SL 2.0- has there been any word on land prices?

[Tamar Luminos]

My biggest beef with SL is how prohibitively expensive sims are to buy and pay tier on.  Has anyone heard anything about whether sims might be more reasonably priced in SL 2.0?  That would be a big incentive for me to jump ship, gotta say.

 

1k down and 300/mo. is ridiculous.  I'd jump happily if it was cut down to something more reasonable like 100 down and 50/month.  Also, I wonder if there's any consideration of cutting SL 1.0's land prices once SL 2.0 gets off the ground?  Either way- prices are way too high and that would be a big consideration as to where I played, personally.

[Kenbro Utu]

Ask again in 2 years...

[KarenMichelle Lane]

---

Tamar Luminos wrote:

My biggest beef with SL is how prohibitively expensive sims are to buy and pay tier on.  Has anyone heard anything about whether sims might be more reasonably priced in SL 2.0?  That would be a big incentive for me to jump ship, gotta say.

---

What is wrong with all of you?

THERE ISN'T EVEN A PRODUCT YET. NOR A FUNCTIONING ANYTHING.

[Syo Emerald]

We do not even know if there will be land as we know it....

Actually, we do not even know, if that next product will ever be released. There are not even pictures or anything of it yet. It could be still a rough idea....

Honestly, threads like this are compareable to worry about the sun burning down earth in X milion years.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Tamar Luminos wrote:

My biggest beef with SL is how prohibitively expensive sims are to buy and pay tier on.  Has anyone heard anything about whether sims might be more reasonably priced in SL 2.0?  That would be a big incentive for me to jump ship, gotta say.

 

1k down and 300/mo. is ridiculous.  I'd jump happily if it was cut down to something more reasonable like 100 down and 50/month.  Also, I wonder if there's any consideration of cutting SL 1.0's land prices once SL 2.0 gets off the ground?  Either way- prices are way too high and that would be a big consideration as to where I played, personally.

---

If you bothered to read the huge mega thread where Ebbe answered (sort of) some questions, you would know that there are no plans to change anything about SLv1. Why you would think they would drop land costs is beyond me.

[Cathy Foil]

I think I remember reading someplace that Ebbe Linden said they want to restructure how the costs are distributed to bring down land costs.  I think he mentioned some form of tax.  I assume he meant a tax on items sold in the MarketPlace.

Right now LL takes a cut from the content creators share so that is basically taxing content creators.  Sounds like LL would have the buyers pay the tax perhaps.

On a side note while I know it is easier to refer to this new virtual world LL is planning to build as SL 2.0 but Ebbe has made it quite clear that this is not SL 2.0 but is completely separate with it's own identity.  One of the biggest reasons for this is probably because it will have very different set of rules and limitations put upon it than SL currently does.

Much of the lag issues and economic problems seen in SL could have been avoided had LL made different managerial decisions.  It only makes sense that LL would want to learn from these mistakes and thus set different rules and limitations for the new virtual world.

By not naming this new world SL 2.0 people should not have the expectations that it will automatically follow the same rules and limitations that SL is governed by.  It is a different product that is simply made by the same company.  

[Perrie Juran]

---

Cathy Foil wrote:

I think I remember reading someplace that Ebbe Linden said they want to restructure how the costs are distributed to bring down land costs.  I think he mentioned some form of tax.  I assume he meant a tax on items sold in the MarketPlace.

Right now LL takes a cut from the content creators share so that is basically taxing content creators.  Sounds like LL would have the buyers pay the tax perhaps.

On a side note while I know it is easier to refer to this new virtual world LL is planning to build as SL 2.0 but Ebbe has made it quite clear that this is not SL 2.0 but is completely separate with it's own identity.  One of the biggest reasons for this is probably because it will have very different set of rules and limitations put upon it than SL currently does.

Much of the lag issues and economic problems seen in SL could have been avoided had LL made different managerial decisions.  It only makes sense that LL would want to learn from these mistakes and thus set different rules and limitations for the new virtual world.

By not naming this new world SL 2.0 people should not have the expectations that it will automatically follow the same rules and limitations that SL is governed by.  It is a different product that is simply made by the same company.  

---

What economic problems?

[Drake1 Nightfire]

i believe he said the tax on the MP was very small and would be raised.. I wonder if he meant the new MP or the current one..

[Cathy Foil]

As mentioned by the OP the prohibitory high land tiers could be considered an economic problem.

Another one could be how full permissions system has been set up and economic havoc it plays in the MarketPlace economy.  Which results in price undercutting and severe dilutions of markets.  Which while yes in the short term lowers prices for consumers but in the long run means less diversity of original content creation since those content creators who make their own items get pushed out because it becomes not economically viable to spend hours, days, weeks or months to create a new item from scratch when hundreds and hundreds of people are just buying full perm items flooding the market with so many items the chances of a customer even finding the original content creators items become slim.

I am not saying that Full Perm in and of itself is evil or bad just the way LL has set it up and the rules that govern it have had negative consequences.  Full Perm done in a different way under difference rules can actually increase creativity and not cause undercutting or hurt markets.  IMVU is a good example of how this can be achieved.  Not that I am saying IMVU is better than SL overall.  It is not.  Just that in this area they surpasses SL in my opinion.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Cathy Foil wrote:

As mentioned by the OP the prohibitory high land tiers could be considered an economic problem.

Another one could be how full permissions system has been set up and economic havoc it plays in the MarketPlace economy.  Which results in price undercutting and severe dilutions of markets.  Which while yes in the short term lowers prices for consumers but in the long run means less diversity of original content creation since those content creators who make their own items get pushed out because it becomes not economically viable to spend hours, days, weeks or months to create a new item from scratch when hundreds and hundreds of people are just buying full perm items flooding the market with so many items the chances of a customer even finding the original content creators items become slim.

I am not saying that Full Perm in and of itself is evil or bad just the way LL has set it up and the rules that govern it have had negative consequences.  Full Perm done in a different way under difference rules can actually increase creativity and not cause undercutting or hurt markets.  IMVU is a good example of how this can be achieved.  Not that I am saying IMVU is better than SL overall.  It is not.  Just that in this area they surpasses SL in my opinion.

---

Thanks for clarifying.

[Drew Bhalti]

100 down and 50 a month.  pipe dreams.  Hardware, up keep, bandwidth, employee's,  server facility rental. 

^.^

[JPG0809]

The new platform doesn't even have a name yet. I'm much more interested about what that'll be instead first.

[kiramanell]

---

Cathy Foil wrote:

I think I remember reading someplace that Ebbe Linden said they want to restructure how the costs are distributed to bring down land costs.  I think he mentioned some form of tax.  I assume he meant a tax on items sold in the MarketPlace.

Right now LL takes a cut from the content creators share so that is basically taxing content creators.  Sounds like LL would have the buyers pay the tax perhaps. 

---

I think this is pretty much what he said, yes, And it fits with his notion to cater to content creators as the favored customers in the New World.

On the latter, I hope he keeps in mind that without me, the consumer, there will be no sales whatsoever. So, giving content creators a freebie, as it were, whilst taxing the consumer heftily, that may not work out as favorably as he may think.

For now, we know little more than what we can gather from a few remarks Ebbe made, here and there. Hope his new business model will keep some sort of equilibrium between the two, though.

[Qie Niangao]

---

JPG0809 wrote:

The new platform doesn't even have a name yet. I'm much more interested about what that'll be instead.

---

You're kidding, right?

Cathy got it right. We may not know exactly how land will work in SL2 (or whatever it's called), but Ebbe has said that he intends for our current levels of "property tax" to be adjusted downward, replacing that revenue with other "taxes" including, yeah, higher sales commissions. I wouldn't expect more detail until they announce the exact date when that land will be available to buy -- assuming the project gets that far.

[Qie Niangao]

---

kiramanell wrote:

So, giving content creators a freebie, as it were, whilst taxing the consumer heftily, that may not work out as favorably as he may think.

---

No. Content creators do not consider a higher commission on their sales to be a "freebie" -- especially not compared to land costs, which is borne disproportionately by "residential" not "commercial" landowners. (In the past, that balance of land use was  very different, with most land owned by stores and venues. Now in-world sales are much less important, even for the relatively few businesses that even bother to have in-world stores.)

[kiramanell]

---

Qie Niangao wrote:

---

kiramanell wrote:

So, giving content creators a freebie, as it were, whilst taxing the consumer heftily, that may not work out as favorably as he may think.

---

No. Content creators do not consider a higher commission on their sales to be a "freebie" -- especially not compared to land costs, which is borne disproportionately by "residential" not "commercial" landowners. (In the past, that balance of land use was  very different, with most land owned by stores and venues. Now in-world sales are much less important, even for the relatively few businesses that even bother to have in-world stores.)

---

I don't disagree on any particular point. It's just that Ebbe seem to suggest content creators would be the preferred customers in Matrix 2.0, is all.

Yup, MP (with 'actionable' sales) has dealt a significant blow to inworld sales. Simply because LL was too greedy, and wanted a piece of everyone's action. If Ebbe has any common sense, he won't make the same mistake twice, and realize that sellers having to give up entire sims (because of less inworld sales) hurts them too.

[Tari Landar]

Merchants would not be merchants without customers, but content creators would still exist with or without them(they are not one in the same-one can create content without ever selling it, lots of us do it all the time). It would make sense for content creators to be a "preferred" customer set, though I am not certain they actually are, or will be. Content creators need to exist for there to even be a world/platform/whatever(we know LL isn't capable of creating most content, I doubt they wil change this with a new platform, to be honest, it's too much work on their part). Without them, whether or not they are merchants as well, there would be no customers as there would be no content period. It's a two-way relationshipo, both merchants and customers need one another. However content creators do not necessarily need customers-unless they intend to sell in which case, they become merchants as well, and the same still applies. Sure it's nice for content creators to have folks to create for of course, but they do not have to be reliant on that, the way a merchant does. Similar, yet still different, relationships exist there.

Content creators are also customers too, though, so regardless of how this "tax" is handled, it would hit them as well, not just the customers who are not content creators(or merchants). We're all customers for LL, in the end.

(Yes I realize some may think separating the terms merchant and content creator is merely playing with semantics, I disagree with that train of thought)

 

 

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

kiramanell wrote:

---

Qie Niangao wrote:

---

kiramanell wrote:

So, giving content creators a freebie, as it were, whilst taxing the consumer heftily, that may not work out as favorably as he may think.

---

No. Content creators do not consider a higher commission on their sales to be a "freebie" -- especially not compared to land costs, which is borne disproportionately by "residential" not "commercial" landowners. (In the past, that balance of land use was  very different, with most land owned by stores and venues. Now in-world sales are much less important, even for the relatively few businesses that even bother to have in-world stores.)

---

I don't disagree on any particular point.

It's just that Ebbe seem to suggest content creators would be the preferred customers in Matrix 2.0, is all.

Yup, MP (with 'actionable' sales) has dealt a significant blow to inworld sales. Simply because LL was too greedy, and wanted a piece of everyone's action. If Ebbe has any common sense, he won't make the same mistake twice, and realize that sellers having to give up entire sims (because of less inworld sales) hurts them too.

---

Sorry, but the MP 5% commission has zero to do with inworld sales dropping off.. Inworld search sucking donkey balls would be that reason. Finding anything using the search feature inworld sucks. At least on the MP you can narrow by category. Any sim, store, or profile with a certain keyword pops using the inworld search.

I would happily pay 10 -15% "tax" on my sold goods. And yes, it would be the merchant paying that tax. Just like in the real world, the merchant pays the tax to the government. In this case LL.

[Rhys Goode]

The 5% tax is a minor impact for customers who use MP.  The reason I am a fan of MP is that most of the stores I go into are so stuffed with vendors that between the scripts and the textures, the places take forever to rezz.  MP is slow and clunky and has bad search.  But its not nearly as slow as shopping inworld, so it is easier to filter out the dross.

[kiramanell]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

Sorry, but the MP 5% commission has zero to do with inworld sales dropping off.. Inworld search sucking donkey balls would be that reason. Finding anything using the search feature inworld sucks. At least on the MP you can narrow by category. Any sim, store, or profile with a certain keyword pops using the inworld search.

 

 

I would happily pay 10 -15% "tax" on my sold goods. And yes, it would be the merchant paying that tax. Just like in the real world, the merchant pays the tax to the government. In this case LL.

---

Sorry, but you're chasing a straw man. Nobody claims the 5% commission is the reason for inworld sales dropping off. I *did*, however, say, that since Linden wanted a piece of every action, they started offering 'actionable' MP sales (that can be disputed with a tangible transaction ID). And thus, as a result, when ppl have a choice between shopping safely via MP, or are totally left on the goodwill of the inworld vendor, many people prefer to buy via marketplace nowadays.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

kiramanell wrote:

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

Sorry, but the MP 5% commission has zero to do with inworld sales dropping off.. Inworld search sucking donkey balls would be that reason. Finding anything using the search feature inworld sucks. At least on the MP you can narrow by category. Any sim, store, or profile with a certain keyword pops using the inworld search.

 

 

I would happily pay 10 -15% "tax" on my sold goods. And yes, it would be the merchant paying that tax. Just like in the real world, the merchant pays the tax to the government. In this case LL.

---

Sorry, but you're chasing a straw man. Nobody claims the 5% commission is the reason for inworld sales dropping off. I *did*, however, say, that since Linden wanted a piece of every action, they started offering 'actionable' MP sales (that can be disputed with a tangible transaction ID). And thus, as a result, when ppl have a choice between shopping safely via MP, or are totally left on the goodwill of the inworld vendor, many people prefer to buy via marketplace nowadays.

---

Where did you find this tidbit? LL has always said the MP is buyer beware. Just like inworld sales.

[Tamar Luminos]

Well, my first post to the Second Life Forums has been very informative!  Things I have learned:

People love to snark, **bleep**, complain about other peoples' posts and generally be extremely condescending/rude/unwelcoming to others in this particular venue.

Instead of attempting to be helpful and/or informative, people will snark, complain, condescend, and then hijack the thread to parts unknown because hey, their own thoughts/opinons/questions are far more important than anyone else's.

Nobody has any idea about what I asked, only a vague reference that Ebbe made about "adjusting land prices" and other costs in SL (which I read in the other giant thread as I've been following info on the new platform out of interest but was hoping if I pulled this one topic out for further discussion, it might be a bit more informative.  I was apparently wrong.)

Guess I'll just go back to playing in SL and avoiding the forums here.  Y'all have fun with yourselves.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

WE DON'T KNOW YET!!!

 

LL has not made any official announcement about this new creation. Nothing has been told to us that is a concrete answer. All of it has been innuendos and half answers. Don't get pissy because no one, including Ebbe Linden, has an answer for you. It isn't even supposed to hit Beta release till some time next year.

[Darkness Anubis]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

kiramanell wrote:

---

Qie Niangao wrote:

---

kiramanell wrote:

So, giving content creators a freebie, as it were, whilst taxing the consumer heftily, that may not work out as favorably as he may think.

---

No. Content creators do not consider a higher commission on their sales to be a "freebie" -- especially not compared to land costs, which is borne disproportionately by "residential" not "commercial" landowners. (In the past, that balance of land use was  very different, with most land owned by stores and venues. Now in-world sales are much less important, even for the relatively few businesses that even bother to have in-world stores.)

---

I don't disagree on any particular point.

It's just that Ebbe seem to suggest content creators would be the preferred customers in Matrix 2.0, is all.

Yup, MP (with 'actionable' sales) has dealt a significant blow to inworld sales. Simply because LL was too greedy, and wanted a piece of everyone's action. If Ebbe has any common sense, he won't make the same mistake twice, and realize that sellers having to give up entire sims (because of less inworld sales) hurts them too.

---

Sorry, but the MP 5% commission has zero to do with inworld sales dropping off.. Inworld search sucking donkey balls would be that reason. Finding anything using the search feature inworld sucks. At least on the MP you can narrow by category. Any sim, store, or profile with a certain keyword pops using the inworld search.

 

 

I would happily pay 10 -15% "tax" on my sold goods. And yes, it would be the merchant paying that tax. Just like in the real world, the merchant pays the tax to the government. In this case LL.

---

Dead right on what killed in world sales In part anyways. When search became a nightmare people stopped using it and went to the MP. I personally would rather explore the grid and go to store to shop and do so when there is an inworld shop. Shopping used to be a grand adventure with friends both shopping and exploring the grid. It was a much more social event that connected us.

The other reason MP became king is the ability to skip the Real money to L$ step and just buy with real money on the marketplace. We can't do that in world.

In world shops was a good thing for me as a merchant as well. I used to work on new products while standing on the roof of my shop. I lost count of how many times I would hear customers say something like "I Love this chair but I wish it had the animations from that one over there." So I would pop downstairs and make them the chair with the animations they wanted right in front of them. It made it personal. It brought repeat buyers. It gave me a better understanding of what customers really wanted.

Even if merchants are taxed more heavily. Even if in world sales are taxed just like MP. Even if upload fees go up. I think fixing search and giving people a reason to go to shops would help merchants AND customers enjoy the experience more.

[Cathy Foil]

I understand your frustration over not getting a concrete answer to your original post.

I am so sorry I wasn't able to provide you one with my reply.  Unfortunately at this time no one can not even probably LL since everything is still so early in the development stages.

I agree with you that land costs and tiers in SL are way too high and I am sure LL could lower them to a more reasonable level if they wished to.  Unfortunately I doubt they will anytime soon.

As far as your observations that people love to snark, complain, condescending, rude and unwelcoming unfortunately that is just par for the course for having a open discussion where everyone is invited to participate.

I know it is jarring at first but I have learned to develop a little bit thicker skin when participating in these types of forums.

Threads often wander far from the original topic of the original post.  It is just the nature of the beast.  One small comment made by one person, while related to the original post, sparks an idea or comment from another but in turn is even farther away from the original post and so on.

If a thread goes too far off topic LL moderators are supposed to step in.  Say like if we started talking solely about the World Cup.  In this thread however I don't think we strayed too far so the moderators didn't feel the need to step in.

Your probably never going to read this or respond and may never participate in the forums again and that will be sad.

I wish you luck Tamar.  Despite what you may feel I am glad you started this thread.