Why do people support sellers that do no mod?

[Solar Legion]

Point blank for you: It is up to the one who created the content to decide on the permissions said content has. Beginning and end of that story.

Does it make it harder for those who have a specific look in mind for their avatar? Sure - get used to it and get over it. I've personally had to "settle" or otherwise alter what I was going for countless times, all because I find it more than a bit difficult to make the bloody content myself and because - being on a fixed income - I simply cannot afford to plunk down much for custom work (even if I were to cut back on a few things, I cannot justify the expense, not when the prices I have seen quoted are hourly and more often than not end up costing more than a month's rent on a PI 4096 parcel).

Yes, some places will sell full permission templates - often with some sort of licence or user terms attached. At least one shop I occasionally patronize has extra steps to acquire the truly full perm version - all thanks to people being arsehats.

Such places are not really all that common.

Welcome to Second Life - sit down and listen to those who've been around here for a while.

Edited March 17, 2019 by Solar Legion
Bit of an addition

[Scylla Rhiadra]

I'm not sure why people get so angsty and hot-and-bothered about this issue whenever, in various guises, it pops up here. It seems to me pretty simple.

First, the OP is asking a pretty simple question: why do people buy stuff that is no mod? They don't seem to be calling for LL to step in, nor calling creators nasty names for not accommodating people who want mod goods. They're not even calling for a boycott, as such -- although, if they were, that would be legitimate (as would any criticism of such a call). This issue always seems to take on a weirdly ideological colouring, as though one's response to it could be projected onto the political spectrum of interventionist/libertarian, or left/right.

Even lil' o'le socialist me wouldn't call for a rule enforcing "mod" perms on goods for sale, because there are doubtless legitimate reasons sometimes for making things no mod. (Although, I might note that LL has intervened already in one sense: you can't sell stuff that is no mod, no copy, and no transfer. At least as I've always understood it.) And there are technical reasons why, for instance, rigged clothing and hair can't be made "mod" -- because it would break the rigging? And finally, because items are clearly marked as no mod before you buy them, anyone who purchases such an item is, or should be, an informed consumer.

I don't "boycott" makers who don't make their things mod in any sort of systematic way. I simply won't buy something that is no mod if there is any likelihood that I'd want to modify it. in general, for instance, I don't buy "accessories," furnishings, vehicles, and so forth that are no mod because my avatar is smaller than most, and such things as chairs and tables are frequently out of scale to my shape. So, there are some makers who are missing out on my money because they choose to make things no mod. Their loss; I can usually find a similar item elsewhere that is.

If something is no mod, but is perfect the way it is, I'll buy it.

Why is this hard? And why the shouting?

[LittleMe Jewell]

27 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Although, I might note that LL has intervened already in one sense: you can't sell stuff that is no mod, no copy, and no transfer. At least as I've always understood it.

Actually, you can.  Create an object and set it to No Copy, No Modify; put scripts inside that are No Transfer.  You can sell that and the results in an item with No Copy, No Modify, and No Transfer.

I have lots of gift cards like that, some clothing/accessories, and many Applier & Texture HUDs.

[Blush Bravin]

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

And there are technical reasons why, for instance, rigged clothing and hair can't be made "mod" -- because it would break the rigging?

Mod or not does not affect the rigging. That's done at import and permissions have nothing to do with rigging. There are other reasons they do it.

I know of multiple brands that sell rigged clothing, hair, and shoes that are all mod. 

Edited March 17, 2019 by Blush Bravin

[LittleMe Jewell]

9 minutes ago, Blush Bravin said:

Mod or not does not affect the rigging. That's done at import and permissions have nothing to do with rigging. There are other reasons they do it.

I know of multiple brands that sell rigged clothing, hair, and shoes that are all mod. 

Well, I'll be darned.  I also always that that 'rigged' items could not be modified.  Does the 'modify' ability apply to resizing a rigged item or just changing texture/color/etc...?

[Blush Bravin]

Just now, LittleMe Jewell said:

Well, I'll be darned.  I also always that that 'rigged' items could not be modified.  Does the 'modify' ability apply to resizing a rigged item or just changing texture/color/etc...?

It can't be resized or moved. It can be tinted or completely retextured.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 hours ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

Actually, you can.  Create an object and set it to No Copy, No Modify; put scripts inside that are No Transfer.  You can sell that and the results in an item with No Copy, No Modify, and No Transfer.

I have lots of gift cards like that, some clothing/accessories, and many Applier & Texture HUDs.

Interesting work-around . . . and now that you mention it, I think I have had items that were no-mod because of the scripts. But if said items are sold by themselves (and not as HUDs to go with apparel or clothing), do they need to be listed as "no mod" on the MP or on in-world vendors?

In other words, might this allow a creator to essentially lie about the perms associated with an item?

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 hour ago, Blush Bravin said:

Mod or not does not affect the rigging. That's done at import and permissions have nothing to do with rigging. There are other reasons they do it.

I know of multiple brands that sell rigged clothing, hair, and shoes that are all mod. 

Thanks for the clarification, Blush. I wonder, then, what the reason for selling the same hair with a mod non-rigged version, and a no-mod rigged version included? Even if you can't resize the rigged version?

Although, again, I don't much care one way or another about the reasoning or motivation when I buy something. If I don't buy a no mod item, it's not out of principle: It's because it won't work for me unless I can modify it.

[Blush Bravin]

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

 I wonder, then, what the reason for selling the same hair with a mod non-rigged version, and a no-mod rigged version included? Even if you can't resize the rigged version?

 

I wondered the same thing. One of my favorite hair brands does this, so I asked. I was told that the rigged version when worn has a lower complexity number than non-rigged. So he provides both so you can make the choice. I guess it's a swap out .. resize it yourself and raise complexity or wear the rigged and take how it fits. I'm so dang picky that I tend to use the non-rigged so I can fine tune it and take a hit on the complexity.

Edited March 17, 2019 by Blush Bravin
fixed spelling!

[LittleMe Jewell]

52 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Interesting work-around . . . and now that you mention it, I think I have had items that were no-mod because of the scripts. But if said items are sold by themselves (and not as HUDs to go with apparel or clothing), do they need to be listed as "no mod" on the MP or on in-world vendors?

In other words, might this allow a creator to essentially lie about the perms associated with an item?

What you are talking about is some item/container that is modifiable but contains a no-mod script.  That no-mod script does not prevent the container item from being modified, so the listing would be 'Modify'.  This is also why many creators include a notecard explaining that it might show as no-mod in inventory, yet that is simply due to the script and when you rez it or wear it, you really can modify it.  I know a few hair creators that set their hair as modifiable, but also include a resizer script for customer convenience.  Those hairs will typically show as no-mod in inventory because the resizer script is usually no-mod.

However, if the container object (like a gift card) is actually set as no-copy/no-modify/transfer, but then contains a script that is no-transfer, the final object truly does become no-copy/no-mod/no-transfer.  Since the container is no-mod, you cannot remove the no-transfer script from it and even though the container was not marked as no-transfer, the script within it will prevent it being transferred.   I have no clue how that gets labeled on the MP - if it is even possible to list an item with no permissions.

 

[Talligurl]

It all depends  on the item. If I am buying a clothing item that I like as is, I won't care if it is mod or not, but there are lots of photo props I want to change, so lots of times I reject items  do to being no mod.

[Fionalein]

Often mods are needed the designers never thought of, let's take a cute bikini that is delieverd as one piece - my centaur avi gets invited to a beach party... when the item is mod I might seperatly unlink the bra and wear it with my centaur.

Edited March 18, 2019 by Fionalein

[WingalingDragon]

On 3/16/2019 at 8:27 PM, Blush Bravin said:

I gave my reasons right after you posted. I didn't attach you, but when you attacked Drake you opened yourself up for responses to that attack. You attacked creators in your OP by calling us, yes, I'm a creator, shady for making no-mod content. So don't go acting like you are innocent and just asking questions and wanting a discussion. If that is what you wanted you should have written your OP differently. 

I said it's shady if the only reason you're clicking 'no-mod' is to sell tints.  The only real reasonable way to be insulted by that is if you're specifically doing so, and in that case, I'm sorry but that seems shady to me since tinting is a normal thing on SL.  If someone wants a high quality textured color, they'll still buy the other one because like it was mentioned, tinting doesn't produce the same result.   If someone wants to tint or try to make their own texture, why does that bother you so much?  If someone buys something, they're generally free to use it however they like.  You did work, you set a price to it, and they paid you for it.  Saying it's unfair for that person to tint their item because they should pay you the entire cost again for the same exact modeling, UV, rigging, etc, when all that's changing is a color is more than a bit unreasonable sounding.   I asked for reasons why my assumption was wrong, which you haven't provided.  Doing the standard political move of discrediting the person you can't pose a logical argument against isn't really a good way to inform people or give them the impression you're a friendly seller to deal with.  That matters too quite a bit.

 

On 3/16/2019 at 8:53 PM, Drake1 Nightfire said:

Well, duh.. Part of the whole merchant thing is selling stuff.. If people only bought one color with the ability to recolor and copy to their hearts content, whats the point of creating? Also, what small tweaks do you think you will be able to make to clothing to fit your av better?

The point of creating is to make things that people want to buy.  As some of the people here have shared, there are a fair amount of us who avoid no mod purchases, with many of us willing to pay a little more to be able to use the item in any non-profit way we want.  Small tweaks could be anything, really.  Maybe a part needs to be removed so you just create a less properly fitting texture because having a better texture is not as important to you as putting an alpha chunk on the area you don't want to be there.  Maybe someone wants to add their own bumpmap to change what sort of materials it appears as.  I never said these things are going to look as good or better as your original creation, but that's up to us to decide if the tweak is more important if that's the case, and believe it or not, someone, somewhere out there is actually better at texturing than you, and maybe they actually can make a better texture, but don't know how to model and would gladly pay you for your work in doing so.

 

On 3/16/2019 at 8:53 PM, Drake1 Nightfire said:

I can guarantee you that retexturing rigged mesh clothing without the proper UV maps would look like crap. "clever way?" you mean ripping content?  You were the one that said you wanted to recolor it and not be "forced" to buy multiple colors.

By saying clever way, I was referring to the many possible tweaks the SL system allows us if the item is simply modify, like I mentioned above.  Many neat things can be done with textures, alphas, bump or spec maps, and I'm sure there's plenty more cool tricks I have yet to discover.   If I was talking about ripping content illegally, why would I even care if it's mod? 

 

On 3/16/2019 at 8:53 PM, Drake1 Nightfire said:

Of course its logical, its still a business. Where are you getting this extra income BS? YOu really think making clothing Mod would drive sales through the roof? Please share the puff puff with the rest of us. And it can and has hurt us.. People have modded items and them complained for hours that they cant fix it and would ewe help them fix it how they want.. If you want custom work, pay for it.

The extra income comes from the range of people who would buy your product if they didn't have to specifically use it exactly how you intended or not at all.  It doesn't take drugs to realize that allowing more use to your product will create more interested customers.  I didn't say you'd suddenly make a fortune, I said you'd sell more, which you would.  Insinuating that disabling modify stops people from pestering you seems like a bit of a stretch.  I would guess that people will always contact sellers for a slew of reasons.  Removing one of those reasons just adds another, in this case when someone 'complains' to you that they'd like a modify version of an item.

 

On 3/16/2019 at 8:53 PM, Drake1 Nightfire said:

So where are you getting i am telling them to make their own? 

Right here:

On 3/16/2019 at 5:21 AM, Drake1 Nightfire said:

ETA... I made something unique, who are you to tell me you can do it better? Make your own damn mesh then. 

Sheesh

 

On 3/16/2019 at 8:59 PM, Sasy Scarborough said:

There is nothing wrong with wanting to present their work with those textures used all individually including the details they want and that tinting them does not always help them along. Do not misunderstand sometimes if clothing is mod and i can tint it a little creamier I am happy as anyone else may be, but I am rarely going to wear it out that way because it will in most cases look tinted, and fatpack is my favourite colour.

But there is something wrong with saying they are wrong for doing so, or worse calling them shady, because most of them have wanted for many years to give more abilities without losing lots by doing so. 

The history stuff is interesting but much of that, as you said, isn't really a thing anymore.  If it's old items or something like that, then so be it.  If you can afford high priced fatpacks for each article of clothing to get well done textures for each color, more power to you!  Unfortunately, we all don't have a massive budget on here, and when your budget is limited, you start wondering why you're paying for every portion of that creators work all over again when you are really only buying some new textures.  I did not say every merchant who sells a no mod item is shady.  I'm not sure where you or the other guy got that idea.  What I did say was, clicking no mod for no reason other than to force people to rebuy the whole item to get new colors is shady, and I stand by that.   What successful company cares what you do with an item after you've bought it if you're not attaching their name to some kind of hate speech or terrible act?  Does anyone really think it makes Nike as a company look bad if someone buys a pair of their shoes and draws in crayon all over them?

[WingalingDragon]

9 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I'm not sure why people get so angsty and hot-and-bothered about this issue whenever, in various guises, it pops up here. It seems to me pretty simple. 

Thanks!  Knowing this has been argued about before at least helps explain all the instant anger a bit.  It's appreciated as well that you pointed out that I'm not doing things that it seems others have done regarding the subject before   If there's a good reason for it to be there other than trying to artificially boost sales, I have nothing against it.  It seemed more important to me to try and figure out what it is people think they're gaining by making things no mod, which has been at least talked about a little so far, since I didn't imagine everyone doing it just to force a rebuy for tinting. 

[Sasy Scarborough]

41 minutes ago, WingalingDragon said:

I did not say every merchant who sells a no mod item is shady.

You 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. 

That may not be saying every merchant is as far as intention, but it does read that way. 

There are not that many items these days that would lend themselves to tinting, they are textured, they are not tints, stores are not selling tints they are uploading individual textures for each colour, there may be some older items that had a tint applied but it is usually very easy to spot and not something to support either way. No stores that I support are uploading a base and tinting and saving multiple colours because again the texture is usually all parts of an item, so you cannot tint if it has buttons or a railing etc, it would carry across all.

There were so many modern examples of why things are not modify as well, that have nothing to do with tinting, again with all the tech now used in merchandise it is usually very dependent on link sets so to unlink an item because you want to deprim it or whatever may mean the item is now useless, and again you may have a customer that knows to save, knows the outcome of doing so, but you will often have more that do not, and won't tell you they unlinked and or did something against what should be done, and so you can spend hours with them in IM trying to work out why something does not work as it is meant to. There are many that have tinting huds with items, if you are coming across stores that do not offer those options on things you feel need more options, talk to them about it, but for the small amount most creators get for a single purchase or fatpack for that matter seeing as most fatpacks these days are less than some starbucks concoction, to expect them to just open the gates to you getting unlimited tint versions of the one purchase is not so shady, in fact it just reeks of not wanting to pay for someones work. Someone suggested full perms, you can have at that stuff all the live long day. 

41 minutes ago, WingalingDragon said:

What I did say was, clicking no mod for no reason other than to force people to rebuy the whole item to get new colors is shady, and I stand by that.

again you seem to think that that is their reason and I explained a few times,  at least (made up number) 87% of second life creators want LL to give them the chance to leave tinting as an option, to allow to turn off full bright, to make bigger or smaller as needed without exposing the textures without being able to remove scripts that are needed without unlinking etc. 

SL is not free to play, they say it is as in you do not have to be premium, but there is a cost to everything, and if you do not have those resources as you mentioned not everyone does and I am fully aware of that, but if you want the things, you should want to pay for the things it takes as much time to package each of those single colours and fatpacks as it does to do the first, you seem to think that because they already have one all the rest are free, they are not, SL is a real estate game in more ways than tier, every single item a store puts out takes up space, costs to have on the walls, costs to list on MP in the sense of if it is purchased there is a fee to LL if it sits there without selling it cost in the time it took to list it, to take the pictures of that colour if shown, to present all the work. then there is the cost of uploads, the time to package to put in systems that also cost money, if not just using the buy option, then the land needed, the more you create the bigger the prim allowance you need, so you need to up your land tier and so on. Home and Decor stores have benefited by mesh in that sense more than most, but they still need to have somewhere for you to see their work. If an item is three years old but someone needs help with it tomorrow it did not deliver, they cannot find the left sleeve etc, you or your staff which you also pay have to spend time sorting that out. No reputable store in SL ever wipes their hands of a customer after a purchase, they are somewhat obligated to provide service to that customer until they eventually leave SL, but we got that item for the price of half a mars bar.

If it is a specific colour you want that you cannot live without in that item, maybe there is a conversation you can have with the creator, there are so many events these days for recolouring to be possible, that without it being considered custom for you only, could be a way to have your cake and them benefit from it too. 

 

EDIT : you have posted while I was typing

Edited March 18, 2019 by Sasy Scarborough

[Parhelion Palou]

22 minutes ago, WingalingDragon said:

What I did say was, clicking no mod for no reason other than to force people to rebuy the whole item to get new colors is shady, and I stand by that.   What successful company cares what you do with an item after you've bought it if you're not attaching their name to some kind of hate speech or terrible act?  Does anyone really think it makes Nike as a company look bad if someone buys a pair of their shoes and draws in crayon all over them?

Your argument is irrelevant. A company that makes RL things rarely has the ability to make an unmodifiable product. In SL doing so is easy, and if a creator wishes to sell their items as no mod it's their business and only their business. You, as the consumer, are free to purchase an item or not. If enough people refused to buy because of no mod items, a creator might change their mind. Or they might decide to quit making those items. It appears that most people don't care much whether clothing is modifiable or not, so it's highly unlikely you'll get your way.

There's a lot of template clothing out there. It comes with enough information to add  your own textures. I suggest buying that if you want to play around with doing your own textures.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 hour ago, Parhelion Palou said:

You, as the consumer, are free to purchase an item or not.

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 don't know whether or not I think that creators are "shady" for making things no mod so that people will buy more, but you can hardly argue that merchants don't try to maximize their profits. And while there are lots of really generous merchants who, as I know from personal experience, sell really high quality stuff for very low prices, the really successful creators tend to be the ones who are good at finding ways to make people spend more.

Gachas are a prime example, especially those ones designed in such a way that the "set" only really works when you've managed to score the "rares." Personally, I think gachas are nearly always a rip off. So I don't use them (although I have occasionally bought resale gacha items). Concluding, and articulating aloud, my view that gachas are designed to artificially boost the cost of some items doesn't make me a threat to the SL Way of Life. It makes me an annoyed and noisy consumer.

I'll say this again: I don't get the tendency to characterize any sort of public criticism of creators (or landowners, club owners, or whatever) as though merely articulating dissatisfaction was some sort of communist plot that threatened the inalienable rights of SL residents.

It's critique, and it's free expression, and maybe, occasionally, someone makes a good point, a merchant listens and agrees, and starts doing things differently.

[Ceka Cianci]

When it comes to clothes and hair and things like that..So many people get it right, that if I demo something and it doesn't look good from the get go..I really don't care if it's mod or no mod..I'm probably not going to go through the effort of going back and getting it..

I demo everything at home...It doesn't take much for me to not want to go back to a store that day..

From all the events that I'm checking out and time on the MP,I just figure something down the road will work for me..

So many vendors ,so little time  hehehehehe

[Orwar]

22 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Gachas are a prime example ...

   Gachas are a scourge. Several governments, on both sides of the pond, are looking into legislation against 'loot boxes' in games as they are nothing short of gambling. LL has very strict rules about gambling within SL, but gachas aren't included in those rules - let's hope California bans loot boxes, and that gachas will be swept along with them.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

9 minutes ago, Orwar said:

   Gachas are a scourge. Several governments, on both sides of the pond, are looking into legislation against 'loot boxes' in games as they are nothing short of gambling. LL has very strict rules about gambling within SL, but gachas aren't included in those rules - let's hope California bans loot boxes, and that gachas will be swept along with them.

I'm a little surprised that LL hasn't self-regulated against them yet: there's certainly enough criticism of them out there to merit giving some thought to it. And, because the L$ is pretty directly tied to RL currency, in a way that some in-game currencies are not, there's a pretty compelling argument to be made that they are gambling, in a very real sense.

Personally, I just find them annoying. And while I would stop short of drawing a direct line between making things no mod (because there may be lots of reasons to make things no mod), and gachas, the latter are a pretty good example of the way in which (some) merchants will engage in questionable tactics to increase profits.

Increasing profits governs virtually everything about the way that most goods are packaged in SL and RL, and I'm sure that there are at least some merchants who choose to make things no mod in order to encourage people to buy fat packs, or additional HUDs.

Why this should shock or surprise anyone is beyond me: maximizing profits is at the heart of the capitalist credo. I mean, duh, right?

[HarrisonMcKenzie]

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).

[Orwar]

8 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Why this should shock or surprise anyone is beyond me: maximizing profits is at the heart of the capitalist credo. I mean, duh, right?

   Whilst this is often true in practice, it's not how theoretical capitalism works per se. Capitalism is simply based on a voluntary exchange of goods, where both parties feel that the exchange is beneficial to them - and that the government has as little involvement as possible in the economical affairs of private people and companies beyond taxation of transaction and import tariffs where applicable. To be blunt, the 'problem' with capitalism is that consumers tend to be, well, stupid.

   For example - are McDonald's to be blamed for selling cheap, unhealthy food, or does the responsibility lie with the consumer? There's no shortage of consumers who are happy to eat outright junk if they can get it for cheap buck. If the government were to step in to prevent those transactions, that would be widely regarded as patronising and anti-liberal - or worse; totalitarian fascism. 

   One of my favourite examples regards the cosmetics industry though. People have been very vocal against animal tests, as well as against advertisements with women models who are either unhealthily slender, have undergone plastic surgery to achieve an impossible physique, or simply being photoshopped. But, the simple fact is that these business are absolutely loaded - and where does the profit come from? Generally, women buying their products - whether they find the perceived issues acceptable or not. How one chooses to spend one's money is, essentially, direct democracy. If you don't like a product, or if you don't agree with the company that produces it, you have other companies to chose from - thanks to it being a free market, i.e. what makes capitalism capitalism.

   In Sweden, we've had several articles, and we've got several organisations that scrutinise the business of various companies - who report continuously on which companies employ child labour, or otherwise abusive practices where the workers or the environment are neglected. It's been covered on national television repeatedly, yet, the companies continue to grow and flourish because, in the end, the consumers care more about being able to buy cheap products than they do about backing up their humanitarian principles. Every time they go to IKEA to buy a collection of cheap Tupperware or to H&M to buy a cheap T-shirt, they vote with their wallet for what sort of world they want to live in. I'd be surprised if the information isn't equally accessible in any other European country or North America; but the people are simply as opportunistic as the 'capitalist' companies they continue throwing money at.

   Ultimately, SL is no different. SL runs under a free market system - LL takes a transaction fee when you buy or sell virtual capital, and a service fee for providing the Marketplace, and they police certain rules made to protect (mainly) the consumer from being scammed. If a creator sells 'T-Shirt: Navy Blue', then, that's fully in line with the rules - as long as the shirt is delivered as described. What makes gachas different is the way you're told that "pay me X and you might get this totally awesome-looking 'rare' dress, or even this slightly more awesome- looking 'ultra rare' version of the dress with lace frills". That's exactly how loot boxes work in games, and whilst 'most' of the SL playerbase are adult (I think?), gachas are currently free to be placed in G-rated zones; and they are gambling, no matter how little that X is, people DO play gacha machines until they either get what they want, run out of funds or leave in frustration. Just out of the people I know, who I've talked to about the issue, several have admitted to spending thousands of lindens on a single session with a machine, and before you know it your bank account is set back by $20 for a virtual item. Especially because re-sales of gachas is a thing, which means that the product you receive has a market value attached to it, to some people it really is a gamble with a hope of profit.

   How this is fine, but rolling a handful of dice for a shot at a prize isn't, is just silly. LL's policy on gambling: Gambling is strictly prohibited in Second Life and operating, or participating in, a game of chance that provides a Linden Dollar payout is a violation of our Terms of Service.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

57 minutes ago, Orwar said:

[A whole lot of true stuff]

I don't think you say anything here with which I would disagree, other than noting the corporations have become very adept at duping consumers -- even those who are not obviously "stupid."

There is some danger of this becoming a major derail, though. I want to note, again, that I brought up gachas not in order to suggest a direct parallel with "no mod" goods, but merely as a demonstration that creators find lots of ways to maximize profits, even when those are, as in the case of gachas, ethically suspect.

I don't think, personally, that no mod goods are an ethical issue in the way that gachas are, but I find the suggestion that there aren't creators who use this option to encourage more sales pretty ridiculous. 

And, again, I don't understand why anyone would try to deny that suggestion. There may be lots of reasons for making something no mod, but increasing sales must certainly be one of them -- just as making certain textures or options for items available only to those who purchase the fat pack is about encouraging me to spend more.

Unethical or "shady"? Probably not. About maximizing profits? Well, again . . . duh.

[Orwar]

4 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Unethical or "shady"? Probably not. About maximizing profits? Well, again . . . duh.

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

   To be blunt, being a creator in Second Life is seldom profitable in a way comparable to having a real life business. Say you make a shirt from scratch; how much time does the creator have to put into creating the mesh, UV-mapping the mesh, rigging the mesh, creating a texture, testing the product in-world and trouble-shooting it, creating bump maps and specular maps, fine-tuning them with the in-world tools, packaging the product, photographing the product in a way that makes it appear appealing, listing the product in the MP and setting up store vendors - many of the steps having to be done several times if there are colour variants and demos involved. I don't know the answer, I reckon it varies quite widely as some creators have gotten to where they are through trial and error and others have studied virtual design. Also consider the software requirements to make high-end mesh products and textures, the licenses can amount to hundreds of dollars annually, depending on which programs you chose. I suppose the cost of uploading mesh and textures may be considered insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but if you offer 10 colours and have materials, that's L$120 for the product itself, another L$100 if each colour is to have its own vendor image, the mesh itself is probably going to be under L$20 per piece (I think? I never uploaded clothes, so I don't know if the detail and physics push that up higher) - and if you're to support, say 5 bodies, that's another L$100. Say you then sell the T-shirts for L$99 per colour, or a fat pack for L$699 (30% 'off') - the minimum wage in the US is $7.25/h, say it took you all in all 5 hours (which, I think is aiming way low - but let's say it's a simple T-shirt and that the person works very efficiently and has a lot of experience with each step and each program used) - to 'earn' your 5 hours of minimum wages you'd have to sell something like 100 T-shirts (single colour, in-world). And that's not counting all the expenses for hardware and software requirements, or the cuts along the way.

   And that's with 'a few' competitors making T-shirts. Say you want to stand out, make a shirt with a more intricate design, or make a print for your T-shirt - well, that's more time spent on the product. I'm absolutely not saying that being a creator in SL 'should' be about making a living, but I think that calling it profiteering is a bit silly. In the end, the principle of supply and demand applies - if you want something, you'll have to pay what the creator asks for it (or get a blogging position! Or haggle, though I don't know how many creators would be up for that). If you want something else ... Go to the Wanted section of the forums and let it be known that you'd like a modifiable T-shirt. Also, a lot of creators are quite happy to provide you with a certain colour if you contact them, and some (although, it's rare) will even provide you with a modifiable version of the product - I've gotten a few mod versions when talking to the creators about how the materials are unsuitable for my requirements or how there's something full-bright that makes the product prohibitive for a dark shoot. Obviously, just don't tell them that the 'materials' on their product is BAD or that very few things should ever be full-bright and jewellery certainly shouldn't be.

   On the flip side, there are 'creators' whose practices are very shady indeed. There are several sites providing mesh products for general virtual design use and game assets, and due to LL's TOS (i.e. anything uploaded into SL is the property of LL), a lot of those sites have simply banned the use of their virtual wares for Second Life. Still, a lot of them show up on the MP and in-world stores - a pastime I used to play with was to go around stores finding products from games I'd played (I've found warehouses containing practically every dang asset from Skyrim, Bioshock and Assassin's Creed, sold for L$10 per piece). Even as a Swede with a rather liberal view of virtual property, that's gone 'a little too far' for my taste.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

19 minutes ago, Orwar said:

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

I didn't actually say it was.

I totally get how much work creation is. Between 2008 and 2011, I spent literally hundreds of hours creating readable, accurate, and aesthetically attractive in-world books that I sold for L$1 -- because I wanted those books (by women writers) to be widely available.

We need to make an important distinction between RL and SL here. No one dies because they can't afford the latest skin or makeup applier. So, to some degree, the ethical issues are different here.

My intervention here hasn't been in order to call out creators as "profiteers." I don't think they are, the vast majority of them. But I do think there has been a rather sanctimonious tone to some of the attacks on the OP, and a tendency to downplay the suggestion that this issue is sometimes about profit. That's nonsense, in my view.

Edited March 18, 2019 by Scylla Rhiadra