Should have Second Life been divided by versions?

[ImaTest1488314069]

Most of the folks that say they left because their pc can't handle it, aren't being fully truthful.

Most of those folks don't know how to help their pc handle sl.

Some don't even try.

Loads of those folks just use having a system that can't handle sl as an excuse.

Lots of those folks don't actually leave sl at all.

Lots of alts are born to folks that "left"

If other virtual worlds were comparable, they'd have better user bases by now.

There's a reason why the game there was shut down for a good long while.

If people want old, there is a perfect game for them.

Even low end systems in sl have better options than high end systems in there.

The mass exodus people see has nothing to do with systems being able to handle sl.

People leave.

People move on.

That's what happens with hobbies.

They get dropped.

No amount of changes ll makes will change that.

People will always leave.

People will always have an excuse for it.

System can't handle it's  just a good excuse.

It's not usually valid tho.

I've a pc old as dirt I use for sl sometimes.

It's got limits, but it's not impossible.

Easier for people to learn how to adjust their system than for sl to make a whole set of new worlds.

Logistics alone would be a nightmare.

Add in manpower, time and money.

It would never work, ever. 

[Amethyst Jetaime]

---

Canoro Philipp wrote:

...I read comments from all around the world that they are being forced to leave Second Life, that they have better priorities in life than buying a new computer..

---

Obviously they have decided SL is not a high priorty to them then.  So while it is sad to see a friend leave for this reason, it is THEIR CHOICE.  It is not a good enough reason to confuse things with different versions of SL because of their choice.

Everyone posted against this.  So you should just accept that your idea is not supported now.

[Bree Giffen]

I just realized that all the reasons against Canoro's idea are exact reason why LL isn't making Sansar a new version of SL.

[Spica Inventor]

The actual problems with SL.

1. Lack of server support

2. Stupid land based economy

3. Price pumping

4. Virtual monopoly

5. Bad reputation/ bad p.r.

6. Too many uptight control freaks

8. Ultra job security mind frame at LL.

9. Huge lack of reinvestment relative to investment capabilities

 

 

[Canoro Philipp]

a divided user base is not so senseless idea, Linden Lab has somehow been dividing its users in separate worlds, Sansar will atract consumers that have a different focus than many SL users, that have multiple interests when they log in SL, probably creators would be more atracted to use Sansar, or, if Sansar would be so visually appealing as the screenshots show, it would attract artists.

with BlocksWorld, the aim has been to cater to people with low processors, maybe some users that want to play with their creativity, in a not so serious level, maybe socialize and have fun, maybe casual players, that just want a moment of entertainment.

Linden Lab is providing server power to those separate worlds, I assume they don't need very capable servers to run BlocksWorld, as much as they need server power to run Sansar.

they are dividing the user base according to their focus, and it seems to me a smart decision, providing different worlds to people with different expectatives, that's why dividing Second Life, in terms of capabilities, would be factible.

the division is already here, in my view, it should have happened a long time ago, to keep the product of Second Life fresh, like the launch of BlocksWorld and Sansar has been, and to get rid of stigmas of the past.

Second Life could have chosen the path of reneweing and relaunching the product from time to time, and maybe Second Life would have reached a higher level of success.

analyzing the state of Second Life, and seeing it from different scenarios, will make us have a clear idea of what we have.

well, it was some food for thought, that maybe could help to prevent further obstacles.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Canoro Philipp wrote:

<snip>

Second Life could have chosen the path of reneweing and relaunching the product from time to time, and maybe Second Life would have reached a higher level of success.

</snip>

---

I really have no familiarity with other multi player platforms and games so I don;t know how "inventory"  works in them to compare.  But not breaking current content has always been an obstacle to improving SL.  Because people have investments in their inventories.  Some people could have several thousand dollars invested.  So rather than "renewing and relaunching" what we get for the most part are tiny incremental upgrades.

Sorry, but if I logged in tomorrow and found that all my flying saucers didn't work on the new and that I'd have to invest in a whole new fleet I'd be pretty upset.  Perhaps even upset enough to go elsewhere.

The SL World is kind of fragmented already.  This proposal would only fragment it more.

[Canoro Philipp]

was thinking in some sort of compatibility between the divisions, like Microsoft Office documents can be read by a newer versions, but documents made in the recent version can't be read by older versions.

i can see how the compattibility sometimes wouldn't work, like Sansar, it may be possible to transfer some objects from SL to Sansar, but some objects made in Sansar would be unreadable by Second Life.

I guess the separation between products have to be more drastic, remaking the product from the ground up, like BlocksWorld and Sansar.