesses that commit themselves to a binding vote by their own consumers that will determine the directions of their own business. And I certainly know of no instances of SL creators ever doing this.

Do you have an SL business? Would you commit yourself to an action regarding that business that was determined by a vote of your customers, regardless of your own thoughts on the matter?

[LaskyaClaren]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

I have some sympathy with this idea, although I don't of course think it would ever be considered.

I'd be curious to know, however, how many SL creators, including those who might support this kind of direct input into LL's decision-making process, would be willing to apply the same "democratic" principles to their own customers?

---

I have little sympathy for this idea. Imagine what second life would have been had Philip Rosedale solicited input from potential customers, rather than followed his dream.

The best work I've seen in my professional life came from people who "just don't listen".

But they do watch.

---

I myself am pretty suspicious of the "Great Men (or Women, but it's almost invariably men)" approach to history. It's Romantic, it's elitist, and it generally effaces the impact of historical, social, and technological context.

Sir Isaac Newton's declaration that "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants" is a pretty conventional one, but it makes the important point that "great minds" and innovators don't work in a vacuum: they are building on what has gone before, and what is happening at the time of their own work.

Rosedale's creation of SL would obviously have been impossible without the technical achievements created by a vast legion of previous and contemporary computer engineers -- but more than this, it would have been both impossible and ultimately pointless without the existence of a subsection of our culture, at least, that was ready for something like Second Life. He may not have "polled" his potential customers about what they wanted, but he certainly read them, and understood that there was a market. In a sense, all of those who had signalled in various and myriad ways that they wanted a creative, open digital sandbox are also responsible for its creation.

On another level, I agree that the conventional "creation by committee" frequently doesn't work, but that says more about our institutional structures than it does about real collaboration. Crowdsourcing, crowdfunding, and the sorts of discourse that appear in communities like this one suggest that there are new and very different models for collaborative creation.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Vivienne Schell wrote:

"Did Microsoft ask ANY of its users if they should keep XP support going? Any of them, just one?"

Did Microsoft stop you from using SL on their new OS? Or better: Your assets as pictures, documents, movies, any kind of essential core content? Formats as jpg, avi, doc....

Di they? Of course not, cause even asking you would cause irreparable damage. The real world isn´t stupid enough, you know.

---

Hmm. You seem to have misunderstood what this is all about. LL isn't inventing a new OS. They are inventing a new virtual world. You will be able to choose to use one or the other or both. You are getting mixed up in your desire to have the best of both worlds. But you can't have the best of the new world if you also have the best of the old one, because the best of the old one will mean that the best of the new one must be reduced to accomodate it. Nobody has expressed a wish for that to happen, and plenty of people have expressed a wish for it NOT to happen.

The best thing you can for yourself is accept that many or most things won't port to the new world, no matter how much you argue the toss, and get on with your second life as if nothing had happened - because nothing will happen for a long long time. When (and if) the new world comes into being, decide which you want to use, or decide to use both. Right now, you are banging your head against a brick wall, and the wall won't give way. Not only that but I suspect that most SL users, who know what's on the horizon, don't want it give way if it means holding the new world back.

ETA: Why on earth do you want to use the new world anyway? If your inventory means so much to you, stick with it. Stay in SL. It's not going away when the new world comes along.

NOTE: It may have escaped you notice but, although LL hasn't asked us to vote on the matter, they are definitely getting user opinions on it. And stated user opinions tend to be in favour of NOT holding SL2 back for the sake of SL1 inventory compatability. I haven't seen anyone suggest holding SL2 back for that reason, and I've seen quite a few saying that, if inventory compatability means reducing what SL2 can be, don't do it. LL sees this too, so they are getting a public vote, even though they didn't ask for it.

[Qie Niangao]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

I have some sympathy with this idea, although I don't of course think it would ever be considered.

I'd be curious to know, however, how many SL creators, including those who might support this kind of direct input into LL's decision-making process, would be willing to apply the same "democratic" principles to their own customers?

---

I have little sympathy for this idea. Imagine what second life would have been had Philip Rosedale solicited input from potential customers, rather than followed his dream.

The best work I've seen in my professional life came from people who "just don't listen".

But they do watch.

---

Left to public opinion, the iPhone would be a BlackBerry painted white.

About Microsoft and XP: you better believe they asked customers -- for years. They stretched that out way, way beyond the planned end-of-life for the product, based on demand of enterprise customers. But then, finally, Microsoft set a public date for ending support -- and you know what? In the year following that announcement, XP was retired at a faster rate than any other operating system in history.

To be fair, the huge numbers being replaced were because there were still so very many using XP at the time of announcement -- numbers so huge that even now, as vulnerable as it is, XP constitutes a stil significant share of PCs on the net. It's a lot less, though, than it would have been had they not set that date and thus given that "push" to get folks to act.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

---

Vivienne Schell wrote:

"The question is too simplistic and therefore the answer both obvious and useless."

So you declare obvious customer/consumer will being useless? Where do you live? Between the code lines? It certainly cannot be on this planet.Oh, and the phones you installed, i guess the customers just wanted to phone somehow. Oh, what an obvious, useless and simplistic declaration of will.

 

---

Maddy can answer for herself with regard to the weight she places upon customer will.

However, her suggestion that the simple question, "

Do you want to be able to port your inventory to SL2? YES - NO" is simplistic is dead on. 

Why would anyone say "No" to this question? Having choices is always better than not having them . . . until one begins to consider the ramifications of having that choice.

I myself have very little in my inventory that I would particularly want to carry over to the new grid -- a few outfits, perhaps, and some hair. Maybe my skin and shape? But even though I'd frankly be fine with leaving it all behind, I'd probably still answer "Yes" to this question because it always seems best to have choice.

On the other hand, if you asked a more nuanced question, my answer would change. For instance:

"Do you want to be able to port your inventory to SL 2, even if complete portability means that the new VW will not be as good as it might have been, and may possibly be little different from SL 1.0 as a result?"

In this case, I'd definitely answer "No." And so would most people, I suspect.

Anyone who has ever set a test, survey, or questionaire knows that the form of the question will impact upon the answers.

---

Customer will is everything. If they won't, you have no business.

But customer will is not customer want, or at least not something they can usually articulate. You've got to be careful when asking questions. It's easy to "lead the witness". And you cannot expect people who don't understand the technology, the market, or your ability, to give you direct design input. It's your job as the designer to get at the needs and desires of the customer as accurately as possible. This is no small task. And it often involves observation more than interrogation. People shift their focus when answering questions.

By way of example, I once designed a product with a big display. Virtually every competing product had the display on a tilt/swivel mount, so it could be pointed at the operator. The machines themselves were rolled between rooms during a normal procedure, and were operated from a distance of several feet while standing. It was presumed by our marketing department that a tilt/swivel display was a "need". We'd been designing them that way for 20 years. Yet that "need" wasn't obvious me. (Some will tell you that nothing is obvious to me ;-).

I went on a customer field trip to watch people using our products and those of competitors. I asked questions on arrival, observed them for a full day, then took them to dinner for conversation. Everyone I asked about tilt/swivel said it was a "need". Less than half of those I observed ever tilted or swiveled. Every one of those who did adjust tilt did so because the display had shifted position during the move between rooms, particularly when crossing raised thresholds. Those who adjusted swivel never changed the display angle by more than about five degrees from straight forward.

So, I eliminated the cost and complexity of the tilt/swivel mechanism over strenuous objection from the marketing department. The product was ultimately very successful. Why? Because the tilt/swivel "need" was imagined, but the need for a less expensive machine was real. Had I listened to the customers, what would have happened? Had I not observed them, what would have happened?

And, as the wise president of my company predicted, the most useful interactions I had with those customers was over dinner. There, they opened up about their personal lives, their goals, the challenges of their jobs, all things that were both nebulous and tremendously useful. They were not thinking about my product (as they would if asked questions about it), they were thinking about the challenges and opportunities before them. And my job was to help. If I couldn't do it with my product, perhaps I could do it by talking to our field service department to suggest a new way of handling customer issues, including a free field upgrade of special washers to secure the tilt mechanism so it wouldn't move during transport.

SL residents, like people visiting Jiffy Lube, have both unique and shared needs. The reasons people visit SL are tremendously varied. People visit Jiffy Lube for an oil change. Yet both sets of customers need (yes, need) to feel they are getting a good value and respectful treatment. We all want to be delighted by the experience.

Product design involves optimizing something in a highly dimensional space. There's more than length/width/height to the design of SL. No customer, and not even all the developers, can get a good grasp of all the dimensions that describe it. You get at this in your rephrasing of Vivienne's question to address the complexity you rightfully imagine in the creation of SL2.

In his book "Serious Play: How the World's Best Companies Simulate to Innovate", Michael Schrage recounts stories of software design teams who, working from specifications driven by querying the customer, delivered programs that elicited responses like "This isn't at all like I thought it would be." Yet the product met every single requirement of the customer approved specification. Teams that prototyped incrementally, showing interations to the customer while observing them use it, completed their projects faster and with higher customer satisfaction. Questions were asked, but those questions were highly informed.

So even with all of Vivienne's objections, I stand firm in my belief that polling customers won't lead you to success.

[LaskyaClaren]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Vivienne Schell wrote:

"Did Microsoft ask ANY of its users if they should keep XP support going? Any of them, just one?"

Did Microsoft stop you from using SL on their new OS? Or better: Your assets as pictures, documents, movies, any kind of essential core content? Formats as jpg, avi, doc....

Di they? Of course not, cause even asking you would cause irreparable damage. The real world isn´t stupid enough, you know.

---

Hmm. You seem to have misunderstood what this is all about. LL isn't inventing a new OS. They are inventing a new virtual world. You will be able to choose to use one or the other or both. You are getting mixed up in your desire to have the best of both worlds. But you can't have the best of the new world if you also have the best of the old one, because the best of the old one will mean that the best of the new one must be reduced to accomodate it. Nobody has expressed a wish for that to happen, and plenty of people have expressed a wish for it NOT to happen.

The best thing you can for yourself is accept that many or most things won't port to the new world, no matter how much you argue the toss, and get on with your second life as if nothing had happened - because nothing will happen for a long long time. When (and if) the new world comes into being, decide which you want to use, or decide to use both. Right now, you are banging your head against a brick wall, and the wall won't give way. Not only that but I suspect that most SL users, who know what's on the horizon, don't want it give way if it means holding the new world back.

ETA: Why on earth do you want to use the new world anyway? If your inventory means so much to you, stick with it. Stay in SL. It's not going away when the new world comes along.

NOTE: It may have escaped you notice but, although LL hasn't asked us to vote on the matter, they are definitely getting user opinions on it. And stated user opinions tend to be in favour of NOT holding SL2 back for the sake of SL1 inventory compatability. I haven't seen anyone suggest holding SL2 back for that reason, and I've seen quite a few saying that, if inventory compatability means reducing what SL2 can be, don't do it. LL sees this too, so they are getting a public vote, even though they didn't ask for it.

---

Phil, I agree that it is ridiculous to want LL to limit their approach to their new VW merely because people want to transfer their inventories and creations to the new one. Taken to its logical, full conclusion, this would result in a new VW that isn't really "new" at all, but merely a slightly less laggy, crash-prone version of the current platform.

It's also pointless to expect them to do this: they want to remain the leader in the VW field, and they are not likely to introduce any compromises that would seriously impact on that.

 

BUT . . . it's also not fair to minimize the concerns of those who, like Vivienne, have concerns. In particular, it's misleading to merely repeat the bland reassurances we've got from Ebbe and LL that all will be business as usual in the old Second Life.

It won't be. It can't be. The existing grid may, in fact, be experiencing shrinkage even now, in the wake of this announcement. We know that they've also reduced the development team on the old SL, meaning that improvements will be fewer, and take longer to arrive.

Most of all, however, once the new world is in place, Second Life will certainly experience a major decline as people and creators migrate from one to another. Sure, some will retain a presence in both worlds, but many won't, and those who do will have only half the time (or less) to devote to whatever they did -- creation, organizing live music and events, etc. -- that they once did because they will also be working in the new VW.

Second Life is going to be diminished by this, and pretending otherwise is misleading.

[Phil Deakins]

I'm not pretending that SL will remain as it is now, Laskya. Not at all. I wrote in another thread that I foresee SL going into quite a rapid decline once SL2 is launched, because a huge chunk (at least most and maybe all) of the SL population will spend most, if not all, of their time in SL2. And I don't think it'll be too long after that that SL isn't worthwhile keeping going.

Nevertheless, there is at least 2 years, and more likely 3 or more, before LL is ready to launch SL2. So we all have that time, plus a bit longer, to make use of what inventory we have, and that's on top of the time we've already made use of it. So I have no sympathy with those who feel agrieved that they won't be able to take it with them. Heck the stuff costs an absolute pittance, and it gets years of pleasureable use, even if it's bought now.. What more do they want for such a small cost that lasted for years? I don't know what a coffee or a snack costs where they are, but they only last a few minutes, and they'll think nothing of spending for that few minutes of pleasure. The same amount of money in SL buys all sort of good things, and the pleasure from them lasts for years. Sorry, Laskya, but I have no sympathy for anyone who feels agrieved at not being able to take it with them.

I imagine that SL has had a small decline in spending since the announcement, but I also think that things will get back to normal soon enough. When it dawns on people that the change is years away, they'll get back to what they normally do in SL, knowing that what they buy now will last them for at least 2 years, and what they bought before has lasted for years already..

As the time approaches, buying in SL will fade, of course, but that doesn't matter right now.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

Second Life

is

going to be diminished

by this

, and pretending otherwise is misleading.

---

Pardon my use of editorial license here, Laskya. SL was being diminished long before "this". I wonder if some have been misleading themselves by pretending otherwise...

I understand the concerns of SL residents, but I don't understand why LL should be more restricted in their choices for how to proceed than competitors are. If the best way forward for LL is to completely abandon everything and everyone in SL, by creating something that we'll like better (Ebbe's stated goal), why are we complaining.

I understand skepticism over LL's ability to do "this". We've been skeptical over their ability to do SL. We've also been skeptical of every alternative to SL, including wildly successful alternative uses for our time like Facebook.

[Vivienne Schell]

Madelaine, I absolutely agree that polling does not lead to success. But in this particular case here, seriously: One does not even need a poll. The polling has been done by giants like Apple and Microsoft and any other successful software company with the obvious results. And you may call my question simplstic, but the truth - unfortunately - often is simplistic. And so is customer will, particulary here.

Even with a (still running) SL as backup, i strongly doubt that LL will be successful with the new platform without offering a substantial amount and variety of content instantly - which irequires - at least - a clear migration plan.

Lemme try to explain.  In SL you have starship which crashes on region border crossings. In Betterworld you´ll have no region border crossings, but you don´t have a starship to crash. What´s better?

[Darkness Anubis]

Actually upgrade path might be a misnomer. Content creators need enough of a heads up before it goes live to be ready to hit the fround running with completed or near completed goods. Easiest way is to get them involved in all stages of beta from closed to open so that long before the new grid goes finally opens they have goods ready for the new residents.

 

I really do not think direct porting of old creations BY LL as part of everyones inventorys is a good way to go at all. LL wants new and better not oh look its that same badly optomised hair thats been lagging sims for 5 years.

[irihapeti]

SL suxs. always crashes. LL are idiots

Poll: Do you want a betterworld where it dont sux. dont crash. and LL are not idiots?

No. 99.9%
Yes. 0.1% (who actual click Yes by mistake)

+

waaaah !??! why you all click No ???

bc !!!!

bc why ??!?

bc we like idiots. durr!!

(:

[Hellespont Hoorenbeek]

Im absolutely not spending money in Second Life anymore dont know if you heard but Linden Lab will pull the plug and stop broadcasting the grid when it becomes unprofitable, In my opinion it allready goes down the hill since 2011. Lately since the news is out people massifly abandoning sims and mainland prices are because of that low to buy in L$.

I have zero faith Second Life will make it to SL12B "Second Life 12th Birthday" next year, As Linden Lab will start to work on some sort of new failure grid that would be as they say way better then it ever will be for Second Life.

Either your keeping faith and put money in a deadbleeding concept or be smart and dont spend a dollar/Euro anylonger keeping fait and think things will be ok would be the same as you using drugs.

Second Life will die face it, it is just a mather of when can be tomorrow can be next year when SL2 is released!

I was lucky to have my sim sold befor this news came out otherwise im sure nobody would buy it from me so at the end im laughing Linden Lab in the face, You guys dont hurt me anymore with stupid releases and silly news!

 

Im off to real life now:)

[Serbitar Nemeth]

First of all, Sl will be closed if becomes unprofitable no matter if there is SL2 or not, it buisness for them and noone will pay for it from personal pocket, or will you?

Second, with an attitude like yours, you kill SL yourself, becose if you leave or/and stop buying anything you make it unprofitable.

Noone say SL will be shut down, they bring new grid online and they will work together, noone force noone to move, if people wanna stay in old SL best thing to do is stay, if noone move to new SL and new SL will be unprofitable they shut down new SL not old, so it all depends of users, noone force people to move even LL, if they try shut down old Sl to force moving they lost twice, and they know it.

[Vivienne Schell]

"Actually upgrade path might be a misnomer. Content creators need enough of a heads up before it goes live to be ready to hit the fround running with completed or near completed goods. Easiest way is to get them involved in all stages of beta from closed to open so that long before the new grid goes finally opens they have goods ready for the new residents."

Wishful thinking. Look at the proofs. Proof is that when they came up with mesh this was closed and open beta for a loooong time. Then it went online and it took another year, if not more, until mesh items became available in SOMEWHAT substantial amount. And when you visit enough sims  you´ll notice that at last 80 percent of rezzed inventory items still are NOT mesh.

Betterworld will not only have a "mesh" problem, but imagine that additionally any typical SL script functionality will be broken, any SL animation will be broken, including AO´s and whatever else animations in SL are good for.

And what exactly would encourage content creators to drop their SL activities for Betterworld? The expectation of a million excited people dropping in to buy the same stuff they already paid for in SL all over again? A chair is a chair, you know. Most stuff will not look or work substantially better in Betterworld.

Add the fact that the upcoming Facebook VR most probably will cover any kind of family entertainment, anyway. So what would encourage the Off-SL content creators (turbosquid, renderosity and the like) to go for the SL market instead of the much more promising Facebook VR market?

Add the fact that it´s a miserable start for any kind of new product with a "loss" included.

No, even in good faith for Betterworld, there are way too many obstacles for optimism. Maybe Linden Lab will come up with a lil bit more than empty jackets later on to convince me. We´ll see.