Why do people support sellers that do no mod?

[Janet Voxel]

To me this is really simple: it’s because the average SL user has no interest in buying mod clothes. It’s pretty much, what you see is what you get. In other words, they’re alright with it being no mod.

As far as other products, houses, some furniture, vehicles, etc most of them are mod to some extent with tinting and scripts. I bought a new house last week, modded the crap out of it. Kind of expected to be able to mod it when I bought it. 

Clothes are a little different. I don’t expect them to be mod unless it’s a template. I’m good with them not being mod.

If you want to get technical, it’s because the market bears certain items being no mod. If it didn’t, creators would definitely make more items moddable.

 

[Parhelion Palou]

15 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

But, not free to criticize them for their decision, Par? Because, so far as I can see, that's all he's doing here, really.

I didn't say he couldn't criticize creators or offer suggestions. Calling them shady is implying wrong-doing. That's going too far.

Back to the original question: I have no problem with no-mod clothing. I find perhaps 6 things a year that I'm interested in. At that point I'm so happy to find *something* that I don't care if it's mod or not. I generally won't buy home and garden items that aren't copy/mod, because I almost always need to resize them or make some other modification so they'll work for me.

[Jennifer Boyle]

14 hours ago, HarrisonMcKenzie said:

I sell clothes without mod because there is very little reason to sell them with mod.

It surprised me that no one has already said anything here about the reason I don't like no-mod mesh clothing. I wear a Maitreya Lara body. Maitreya has made available an auto-hider script that, when placed in an object, automatically hides the areas that need to be hidden when the object is worn, and unhides them when it is removed. This is a great convenience. With no-mod items, I have to place the script in a prim and wear the prim in addition the clothing item. Sometimes, I'm wearing multiple prims. I can't even link the prims to the clothing. There was a previous version of the auto-hider script that was not as good. I have no-mod clothing items that came with that version in them; I can't replace it with the current version. I also have a few items that came with the script in them, but the hidden areas are not exactly the ones I need to hide, and  I can't fix them. It would cost the creator nothing to let me have this functionality by making their clothing modifiable. It certainly feels like they don't care whether they inconvenience their customers or not. I am always on the lookout for good-quality modifiable mesh clothing. As creators' skills at making fitmesh have improved, I have less need to use the auto-hider, so this may be an issue that goes away in time.

"I don't want people shifting around the colour because that's going to make the final product look like garbage and would reflect poorly on me and my ability to make clothes."

If an item is modifiable, how can its appearance after it has left the creator's control reflect on the ability of the creator? Isn't it obvious that a modifiable item could have been modified by someone else?

[Fionalein]

1 minute ago, Jennifer Boyle said:

With no-mod items, I have to place the script in a prim and wear the prim in addition the clothing item.

 You do it all wrong, items must me mod to delete that nefarious autofail script.

 

[LittleMe Jewell]

2 hours ago, Fionalein said:

 You do it all wrong, items must me mod to delete that nefarious autofail script.

 

It is only that old version of the script that fails to work right most of the time.  If I have an item that does not have any script in it and I create a separate prim with the new version of the auto-hide script, I have never had an issue where it did not properly hide when worn and properly unhide when detached.

However, it seems that 99% of the clothing I get that has an auto-hide already in it, must be using the older version of the script because it does fail 9 times out of 10.

[Sasy Scarborough]

4 hours ago, Jennifer Boyle said:

an item is modifiable, how can its appearance after it has left the creator's control reflect on the ability of the creator? Isn't it obvious that a modifiable item could have been modified by someone

My select was messing up so word at front and back missing.

Now we have so many people able to see what someone has on and by whom, just going anywhere is like having live demos of everything, add on to that, Blogging, Photographers and Creators who credit. Someone tints, changes repeats, adds glow, whether it is good or bad, it is the item and creator responsible for it, in the person lookings eyes. Also I see less and less perms visible prior to purchase, and demos have to be no mod so it is harder to know if it is important, so gamble or walk away, that does cost the creator, if they have not made it clear.

When windlight was new and fancier pics and much editing was rare, if the light made a dress that was beige look more dusky rose, readers ran to get the dusky rose, it would not exist, the customer would feel lied to, or they would buy a fatpack thinking it must be hiding, so much of this happened. Often the customer would completely forget they saw it on a blog, that lighting was at play, or they would create a scenario were the Blogger got something special. Skins also, blown out lighting creating a dewy pale skin tone that did not exist. Once an item is out of a creators hands, yes anything can happen, but without communication ( if I tint something, I point out I did in my post to communicate it is mod to the reader, if I used it etc) that all ends up in the lap of the creator.

I personally am big time torn on this topic, I believe due to advancement of SL items being mod helps creators not have to fix something later...such as Auto Alphas etc, or when BoM goes live all the people who didn't legthen pants legs on system layers, because the texture worked on appliers etc. Or to be able to add something to something else, so many reasons for mod, some strong ones for not, it will always be a back and forth, there is a post on my blog about it from pre mesh. I like others just did not like that the word shady was used at all.

It would still be nice if LL gave us checkboxes for the edit functions, scripting things to remove scripts, adding more prims to make something else work with another script, these are things adding more grrr to the grid and sucking the fun out of creating and shopping.

 

[WingalingDragon]

19 hours ago, HarrisonMcKenzie said:

I sell clothes without mod because there is very little reason to sell them with mod. I spend a lot of time making the textures for my clothes, and I'm exercising my right to not allow derivative works. I don't want people shifting around the colour because that's going to make the final product look like garbage and would reflect poorly on me and my ability to make clothes. I don't do it to keep my work from being stolen and I don't do it to force that extra sale (I don't really do palette swaps as unique items).

You honestly think you'd lose more sales from people believing adding your own textures isn't a thing than you would gain from people who prefer modify items?  That seems a bit much, especially since you can often tell when a texture isn't specifically made for an item, or when tinting washes out the detail too much.  I'm sure it happens, but it would seem strange to me if the number of people that made judgements like that was high.  Between people I know, the texture is often irrelevant because they're looking at the object itself and considering how to make use of it in a variety of ways.  Sometimes both is nice.  Using it as intended once, and messing with it to make it seem different for another avatar.  I'm poor, reusing stuff is nice   Since it doesn't take any extra work from the creator who's been paid already, I don't see why it's considered unfair for someone to put some work of their own in on an item so they can extend it's usability.


 

 

8 hours ago, Orwar said:

   But why is 'maximising profits' a bad thing in this instance? 

There are good and bad ways of doing that.  For example, It's okay to maximize profits in ways that just get the word out on your product, or give more reasons for people to want to buy said product.  Ways to maximize profit that end up hurting customers or alienating them, like designing products that statistically fail not long after their warranty expires, not so good   In the case of charging full cost for extra colors, many creators are charging us a fee for all their work with say 6 similar colors in a pack.  If the price of that pack is 400L, we're paying 400 L for the model, rigging, texturing, and bump/spec work.  However, when it comes to re-buying the next pack of colors, we're essentially asked to pay for the same model, rigging, and usually bump/spec maps.  It's bad to tell the customer if they want a different color, they have to rebuy the entire package rather than having more appropriately priced texture packs out there.  Why not sell the item with a base texture, then sell "HQ texture packs" on the side?  That will show them that sure you can tint, but you won't be getting as high a quality look from doing so, and it also won't make anyone feel like they got a bad deal having to pay for things they already have.  As far as selling things on SL goes, I would imagine especially with the rather pricey rent costs, only the absolute most popular sellers make a significant profit, and even then it's likely not that much since many of those sellers charge huge amounts for their items, which would naturally lead to purchases being more rare. 

[WingalingDragon]

5 hours ago, Parhelion Palou said:

I didn't say he couldn't criticize creators or offer suggestions. Calling them shady is implying wrong-doing. That's going too far. 

Back to the original question: I have no problem with no-mod clothing. I find perhaps 6 things a year that I'm interested in. At that point I'm so happy to find *something* that I don't care if it's mod or not. I generally won't buy home and garden items that aren't copy/mod, because I almost always need to resize them or make some other modification so they'll work for me.

Once again, I didn't say every no mod seller is shady, nor did I imply it without heavy stretching and taking some serious liberties with what I *could have*  meant.   It is, however, my personal opinion that disabling modify and charging the same price as your entire package of work for only a fraction of that work, solely because it is now the only way to get a new color on that item, is a shady practice. 

 

 

31 minutes ago, Sasy Scarborough said:

Now we have so many people able to see what someone has on and by whom, just going anywhere is like having live demos of everything, add on to that, Blogging, Photographers and Creators who credit. Someone tints, changes repeats, adds glow, whether it is good or bad, it is the item and creator responsible for it, in the person lookings eyes. Also I see less and less perms visible prior to purchase, and demos have to be no mod so it is harder to know if it is important, so gamble or walk away, that does cost the creator, if they have not made it clear.

I agree with most of this, but if someone is making the mistake of thinking that an item they see is 100% the same as it was sold, that's their mistake.  Going around and looking at avatars, it should be apparent before long that people modify their own items very commonly, especially if you ask someone where they got something.  As far as perms visible, that does seem to be a growing issue.  And sadly, those items have been no modify pretty often, and it's also sadly too common for the sellers to just ignore attempts to communicate with them.  It does at least make it especially refreshing when you run into a friendly, responsive creator though, and they are out there

 

 

Edit:  As a side note, disabling modify to prevent someone from looking at the general layout of a texture because it "protects their work" seems to be a bit of a stretch to me.  They can't see the fine details, they can't copy or download it, and at best it can give them a guideline if they decide to attempt their own texture.  In addition, we bought the texture, is it so bad to have a thumbnail and a scaled down image of it?  Many creators give full perm versions of their included textures and don't charge extra for them.  Which is awesome   And also doesn't seem to be destroying their business at all.

Edited March 19, 2019 by WingalingDragon

[Drake1 Nightfire]

 

14 minutes ago, WingalingDragon said:

Once again, I didn't say every no mod seller is shady, nor did I imply it without heavy stretching and taking some serious liberties with what I *could have*  meant.   It is, however, my personal opinion that disabling modify and charging the same price as your entire package of work for only a fraction of that work, solely because it is now the only way to get a new color on that item, is a shady practice. 

You most certainly did. 

On 3/15/2019 at 10:08 PM, WingalingDragon said:

The only other reason I can see is so that the seller can disable the tint function and charge us for wanting to use it.  That's a very shady way to make money considering the function is a core aspect of SL, and the odds of someone including the exact tint someone wants for their color scheme is quite low.   

Have you interviewed every no mod merchant as to why they make no mod items? How is it shady to want people to buy their items rather than color them themselves? That's normal business. What mesh clothing items are there that can be easily tinted and not mess up the texture? I cant find any. 

28 minutes ago, WingalingDragon said:

In the case of charging full cost for extra colors, many creators are charging us a fee for all their work with say 6 similar colors in a pack.  If the price of that pack is 400L, we're paying 400 L for the model, rigging, texturing, and bump/spec work.  However, when it comes to re-buying the next pack of colors, we're essentially asked to pay for the same model, rigging, and usually bump/spec maps. 

It's bad to tell the customer if they want a different color, they have to rebuy the entire package rather than having more appropriately priced texture packs out there.  Why not sell the item with a base texture, then sell "HQ texture packs" on the side?  That will show them that sure you can tint, but you won't be getting as high a quality look from doing so, and it also won't make anyone feel like they got a bad deal having to pay for things they already have.  As far as selling things on SL goes, I would imagine especially with the rather pricey rent costs, only the absolute most popular sellers make a significant profit, and even then it's likely not that much since many of those sellers charge huge amounts for their items, which would naturally lead to purchases being more rare. 

Do you sell anything in SL? Have you ever made a mesh model, textured it, bump mapped it, Spec mapped it, uploaded it and then put it all together? Do you have any idea the time spent in that process? You think its simple to make a different color of a dress? Hours if not days of work. And you are whining about paying less than $2 USD for it. Yes i said it, whining. 
So you want us to script the mesh now to have texture packs.. For a LOWER price?!?!?  Please come back when you have spent some time in SL and have figured out how to do anything. "Oh, we have to pay the same price for each version of an item?? But you already made one, why shouldn't the others be cheaper?"

Grow up. Complaining about $2...Seriously? Well hell, Catwa just released a new male head, i guess they should charge $250L for it since they have so many other versions, right? 

[Sasy Scarborough]

1 hour ago, WingalingDragon said:

Many creators give full perm versions of their included textures and don't charge extra for them.  Which is awesome   And also doesn't seem to be destroying their business at all.

"Many" where are you shopping, we maybe should have asked this from the get go, because I know of maybe two at a reach who include textures and one I know is furniture home-wares and I think the other is too, or there was a furry cat avatar I have that included because that Furry scene often creates for mods to be possible for the customers to go on to sell or just make more for themselves, that is a whole other thing, but if you have 'many' stores that do that I for one would love to play re-texture a thing. 

I myself often wish that furniture creators especially would do this, not for the whole piece as such but imagine if you could make your own cushions for a sofa, as in the decorative ones that they lay out, because while some do include a few options, it would be so neat to be crazy with that stuff. If creators just made the cushion uv a perfect 512x512 square and you could throw it on wooot so much fun, we could have Elvis cushions and  Glitter and  polkadots and *trails off or we  will be here all week*

 

[HarrisonMcKenzie]

7 hours ago, Jennifer Boyle said:

It surprised me that no one has already said anything here about the reason I don't like no-mod mesh clothing. I wear a Maitreya Lara body. Maitreya has made available an auto-hider script that, when placed in an object, automatically hides the areas that need to be hidden when the object is worn, and unhides them when it is removed. This is a great convenience. With no-mod items, I have to place the script in a prim and wear the prim in addition the clothing item. Sometimes, I'm wearing multiple prims. I can't even link the prims to the clothing. There was a previous version of the auto-hider script that was not as good. I have no-mod clothing items that came with that version in them; I can't replace it with the current version. I also have a few items that came with the script in them, but the hidden areas are not exactly the ones I need to hide, and  I can't fix them. It would cost the creator nothing to let me have this functionality by making their clothing modifiable. It certainly feels like they don't care whether they inconvenience their customers or not. I am always on the lookout for good-quality modifiable mesh clothing. As creators' skills at making fitmesh have improved, I have less need to use the auto-hider, so this may be an issue that goes away in time.

"I don't want people shifting around the colour because that's going to make the final product look like garbage and would reflect poorly on me and my ability to make clothes."

If an item is modifiable, how can its appearance after it has left the creator's control reflect on the ability of the creator? Isn't it obvious that a modifiable item could have been modified by someone else?

One of the bodies I make clothes for has a similar autoalpha system, and I include the script already. If the script changes, I offer free upgrades. The end user doesn't need to add it because I've done that work for them.

As for how my clothing looks reflecting on my skills as an artist, the answer to that should be self-evident. If someone sees a piece of my clothing and it looks like complete garbage, they are going to assume that's my doing. That hurts my sales. Your desire to ruin my work doesn't outweigh my desire to protect my brand.

[steeljane42]

5 hours ago, HarrisonMcKenzie said:

As for how my clothing looks reflecting on my skills as an artist, the answer to that should be self-evident. If someone sees a piece of my clothing and it looks like complete garbage, they are going to assume that's my doing. That hurts my sales. Your desire to ruin my work doesn't outweigh my desire to protect my brand.

You know, someone can wear maitreya fit on belleza/slink or a system body and it will look like garbage rigging wise and "of course" everyone will think it's your lack of skills in rigging, rather than that person just wearing the wrong version. Better write a script that detects if "body of brand X" is worn and auto-detach your creation if it's not. Maybe even self destruct/deform it (like some paranoidal timed demos do) with the warning for a better effect.

---

As for this whole discussion. I prefer everything to be mod as well, in cases with furniture/decor/landscape items it's very simple. Is it more than 50L and no mod? No buy.

 

With clothing it's is a bit different. There are a few brands that have exactly what I need textures wise, so I demo their new releases if they are looking like what I want to wear and if all is up to their usual standards - I buy them (still wish they'd put a killing script mini HUD into folder). There are also a few other creators that have no mod clothing, but provide coloring HUDs (often overly complicated and slow, but hey, it works too) where you can adjust colors, materials and all that for all available faces and also have a kill script option to get rid of that stupid auto alpha. Then it's kinda "mostly" mod and it's good enough for me. But other than that, I usually skip no-mod clothing, unless it's an expensive gacha with which I wouldn't mess anyway since no backup is possible in that case. And I do my best to support creators that are not afraid to leave their original creations (even non fatpack versions) mod.

 

That being said, there's not really much to discuss. It all comes down to two things. Creators make things how they want to and set the perms/price of their choice. And customers are free to choose if they want to support said creator or not. Basically - vote with your wallet and things might change eventually. I remember seeing a thread in general discussion here, about the older times in SL and how no-copy furniture (even expensive 3k+ L$ beds and what not) was a standard. And look at the furniture market now, you won't find many no-copy stuff there that is not from those ancient times or from especially stubborn creators (gachas excluded, obviously. but that's a whole different topic).

Edited March 19, 2019 by steeljane42
typos as always

[Fionalein]

1 hour ago, steeljane42 said:

you won't find many no-copy stuff there that is not from those ancient times or from especially stubborn creators (gachas excluded, obviously. but that's a whole different topic).

Not necessarily, some started to offer gacha exchanges or went on to voucher gachas straight away... because folks started voting with their wallets.

Edited March 19, 2019 by Fionalein

[Blush Bravin]

10 hours ago, Sasy Scarborough said:

I like others just did not like that the word shady was used at all.

I don't think any of us would have taken exception to the OP had the word shady not been used. 

10 hours ago, WingalingDragon said:

You honestly think you'd lose more sales

For some of us it's not just about money or even high on our list of why we do what we do. Sure I enjoy making money but I'd stop creating tomorrow if it was just for the money. I typically decide if I'm going to make something mod or no mod based on how badly the customer can screw up all the hard work and time I put into creating the items I'm selling. I feel this way, if a customer doesn't like the product I've poured my heart into creating as it is then I don't want to sell it to them. I'm not in the business of creating blank mesh models for customers to retexture or retint. There are creators who do that and I'd rather direct a customer toward them than sell them my creation as mod when I've decided to sell the item as no-mod.

10 hours ago, WingalingDragon said:

I agree with most of this, but if someone is making the mistake of thinking that an item they see is 100% the same as it was sold, that's their mistake.

It might be their mistake, but it reflects on the creator regardless. People are so into window shopping what other people are wearing that HUDS have been made for this exact purpose. The "What's She Wearing HUD" is one of those very popular tools. If something looks like crap no one is going to care who made the piece of clothing. But even worse than that is people thinking what they are looking at is available in the store when it isn't. You might say well then the person can buy the item and tint or retexture it also to get the same result, well you know a lot of people in SL don't even want to open the edit window. I made a set of rings mod because I had been asked a couple of times to make my rings mod. So I made a set mod and since it was mod I didn't include a resizer to reduce script usage and since the ring only had two parts it was an easy task to use the edit tools to resize. I got more complaints on that set than any because people did not want to open the edit box to resize it. So yeah, I went back to no mod and using scripts. 

10 hours ago, WingalingDragon said:

In addition, we bought the texture, is it so bad to have a thumbnail and a scaled down image of it? 

If the texture was not included in the purchase, you did not buy a texture. You bought an object. Just because that object has a texture on it does not mean you own the texture, which is another reason some creators sell their items no-mod because some buyers have this misguided notion that just because something has a texture on it that they somehow own said texture. It's ridiculous.

7 hours ago, HarrisonMcKenzie said:

Your desire to ruin my work doesn't outweigh my desire to protect my brand.

^^^^^^^^ This!

[Scylla Rhiadra]

4 hours ago, Blush Bravin said:

It might be their mistake, but it reflects on the creator regardless. People are so into window shopping what other people are wearing that HUDS have been made for this exact purpose. The "What's She Wearing HUD" is one of those very popular tools. If something looks like crap no one is going to care who made the piece of clothing.

Blush, I entirely understand why you'd feel this way. I think it's a legitimate argument to make.

But -- and really, I throw this out as a question, because I don't have strong feelings about it myself -- can't it be argued that, once I've paid you money for an object, it should be well and truly mine, to do with what I will? Why should a creator continue to exert control (beyond such basic things as copyright, etc.) over something for which the purchaser has paid money?

An analogy here might be the way in which Apple, Amazon, and other providers of digital "objects" such as books and music, continue to "control" my access and ability to deploy things for which I have paid them good money. Amazon, for instance, can (and actually has) removed eBooks from people's personal online libraries without compensation: in essence, when I buy a digital object, it is more like I'm "leasing" it than owning it.

The argument can surely be made (although I'm not myself insisting on it) that, once I've paid you for something, it's no longer yours: it's mine. And while we can certainly agree that that doesn't remove your digital copyright (preventing me from copying for resale), surely my rights, as purchaser, should be otherwise unimpaired?

This is particularly true, perhaps, of items for personal adornment such as skins and clothes, because, honestly, I don't want to be a walking-talking advertisement for your creative abilities. I want to use the items I purchase as a way of expressing myself, not you. If I choose to wear the unrigged hair I've bought from you on my butt, that's surely my choice, and my right?

That said, I agree that you have a right to make something no mod if you wish. But you must surely also agree that I have a right to find that an onerous restriction on my ability to use something for which I've paid money, and that it is legitimate to think that this is a good reason to refuse to buy it from you?

Edited March 19, 2019 by Scylla Rhiadra
Because "unrigged," not "unrugged." Although the latter does seem a little appropriate when discussing hair?

[Blush Bravin]

19 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

But -- and really, I throw this out as a question, because I don't have strong feelings about it myself -- can't it be argued that, once I've paid you money for an object, it should be well and truly mine, to do with what I will? Why should a creator continue to exert control (beyond such basic things as copyright, etc.) over something for which the purchaser has paid money?

 

19 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

This is particularly true, perhaps, of items for personal adornment such as skins and clothes, because, honestly, I don't want to be a walking-talking advertisement for your creative abilities. I want to use the items I purchase as a way of expressing myself, not you. If I choose to wear the unrigged hair I've bought from you on my butt, that's surely my choice, and my right?

 

19 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

That said, I agree that you have a right to make something no mod if you wish. But you must surely also agree that I have a right to find that an onerous restriction on my ability to use something for which I've paid money, and that it is legitimate to think that this is a good reason to refuse to buy it from you?

You certainly have the right to not buy my products that are no mod. If you purchase my products that are no mod then you have no right to complain about it since you knew it to begin with. It's rather simple. I'm not twisting your arm telling you to buy my products. If they don't suit your needs I'd be the first one to tell you not to buy it. 

Adding this because I hit enter too soon. I also think it's ridiculous for people to complain and insult creators because they don't like how permissions are set on a product. Don't like it. Don't buy it. Simple! It's what I do as a shopper myself. Do I go around bad mouthing a creator because I don't like how they do business? You know I might think it. I might even tell my best friend. I would not come to the forums or talk in group negatively about a merchant because I don't like their product.

If I come across harsh here, I don't mean to. I do get passionate on issues like this though, and I'm afraid it shows.

Edited March 19, 2019 by Blush Bravin

[Scylla Rhiadra]

7 minutes ago, Blush Bravin said:

You certainly have the right to not buy my products that are no mod. If you purchase my products that are no mod then you have no right to complain about it since you knew it to begin with. It's rather simple. I'm not twisting your arm telling you to buy my products. If they don't suit your needs I'd be the first one to tell you not to buy it. 

Yes, we are in entire agreement on this. Again, I'm not suggesting that you should be forced to sell my your things with mod perms, nor am I implying that I feel in any way compelled to buy them without such perms. These are your rights, and mine, and I'm not criticizing them.

I am asking if you cannot understand why someone -- a potential purchaser -- might care a great deal less about showcasing your creative abilities, and more about their ability to modify them in ways that work for them.

There has been a sort of general tone of outrage from some here (not you) that anyone would dare ask that a creator make her or his items mod. I'm suggesting that there are entirely legitimate reasons why this might be a desideratum when choosing whether or not to buy a particular item. I honour and value your status as a talented creator -- but I'm not buying a painting from you, I'm buying something such as hair or clothing that is supposed to express who I am. More important to me, perhaps, is my ability to use what I buy how I want.

Edited March 19, 2019 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Blush Bravin]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I honour and value your status as a talented creator -- but I'm not buying a painting from you.

As a retired art teacher, I can tell you that every thing I make I consider as art. In fact this morning I nearly said would you buy a painting from an artist just to get the canvas? Seriously, I do consider my work to be little pieces of art.

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I am asking if you cannot understand why someone -- a potential purchaser -- might care a great deal less about showcasing your creative abilities, and more about their ability to modify then in ways that work for them.

I completely understand the value of having mod items. Heck I love mod items and am constantly sharing info on merchants who do make mod clothing and shoes in the group I moderate. I won't buy a house that's no mod. I won't sell a house that's no mod either. I for the most part won't buy no mod furniture either. So yes, I get it. And I don't take issue with that at all. I take issue with someone coming in here and suggesting that creators, any creator, is shady because they sell no mod products.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Blush Bravin said:

I completely understand the value of having mod items. Heck I love mod items and am constantly sharing info on merchants who do make mod clothing and shoes in the group I moderate. I won't buy a house that's no mod. I won't sell a house that's no mod either. I for the most part won't buy no mod furniture either. So yes, I get it. And I don't take issue with that at all.

Ok, really, that's what I was asking. I think there has been a tendency in some posts here to privilege the rights and status of creators over those of consumers. All I'm really arguing is that both have rights, and that it is not somehow outrageous to suggest that consumers might want mod perms on items.

What would be outrageous is demanding that they be made mod, because that would be trampling on the rights of creators.

4 minutes ago, Blush Bravin said:

I take issue with someone coming in here and suggesting that creators, any creator, is shady because they sell no mod products.

I'm not entirely clear that this was as blanket a statement as you imply, and certainly the OP has clarified that he means only those who make things no mod merely to force consumers to spend more.

That said, I agree that, in any case, "shady" is the wrong term to use. "Calculating," "clever," maybe even a bit "cynical" in that case, but the system itself, which encourages, or even necessitates these kinds of marketing strategies, is the real problem.

[Athena Mornington]

39 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

 

But -- and really, I throw this out as a question, because I don't have strong feelings about it myself -- can't it be argued that, once I've paid you money for an object, it should be well and truly mine, to do with what I will? Why should a creator continue to exert control (beyond such basic things as copyright, etc.) over something for which the purchaser has paid money?

As an FYI, when an item is bought in Second Life, you are buying a license to use a digital asset according to the end user license that the creator determines, you're not buying an actual item. In SL, the permissions system is a short hand way of communicating that end user license. So if an item is set to modify, then yes, you've got the creator's agreement to alter the item. Same for copy and transfer. When it is set to no modify, that end user license means just what it says - no modify. If the system is circumvented (ripping textures or other assets), then the creator can issue a take down notice.  When buying a full perm item, you still aren't buying the actual item (or extremely rarely), but again, you are buying a license to use that item according to the terms the creator determines. In the case of full perm, it could range from totally unrestricted to some very restrictive terms such as pricing, permissions (yes, some do dictate permissions), usage of the various components of the purchase (model, textures).

Think of the analogy for software or online programs - you are buying a license to use the product, sometimes forever, sometimes for a limited period of time.  And using it according to the terms set by the manufacturer.

Edited March 19, 2019 by Athena Mornington
clarification

[Scylla Rhiadra]

3 minutes ago, Athena Mornington said:

As an FYI, when an item is bought in Second Life, you are buying a license to use a digital asset according to the end user license that the creator determines, you're not buying an actual item. In SL, the permissions system is a short hand way of communicating that end user license. So if an item is set to modify, then yes, you've got the creator's agreement to alter the item. Same for copy and transfer. When it is set to no modify, that end user license means just what it says - no modify. If the system is circumvented (ripping textures or other assets), then the creator can issue a take down notice.  When buying a full perm item, you still aren't buying the actual item (or extremely rarely), but again, you are buying a license to use that item according to the terms the creator determines. In the case of full perm, it could range from totally unrestricted to some very restrictive terms such as pricing, permissions (yes, some do dictate permissions), usage of the various components of the purchase (model, textures).

Think of the analogy for software or online programs - you are buying a license to use the product, sometimes forever, sometimes for a limited period of time.  And using it according to the terms set by the manufacturer.

Yes, that's exactly what I was getting at in my third paragraph in that post.

That this is the reality of how the system works doesn't mean that I have to be happy with it. I'm enormously resentful, frankly, of the way in which digital vendors in RL constrain my rights. It's one reason why I still buy CDs, DVDs, and printed books. One of the things I like least about our Brave New Digital World is the enormous control that corporate providers now exert over the things I have paid them for.

Would you buy a hammer if the maker had the right to tell you what sorts of uses you might nor might not be able to put it to?

[Drake1 Nightfire]

4 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I'm not entirely clear that this was as blanket a statement as you imply, and certainly the OP has clarified that he means only those who make things no mod merely to force consumers to spend more.=

Now, you know i love ya, but that is the dumbest statement i have ever read and it was made by the OP, not you. How exactly does a merchant force someone to buy more items by making their items no mod? I mean, I sell clothing. Am i only to sell white clothing with shadow maps and texture that can be tinted? Or can i sell a range of colors, textures and patterns? Is that really forcing someone to spend more? Its a foolish argument when applied to mesh clothing. The OP however states a blanket "no mad is bad" rather than breaking it down as we have done in this discussion. 

No mod rigged mesh clothing, really no point.

No mod furniture, i feel furniture and buildings need to be mod as some parts may be off slightly or just not needed. I cant tell you the number of times i have removed plants, planters, trees, railings, fireplaces and many other things from a mesh house to save on LI. 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

20 minutes ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

How exactly does a merchant force someone to buy more items by making their items no mod?

Well, fair enough: "force" is almost certainly the wrong word, because no one is being "forced" to do anything here. But certainly, no mod can be part of a marketing strategy designed to encourage the consumer to buy, say, the fat pack, or an additional copy in different colours or textures.

22 minutes ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

I mean, I sell clothing. Am i only to sell white clothing with shadow maps and texture that can be tinted? Or can i sell a range of colors, textures and patterns?

I actually have bought clothing (and hair, too) with textures that can be tinted: it's not that uncommon a thing. And, given the preference, that is what I would buy. Or clothing with a wide range of textures and patterns. And, of course, it should be your choice to offer this or not . . . and my choice as to whether I agree with your decision, and purchase what you offer.

Out of preference, too, I'll buy full perm items, if they are not vastly more expensive. I don't really need transfer perms much, because I'm not, at the moment anyway, making anything for sale, but I do like to pass stuff on to Laskya occasionally.

On the other hand, I really value the excellent work that creators sometimes put into their textures, and I know from experience how difficult producing a really good texture can be.

25 minutes ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

The OP however states a blanket "no mad is bad" rather than breaking it down as we have done in this discussion.

Again, the original OP may have been poorly or vaguely written, but I don't get the sense that that is actually what he's saying? He seems to me more focused on what he sees as the illegitimate practice of using no mod as a means of leveraging more sales. Which, sometimes, it surely is? That said, I don't personally think that that means that no mod always equals "bad," because that sounds a bit like a moral judgement. Just, sometimes in my case, undesirable.

28 minutes ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

you know i love ya

I'm so glad that we can agree on one thing, at least.

[WingalingDragon]

On 3/18/2019 at 11:06 PM, Drake1 Nightfire said:

You most certainly did. 

Your wanting me to say something is different from me actually saying it
 

On 3/18/2019 at 11:06 PM, Drake1 Nightfire said:

Grow up. Complaining about $2...Seriously? Well hell, Catwa just released a new male head, i guess they should charge $250L for it since they have so many other versions, right?  

You're relentlessly insulting me, putting words in my mouth, and denying words you yourself said.  Obviously a reasonable discussion is not going to happen with you, and if you keep acting this way you're only going to encourage people to not buy your stuff in case they have to actually talk to you.  I didn't say any of that work was easy, and I didn't mention any specific product or price.  I'm mostly inclined to just ignore you at this point though unless you start becoming reasonable, sorry.


 

 

On 3/19/2019 at 12:39 AM, Sasy Scarborough said:

"Many" where are you shopping, we maybe should have asked this from the get go, because I know of maybe two at a reach who include textures and one I know is furniture home-wares and I think the other is too, or there was a furry cat avatar I have that included because that Furry scene often creates for mods to be possible for the customers to go on to sell or just make more for themselves, that is a whole other thing, but if you have 'many' stores that do that I for one would love to play re-texture a thing. 

Many implies a large number, not a large percentage.  There are plenty of full perm things for sale, but they are also uncommon.  Same goes for those who include textures.  It doesn't need to be the majority to still be a decent sized number


 

On 3/19/2019 at 1:13 AM, HarrisonMcKenzie said:

One of the bodies I make clothes for has a similar autoalpha system, and I include the script already. If the script changes, I offer free upgrades. The end user doesn't need to add it because I've done that work for them.

As for how my clothing looks reflecting on my skills as an artist, the answer to that should be self-evident. If someone sees a piece of my clothing and it looks like complete garbage, they are going to assume that's my doing. That hurts my sales. Your desire to ruin my work doesn't outweigh my desire to protect my brand.

First off, twisting people's desire to create their own unique look or make things specific to how they want for their own personal use into "desire to ruin your work" is a bit overkill, don't you think?(On top of being a little insulting to the end user's creative skills, people can mod things well too, you know :P)  Secondly, if this was true, wouldn't every merchant who sells modify items be out of business by now?  This is not as much of a problem as people think, or as people lead others to think, or nearly everyone would have settled into selling no-mod after all this time.

 

On 3/19/2019 at 9:33 AM, Blush Bravin said:

If the texture was not included in the purchase, you did not buy a texture. You bought an object. Just because that object has a texture on it does not mean you own the texture, which is another reason some creators sell their items no-mod because some buyers have this misguided notion that just because something has a texture on it that they somehow own said texture. It's ridiculous.

I never said I own the texture, I said I paid the price you asked for the work required to make the texture.  If I'm not reselling the item, and I'm not drawing overtop your actual texture(even if I was... what is so wrong with *that*?), is it really so bad to let someone look at an unsaveable guideline on how to attempt their own?  Also, why do you have the tone that customers wanting some freedom with their personally owned virtual object is offensive to you?  Acting like we're entitled to want to be able to modify an object in a platform that's entire focus is creativity is  not really helpful to anything.  And once again, the concept of wanting to create your own unique or specific thing and finding that some item can fit that if it's modifiable is an entirely different thing than wanting to "ruin your work".  Unless you only sell items to trolls and griefers, your customers are generally never even concerned with ruining your work.  They want something to work for the idea they're trying to put together.  

It was made clear repeatedly, in both my literal words and in the following explanations that were posted, i only intended the word shady to be applied to selling color packs for the same price and ticking no mod so buying those packs is the only way to change colors.  Continuing to act as if I meant what you hoped I meant is not going to progress any discussion, get any logical point across, or clear any concepts up.


 

On 3/19/2019 at 2:25 PM, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Would you buy a hammer if the maker had the right to tell you what sorts of uses you might nor might not be able to put it to?

Very this    Thanks for being a voice of reason here, though it seems we're being ganged up on a bit and not all of those people are actually listening to what we're saying unfortunately.  If the things were true that the more offended of merchants are claiming, the marketplace would be a very different place and there wouldn't be any successful sellers that allow modify.  But, I'm afraid that continuing the discussion is just going to end up in this circle of us trying to clear up the idea, and a few others repeatedly telling us why they're angry at a misunderstanding they refuse to acknowledge... 🤥     If at least one random seller got the point and realized that allowing others to modify is not going to ruin their business, that's probably good enough, cause I don't think we can convince the ones who seem more focused on arguing or insulting than discussing.  -salutes-

Edited March 21, 2019 by WingalingDragon

[Drake1 Nightfire]

44 minutes ago, WingalingDragon said:

You're relentlessly insulting me, putting words in my mouth, and denying words you yourself said.  Obviously a reasonable discussion is not going to happen with you, and if you keep acting this way you're only going to encourage people to not buy your stuff in case they have to actually talk to you.  I didn't say any of that work was easy, and I didn't mention any specific product or price.  I'm mostly inclined to just ignore you at this point though unless you start becoming reasonable, sorry.cussing.  -salutes-

Except that you continually leave out large chunks of my replies. You said

"In the case of charging full cost for extra colors, many creators are charging us a fee for all their work with say 6 similar colors in a pack.  If the price of that pack is 400L, we're paying 400 L for the model, rigging, texturing, and bump/spec work.  However, when it comes to re-buying the next pack of colors, we're essentially asked to pay for the same model, rigging, and usually bump/spec maps. "

You most certainly DID mention a price. 400L.

That states, in plain text, that you think merchants should charge less for the second textured release of a mesh item simply because the mesh item work has already been done. That is NOT how things work in SL, nor should they. Simply because a mesh has been created, textured, spec mapped, and bump mapped does not mean the subsequent colors/textures should be cheaper. No one would buy the original pack if others were half the cost. Every texture made for an item can take several hours to make. To use your price, 400L, that's less than $2USD. For several hours work. You state that I am unreasonable yet want merchants to work for pennies? Really? 

Edited March 21, 2019 by Drake1 Nightfire