Jump to content
Moonbeam Devin

Wow Linden Labs, Just Wow.

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

Like I said, chances are the pay to join groups will likely jack up (raise) the rate to join the group. Greed does some strange things to people's heads as demonstrated by the 2500Ls to join group.

That is not the lion share of most pay to join groups... most are probably merchants and probably less than 200 L.  Personally I could care less about the minority of folks that charge a super heavy fee... they were already greedy before the change.  I'm more interested in how it effects the more typical pay to join groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, ILIKEPIEPIEPIEPIEPIEPIEPIEPIEPI said:

Because we are always losing stuff the free members have yet to benefit from one of these changes the majority of the base is free members it will get to the point that the only way you can play SL is if you pay.

Well to be honest, LL doesn't owe us anything. It's a private company providing a service. I understand that many people are of very limited means, as I have been myself in the past, but...the Lab doesn't owe us anything. Whether or not these changes are a good move is obviously the subject of much debate, and I do think it would be daft to introduce pay to play as many basic members still put money into the system and contribute in other ways, and I think it would be very off if people who have accounts now were to lose access to all the inventory items and so on that they already have under the current terms. But I really can't object to the very concept of a private company charging for its totally optional product.


There's a post somewhere from a gamer who says that she's used to having to pay to play the games she likes, and that's probably why this isn't bothering her.

Does it help to think of basic membership as a free demo that you can play as long as you like?
 

Edited by Amina Sopwith
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Evangeline Ling said:

That is not the lion share of most pay to join groups... most are probably merchants and probably less than 200 L.  Personally I could care less about the minority of folks that charge a super heavy fee... they were already greedy before the change.  I'm more interested in how it effects the more typical pay to join groups.

I understood you. I stand by what I said. I'm not saying they will all raise the join fees in an attempt to compensate for other fees they have to pay. I do fully expect that some/many will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Desudesudesuka said:

There is no trickle down of reduced land prices, this only benefits rich land barons.

Not true.  If land costs go down, pretty soon one estate owner lowers her rents.  To keep their customers, other estate owners lower theirs too.  We saw this back in 2007-8, when estate parcels, which had up until then had a high initial "purchase" price, began to go down.  Pretty soon, estate parcels had purchase prices of $L1 all across the grid.  The idea of a purchase price for an estate parcel has been dead for over a decade now; you get an estate parcel by paying the first period's rent, nothing more.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if LL realizes how many free account holders are holding up the economy. I have many of them as tenants.

That's because they earn money inworld. They work in various clubs or at rental agencies or all kinds of jobs from sex work to administrative work in stores, and get paid in Linden dollars which they never cash out. They use it to fund their SL -- clothes, furniture, rentals, services, etc.

They don't have premium accounts because a recurring cost is too much for them and just not justified, even with the stipend and land credit. They can get land in a rental for the fraction of a premium account, and have a job for spending money, and it's more interesting for them.

I have some tenants who pay me their earnings from jobs daily to a rental cube, in fact because they don't seem to have the larger amounts needed to pay 4 weeks in advance for a rental.

And I'm one of these people myself -- I almost never buy Linden dollars, but use the income from rentals to buy services inworld like scripters, or furniture, or gatchas or whatever. 

Yes, you can cash out Lindens to pay for premium accounts and tier. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Lindal Kidd said:

Not true.  If land costs go down, pretty soon one estate owner lowers her rents.  To keep their customers, other estate owners lower theirs too.  We saw this back in 2007-8, when estate parcels, which had up until then had a high initial "purchase" price, began to go down.  Pretty soon, estate parcels had purchase prices of $L1 all across the grid.  The idea of a purchase price for an estate parcel has been dead for over a decade now; you get an estate parcel by paying the first period's rent, nothing more.

The problem is that if the fee for cashouts and the fee for premium account increases, not all will justify then a lowered rental cost. I'm one of those who lowered costs even before this latest round, after the increase in prims, because the economy has simply shrunk in recent years.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Prokofy Neva said:

The problem is that if the fee for cashouts and the fee for premium account increases, not all will justify then a lowered rental cost. I'm one of those who lowered costs even before this latest round, after the increase in prims, because the economy has simply shrunk in recent years.

I don't have a large enough rental business to take cashouts, but let's do a hypothetical.

A land baron with ten full regions...

Current annual costs and income:

  • Land Fees $249 x 10 x 12 = $29,880
  • Annual Premium dues (not actually required for estate owners, but we'll toss it in) = $72
  • Estimated Rental Income ($L 5 per prim per month, 20% vacancy factor) = $48,000
  • Gross amount cashed out annually = 48,000 - 29,952 = 18,048
  • Amount cashed out after fees = $18,048 x 0.975 = $17,596.80

Under the new schedule:

  • Land Fees $229 x 10 x 12 = $27,480
  • Premium dues = $99
  • Estimated Rental Income = $48,000 (we haven't passed on any savings to tenants...yet.)
  • Gross annually = 48,000 - 27,579 = $22,421
  • After fees = $22,421 x 0.95 = $21,299.95

Under the new scheme, our landlord is making $3,703.15 more per year.  She can cut her rents by about 17% and still take home the same amount as before.  And that's the potential trickle-down benefit for Basic members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ILIKEPIEPIEPIEPIEPIEPIEPIEPIEPI said:

you're right we can but why do I want to go put 60 USD into another avi ? to make it look good then cloths and what not they can just leave the groups but wont because they are money hungry *****s 

Most of us keep our alts in a small room in the attic, feed them gruel and make them wear threadbare freebie clothes.  They don't cost a thing.  I'm just worried that someone's going to get up an "alts rights" campaign or something.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Lindal Kidd said:

Under the new scheme, our landlord is making $3,703.15 more per year.  She can cut her rents by about 17% and still take home the same amount as before.  And that's the potential trickle-down benefit for Basic members.

Potential being the keyword. There is no guarantee that any "land baron" will pass on any savings to their renters. That's the real issue. Many of them won't because they don't have to (or are just a bit greedy). That was always one of the biggest hypes for SL. Earn real money... making a living without ever leaving your real life home, etc etc etc. The problem with that is, not everyone can be an Anshe Chung.

Edited by Selene Gregoire
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lindal Kidd said:

I'm just worried that someone's going to get up an "alts rights" campaign or something.

OMG. Why did I never think of this!!!!

/me starts work on banners and pamphlets

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Selene, my point is that they WILL pass the lowered costs on.  They will have to, because of market forces.

Land barons are in constant competition with each other, and with LL for tenants.  Because of the new Linden Homes, a lot of residents are going to leave their estate homes, creating even more competition for the remaining renters.  First one land baron will lower her prices, to attract more renters.  Soon, the others will follow, or be forced out of business.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lindal Kidd said:

Selene, my point is that they WILL pass the lowered costs on.  They will have to, because of market forces.

Land barons are in constant competition with each other, and with LL for tenants.  Because of the new Linden Homes, a lot of residents are going to leave their estate homes, creating even more competition for the remaining renters.  First one land baron will lower her prices, to attract more renters.  Soon, the others will follow, or be forced out of business.

I'm sorry Lindal but I have my doubts and I don't think anything you or anyone else can say will dispel those doubts. I've seen and had to much happen to have that much trust and faith in others. I firmly believe that there will be those who will refuse to lower their rates and still manage to stay viable. That's just how some humans are.

I am more than happy to wait and see and be proven completely wrong. It would go a little ways towards restoring some trust and faith in others but I won't be the fully trusting person I once was ever again. The personal cost it too high.

Thank you for trying. It means something to me.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Evangeline Ling said:

 

My 2L on the group changes

As a premium member... I actually reduced my own groups just a day or two before this announcement... I have exactly 32 groups... Premium account under the new basic membership cap... There is an advantage to less groups anyways... less spam... less ims... less random ims from people that "found you in a group"... really I don't need MORE group spots as a premium and if I was basic 35 would be just fine... 

Also on people charging money to be in a group... I'm so tired of that... i just dumped a bunch of groups I had paid to get into at some point cause I'm tired of feeling locked into a group i don't really use anymore anyways and if their club is that exclusive to be part of then maybe its not really a club for me anyways.  I can understand the stores wanting to do a really small charge (say under 50L) just to discourage trolls and griefers but really why would you want to charge your customers a high fee to be in a group for you to advertise to them... you should want your customers in your group!

Maybe Linden Labs lowering the amount of groups might make some of these places rethink their group charges... If I was basic and just had my groups capped to a lower amount I would be far more selective about groups I join and less likely to buy into some of these pay to join ones.

 

I always thought the reason they charged you to be in the group was because they didn't like people joining to get a group gift and then leaving the next minute. I guess some folks would do that every month and I can understand their annoyance.  There they were rewarding their loyal groupies and some freeloaders some not so loyal groupies were taking advantage of it. But still, to be rid of people like that a $20 linden join fee is more then enough.  Or maybe their logic was "I give out 12 free gifts a year and the average cost of one of my items is $300-$750 so I'm going to charge enough to profit on at least one of those 12 freebies." I don't really know; I'm just a lowly consumer. I don't know how to make my own stuff. It does seem though that some of the higher join fees were quite disproportionate to the number of freebies they gave away.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lindal Kidd said:

Under the new scheme, our landlord is making $3,703.15 more per year.  She can cut her rents by about 17% and still take home the same amount as before.  And that's the potential trickle-down benefit for Basic members.

yes your arithmetic is right

i think tho that Prokofy was saying that its not cost to the landlord that most affects rental prices. The pool of available renters has most effect. Prices come down when the demand lessens, no matter what the costs of the landlord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Selene Gregoire said:

I'm sorry Lindal but I have my doubts and I don't think anything you or anyone else can say will dispel those doubts. I've seen and had to much happen to have that much trust and faith in others. I firmly believe that there will be those who will refuse to lower their rates and still manage to stay viable.

Competitive pressure from other land owners will always drive the prices down, it only takes one to cut their rates and others will feel like they have no choice but to follow or loose tenants. For many land holders who rent out plots, letting land sit empty is not an option, margins are tight and while they might try to resist the change for as long as they can to gain some headroom, they will bow to market forces in the end. They always do.

Private rental is very cut-throat and there is no reason for renters to stay put. From my own being a land owner and a renter,  a new home in a new part of SL every couple of months helps to keep it fresh and most everyone I know who rents makes a point of checking how good their current location and deal is regularly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.png.55fbb1fb00e40ea4f8da7c05ae820866.png

I  have been a free account for a long time and paid for most of my 42 groups , and now they are going to be ripped out from underneath me to only be given to the paying accounts, that is so unfair. What does this mean, do we have to seriously chose between the groups that we ,the free accounts  worked so hard at in Second Life to earn $L to pay for our groups to now have all the money we put into them taken away? if that is the case, we should be reimbursed for all the $L we spent to join the group that LL is taking away.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Amina Sopwith said:

Well to be honest, LL doesn't owe us anything. It's a private company providing a service. I understand that many people are of very limited means, as I have been myself in the past, but...the Lab doesn't owe us anything. Whether or not these changes are a good move is obviously the subject of much debate, and I do think it would be daft to introduce pay to play as many basic members still put money into the system and contribute in other ways, and I think it would be very off if people who have accounts now were to lose access to all the inventory items and so on that they already have under the current terms. But I really can't object to the very concept of a private company charging for its totally optional product.


There's a post somewhere from a gamer who says that she's used to having to pay to play the games she likes, and that's probably why this isn't bothering her.

Does it help to think of basic membership as a free demo that you can play as long as you like?
 

I agree with the post from the gamer you mentioned. I play WoW as well so $15 a month is normal to me if I want to play and SL's premium is cheaper than that.. and optional. I've bounced back and forth between having it and not multiple times. 

Personally I don't care about the IM and group change really. It doesn't directly effect my game play or experience. As long as everything else is the same we're good haha. 

I am disappointed about the premium $ raise though and the change of no quarterly. I just reactivated mine recently as quarterly because i wanted land so I managed to head off that change it seems. But it sucks that if I removed it again I can't get quarterly next time. But  the $ premium raise,  is making me consider wanting to cancel it. Going to spend less on or not at all on getting linden with the $ raise because more moneys now going towards that. And then biting into the budget of other gaming, more and pick and choosing. 😞

unless there was substantial more premium bonuses added that I missed then I'm severely disappointed by the price increase. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Alyona Su said:

Both of which are methods to improve system *performance* (which I do know for a fact that this is the why and how and it will work.)

But logically, if reducing offline IM storage and group membership helps performance, and group membership is being increased for premium accounts, then more premium accounts will be bad for performance. In any case, what's wrong with performance? I'm satisfied and have been for years. This is not about performance, it's about encouraging us to regard free accounts as mere beginner's level and transition when we're serious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, AlucardsSisterCrystal said:

What does this mean, do we have to seriously chose between the groups that we ,the free accounts  worked so hard at in Second Life to earn $L to pay for our groups to now have all the money we put into them taken away? if that is the case, we should be reimbursed for all the $L we spent to join the group that LL is taking away.

Keep this line of argument up and people will start peeking to see if you have actually spent anything to join groups, reminding you that you've been enjoying SL for free for years and will continue to do so, and pointing out that your roleplay job for literal pennies is at best a poor use of your time from a financial perspective.

27 minutes ago, KaydinLynn said:

I agree with the post from the gamer you mentioned. I play WoW as well so $15 a month is normal to me if I want to play and SL's premium is cheaper than that.. and optional. I've bounced back and forth between having it and not multiple times. 

A wow sub does come with a significant amount of content though, you can play wow for a long time and still not see it all.

Quote

unless there was substantial more premium bonuses added that I missed then I'm severely disappointed by the price increase. 

They can't just give more land or more money, that defeats the entire purpose of re-balancing their income. They can continue to make premium accounts objectively better than basic accounts. More group slots, more animesh attachments, more offline IMs, more ... <anything / everything with some kind of cap here>.

Basic accounts are not going to come out ahead at any point during this transition

Edited by CoffeeDujour
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, AlucardsSisterCrystal said:

image.png.55fbb1fb00e40ea4f8da7c05ae820866.png

I  have been a free account for a long time and paid for most of my 42 groups , and now they are going to be ripped out from underneath me to only be given to the paying accounts, that is so unfair. What does this mean, do we have to seriously chose between the groups that we ,the free accounts  worked so hard at in Second Life to earn $L to pay for our groups to now have all the money we put into them taken away? if that is the case, we should be reimbursed for all the $L we spent to join the group that LL is taking away.

They are not going to rip the groups away from you.  If you are in 42 groups, you will remain in 42 groups.  However, you will not be able to drop a group and immediately join another group.  You won't be able to join a new group until your existing groups are under the new limit.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Lindal Kidd said:

I don't have a large enough rental business to take cashouts, but let's do a hypothetical.

A land baron with ten full regions...

Current annual costs and income:

  • Land Fees $249 x 10 x 12 = $29,880
  • Annual Premium dues (not actually required for estate owners, but we'll toss it in) = $72
  • Estimated Rental Income ($L 5 per prim per month, 20% vacancy factor) = $48,000
  • Gross amount cashed out annually = 48,000 - 29,952 = 18,048
  • Amount cashed out after fees = $18,048 x 0.975 = $17,596.80

Under the new schedule:

  • Land Fees $229 x 10 x 12 = $27,480
  • Premium dues = $99
  • Estimated Rental Income = $48,000 (we haven't passed on any savings to tenants...yet.)
  • Gross annually = 48,000 - 27,579 = $22,421
  • After fees = $22,421 x 0.95 = $21,299.95

Under the new scheme, our landlord is making $3,703.15 more per year.  She can cut her rents by about 17% and still take home the same amount as before.  And that's the potential trickle-down benefit for Basic members.

There are several things wrong with this scheme, even if you had the cheaper grandfathered islands of $195 (now to be $179) or even mainland land in groups, where you get the 10% bonus.

First, you haven't counted any costs for landscaping, houses and furniture if they are supplied, and usually there's at least some central landing place, and staff.  You can't look at this as a one-time, non-recurring fixed cost as you have to constantly update with the latest mesh items to look good and compete with other agents.

Second, the idea that you can charge $5/prim/mo,. is absolutely ludicrous. In fact, you can charge .80/prim or $1/prim or less on the mainland and perhaps up to $2/prim on an island per week, which is then really more like $3-4/mo on an island, not $5.

There may be some higher-end islands that charge this, but I don't see it. $5/prim means that a 4096 typical island parcel, with 1250 prims, would have to cost a whopping $6,250 per week or nearly  $24 US per month. And that's not what people will pay -- they want to pay $12 or no more than $20.

In reality -- just go look at the land rentals list or the search/places list -- the costs are $1250 or $1500 or $1700 per week-- which is $5000 or even less, because many have a discount of 10% for paying ahead, but nothing at all like $6250. Every dollar matters in this business.

Third, 20% vacancy is the dream of island owners and not the reality, which is why they go out of business -- or why they really have to have 100 of them to make it worthwhile.

Island owners are not required to have premium accounts to own islands, so that isn't a cost, but it is for mainland rentals agencies.

Edited by Prokofy Neva

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Beeflin Grut said:

But logically, if reducing offline IM storage and group membership helps performance, and group membership is being increased for premium accounts, then more premium accounts will be bad for performance. In any case, what's wrong with performance? I'm satisfied and have been for years. This is not about performance, it's about encouraging us to regard free accounts as mere beginner's level and transition when we're serious. 

That is absolutely true. It is not lost on anyone that there is an increase in the Premium count juxtaposed to a decres in the Basic count. Unless a Linden can justify it otherwise, there is no real doubt that the reason for the removal of 10 groups slot from baic was to add the additional group slots to Premium without increasing the system load. I do not defend the move whatsoever (I'm Premium and have around 120 and 15 groups and try to keep it that way, myself).

My may pushback is against shril-sounding whiners proclaiming they are losing 10 slots and must then deicde which groups they will lose, which is gross misinformation: If you have all current slots filled you will not lose any groups. Yu can and will keep all the groups you have. If you haven;t filled up your current slot alottment now is the time to think about it.

Complaining that Basic account lose ten slots is totally fair and reasonable. It the misinformation-paranoia and is inexcusable, especially when it is was clearly stated in the original post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Beeflin Grut said:

But logically, if reducing offline IM storage and group membership helps performance, and group membership is being increased for premium accounts, then more premium accounts will be bad for performance. In any case, what's wrong with performance? I'm satisfied and have been for years. This is not about performance, it's about encouraging us to regard free accounts as mere beginner's level and transition when we're serious. 

So, you're saying you've never had experience with lagging group chat and undelivered notices, and have never heard others complaining about them?

  • Like 1

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...