Jump to content
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2050 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 271
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"Today, we’re happy to announce a new way to explore the wide variety of community-created experiences in Second Life, without the complexity of the third dimension: 2D side-scrolling (2DSS) mode. Without the third dimension, you can enjoy Second Life just like your favorite 8-bit games from the past!"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

April Fools' joke?

Link to post
Share on other sites


LlewLlwyd wrote:


Phadrus Karu wrote:

A perpetual license costs $795 more than Blender, a quarter of the price of the studio variant of Maya, [which is therefore $3,180 more than Blender] . A subscription is also available for $30 a month more than Blender costs, or $240 a year more than Blender; which is $20 a month more than Blender

There may be a multitude of other reasons why some individuals choose not to use Maya, and cost is certainly one of them.

 

FIFY!

***Thank you for the anti-advertisement***

 

Context is everything.

For hobbyists without plans to commercialize their work, price might be the sole motivating factor; but the hobbyist demographic isn’t what we’re talking about here, the professional/semi-professional content creators are.

At the forefront of concern for commercial artists is striking a balance between workflow, features and price. The perfect 3D animation package does not exist – each come with their pros and cons. Blender’s free price tag on its own is its major selling point. There are even a few features in Blender which are comparably better than some paid offerings. However, this does not make it necessarily the best choice for every user.

So, why would a professional opt for commercial solutions over open source software?

 

  1. Workflow. This includes the UI, procedures for performing certain tasks and most importantly, the design philosophy behind a specific package.
  2. Consistency. How often do the behavior of features and overall UI change from version to version and do these changes offer any benefit? This is critical for studio environments and anyone with pre-established workflows.
  3. Specialization. Some packages have particular strengths which are more conducive for accomplishing certain tasks (i.e. sculpting, baking, etc.)
  4. Feature exclusivity. Some features and workflows will remain with only certain packages because of patents or biased third party plugin developers.
  5. Job prospects for the real world. Should any commercial content creator in Second Life have the desire to position themselves for a career that involves working in a major film or game production, they would be better served by knowing industry standard tools.
  6. Familiarity. Both paid and free education abound for commercial software online; more so than open source software at the present time. In addition, accredited institutions lean heavily towards professional tools, particularly in light of the fact that both the educational and corporate sectors share a symbiotic relationship (mainly in Europe and North America). As such, artists with formal education are already comfortable with using commercial software.

With the advent of the Steam marketplace for independent game developers and the popularity of mobile apps, companies whose traditional customer base were large studios have taken notice of the trend and adjusted their offerings accordingly to cater to this new demographic. Where an individual previously had to shell out a substantial amount; the same software (minus high-end studio centric features) can be had for considerably less at a subscription level.

For an example, Autodesk’s MayaLT is $20 a month; The Foundry’s Modo is $10 a month or the Modo/Mari bundle is $16 a month; Substance Designer, Painter and Bitmap2Material 3 each range from $100 to $160 for a perpetual license or less than $300 for all three; Silo is less than $100 for a perpetual license, 3D-Coat is $104 for a perpetual license; Adobe Photoshop is $10 per month. Each of these low cost solutions are part of the 3D pipeline with features or workflows that are either better implemented or have no equivalent in Blender. They also have the backing of on-call support.

At the end of the day, it boils down to maximizing efficiency at reasonable cost. When you consider what you once had to pay for some of the aforementioned software, the current price range for freelance developers are a drop in the bucket by comparison and are thus, accessible to virtually everyone. For some, Blender will suffice but for others with more specific needs and workflow preferences, commercial tools make more sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Deltango Vale wrote:

"SL2 certainly has no mainstream potential. It's very much a niche product for the "high power gaming computer" people. And yes, that is a large niche but hardly mainstream."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

As perhaps the only economic historian in Second Life, I would disagree.

Oh, I was talking about the new grid - which we later agreed should not be called SL2 - there. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Second Life certainly has mainstream potential as I said later in the same post.


Deltango Vale wrote:

Nothing has changed regarding Second Life's potential.

Except that that potential has been negelected for so long and SL has slowly but surely moved away from that goal. It's still not too late though and I really hope the decision makers at LL see that potential and go for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops, I didn't read clearly, but it did give me a chance to express some further thoughts on SL's potential :)

What kills me is watching the competition produce top-end marketing and advertising to promote its world. The level of enthusiasm of the management and devs, the keen participation of the employees and the wide range of promotional activities demonstrates not only a profound faith of the company in its product, but generates momentum, which translates into media coverage (including awards), customer loyalty and the recruitment of new players.

Sadly, I have no interest in "spaceships and spreadsheets", the game's unofficial slogan. It's a testosterone-driven geek universe that screams niche - and yet the world is hugely successful. The number of female employees - and I mean hardcore tech people - defies all the stereotypes. Considering that the game is infamous for having the steepest learning curve outside a doctoral program at Stanford, I'm astonished by its popular appeal. My point being: if they can do it, why the hell can't Linden Lab?

Link to post
Share on other sites


Deltango Vale wrote:

Oops, I didn't read clearly, but it did give me a chance to express some further thoughts on SL's potential
:)

What kills me is watching the competition produce top-end marketing and advertising to promote its world. The level of enthusiasm of the management and devs, the keen participation of the employees and the wide range of promotional activities demonstrates not only a profound faith of the company in its product, but generates momentum, which translates into media coverage (including awards), customer loyalty and the recruitment of new players.

Sadly, I have no interest in "spaceships and spreadsheets", the game's unofficial slogan. It's a testosterone-driven geek universe that screams niche - and yet the world is hugely successful. The number of female employees - and I mean hardcore tech people - defies all the stereotypes. Considering that the game is infamous for having the steepest learning curve outside a doctoral program at Stanford, I'm astonished by its popular appeal. My point being: if they can do it, why the hell can't Linden Lab?

You keep saying that EVE Online is "hugely successful" and Second Life "hasn't lived up to its potential" but from the numbers I've seen the actual number of users for each is very similar, with Second Life appearing to average having more users at any given time. Explain?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Theresa Tennyson wrote
You keep saying that EVE Online is "hugely successful" and Second Life "hasn't lived up to its potential" but from the numbers I've seen the actual number of users for each is very similar, with Second Life appearing to average having
more
users at any given time. Explain?


And IMVU has more users at any given time than Second Life. ;)

You can't really compare the two. EVE Online is a scifi MMORPG. As much as I love scifi myself it's hardly a genre that has mass appeal. It's very much a niche product, more like WoW than SL.

 

Edit: On second thought, we can actually compare SL and EVE Online since the active users figures are similar. But that just illustrates Deltango's point. A mass market virtual environment should have ten times the number of active users as a scifi game!

LL had a golden opportunity when SL for a short while became the Big News and the door to the mass market opened up wide. But they never understood how to handle this stream of "regular" people who came to SL to see so they lost the moment. I'm afraid this ilustrates the essential problem that has always limited SL's success: they never have time to build on what they already have, they're always too busy chasing the Next Big Dream.

I think a stronger and more systematic focus on mass market is the best way forward for SL, it may well be the only way forward. And I believe there's still time for it. The door is closed now of course but it's not yet locked. There are signs that LL finally has started to take the first feeble steps in the right direction. It may be too little and too late but if they do it right, the might still manage.

It won't be nearly as easy as it would have been when they hade the golden opportunity of course and the to-do list is long and filled with difficult tasks, such as:

  1. Get render load under control (That's job no. 1 not matter how you look at it. At the moment render lag is by far the most important factor limiting the usabiity of SL)
  2. Update the viewer's UI - it needs to be far more user friendly and easier to figure out for an inexperienced user.
  3. Go global - I know LL will disagree with this but SL is still very much US-centric and that's not where the big market potential is.
  4. Get the land prices down
  5. Start communicating and cooperating with the content creators - not just the chosen few SL uses as consultants today but to the many people who actually build SL.
  6. Offer genuine support to the help centers and "SL skills" educational centers run by volunteers who pay LL for the privilege of doing a job LL really should have done themselves.
  7. Get rid of that horrendously long list of bugs that are sheduled to be fixed mañana.

I'm sure others here wil be more than happy to add to the list. ;)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Phadrus Karu wrote:

For hobbyists without plans to commercialize their work, price might be the sole motivating factor; but
the hobbyist demographic isn’t what we’re talking about here
, the professional/semi-professional content creators are.


You sound like Ebbe voicing Peter Gray's words in the corporate attempt to flush your scorned "hobbyists" out of SL2.

Do you not realise that 99% of the content creators in SL started as "hobbyists", whatever they might consider their status now?

And why on earth would non-loser "professionals" bother creating in a world that, even if you give it 200% of the effort that you would a normal "professional" designer job, barely allows you to scrape a living?

Link to post
Share on other sites


ChinRey wrote:


Theresa Tennyson wrote
You keep saying that EVE Online is "hugely successful" and Second Life "hasn't lived up to its potential" but from the numbers I've seen the actual number of users for each is very similar, with Second Life appearing to average having
more
users at any given time. Explain?


And IMVU has more users at any given time than Second Life.
;)

You can't really compare the two. EVE Online is a scifi MMORPG. As much as I love scifi myself it's hardly a genre that has mass appeal. It's very much a niche product, more like WoW than SL.

 

Edit: On second thought, we
can
actually compare SL and EVE Online since the active users figures are similar. But that just illustrates Deltango's point. A mass market virtual environment should have ten times the number of active users as a scifi game!

LL had a golden opportunity when SL for a short while became the Big News and the door to the mass market opened up wide. But they never understood how to handle this stream of "regular" people who came to SL to see so they lost the moment. I'm afraid this ilustrates the essential problem that has always limited SL's success: they never have time to build on what they already have, they're always too busy chasing the Next Big Dream.

I think a stronger and more systematic focus on mass market is the best way forward for SL, it may well be the only way forward. And I believe there's still time for it. The door is closed now of course but it's not yet locked. There are signs that LL finally has started to take the first feeble steps in the right direction. It may be too little and too late but if they do it right, the might still manage.

It won't be nearly as easy as it would have been when they hade the golden opportunity of course and the to-do list is long and filled with difficult tasks, such as:
  1. Get render load under control (That's job no. 1 not matter how you look at it. At the moment render lag is by far the most important factor limiting the usabiity of SL)
  2. Update the viewer's UI - it needs to be far more user friendly and easier to figure out for an inexperienced user.
  3. Go global - I know LL will disagree with this but SL is still very much US-centric and that's not where the big market potential is.
  4. Get the land prices down
  5. Start communicating and cooperating with the content creators - not just the chosen few SL uses as consultants today but to the many people who actually build SL.
  6. Offer genuine support to the help centers and "SL skills" educational centers run by volunteers who pay LL for the privilege of doing a job LL really should have done themselves.
  7. Get rid of that horrendously long list of bugs that are sheduled to be fixed mañana.

I'm sure others here wil be more than happy to add to the list.
;)

 

Second Life wasn't meant as a "mass market virtual environment." I saw a Wiki article mentioning that when the old database last names were introduced the expectation was there would only be about 150 accounts per last name.

Structurally, Second Life is very poorly suited to be a large thing. There's very little economy of scale - in fact it may be possible that the marginal cost per running a region, etc. increases as more are added.  People keep wondering why the land prices are so high - it's very simple. Linden Lab doesn't want to increase the number of regions. At a rate of one region per day it would take over fifty years to visit all the ones there are now, and the raising of homestead prices was directly related to the fact that people were buying more of them and placing more content on them then the Lab expected or felt they could support.

And when push comes to shove, the mass market just isn't really that into virtual worlds right now, at least ones that are as random and undirected as Second Life. Most of the people on SL are here because they themselves fall into niches. So many people keep saying that Second Life will expand greatly by addressing things in your list - however, Inworldz, which is in many ways a forumite vision of How Second Life Should Be, hasn't gotten much traction despite doing many of those things.

Link to post
Share on other sites


LlazarusLlong wrote:


And why on earth would non-loser "professionals" bother creating in a world that, even if you give it 200% of the effort that you would a normal "professional" designer job, barely allows you to scrape a living?

I work with a few different people from SL on jobs outside of SL. Some of them don't sell products in SL, but they do take on contract jobs for SL businesses. The difference between them and those of us that do sell SL products, or products for other platforms, is that I only need 1 decent size contract a month, cause my SL and other sales on platforms covers most of my expenses. The freelancers that don't sell in SL, have to always have 2 or 3 contracts going at a time just to hope to pay the bills.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Theresa Tennyson wrote:


ChinRey wrote:


Theresa Tennyson wrote
You keep saying that EVE Online is "hugely successful" and Second Life "hasn't lived up to its potential" but from the numbers I've seen the actual number of users for each is very similar, with Second Life appearing to average having
more
users at any given time. Explain?


And IMVU has more users at any given time than Second Life.
;)

You can't really compare the two. EVE Online is a scifi MMORPG. As much as I love scifi myself it's hardly a genre that has mass appeal. It's very much a niche product, more like WoW than SL.

 

Edit: On second thought, we
can
actually compare SL and EVE Online since the active users figures are similar. But that just illustrates Deltango's point. A mass market virtual environment should have ten times the number of active users as a scifi game!

LL had a golden opportunity when SL for a short while became the Big News and the door to the mass market opened up wide. But they never understood how to handle this stream of "regular" people who came to SL to see so they lost the moment. I'm afraid this ilustrates the essential problem that has always limited SL's success: they never have time to build on what they already have, they're always too busy chasing the Next Big Dream.

I think a stronger and more systematic focus on mass market is the best way forward for SL, it may well be the only way forward. And I believe there's still time for it. The door is closed now of course but it's not yet locked. There are signs that LL finally has started to take the first feeble steps in the right direction. It may be too little and too late but if they do it right, the might still manage.

It won't be nearly as easy as it would have been when they hade the golden opportunity of course and the to-do list is long and filled with difficult tasks, such as:
  1. Get render load under control (That's job no. 1 not matter how you look at it. At the moment render lag is by far the most important factor limiting the usabiity of SL)
  2. Update the viewer's UI - it needs to be far more user friendly and easier to figure out for an inexperienced user.
  3. Go global - I know LL will disagree with this but SL is still very much US-centric and that's not where the big market potential is.
  4. Get the land prices down
  5. Start communicating and cooperating with the content creators - not just the chosen few SL uses as consultants today but to the many people who actually build SL.
  6. Offer genuine support to the help centers and "SL skills" educational centers run by volunteers who pay LL for the privilege of doing a job LL really should have done themselves.
  7. Get rid of that horrendously long list of bugs that are sheduled to be fixed mañana.

I'm sure others here wil be more than happy to add to the list.
;)

 

Second Life wasn't meant as a "mass market virtual environment." I saw a Wiki article mentioning that when the old database last names were introduced the expectation was there would
only be about 150 accounts per last name
.

Structurally, Second Life is very poorly suited to be a large thing. There's very little economy of scale - in fact it may be possible that the marginal cost per running a region, etc.
increases
as more are added.  People keep wondering why the land prices are so high - it's very simple. Linden Lab
doesn't want to increase the number of regions
. At a rate of one region per day it would take over fifty years to visit all the ones there are now, and the raising of homestead prices was directly related to the fact that people were buying more of them and placing more content on them then the Lab expected or felt they could support.

And when push comes to shove, the mass market just isn't really that into virtual worlds right now, at least ones that are as random and undirected as Second Life. Most of the people on SL are here because they themselves fall into niches. So many people keep saying that Second Life will expand greatly by addressing things in your list - however, Inworldz, which is in many ways a forumite vision of How Second Life Should Be, hasn't gotten much traction despite doing many of those things.

I agree, Theresa. I don't know if Philip Rosedale ever envisioned SL as a mass market thing (your wiki article suggests not). If he did, he was projecting his own interests onto a market that doesn't share them. In almost any field of endeavor, creators are a niche. And your observation that Inworldz is a forumite vision reflects my thinking that we here are not representative of SL residents as a while, much less the larger mass market.

Should LL's new virtual world be wildly successful, I think many of us here won't like it.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Theresa Tennyson wrote:


ChinRey wrote:


Theresa Tennyson wrote
You keep saying that EVE Online is "hugely successful" and Second Life "hasn't lived up to its potential" but from the numbers I've seen the actual number of users for each is very similar, with Second Life appearing to average having
more
users at any given time. Explain?


And IMVU has more users at any given time than Second Life.
;)

You can't really compare the two. EVE Online is a scifi MMORPG. As much as I love scifi myself it's hardly a genre that has mass appeal. It's very much a niche product, more like WoW than SL.

 

Edit: On second thought, we
can
actually compare SL and EVE Online since the active users figures are similar. But that just illustrates Deltango's point. A mass market virtual environment should have ten times the number of active users as a scifi game!

LL had a golden opportunity when SL for a short while became the Big News and the door to the mass market opened up wide. But they never understood how to handle this stream of "regular" people who came to SL to see so they lost the moment. I'm afraid this ilustrates the essential problem that has always limited SL's success: they never have time to build on what they already have, they're always too busy chasing the Next Big Dream.

I think a stronger and more systematic focus on mass market is the best way forward for SL, it may well be the only way forward. And I believe there's still time for it. The door is closed now of course but it's not yet locked. There are signs that LL finally has started to take the first feeble steps in the right direction. It may be too little and too late but if they do it right, the might still manage.

It won't be nearly as easy as it would have been when they hade the golden opportunity of course and the to-do list is long and filled with difficult tasks, such as:
  1. Get render load under control (That's job no. 1 not matter how you look at it. At the moment render lag is by far the most important factor limiting the usabiity of SL)
  2. Update the viewer's UI - it needs to be far more user friendly and easier to figure out for an inexperienced user.
  3. Go global - I know LL will disagree with this but SL is still very much US-centric and that's not where the big market potential is.
  4. Get the land prices down
  5. Start communicating and cooperating with the content creators - not just the chosen few SL uses as consultants today but to the many people who actually build SL.
  6. Offer genuine support to the help centers and "SL skills" educational centers run by volunteers who pay LL for the privilege of doing a job LL really should have done themselves.
  7. Get rid of that horrendously long list of bugs that are sheduled to be fixed mañana.

I'm sure others here wil be more than happy to add to the list.
;)

 

Second Life wasn't meant as a "mass market virtual environment." I saw a Wiki article mentioning that when the old database last names were introduced the expectation was there would
only be about 150 accounts per last name
.


"Up until sometime in 2006, when 150 new members chose the same last name, the name was permanently retired from the list, (although there was a lot of discussion between residents and Linden Lab to change this policy for certain names). This limit is based upon a social theory presented in The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference by journalist Malcolm Gladwell. According to Gladwell, 150 is the maximum number of people a person can remember and remain familiar with."

http://secondlife.wikia.com/wiki/Avatar_Last_Names

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Theresa Tennyson wrote:

Second Life wasn't meant as a "mass market virtual environment."


You're right of curse, it was never meant to be more than a relatively simple little (by today's standards at least) computer game. But what it was meant to be is not what it actually became.


Theresa Tennyson wrote:

People keep wondering why the land prices are so high - it's very simple. Linden Lab
doesn't want to increase the number of regions
.

Ebbe Linden has said in public that the tier is too high and so has at least one previous LL CEO.

But you do have a point, lowring the tier might well icnrease the number of sims more than it increases the number of users and that may not be a very good thing.


Theresa Tennyson wrote:

And when push comes to shove, the mass market just isn't really that into virtual worlds right now, at least ones that are as random and undirected as Second Life. Most of the people on SL are here because they themselves fall into niches.


Everybody does in the end. ;)

But actually, the main reason I think SL can have a much broader appeal than other virtual environments is that it is so "undirected". In SL you are not locked to one specific theme or genre. Essentially you can do or be anything you want here.

I have to admit I didn't like the term "mass market" myself but it was the only thing I could think of. (English isn't my main language so I have a limited vocabulary in it.) It's more correct to say that SL has the potential of covering a broader range of niches than most other virtual environments.


Theresa Tennyson wrote:

however, Inworldz, which is in many ways a forumite vision of How Second Life Should Be, hasn't gotten much traction despite doing many of those things.


I'm not sure I follow you there. Inworldz tend to be a friendlier place than SL and land tier is definitely lower but it doesn't perform any better in any of the other aspects I listed and far worse in many.

Link to post
Share on other sites


ChinRey wrote:

But actually, the main reason I think SL can have a much broader appeal than other virtual environments is that it is so "undirected". In SL you are not locked to one specific theme or genre. Essentially you can do or be anything you want here.


I think SL's "undirection" is precisely what prevents it from being mass market.

"You can be anything you want" isn't compelling to someone who's looking for a lightweight diversion. McDonalds is suffering under the weight of their "you can have anything you want" menus. Ebbe's focus on curated experiences in the new world seems to admit this is a problem for SL as well.

"Your World, Your Imagination" doesn't resonate with people who want to enjoy someone else's well crafted imagination.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Madelaine McMasters wrote:


ChinRey wrote:

But actually, the main reason I think SL can have a much broader appeal than other virtual environments is that it is so "undirected". In SL you are not locked to one specific theme or genre. Essentially you can do or be anything you want here.


I think SL's "undirection" is precisely what prevents it from being mass market.

"You can be anything you want" isn't compelling to someone who's looking for a lightweight diversion. McDonalds is suffering under the weight of their "
" menus. Ebbe's focus on curated experiences in the new world seems to admit this is a problem for SL as well.

"Your World, Your Imagination" doesn't resonate with people who want to enjoy someone else's well crafted imagination.

It isn't that they want to enjoy someone elses "well crafted imagination". It is because they are lacking any imagination of their own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Edit: On second thought, we can actually compare SL and EVE Online since the active users figures are similar. But that just illustrates Deltango's point. A mass market virtual environment should have ten times the number of active users as a scifi game!"

------------------------------------------------------------------

Bingo! I actually logged in to make that point, but saw you got there first :)

EVE Online is a dark, intimidating, aggressive, hyper-niche, male-centric, engineer-dominated, science-fiction, spaceship wargame. The learning curve is almost a vertical line. Basically, if you are not a math wizard with a solid physics and engineering background, you don't stand a chance of penetrating its arcane structure and dynamics. Yet, through superb marketing and advertising - driven in part by some incredibly sharp female executives and developers, the world has not only survived more than a decade, but has continued to garner respect and admiration from the virtual/gaming media in addition to expanding the userbase. Indeed, Second Life should have ten, 20, 100 times that userbase.

I will not comment on the detailed engineering aspects of SL because I'm not an engineer. ChinRey and other have been pointing out the engineering problems for years. Yes, the technical infrastructure needs to be improved, but that is only half the reason why SL flatlined in 2008. The other half was a string of disastrous policy decisions that killed inward investment and undermined Linden Lab's reputation.

Go global, recommends ChinRey. SL was global in 2006 and expanding rapidly in the global market in 2007, but LL killed that growth overnight out of greed, stupidity and a lack of basic accounting skills. As for land management, Linden Lab first starved then flooded the mainland market - doing far more financial damage than Ginko Bank (2008). Yet the Board got on its high moral horse and wiped out the entire inworld financial system, never once acknowledging the damage its own policies were having on the inworld economy. By 2009, with the rezoning of the grid - which received overwhelming condemnation from the residents - compounded by Linden Lab's lack of investment in the technical infrastructure - it was all over for Second Life. Badly burnt, the big wave of immigrants (2006-2008) started pulling out. Linden Lab's reputation was in tatters. The media walked away. Blame Philip Rosedale? Some do; I don't. The dead hand of the Board lay heavy on policy.

Why do so few people understand these issues? Because they are not engineering issues; they are political-economic policy issues. Second Life is not a game; it is an immersive virtual world economy requiring executives and managers to have a deep understanding of human nature, economics, economic history and corporate management. They don't. Ironically, the folks running EVE Online do. That's the real reason why they are successful.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Deltango Vale wrote:

Second Life is not a game; it is an immersive virtual world economy requiring executives and managers to have a deep understanding of human nature, economics, economic history and corporate management. They don't. Ironically, the folks running EVE Online do. That's the real reason why they are successful.

Virtually any business requires management to understand the things you've enumerated.

If the App Store reviews of Blocksworld are any indication, LL isn't completely clueless, though it often seems that way to me.

I still think Philip Rosedale's vision just won't support the kind of success you once envisioned, Del.

Link to post
Share on other sites


LlazarusLlong wrote:


Phadrus Karu wrote:

For hobbyists without plans to commercialize their work, price might be the sole motivating factor; but
the hobbyist demographic isn’t what we’re talking about here
, the professional/semi-professional content creators are.


You sound like Ebbe voicing Peter Gray's words in the corporate attempt to flush your scorned "hobbyists" out of SL2.

Do you not realise that 99% of the content creators in SL started as "hobbyists", whatever they might consider their status now?

And why on earth would non-loser "professionals" bother creating in a world that, even if you give it 200% of the effort that you would a normal "professional" designer job, barely allows you to scrape a living?

For clarification, I loosely define a professional as any individual whose primary focus is the creation of content for the commercial market and the management of said enterprise. The how and why is outside the scope of the point I was originally addressing; which is the reasoning behind Linden Lab’s decision to select Maya users first for the alpha stage of the next generation platform.

Furthermore, never have I at any time disparaged hobbyists or their contribution to Second Life. Mischaracterizations, attempts to misconstrue and false constructs that state to the contrary are merely that.

Link to post
Share on other sites


LlazarusLlong wrote:

For clarification, I non-loosely define a professional as any individual who does something for money.

As any good dictionary confirms.

Especially since graphic design is not a profession, which obviates the other meaning.

Graphic design is a discipline involving the pre-arrangement of elements for the purposes of visual communication.

A graphic designer is a profession.

3D animation, modeling, texturing and special effects may incorporate some overlap from design theory but are regarded as separate disciplines in themselves (this is what Maya is for).

In any case, I never confined the definition of the word professional to any particular niche nor does it really have anything to do with your original assumption regarding my views on hobbyists.

It would seem to me that the original discussion on Maya is no longer a topic on this thread. I will also hazard a guess and assume that you don’t have anything further to add on the subject other than to line up strawmen for me to knock down; an exercise I find neither stimulating nor productive.

So with that, I consider this exchange as having run its course.

I wish you all the best of luck on the new platform.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to steer the discussion away from political science and "Linden Lab is malicious and evil," back to a discussion of the next generation platform discussed by Ebbe. I am very excited by it and cannot wait to try it out! He did mention that there would be some form of in world build tool.

"Support for voxels is under consideration with the next generation platform, to present an in-world option for content creation, terrain modification, etc."

"Like I said, over time, we’re obviously going to make it easier to do layout without within the world, but we’re also exploring technologies like voxels to think of ways to make it easy for non-3D experts to be able to create environments and structures; so that’s an area we’re investing some time in right now, to understand what we can bring to the table there."

"So we can hit a much broader range of creators,  from professionals who can use the tools they’re comfortable with today to hobbyists who are willing to learn some new tools and who could benefit from using things like voxel systems to easily “paint”  and chip away to create terrain and tunnels and caves and stuff like that."

As I understand it, the Next Gen Platform is looking at voxel based terrain, which is a wonderful thing! It means you can dig or blast holes in it, create caves and tunnels, and paint texture or colour directly onto the terrain. Imagine the possibilities of that!

Everquest Next had voxel building tools, which I found awkward, but it is possible to create better tools. Even so, it was amazing what creative people did with these tools.

I found three videos that might spark your imagination about voxels and how in world building tools could be much better than the primitives we are used to.

Video One: Early alpha developer video introducing building with voxels:

 

Video Two: Shows examples of what alpha testers built using these tools:

 

Video Three: Top 5: Creative Block "Voxel" Games Like Minecraft:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

i just add on here

about economic comparisons with the RL

a reason why SL didnt take off in 2006/2008 with the masses is bc the mechanics of the SL economy bears little relationship to the RL economy mechanics of today

in the RL the masses gain their income from working at a job. Are employed by others and get paid wages and salaries

the SL economic model is based on a pre-industrial revolution model (17th century about). SL land owners are lords and ladies of their domains, subject only to the will of the Monarch (ToS). SL creatives are 17th century crafters

in the RL post-industrial revolution model, not everyone is a crafter. Hardly anyone is in a 80/20 split meaning. The modern-day term is entrepreneur. Sure we are creative and enterprising most times in our jobs but we (the masses) are not much interested in taking on the risks that self-employment as a crafter/entrepreneur involves. In the RL we dont have to. There is only about 20% of us who are prepared to take on the risk (bc of the rewards), and are able to do this successfully, and are happy to employ others for wages to achieve this goal when necessary

in SL back then 2007/2008 (and same now) there were not (and still are not) enough jobs in SL. Is some jobs like hosting and that, but is nowhere near enough of these to provide employment enough to sustain the masses in a way that they (most of the masses) RL recognise and understand

+

to address this other companies use grinding/mining mechanics to simulate jobs. A pick and shovel job/mechanic. It doesnt directly add to the overall wealth of the economy this. It does tho boost the population

is a delicate balance this. How little money can we pay people to do a simulated job, so that they get a taste for spending money inworld. consumerism

tasty enough so that they will put some of their RL wages/salaries/pension into the world as well. Salary/wages the virtual world provider cant actual provide inworld, at the levels needed to sustain the masses. Which the RL is better at doing at this time

seems to me that Ebbe with nextgen platform is going down the second part of this road. Tempting the masses who have RL jobs/income. Is worth a go this I think, given that the 17th century model on which SL is based hasnt worked for the masses, and actually cant

the other factors being, in a virtual world like SL there are unlimited virtual resources and energy for sustenance. We dont need to eat to live. nor require energy to make/shape/create things. Nor do resources ever run out

+

the zillion dollar question and whoever answers it will get the zillion masses at this time. How to create a virtual world/environment in which there are jobs for the masses ? Is the same problem the RL struggles with also tho 

+

i think tho that the answer for virtual worlds lies in virtually emulating scarcity in the 1st instance, and then providing a way to recycle made stuff. Recycle meaning can destruct what we have in our inventories and release the resources from which the stuff is constructed. And then being able to sell these resources back on the market. same like LindeX

for example. A prim is 1 unit. I buy a thing made of 10 units (energies). I pay 100L for it say. I no longer need/want it. I destruct it. I now have 10 units which I can sell. Or I can use the 10 units to make something for myself if I want

basically I/we/anyone cant make something out of nothing. Which is how SL works now. We able to make something out of nothing

if I make a top say. And say is 2 units (energies) contained. Everytime I sell a copy 2 energies are sold with it. If I only have 100 energies I can only sell 50 tops. To sell more tops I have to acquire more energy. And I go to the market for these. Or I can go mining for them myself

is when there is a established market to buy/sell energy units that jobs come. Mining with pick/shovel  becomes a real job. The world provider isnt paying me to do this. Other people in the world are

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2050 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...