Jump to content

Fed up with pricing restrictions


ArtemusHawthorne
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1897 days.

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

Recommended Posts

I have about had it with mesh kit creators who set in their TOS a limit on what i can price my products for when i make textures 100% from scratch.  They are hurting their own business.  As the final end designer who is selling these products to the public, we are stuck having to deal with sale groups rules and such.  If a mesh kit wont allow me even for just 2 days for a sale, place their item on 60L sale price, i simply cant buy that kit. I have bypassed many good kits, because they are TOSing it out of my boundaries.  Then you consider, its been in my store for 2 years, hardly has a sale anymore, im not allowed to move it down to my 99 or less area.  If they want to impose on my business and set these pricing restrictions, then stop to consider what the end designer has to adhear to.  Allow limited time lower priceing for sales and clearance priceing after a year from purchase etc.  Ive seen some kit creators do this and i applaud them and swarm to their store to find new things. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see it both ways.

Creating a piece of mesh clothing in the first place is a time consuming process, many hours.  So to see it be completely devalued by being dumped in the L$60 sale catagory is devaluing that item across everyone else who sells that item from a template.

The next move is often to bundle more and more in, tops, shoes, bottoms, complete outfits and flog that as low as possible, just to get that sale.  The result is that the customer is indoctrinated into believing that mesh *should* be cheap because they've seen it cheap elsewhere, the same item.

Now, along comes someone asking for a custom mesh outfit and they themselves post in their advert terms like "don't think i'm paying more than a couple of thousand L$ just for a custom item" and they get this notion because they've seen full perm kits for that price and complete outfits for a hundred or less.  The fact that their custom item may take 40+ hours to make of someones very real time seems to completely pass them by.

On the other hand, I can sympathise with your sentiment about having pricing imposed but that's also the same from other content creators who would wish to see their work have a value for all concerned, racing to the bottom of a price war is a mugs game.

You have two choices, you can either accept the terms as written or pass them by and choose a different creator from whom to purchase the items you wish to use.  Nothing new here.  Oh the other option is to just do what the hell you like and make up your own rules and sell regardless of any agreement, nothing is likely to happen anyway *shrugs*.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This affect more than just the 60L sale items over the weekends. I see many events who reguire it to be 99 or less.  SO many kits have a 100 or less restriciton. That cuts all of those out of these type of events. i understand and appreciate the complexity of making the meshes to beging with.  But they have the right to sell the kit for what they feel its worth.  I have the choice if i want to pay that amount.  But once i buy somethinga t full perm, i should be able to do whatever i like with it, shy of giving or selling it as full perm. And at the least, set a short term event/sale price requirement and a "after its so old i cant sell it anymore" price limit.  I am more than willing to pay for quality.  But i simply cant run a business with the requirements that fall on me from all directions when i cant even choose the prices of my own products.

Link to post
Share on other sites


ArtemusHawthorne wrote:

I agree, im working on that. They are losing business by giving us no other choice

Well they are loosing YOUR business, but on the other hand there may certainly be folks that LIKE to buy items that have a minimum sales price and some of those may not purchase from the mesh creators that have no bottom allowed price.

Making your own is of course the perfect solution. You may find however that you don't want to sell the item that took you so long to make for a measely $60 L or whatever *wink*. There is that too :D.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand why full perm sellers put price restrictions into their licensing agreements and or TOS.  They do it to try and help keep their work from being devalued.  Currently the way SL works there is nothing in place to stop this from happening.  I have seen it happen over and over again.  One person buys an item full perm and sells it for a decent price.  Then a second person buys it and starts to sell it for a slightly lower price.  Then a third person buys it and sells it for even less.  It doesn't take long till the price has dropped through the floor not only making the original full perm item practically worthless but it even hurts other similar items that are not full perm that are for sale on the marketplace or in world.

This downward spiral caused by the way full perm works in SL devalues all digital goods not just full perm.  Even full perm items do not sell for what they used to sell for a few years ago.  The current system of full perm in SL ends up discouraging creativity.

Here's what has been happening for years.  Original designers, who do not sell full perm, create new innovative and beautiful high quality items.  They spend tens or even hundreds of hours just to make one incredible creation.  They can do this because they were able to sell the item at a good price and get a decent return for their investment so they are very motivated to be unique, artistic and innovative all of which takes time and effort.

Along comes a full perm creator.  They look around and see items that are being sold for a good price.  So they decide to make a similar product.  Since they are not spending time trying to be unique or innovative they are able to put up on the Marketplace an item that has taken way less time and effort to create and sell it full perm for about 100 times more than what the non-full perm items go for and it sold well even if the quality was only half what the non-full perm items were.

So people bought the full perm items because they saw things on the Markerplace that were selling well that were not full perm and selling well at a good price.  They then priced their item they bought for a little less than the non-full perm items and were able to get decent sales and a high return on their investments especially since the time and effort was minimal.  Only problem other people also bought the same full perm item and undercut the original reseller and this undercutting happens over and over again till the market is now flooded and now the full perm item is worth less.  Why? Because the original non-full perm items can not sell for as much because they have been devalued because the market has been flooded low cost versions.

This means now the original content creator who didn't sell full perm can no longer make a decent return on their time and effort.  So the incentive to be original, creative artistically and innovative is no longer there.  So they either invest less time or they leave or they become full perm sellers themselves.  Here is the catch, it was only because the non-full perm items value that was making it possible for the full perm item to have a decent value.  

I have seen over the past few years the quality of full perm items go up and up but the prices keep going down.  Why?  Because buyers of full perm keep undercutting not only non-full perm items but each other devaluing all items.  This means in order for full perm sellers to make money they have to create better quality items in order to add more value so they can get a better price but the prices resellers can sell at have no bottom they can give an unlimited amount of their items they bough away for free and there is nothing that can stop them not even the TOS or license agreement.

It is illegal for a full perm seller to set any sort of price limit.  It is against US law for them to do so. Google the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 which was amended by the Clayton Act in 1914.  If something is illegal it can not be enforced by any TOS or licensing agreement.

I totally understand why full perm sellers try to put a price limit.  Don't get me wrong I have nothing against people who sell full perm.  I have many many friends who sell full perm.  We have discussed the problems with how full perm is setup and functions here in SL.  They see the problems and see how their own work is being devalued.  

Personally I like how IMVU does full perm.  The original creator always gets the same amount no matter who sells the item every time the item is sold so the price can never be lower than the original price sold by the original content creator.  This does two things.  The price of the full perm item sells for slightly less than non-full perm items.  People who buy full perm have to add value to the item such as creating textures or adding their own mesh they create to the original item in order to be able to sell it for more than the original price.

It puts an end to the endless cycle of devaluing and undercutting.  It allows those who can't make mesh or are new to creating to start small and simple by creating textures and learn and grow over time as content creators themselves as their abilities and skill develop.  It allows those who don't want to sell full perm to get a decent return on their investment without seeing their work devalued.

Personally I hope LL does full perm in Project Sansar differently than it works here in SL.  It is really too late to make any major changes to the system here in SL.  I really like to see a system similar to IMVU's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

your argument was ok until this bit

"This means now the original content creator who didn't sell full perm can no longer make a decent return on their time and effort.  So the incentive to be original, creative artistically and innovative is no longer there.  So they either invest less time or they leave or they become full perm sellers themselves.  Here is the catch, it was only because the non-full perm items value that was making it possible for the full perm item to have a decent value"

you making a jump to a conclusion which is not actual supported by the argument you were making

that there can be a price race to the bottom for value-added contents applied to full perm templates has no relationship to the incentive to be original, create and artistically innovative

a price race as a disincentive to people who are texturers and not modellers can be true, if that is all that was possible for them to do

but it isnt

the texturers who were nearly obselete (or it seemed like it to them when mesh came out) have been invigorated and they all back in the business of doing what they do best: texturing

mesh bodies and mesh body clothes appliers. Clothes, nails, skins, makeups, etc

best thing that ever happened to texturers since ages. Them texturers who still struggling a bit with learning mesh making tools, are also even now able to make good money again. bc of this new market for them. A market they can join in on

+

also

original mesh clothes makers who are skilled are making really good money these days. New content that is well-made always attract a premium. Like 450L avg for a quality item now for the top guys these days. A price being asked for and paid for. When about 2 years ago it was 250L and falling

price was falling back then bc we the customers had already consumed all the stuff that was pretty much possible. Was hardly any really new and innovative stuff being made, at the end of the prim/sculpt days

+

what mesh templates did was keep the texturers and not-yet modellers solvent. Those who needed something to make and sell in their shops. So to keep getting some money to pay the tiers, while they learn the new tools to make mesh

now they do. Know how. and is amazing new and better mesh stuff coming out every day. and the prices are going up for these guys

template-made prices are diving tho. Thats true.

but not bc of the disincentives for original creative artistically innovative people.

template content prices are diving bc of the financial incentives that original creative artistic innovative people now have (once again) to make their own stuff

same as they used to do with system layers, prims and sculpts

+

eta. just in case is not clear

template clothes are the clothes can buy at Walmart in the RL. Cheap and functional intended for the Main St. They not made or even intended for the High St

and also. Is heaps of people quite happy to make for the Main Street and sell for what ever they can get. Like 20L or 10L even. Just make as best they can and stick on the MP. and if soem money then ok. If not then oh! well. It dont matter

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will have to respectfully agree to disagree with you irihapeti about whether or not my argument was OK until a certain point.

I will give this to you yes not everyone is motivated by financial reward nor will all people be less motivated to be original, creative artistically or innovative when that financial reward becomes less as prices fall due to undercutting and market saturation brought on by full perm buyers.

I will however be willing to bet that the vast majority of people who sell on the market place do have financial gain as at least in part a motivator and when the returns on their investments lessen so does their motivation.

I never said there was no benefit to full perm.  Full perm definitely has a place in any economy and has many benefits to offer many many people.  As the example you use for texture artists.  I am not against that at all in any way.

If full perm sellers themselves didn't see a problem with undercutting and devaluing of their work so many of them wouldn't try to stop it by putting price limits into their license agreements and TOS.

My argument still holds true that full perm items only could get the higher prices they were getting because of the prices non-full perm items were selling for.  That when non-full perm items lose their value and can no longer sell at those prices due to undercutting and market saturation brought on by full perm resellers the full perm items valve also then goes down and can no longer sell at their prices.  Less financial reward for probably most people who are participating in the MarketPlace will most likely mean they will be less motivated.

Like I said it is too late to make any sort of drastic changes here in SL to how full perm functions but I really hope that project Sansar LL comes up with a system that keeps this pattern of devaluation from happening.

Devaluation of digital goods is not unique to SL.  It is happening in real life too.  Anytime there is basically no real financial cost to make and distribute unlimited copies of anything this can and does happen.  There is a very interesting article from Duke Law School:

THE APPLE E-BOOK AGREEMENT AND
RUINOUS COMPETITION: ARE E-GOODS
DIFFERENT FOR ANTITRUST PURPOSES?
by MICHAEL WOLFE

You can read it here: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1249&context=dltr

Link to post
Share on other sites
you made a argument earlier that said that price scheduling by template makers is anti-competitiive. by the RL legislation
 
the IMVU system is also anti-competitive by the same legislation. The IMVU system fixes the bottom price at which goods are sold. Is a artificial system this. Is not based on market forces. is not based on supply and demand. Is not based on a actual RL scarcity of resource
 
is a system designed to retain value for the suppliers (content makers) by setting a bottom below which prices cannot go. Is a attempt to limit the effect of depreciation on the suppliers
 
this kinda system is how RL cartels work
 
tbf tho to IMVU, having a cartel system is not what they intended when they made it. But is the outcome by the RL legislation
 
+
 
everybody (platform owners, content makers, ip holders, etc) are struggling with how to retain value for themself (stop depreciation). Which is fair enough
 
+
 
the article you link to is about a consumers view
 
is similar to quite a few other papers that take this approach. The approach basically pits ip holders (suppliers) against consumers. And then makes a pro-consumer argument. That the digital market should put the consumer before the ip holder
 
is a binary argument this. either|or, win|lose. Lots of ip holders engage in binary arguments as well. Just take the other side. Each side making their best arguments for whats in it for them. And they accept that whats good for one side can sometimes be detrimental to the other side
 
however they also seem to accept thats just how it is
 
meaning they not examine the premise itself. The premise that the market is binary. Some win and some lose. Which is true. but not in a consumer vs supplier sense. The win|lose market equation is actual applied to supplier vs supplier and independently to consumer vs consumer
 
the market is about strivng toward equilibrium. A balance between supplier and consumer (supply-demand). Is actual pretty impossible to reach equilibrium while the binary premise is applied to supplier|consumer     
 
and I think that until the suppliers (ip holders, content makers) and consumer advocates get this then we all going to keep on struggling to find a resolution
 
+
 
when we have had this kinda chat before on this forums, then I made some ideas on how this could be done (like resolved, so it works for consumers and suppliers and the world/platfom hosts and also is RL legislation compliant) at least for digital goods in market places like IMVU, SL, Sansar etc
 
i not get into it again now bc tl;dr already (:
 
but if you want I be happy to say again how I think it can be done
Link to post
Share on other sites


irihapeti wrote:

you made a argument earlier that said that price scheduling by template makers is anti-competitiive. by the RL legislation
 
Cathy Foil Reply:
OK you are throwing in terms and saying things I never said.  What I said was when full perm creators who put price limits in their license agreements or TOS in an attempt to keep resellers from devaluing their creations is illegal according to US law.  They are not trying to be anti-competitive because they are trying to hold all resellers who buy their product to the same standard.  The resellers who buy their product are all on the same level playing ground.
 
Full perm content creators who try to put price limits on their creations are not stopping other full perm content creators from not requiring price limits on the items they sell so no anti-competitive happening here.  Perhaps I am misunderstandings by what you men by anti-competitive.
 
irihapeti wrote:
the IMVU system is also anti-competitive by the same legislation. The IMVU system fixes the bottom price at which goods are sold. Is a artificial system this. Is not based on market forces. is not based on supply and demand. Is not based on a actual RL scarcity of resource
 
Cathy Foil Reply:
IMVU is not doing anything illegal.  It is not breaking US law.  The way IMVU works is that every copy no matter who sells it the original content creator must be paid for it.  In SL unlimited copies of full perm items can be sold or given away for free without the original content creator receiving anything.  Since in Second Life there is no cost to the reseller or seller per copy the number of copies that can be distributed is unlimited.
 
Yes IMVU is an artificial system but so is Second Life's Markerplace.  You are wrong that IMVU is not based on market forces.  You are wrong that IMVU is not based on demand.  Both IMVU and SL Markets unlimited copies can be made at no costs to the reseller or content creator and both IMVU and SL Markets do not have scarcity of
resources to limited the supply.
 
irihapeti wrote:
is a system designed to retain value for the suppliers (content makers) by setting a bottom below which prices cannot go. Is a attempt to limit the effect of depreciation on the suppliers
 
Cathy Foil Reply:
I don't know if IMVU created their system in an attempt to help retain the value of the items original content creators create.  I am more apt to believe the the owners of IMVU simply believed that for every copy that is sold the original content creator should be paid for their work which is pretty much standard in many industries such as movies, music and publishing.  The end result is it does help keep original content from being devalued by resellers undercutting each other.
 
irihapeti wrote:
this kinda system is how RL cartels work
 
Cathy Foil Reply:
You need to re read the definition of what a cartel is and how it works. Definition: an association of manufacturers or suppliers with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition.
 
For IMVU to be a cartel they would have to have meetings with content creators in which they all agree to sell particular type of items at the same high price.  IMVU all original content creators can sell the items they create themselves at any price so there is no restriction of competition between original content creators.
 
irihapeti wrote:
tbf tho to IMVU, having a cartel system is not what they intended when they made it. But is the outcome by the RL legislation
 
Cathy Foil Reply:
To be fair IMVU is not a cartel system never was.  Having a system that requires the original content creator get paid for every copy is not a cartel nor is it anti-competitive.  It is just a different system than SL's.
 
irihapeti wrote:
+
 
everybody (platform owners, content makers, ip holders, etc) are struggling with how to retain value for themself (stop depreciation). Which is fair enough
 
+
Cathy Foil Reply:
No argument here.
 
irihapeti wrote:
the article you link to is about a consumers view
 
Cathy Foil Reply:
Actually it isn't written from a consumers view.  It is written from a content creators, wholesale and resell point of view.  It is a pretty balanced paper.  While it does touch on that in the short term consumers benefit from falling prices in the short term in the long term such devaluing of written work, in the form of digital copies, actually force out professional writers because they can no longer make a living from writing and what is left are hobbyist who for the most part can not write as well as the professionals so while now there are more hobbyist writers and more books the quality of the writing is lower making it harder for consumers to find high quality books.
 
Now don't jump to conclusions here.  I am not advocating that SL be for professionals only.  SL has and always should be completely open to hobbyist.  Things have always sold here for hobbyist prices.
 
The paper basically says the laws are out of date because the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and Clayton Act in 1914 were written when there was always a real life costs to reselling items. Today however this is no longer true for digital goods.  Back in 1890 and 1914  if a reseller sold too many things at a loss they would soon go out of business.  The wholesalers always were paid full price for every copy the resellers sold no matter what.  Today with digital goods a reseller can distribute unlimited number of copies and there is basically no real life cost per copy.  OK yes the tiny bit of electricity it takes to transmit the copy and yes the hardware and software to run the servers but those costs next to nothing per copy so essentially the cost is so low that here in SL LL can offer free user accounts the ability to distribute unlimited copies of digital goods.  Basically there are no financial losses for resellers even when they distribute free unlimited copies.
 
The paper correctly identified that because these acts were written so long ago there was no way for them to foresee a time when unlimited copies of things could be made and distributed by resellers that would basically cost nothing for the reseller. 
 
irihapeti wrote:
is similar to quite a few other papers that take this approach. The approach basically pits ip holders (suppliers) against consumers. And then makes a pro-consumer argument. That the digital market should put the consumer before the ip holder
 
is a binary argument this. either|or, win|lose. Lots of ip holders engage in binary arguments as well. Just take the other side. Each side making their best arguments for whats in it for them. And they accept that whats good for one side can sometimes be detrimental to the other side
 
however they also seem to accept thats just how it is
 
meaning they not examine the premise itself. The premise that the market is binary. Some win and some lose. Which is true. but not in a consumer vs supplier sense. The win|lose market equation is actual applied to supplier vs supplier and independently to consumer vs consumer
 
Cathy Foil Reply:
I have no idea about these other papers you mention so I will have to take your word on what they say and conclude.  I will however say the paper I linked to do not take that approach nor come to those conclusions as you can gather from what I wrote above.
 
 
irihapeti wrote:
the market is about strivng toward equilibrium. A balance between supplier and consumer (supply-demand). Is actual pretty impossible to reach equilibrium while the binary premise is applied to supplier|consumer     
 
and I think that until the suppliers (ip holders, content makers) and consumer advocates get this then we all going to keep on struggling to find a resolution
 
+
 
when we have had this kinda chat before on this forums, then I made some ideas on how this could be done (like resolved, so it works for consumers and suppliers and the world/platfom hosts and also is RL legislation compliant) at least for digital goods in market places like IMVU, SL, Sansar etc
 
i not get into it again now bc tl;dr already (:
 
but if you want I be happy to say again how I think it can be done
 
Cathy Foil Reply:
I would love to hear your solution to help keep digital goods from being devalued.  While I may not have agreed with allot of what you wrote so far I am always open to good ideas.  IMVU has its own problems and if you can come up with a better solution I am all ears.  Mind you I don't think there can be or should be major changes to how SL full perm work now here in SL.  I like for things to be different in Sansar and leave SL the way it is so those who prefer SL's system can stay and have SL's system and those who prefer the new system at Sansar can find new opportunities there.  Having two virtual worlds SL and Sansar both work and function using the same system and rules would be a huge mistake.  If they are equal then most likely 50% will stay and 50% will leave for Sansar.  Can either world survive with half the residents?  Yes I kow most people will spend time in both but fairly soon people will have a favorite and spend the vast majority of their time and money there.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
is a cartel behaviour, in practice
 
the buyers (all those further down the chain, which can be more than one) are restricted in what price the product can be resold for
 
which makes this behaviour non-compliant by the RL legislation
 
+
 
work it thru
 
I make a product/asset and price at $1. A person buys off me. They cant resell the asset for less than $x. The IMVU system enforces this, in practice
 
in the SL system
 
I make a asset and price at $1. A person buys off me. They can resell for any lesser price incl. $0. The SL system doesnt prevent this, in practice
 
then I think hmmm! not good for me as the asset maker. So I make a Terms & Conditions that says cant resell for less than $x
 
my action in making a T&C restricting the resell price is not RL legislation compliant
 
LL will not enforce my T&C, bc RL legislation
 
LL in not enforcing my T&C, is also RL legislation compliant as a company
 
+
 
what IMVU did was create this same kind of T&C, which applies to all buyers down the chain. And then they enforce it thru the system
 
in practice, all the asset makers are acting as a price-fixing cartel. A practice enabled by IMVU
 
can understand why IMVU did it tho. Is just not RL legislation compliant (in most RL jursidictions)
Link to post
Share on other sites

about the ideas

here goes (:

 

i just say at the start that this is not all my original ideas
 
is a mashup of all kinds of thinkings and ideas thought of and written about by lots of people over some years, as well as me
 
+
 
what is the scarce resource in a online 3D world: like SL, Sansar, etc ?
 
is the absence of lag
 
our computers (servers and clients) are limited by lag. The more assets there are (the more detailed the assets are) in the viewer scene of the world, the greater the lag. Both network lag, render lag, data fetch lag from storage, etc
 
what can we do about this?
 
the current thinking/practice is to set upload fees on assets. The more over-detailed the asset (the more lag inducing) the higher the upload fee
 
which can work as a disincentive to uploading (lag inducing) assets, but only for this one time action - the uploading
 
after we paid the onetime fee then can sell as many copies of it as we want/can. There is no restriction on how many. So when people buy lots of this asset then it chews into the scarce resource (absence of lag) without any further cost on the seller
+
 
a way can think about this problem (and LL has with SL in parts, and in their more recent thinkings about it, in what little they have said about Sansar so far) is:
 
capping how much lag can be induced. In SL restrict sim to ? LI (prims), etc
 
which LL have mentioned for Sansar also. The size of the sim is not the issue. Is how many assets (LI) can be placed in the scene. What is the upper limit before the assets start to over-chew into the scarce resource (absence of lag)
 
a other thought is to cap the lag on the avatar. Avatar can have a LI as well. Can wear, attach any number of assets, in any combination, upto some limit
 
+
 
ok next
 
how can we (as a world designer) monetarise the absence of lag. Is a scarce resource this. The absence of lag ?
 
situation is, many low lag items vs fewer high lag items. The consumer wants the many in most situations
 
so how can we get the makers to make low lag items, and get buyers to buy low lag items ?
 
can make LI a tradeable asset
 
example:
 
Avatar has a min. LI allocation. Which it needs to be fully clothed respectable. Say 100 LI. Then there is a max LI applied to Avatar. Can be upto say 200
 
avatar then will try to maximise the many to fit into the bounds. [100..200]. Can be any bounds. I just use these for example
 
which while ok, annoys people if they buy something that looks nice and then after buy find out it eats all their 100 LI. So end up nekkie but nice heels (:
 
but suppose you did buy them anyways even when told what is the shoes LI (100LI). bc nekkie + shiny heels = excited partner sometimes (:
 
but then later on dont want the shoes anymore. At the moment we just chuck them in the bin (or try flick them for some/any price to someone else if Trans)
 
+
 
but suppose we buy the shoes anyways. They cost L$500. Which we pay the seller. So all good. Buyer happy. Seller happy about the money
 
and then also 100LI (the LI of the shoes) are transferred from the sellers (LI float) account to our (LI asset) buyer account
 
the effect then is that the seller must have sufficient LI (resource) to sell each pair of shoes
 
when their account runs out of LI, downto not less than the min 100LI needed for themself. Or some cap they impose themself on sales of each type of item. Like I got enough LI to sell 20 pairs of these shoes. After that then thats it. No more sales of these shoes until I can get some more LI in my LI float account
 
 
+
 
where do I the seller get more LI?
 
I go to the LI Exchange, where LI is bought and sold for L$ as a commodity between residents (same as how the Lindex works for L$)
 
where do the resource sellers get their LI from?
 
by destructing the shoes. The shoes have 100LI in them. I destruct/delete. 100LI is added to my account. I can sell that on the LI Exchange for L$
 
for the sink effect (where buyers dont destruct or resell/transfer) then the world owner can put more LI into the Exchange pool themself. Same as how LL do with L$ now
 
+
 
it encourages sellers to be efficient in making stuff. Each and every item sold is going to cost them LI. It also stops the make it once, goodly or badly, and chaching it for ever and ever more. Which is how the RL works for business as well. Got 20 shoes. Can sell 20 shoes. and thats it
 
also if LMs, notecards, etc also have a LI cost then will make everyone more careful about random dumping stuff on other people
 
freebies as well
 
the LMs, notecards, freebies can all be destructed to get the LI value out of them. So random dumping is going to cost the sender
 
shopkeepers will still do this, like send out advert materials, just not randomly. As it will cost them to do this. So they have to manage their resource. Same as they do in the RL
 

+
 
buyers are going to hunt for the many items that fit in their sim and avatar LI limits. They be looking for same quality items, but for less LI, than one made by someone else
 
low LI, but high quality items, can (and will) sell at a premium to same quality but more LI items
 
and if they do buy wrong (or just dont want it anymore) then can destruct the item and get some value (LI) back out of it
 
is also a incentive this to empty all the unwanted out of our inventories periodically. So we can buy more new stuff out of the money we got from selling the LIs
 
+
 
whats the lowest price a item can sell for and the seller remain solvent (tiers excepted) ?
 
the price of the scarce resource (LI) in the item. A lowest price set by the market on the LI Exchange. So RL legislation compliant
 
+
 
do I need LI to make stuff for myself. Like make own outfits and stuff for my parcel ?
 
No
 
can make any amount of stuff with no restriction on the making. The LI limits applies to our avatar (what we can wear at any one time) and on our parcel (the LI.prim limit same as SL now)
 
the LI asset is a transfer transaction. Only applies when we sell or give stuff to others
 
basically we cant destruct our own creations (we have made out of fresh air) to get LI. There is none to get. The LI in the stuff we own, was given us by the person who sold/gave us the item
 
+
 
is two LI balances
 
The first is in our (LI float) account from which the transfer of LI is transacted. The second balance is in the stuff we have in our owned assets made by other people. Our (LI asset) account. We cant sell, use or transfer Asset LI. We have to destruct the asset first to release it to our LI float acount
 
if no LI in our LI float) then cant transfer stuff. Have to buy some if want to do this, or destruct assets
 
+
 
i think if do all this then things like upload fees (to ameliorate lag effect) could be eliminated
 
the world provider could even tax the LI destruction process, a consumption tax in effect. Instead of taxing the $ sale price
 
like when destruct a 100LI item then get 70LI transferred from our (LI asset acount) to our (LI float) account. 30LI goes in tax
 
to encourage people to keep inventory under control, to destruct stuff they dont actually want, then can cap Inventory to xLI. Once full then full. Cant get any more in. So destruct some stuff
 
Or can rent for US$ a higher inventory LI limit. Inventory Tier
 
so altogether
 
world owner gets money from more diverse sources (and not sales tax):
 
1) Land/parcel tiers
2) Inventory tiers
3) Lindex fees
4) Lindex sink profits
5) LI Exchange fees
6) LI Exchange sink profits
7) Membership packs. (like Premium, Premium Builder, Premium Shopkeeper, Premium Rental Baron, etc)
 
 
Link to post
Share on other sites

just ad on about the Membership packs

Premium be more interested in parcel tier allowance and L$ allowance, same as now in SL

Premium Builder be happy to pay a a extra U$ fee for unlimited uploads

Premium Shopkeeper be more interested in getting LI allowance rather than L$ allowance

+

Premium Baron be more interested in access to the builtin Home Rentals system

SL dont have that system. But if was me then I would make it, and then charge the Baron a usage fee on top of land tiers

if not a fee-paying Premium Baron then cant be in the rental business

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...