Jump to content
Penny Patton

Why No-Mod?

Recommended Posts


entity0x wrote:

 

The octopus table was fine the way it was. No copy, no mod... NO PROBLEM.


Then you wouldn't have modified it even if it was modifiable, would you?

I'm sure I haven't modified the vast majority of things that I own which I have modify permissions on, and some of the things that I have modified look identical to how the maker originally made them - I just modified them to do things like reducing prim count by changing physics types, etc.

Making something no-mod is done to prevent the customer from doing something to it. That's all it is. It's fundamentally a decision made out of fear. I'm not saying that the fear isn't justified in some cases. But if it's done to "protect" your design decisions, what does that say about your faith in your own decisions and in your customers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


entity0x wrote:


Gadget Portal wrote:

You're getting awfully salty about this whole thing.

It's like I said... If it's that upsetting to lose sales because people are learning the truth, maybe there's something wrong with your business model.

And if you're not losing sales, and selling no mod is working fine for you, then why all the crying?

NOTE: You're a
, so this response is not necessarily to you (
who wants attention by making frequent inciteful comments and accusations
), but to anyone who reads this, -for the sake of discussion and clarity.

This isn't about me, I'm discussing a topic here. Do you have the intellect to understand that a person can discuss a topic without having to have a personal belief or investment in it?

Or hold no animosity at the end of the day for an individual, just because that individual does things different from you?

This is how people learn more about things.. they discuss with others that have counter views to their own, so that they can see another, and learn from another view. Even if I present a view with vigor and determination, doesn't mean I can't or won't change my position with new information, or perhaps a view I hadn't considered in the past.

The only ones who get salty, upset, or resort to attacking the person, behind the post are the ones who do not understand this.

Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.

 

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

You obviously consider yourself an artist
first
instead of a businessperson. Essentially, you just confirmed what I said. Thank you!


I am an artist first, AND a businessperson. In my posts, I have stated that SL is firstly a creative outlet for me, secondly I make a few things to support my activities and uploads into SL, thirdly learning to work in 3D to make creations come to life, and SL is my main sharing ground. Currently it's a small business, and it's profitable. Right now, I re-invest earnings back into more learning and tools, and into the day to day dealings in SL.

My goals are also not just in SL, but in other avenues. If the SL business grows, that's great, but no, it isn't my foremost goal, and for many it shouldn't be. It changes them, corrupts them, makes them overly anxious and hostile, competitive, and therefore threatened at times by countering opinion. This creates elitism and some of the statements made on these forums can reflect that.

Also, don't mix my opinions with my end actions, as I discuss topics with a razor's edge or appearance of stubbornness, but I always take countering opinions into consideration. I just fight hard for a position at the time, and ask for fair and well-thought out counter-responses. (I'm actually trying to help the person convince me of their position).

But no, if I wanted to make a business, and have less fun at it, I would just produce the average things that everyone wants, pay more attention to top selling products, and learn/make them, etc.. it IS a different mindset.

However, I think this point is a little off the topic, because it should be about WHY or WHY NOT to have certain permissions, and whether or not the average consumer should boycott those who do not provide it (I gave reasons why some may not want to - still not responded to), and the general nastiness of posters stating that merchants who dont give carte blanche to users to modify their works are 'anti-consumerist', etc.  I see a lot of repeating opinions, but no real supporting statements behind them.

 

I haven't made any accusations, just observations and questions. If you're taking it that personality that you think it's an accusation, perhaps it is about you after all.

Again I ask... If it's not hurting sales, why get so upset and accuse Penny of wanting to use things for her own profit? That sounds like discussing people, not ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Penny Patton wrote:

First, there is nothing sinister about retexturing and renaming content. If you believe there is, I don't know what to say to you.

I don't recall anyone or myself saying that doing so is sinister, I've just been presenting the possible results of users editing products that have taken a lot of time to make.

I've been only presenting reasons why I would believe many creators would not desire to allow this end use, all the while also understanding that it adds benefits to the end user's experience as well. Noone is arguing that the SL user wouldn't benefit from mod/copy permissions.

My position has been handling the defaming comments made on personal blogs and alternate SL forums (which can be seen today) which call for boycotting of, and even labeling with nasty anti-consumerist-ish names, of creators who dont carte blanche mod/copy on everything.

Let the market decide, is really the only fair answer here.

 


Penny Patton wrote:

I'm really not sure what i meant by "so she
can
make money from it". The only land I have in SL right now is my personal home, which is not open to the public. It's just a place for me and friends to hang out. Just what are you insinuating?

Notice the use of may and can in many of my posts, that only implies the ability to conduct an action.

Many sim owners generate an income either with direct intent or by accepting donations from visitors to their sim.. This helps offset the cost of the sim, and in many cases also makes a profit. Many assets on these sims are made by the creators we are discussing in this topic. Let's not get too far off, the statement wasn't made to throw it off topic.

Personally, I don't want some of my projects to be used as Lego parts, and that isn't going to change soon. One day I will make some sets that people CAN use as lego parts. In the meantime, other products need to be varying permissions depending on the intended presentation and end use of...

 


Penny Patton wrote:

Look, giving people mod perms doesn't mean you're no longer creating content people want to use as-is, or that the changes they make will turn it into an entirely different item bearing no resemblance to the original.

Yes, I understand this, and so do other creators. My position has always been about choice, and not being labeled as hostile, selfish, egotistical, 'precious' or otherwise if I choose permissions as part of the experience of the product.

You're arguing your side, I'm arguing an alternate side, and giving as clear of examples as I can to validate my argument. Through this perhaps we can all find a happy medium where artists don't feel that their hard work is wasted, and that all they amount to is mesh makers.

I've done my own experiments with mod items, and YES, you can modify it so much, from resizing, retexturing, rescripting, renaming, and relinking to the point the original creator(s) are lost, and I become for all intents and purposes the 'creator' of the product.

For a creator, this is a bastardization of the hard work they put into a creation, spending time presenting it as it is, but now it's gone..

For a creator who is also a business owner, ( and presumably wants to profit ), that product is now unrecognizable, and amounts to just another lego piece in someone's toolbox, and potential customers don't even know where to get it, or who made it, or even know it was part of something to start with at all. Meanwhile.. the sim owner had incorporated it into their own builds, and collecting fees and donations from it...

For those in the business of selling mesh in SL, without the intent of making 'builder's parts' (important distinction to make, as there is a whole section dedicated for customers like you who want mod/copy parts) , this is kind of a big deal, as the time we spend into the piece means we want people to see it, and perhaps come and get their own copy.

This is the struggle - Do we put the work in, to only have it changed anyway? Do we allow mod and copy more, then wonder why we spend time baking alternate textures, etc... I'm trying to find a happy medium here.

The only one I see is to go back to the position I have always taken - let the artist (and the market decide), and for those that disagree, to refrain from calling said creators "anti-consumerist", 'conducting bad practices' or anything else derogatory. That is anti-competitive behaviour, whether it is on this forum, on a personal blog, or alternate SL forums.

 


Penny Patton wrote:

I also want to address this idea that selling no-mod somehow makes you an artist with integrity, creating unique beauty in the world, while those who sell moddable content are somehow lesser artists, or greedy business people just in it for the money. That's just ridiculous. I've been selling moddable content in SL since 2005. I'm just as much an artist as anyone else and take great pride in my work. I create content I want to use, and put a lot of effort into improving my craft. We just have different feelings about how others interact with our art.

I don't see anyone's position as presenting themselves as an artist on a higher level at all. In fact, personally I know exactly where I stand and how much I have to learn, and I constantly strive to optimize for the end use and enjoyment of everyone in SL as much as possible - if there are better ways of doing things, I'm always eager to learn and improve.

My concerns are the integrity of some of my products, existing and future, which suits limited permissions for valid reasons that I've stated (or even not so valid, but to also say it's my right to do so anyway, really). It has nothing to do with ego, but the end use of a certain product.

No one said it was greedy to give people what they want. A point was made that making popular art always sells more than unknown, and 'original' art.. it's just a burden to bear. If anything the opinion would be wistful, and not to be taken as gospel.

However, the point was made to underline a point... An artist who spends more time trying to offer something unique, rather than just modeling an existing product from a reference image(s), is probably going to be a bit more possessive about it, because of more time investment. Their 'attitude' if any, is not of superiority, but rather a time investment they feel just goes down the tubes when others are suggesting they undermine their artistic vision, to suit and end use they're not really catering to at the moment, or with the product involved. This doesn't mean that they won't extend permissions to other products for a different copy/mod end use.

It's interesting to me, that my most favourite items I purchased in SL when I first started, and seemed to me to be the highest quality, were no mod, no copy items. Their perceived value also seemed to be greater by default as well, as they felt more like 'real' products - something I could actually lose if not careful. I can understand why the makers made it so, and it's not really an issue with me. If there is a problem or I need a redelivery, I just contacted the creator and got it redelivered. I don't know their reasons, and I didnt care really, because their products were excellent as is - thats why I bought the damn thing lol.

Perhaps there is a reason why these products were so superior, compared to their moddable counterparts, who were made so because of improper UVmapping, sloppy mesh and sculpts, less functionality, buggy scripts... I wonder...

 


Penny Patton wrote:

I've said again and again that there are certain instances were no-mod makes sense, and that different creators have different ambitions and goals for their content in SL.

Great, on that we agree. My beef was more with your campaign calling for people to boycott creators that do so, without maybe considering why some of us would do it - and I guess it was up to me to do so. You seem to have somewhat corrected that on your blog, but nastier comments on alternate SL forums remain.

 


Penny Patton wrote:

 However, your most recent comments do suggest that you do believe making content moddable somehow opens them up to some sort of content theivery, so maybe you're not being entirely honest  when you say you sell no-mod purely for personal, artistic reasons and you do worry about some nebulous spectre of content theft.

Oh I have no illusions about content theft, I've had to deal with it as long as I have put anything up on the internet. I've learned to accept it as part of business, and to not worry about it so much.

While one cannot stop content thievery, one can still work with it and put in measures where one still gets recognized and credit anyway - at the least it must be taken as a compliment, and as free advertising really.

 


Penny Patton wrote:

You want to sell art pieces in SL which should only be used as you, the creator, intended. Fair play to you, go for it. I have my opinions about that of course, but I doubt I'd change your mind and you're free to sell how you please. Since the beginning I have been addressing more practical, yet flawed, reasons given for selling no-mod. Specific reasoning that I've done my best to clearly identify and examine so the community can have an honest, open discussion about them. 

And I appreciate the time you took in your responses, and I am hearing a different view about things, and I will ponder it of course. I'm here to improve SL, not destroy it, so I am always open to countering views. Just remember, I will fight hard for my position, offering as many supporting statements and examples that I can.

Give some of us a little credit, would you? We hear your words and consider them over time and decide for ourselves what we're willing to.. It's not all black and white

Hopefully through discussion we can learn from each other, whether we agree on points or not, and come to a happy medium and understanding that benefits everyone in SL, because that is the end goal, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


entity0x wrote:

 

My position has been handling the defaming comments made on personal blogs and alternate SL forums
(which can be seen today) which call for boycotting of, and even labeling with nasty anti-consumerist-ish names, of creators who dont carte blanche mod/copy on everything.

Let the market decide, is really the only fair answer here.

A boycott IS the market deciding. Consumers will join it - the market standing against something - or refuse to join it - the market standing for something.

A boycott is the most vocal way the consumer voices their collective opinion. It is the perfect way to let the market decide.

If you're on the right side of this, a boycott will not harm you one bit. It is a great way to see if consumer opinion is with or against you.

There have been product lines in SL that people have tried to organize against for the very reasons discussed in this thread - to no effect. There have been other product lines that have been killed off because of these very reasons. The market spoke loudly in both cases.

But my issue in this thread has been that everyone here but one poster has maintained a civil and polite method of discussing their stance. That one poster though, has repeatedly said things like:

"Screw your design professionals."

Using angry hostile words when not being personally attacked - highly uncalled for. And that HAS shaped my opinion as a consumer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A boycott is when you refuse to pay for something you otherwise would have -- like buses or grapes or chicken nuggets. 

A "boycott" of something you would not buy anyway makes no difference to anyone. 

 

Also a boycott is for when some action by a business is negatively affecting some people -- bus riders, grape packers, etc. It's not for when a product doesn't have all the features you would like. Just avoid buying those.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Pussycat Catnap wrote:

A boycott IS the market deciding. Consumers will join it - the market standing against something - or refuse to join it - the market standing for something.

A boycott is the most vocal way the consumer voices their collective opinion. It is the perfect way to let the market decide.

If you're on the right side of this, a boycott will not harm you one bit. It is a great way to see if consumer opinion is with or against you.

There have been product lines in SL that people have tried to organize against for the very reasons discussed in this thread - to no effect. There have been other product lines that have been killed off because of these very reasons. The market spoke loudly in both cases.

But my issue in this thread has been that everyone here but one poster has maintained a civil and polite method of discussing their stance. That one poster though, has repeatedly said things like:

"Screw your design professionals."

Using angry hostile words when not being personally attacked - highly uncalled for. And that HAS shaped my opinion as a consumer.

 

See this is the problem, in order to truly comprehend what is typed in a conversation, one must have a vocabulary, a library of words that they know the definitions of, to provide insight and context to it all.

No, 'letting the market decide' (also known as 'the free market') is not the same as  a 'boycott', which is defined as;

"A boycott is an act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with a person, organization, or country as an expression of protest, usually for social or political reasons. The purpose of a boycott, (or calling for one) is to inflict some economic loss on the target, or to indicate a moral outrage, or to try to compel the target to alter an objectionable behaviour."

Therefore, a boycott is actually a militant, evangelistic action. By acting in this manner on this subject, and calling for consumers to do so, you are acting in an 'anti-competitive' manner. It's one thing to politely ask and discuss, and perhaps convince creators to change their policies, and another to defame them by calling them 'anti-consumer' and 'conducting bad practices'.

Shall I post some of the nasty things that are said about these same creators on some internet blogs and the alternate SL forums on this matter? They are far from reasonable, and unfriendly (and definitely sound self-entitled) in their assessments of many creators who SL relies on for content.

"If you are on the right side of this"? Huh? There is no right side of this or wrong side of this.. It is opinion, and once again is up to each consumer, and is the right of anyone who submits content for use in SL. Why is it that you are simply unable to accept this, or even discuss any points counter to your own?

Instead, you must pick out some line in a response, that has offended you personally somehow, or wasn't delivered in the manner you demand, and derail the conversation instead...

Yes, 'screw what your so-called design professionals say', because an Argument From Authority means nothing. Your design professionals are opinion only, and not fact, and that statement is made in that context. You're assuming that the participants in this discussion aren't professionals themselves, or are not educated on the matter themselves. Even so, this was never brought into the conversation, because we're mainly discussing opinions here, and trying to learn from it.

You want to project anger and hostility into my comments, and as stated many times, that is not the nature of my responses. I reply firmly and with conviction, and I back up every statement I make - even if I have to repeat myself 3 times (when people don't read posts before responding) to do so.

I'm not worried about your type as a consumer, because you would take more than you give anyway. There is no 'right' side to this whole affair, it's just your opinion, and literally a handful of self-entitled, condescending know-it-alls who simply act anti-competitive in SL, in order to assure their own position in it.

Let's allow the market to decide. Freedom of the creator to make cool stuff for SL, allowing the consumer to weigh the benefits and cons, to compare prices for services offered, the quality of the products.

There's no need to engage or entertain some kind of 'Boycott-Gate". You're free to not be a customer of mine, or anyone else's who you are not happy with. In the meantime, I will decide for myself what I would like to do, and be willing to discuss why with anyone interested.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


entity0x wrote:

 

You want to project anger and hostility into my comments
, and as stated many times, that is not the nature of my responses. I reply firmly and with conviction, and I back up every statement I make - even if I have to repeat myself 3 times (
when people don't read posts before responding
) to do so.

I'm not worried about your type as a consumer, because you would take more than you give anyway. There is no 'right' side to this whole affair, it's just your opinion, and
literally a handful of self-entitled, condescending know-it-alls
who simply act anti-competitive in SL, in order to assure their own position in it.
 

 Hmmm. I wonder why someone might think you sound hostile?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


entity0x wrote:

Yes, '
screw what your so-called design professionals say
', because an
means nothing. Your design professionals are opinion only, and not fact, and that statement is made in that context. You're assuming that the participants in this discussion aren't professionals themselves, or are not educated on the matter themselves. Even so, this was never brought into the conversation, because we're mainly discussing opinions here, and trying to learn from it.

An argument from authority is when someone makes a claim and insists you believe them because the source is presented as an authority on the subject. 

This does not mean that statements from those who are an authority should be dismissed out of hand, or are no better than anyone else's opinions, but that they still need to present reasoning and evidence, or at least evidence that they know what they're talking about. 

Design professionals make a distinction between those who put their personal feelings towards their art over the needs of their customers for practical reasons. If I hire you to create something, or wish to purchase a creation from you, then I as the client have needs which must be met. An artist unwilling to bend to client's requirements is also very likely to be unwilling to bend to criticism, or  will take criticism in an overly personal manner. Criticism is necessary to a professional artist because it's how one improves their skills and better meets the needs of their clients.

These aren't just opinions and nothing more, there is a reasoning here, an argument backed up by facts. Does this mean professionals are better than non-professional artists? Not necessarily. This just illustrates why professionals are typically better for the client's needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have only represented your needs, and unless you have any statistics backing up the actual needs and preferences of the average SL'er, it's all opinion.

It's already been said over and over to you.

You have no right to dicate terms to creators, or have any ethical stance to call for boycotting them, or calling them 'anti-consumerist' or otherwise.

 

Thanks for your opinon, you can now stop repeating yourself.

The free market will decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh huh - like it's for you to decide when Penny should stop posting?!

She wasn't dictating terms; she was accurately explaining the reasons why no mod doesn't actually achieve what a number of people think it does.  She repeatedly, clearly, and unequivocally stated that all merchants absolutely have the right to sell with whichever perms they choose, as we all know.  She has NEVER called for a boycott of any merchants, rather she has simply said that she will not buy things that are no mod, since all customers have the right to choose what they buy.  

But anyway, YOU have expressed YOUR opinion, so I guess you can stop repeating yourself now too.  I rather doubt you will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to emphasize the significance of the contributions Penny has made to SL. Largely due to her camera position campaign, I have over the years progressively scaled down my houses and furnishings, and I regularly refer my customer base to her posts on the subject, through a variety of media. 

I also appreciate her efforts to educate people about the advantages and disadvantages of various permissions. 

My point in this discussion has just been to make clear that ultimately a creator should feel completely free to make whatever he likes, at whatever scale, whatever permissions, whatever color, whatever style,  for whatever reason. and targetting whatever clientele he chooses, without being accused of in some way injuring people who do not like his things. I think not everyone who posts in these threads understands that this is the way a free market works, and thus recommends trying to influence creator decisions through other means besides buying decisions -- name and shame, lists, boycotts, etc.,

Just not buying will absolutely do the trick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very well put, Pam, I could not agree more.  Penny has made some very significant contributions to SL in a number of fields, and I always think she explains herself clearly and well.

Of course, some people don't think so, and I suppose we will always have residents who wilfully misinterpret/misunderstand and get carried away with their own odd agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Pamela Galli wrote:

 

My point in this discussion has just been to make clear that ultimately a creator should feel completely free to make whatever he likes, at whatever scale, whatever permissions, whatever color, whatever style,  for whatever reason. and targetting whatever clientele he chooses, without being accused of in some way injuring people who do not like his things. I think not everyone who posts in these threads understands that this is the way a free market works, and thus recommends trying to influence creator decisions through other means besides buying decisions -- name and shame, lists, boycotts, etc.,

Just
not buying
will absolutely do the trick.

I think creators should feel completely free to make whatever they like, but consumers should be completely free to say what they think about the creator's decisions. After all, if they decisions are good ones, what would they have to fear?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Theresa Tennyson wrote:


Pamela Galli wrote:

 

My point in this discussion has just been to make clear that ultimately a creator should feel completely free to make whatever he likes, at whatever scale, whatever permissions, whatever color, whatever style,  for whatever reason. and targetting whatever clientele he chooses, without being accused of in some way injuring people who do not like his things. I think not everyone who posts in these threads understands that this is the way a free market works, and thus recommends trying to influence creator decisions through other means besides buying decisions -- name and shame, lists, boycotts, etc.,

Just
not buying
will absolutely do the trick.

I think creators should feel completely free to make whatever they like, but consumers should be completely free to say what they think about the creator's decisions. After all, if they decisions are good ones, what would they have to fear?

Of course, everyone should feel free to make whatever choices he wants, without attacking the decisions of others which do not affect them.  If I decided to make all red objects and you hate red, feel free to not buy them. But me making red items does not mean I am depriving you in some way. Plenty of non red stuff around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Pamela Galli wrote:


Theresa Tennyson wrote:


Pamela Galli wrote:

 

My point in this discussion has just been to make clear that ultimately a creator should feel completely free to make whatever he likes, at whatever scale, whatever permissions, whatever color, whatever style,  for whatever reason. and targetting whatever clientele he chooses, without being accused of in some way injuring people who do not like his things. I think not everyone who posts in these threads understands that this is the way a free market works, and thus recommends trying to influence creator decisions through other means besides buying decisions -- name and shame, lists, boycotts, etc.,

Just
not buying
will absolutely do the trick.

I think creators should feel completely free to make whatever they like, but consumers should be completely free to say what they think about the creator's decisions. After all, if they decisions are good ones, what would they have to fear?

Of course, everyone should feel free to make whatever choices he wants, without attacking the decisions of others which do not affect them.  If I decided to make all red objects and you hate red, feel free to not buy them. But me making red items does not mean I am depriving you in some way. Plenty of non red stuff around.

But if I was advising someone who was in the market for something that might or might not be red, I'd tell them you only made red things, and that there were others in the market who made things in other colors. If they wanted something red they could still go to you, and if they didn't they could avoid wasting their time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Pamela Galli wrote:


Theresa Tennyson wrote:


Pamela Galli wrote:

 

My point in this discussion has just been to make clear that ultimately a creator should feel completely free to make whatever he likes, at whatever scale, whatever permissions, whatever color, whatever style,  for whatever reason. and targetting whatever clientele he chooses, without being accused of in some way injuring people who do not like his things. I think not everyone who posts in these threads understands that this is the way a free market works, and thus recommends trying to influence creator decisions through other means besides buying decisions -- name and shame, lists, boycotts, etc.,

Just
not buying
will absolutely do the trick.

I think creators should feel completely free to make whatever they like, but consumers should be completely free to say what they think about the creator's decisions. After all, if they decisions are good ones, what would they have to fear?

Of course, everyone should feel free to make whatever choices he wants, without attacking the decisions of others which do not affect them.  If I decided to make all red objects and you hate red, feel free to not buy them. But me making red items does not mean I am depriving you in some way. Plenty of non red stuff around.

I think the real problem is when you make all red items, I say to someone, "That store only sells red items, and since it's no mod, you can't change it. Try a creator that sells mod." Then you get all upset and insult people and their professors in the thread because informing them threatens your business, you're being kinda stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Gadget Portal wrote:

I think the real problem is when you make all red items, I say to someone, "That store only sells red items, and since it's no mod, you can't change it. Try a creator that sells mod."

This would be a smashing strategy, if you are comparing two close or identical, generic, or similar products. In many different other markets that don't feature competing and similar designs, the merchant may desire other options, and appeal to a different market, and is in NO danger of losing business from anyone who appreciates his/her work.

Those with unique designs from fashion to furniture to music equipment to sci-fi bases are in no threat of losing business because of permissions. One of the biggest stores in SL I frequent for sci-fi stuff and music stuff (in the past) still is made up of no mod/no copy items - and they're still there after 10 years, with no signs of stopping.

You can continue to demonize any that do, but if you want to mod something so much, perhaps it's time to make your own creations - and then take your own advice and open it up with any permissions you want.

We're not selling game assets here, we're selling virtual furniture for people to put in their virtual Barbie houses, and that's it.

In the end, noone owns a damn thing, and are just paying to support their favourite creators to make more cool stuff for them.

If you want mod ability so bad, just make your own stuff, and stop telling other people how to make, market and sell theirs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter how pretty your original red box is, if the customer needs a blue box.

I already do make my own stuff. And sell stuff. Most with modify permission.

I'm not telling anyone how to make or market their stuff.

I'm just saying, if selling your stuff no mod is upsetting you so much that you have to come into an informative thread and get so hostile, maybe you need to rethink what you're doing, 'cause clearly you're not very happy with the results you're getting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


entity0x wrote:

We're not selling game assets here, we're selling virtual furniture for people to put in their virtual Barbie houses, and that's it.

In the end, noone owns a damn thing, and are just paying to support their favourite creators to make more cool stuff for them.

If you want mod ability so bad, just make your own stuff, and stop telling other people how to make, market and sell theirs.

 

Some questions:

Do you really have that low an opinion of your customers and SL users in general?

Do you not understand that SL used to be dominated by DIYers and still includes thriving and substantial communities of builders and modders?

Do you not realise that pretty much everyone in this thread does make and sell their own stuff?

Do you realise how often you tell others what to do? Could your tendency towards that be part of the reason why you assume others are telling you what to do, even when they aren't?

Why are you wasting so much of your precious time and energy starting sarcastic threads, making sarcastic mockups and getting so worked up here instead of putting that passion into fulfilling your 'wonderful awesome plans' (your words)? If your ideas and creations are that stellar, why aren't you concentrating on them? Why aren't you finishing them and creating works of art so absolutely amazing Penny puts one on her static landing point and everyone else here just has to have and treasure one?

And before you lay into me for talking about people, do you realise that you are the one who keeps making this thread all about you by taking other people's thoughts, preferences and opinions so personally, even if you need to misread them to do so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


entity0x wrote:


Gadget Portal wrote:

I think the real problem is when you make all red items, I say to someone, "That store only sells red items, and since it's no mod, you can't change it. Try a creator that sells mod."

This would be a smashing strategy, if you are comparing two close or identical, generic, or similar products. In many different other markets that don't feature competing and similar designs, the merchant may desire other options, and appeal to a different market, and is in NO danger of losing business from anyone who appreciates his/her work.

 

I'm generally more of a consumer than a creator, at least of individual objects. If I buy something that is more than a commodity item it generally means that I've determined that the creator is good enough that I will keep what they've done looking pretty much how they've made it. However, there may be times when I want the ability to make invisible changes to an object, especially when Second Life has added features that weren't around when the item was made. If the creator is so insecure in their own abilities that they keep me from making any changes to it that will influence my decision to buy it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Theresa Tennyson wrote:

I'm generally more of a consumer than a creator, at least of individual objects. If I buy something that is more than a commodity item it generally means that I've determined that the creator is good enough that I will keep what they've done looking pretty much how they've made it.

However, there may be times when I want the ability to make invisible changes to an object, especially when Second Life has added features that weren't around when the item was made.

Yes, I understand, but maybe if it's not on the menu, it simply isn't for dinner.

( impersonal ) Don't go to a pizza parlour and demand they make you wonton soup and egg rolls. Don't get mad at them if they don't want to make wonton soup and egg rolls. Don't try to 'name and shame' them for not doing so. Don't call them 'anti-consumerist' or any other number of labels because they don't want to do so.

 


Theresa Tennyson wrote:

If the creator is so insecure in their own abilities that they keep me from making
any
changes to it that will influence my decision to buy it though.

How would you know if they were insecure or not? And why would it matter? When I bought this fine octopus table with nomod/nocopy, did these kind of thoughts cross my mind?

I'm really bewildered at all of this really. This whole thread is almost like some brat demanding ice cream and stomping their feet - and refusing to understand that Mommy simply doesn't have money, or doesn't want them to have sugar today, or simply and bluntly "Mommy doesn't have to explain to you. The answer is no."


Bitsy Buccaneer wrote:


entity0x wrote:

We're not selling game assets here, we're selling virtual furniture for people to put in their virtual Barbie houses, and that's it.

In the end, noone owns a damn thing, and are just paying to support their favourite creators to make more cool stuff for them.

If you want mod ability so bad, just make your own stuff, and stop telling other people how to make, market and sell theirs.

 

Some questions:

Do you really have that low an opinion of your customers and SL users in general?

Do you not understand that SL used to be dominated by DIYers and still includes thriving and substantial communities of builders and modders?

Do you not realise that pretty much everyone in this thread does make and sell their own stuff?

Do you realise how often you tell others what to do? Could your tendency towards that be part of the reason why you assume others are telling you what to do, even when they aren't?

Why are you wasting so much of your precious time and energy starting sarcastic threads, making sarcastic mockups and getting so worked up here instead of putting that passion into fulfilling your 'wonderful awesome plans' (your words)? If your ideas and creations are that stellar, why aren't you concentrating on them? Why aren't you finishing them and creating works of art so absolutely amazing Penny puts one on her static landing point and everyone else here just has to have and treasure one?

And before you lay into me for talking about people, do you realise that you are the one who keeps making this thread all about you by taking other people's thoughts, preferences and opinions so personally, even if you need to misread them to do so?

Wow. Just wow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


entity0x wrote:


Theresa Tennyson wrote:

I'm generally more of a consumer than a creator, at least of individual objects. If I buy something that is more than a commodity item it generally means that I've determined that the creator is good enough that I will keep what they've done looking pretty much how they've made it.

However, there may be times when I want the ability to make invisible changes to an object, especially when Second Life has added features that weren't around when the item was made.

Yes, I understand, but maybe if it's not on the menu, it simply isn't for dinner.

(
)
Don't go to a pizza parlour and demand they make you wonton soup and egg rolls. Don't get mad at them if they don't want to make wonton soup and egg rolls. Don't try to 'name and shame' them for not doing so. Don't call them 'anti-consumerist' or any other number of labels because they don't want to do so.

 


That's not what I'd be asking for and you know it. It would be much closer to going into a pizza parlour and asking them not to put pepperoni on a pizza because you're desperately allergic to pork (like a RL friend of mine is.) If a pizza parlour didn't want to do a request like this I'd sure as Hell make sure everybody knew about it.

ETA - Of course, for mod/no mod that's far too dramatic. It would be closer to a customer wanting to take the pizza home and dip the crust in barbecue sauce. If the pizza parlour was so concerned about this "insult to their creative vision" that they shrink-wrapped their pizzas so no foreign contaminant got on them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


entity0x wrote:

 

Of course, the caveat is that these could be psychological weaknesses in myself, but I hoped to clarify why some creators may not like to do this - valid reasons or not.

 

A brief, flickering flame of self-awareness, long since blown out. Sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Theresa Tennyson wrote:


entity0x wrote:

 

Of course, the caveat is that these could be psychological weaknesses in myself, but I hoped to clarify why some creators may not like to do this - valid reasons or not.

 

A brief, flickering flame of self-awareness, long since blown out. Sad.

Yes, self-assessment and the ability to realize one might be wrong about a position, and to consider alternate views (as I have in this discussion) should be frowned upon.

I guess you ran out of valid arguments.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...