Jump to content
Jimbo Mimulus

Cost Of Name Changes Out Of The Bag

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:

Sooo, someone contacts me or is wandering around the store but I will have no idea if that is my customer of ten years unless they wear a sign or IM me. 

Not necessarily. If historical customer list is online somewhere a script can query it you'd need to point the (new) username at that script to do that querying. That "activating" doesn't need to be as cumbersome as it may sound: a HUD can monitor where you're looking, notice there's an avatar there, do the query behind the scenes and pop up a label somewhere on your screen (sorta like an AR notification) with whatever information you want to report from that database. You can do all that with in-world computing if the relevant customer data can fit in an Experience persistent store of key-value pairs.

(This all assumes it's too cumbersome to type the username in to a text box -- and it probably is.)

Such a system isn't rocket science, but it would be a little compute-heavy for everybody to be wearing something like this around the grid.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If you can't/won't pay for it, just don't buy it"

And keep your mouth shut? Sorry, that is not how discussion forums and opinions work. If my opinion is its overpriced, that is what you are going to hear from me. Don't agree? Fair enough.

My biggest gripe with the fee is that it is a premium feature. I'm already paying for those. If you feel this new one is worth bumping the premium price up, fine. Do that and let me decide. I'd actually pay 50 cents more a month, maybe a dollar (they'd eventually get way more than 40 bucks out of me), or more if it was paired with something else. But a 40 bucks up front fee that shuts out basics? Okay....

So many users wanted this and only the ones willing to pay roughly 10 bucks a month and 40 up front (roughly 160 bucks in year one and 120 thereafter) get it. Alrighty then...

A lot of people will buy this. Good for business.

A lot of people who wanted it won't. Bad for business.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well here's another possibility: At the time of creation, I thought you'd enter an account name first, which other users wouldn't see, and theeeen create a character.

Needless to say I'm looking forward to being able getting a proper name for all those scripts working with account names rather than the displayed name 😅

Edit (premature post, failed to handle a tablet) A question though~ I get the impression that old surnames won't be available to pick... Is that true? If so: Whyyyyyy? 🙁 I need my darling's name, but it's probably ancient (She's been here for over 11 years)!

Edited by nanoUSB
Typos, more typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, nanoUSB said:

get the impression that old surnames won't be available to pick... Is that true? If so: Whyyyyyy?

True. I’m assuming because too many of the ‘common’ first names were used up already, leaving a lesser selection. But it’s true, the new surnames will all be brand new. You could both switch to a new one? 

Edited by Fauve Aeon

Share this post


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

So many users wanted this and only the ones willing to pay roughly 10 bucks a month and 40 up front (roughly 160 bucks in year one and 120 thereafter) get it. Alrighty then...

You don't have to stay Premium to keep your new name.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you start a new premium acct then it's just the one premium payment for a first-last name. You could drop premmie after that but you want that sweet new house. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

"If you can't/won't pay for it, just don't buy it"

And keep your mouth shut? Sorry, that is not how discussion forums and opinions work. If my opinion is its overpriced, that is what you are going to hear from me. Don't agree? Fair enough.

My biggest gripe with the fee is that it is a premium feature. I'm already paying for those. If you feel this new one is worth bumping the premium price up, fine. Do that and let me decide. I'd actually pay 50 cents more a month, maybe a dollar (they'd eventually get way more than 40 bucks out of me), or more if it was paired with something else. But a 40 bucks up front fee that shuts out basics? Okay....

So many users wanted this and only the ones willing to pay roughly 10 bucks a month and 40 up front (roughly 160 bucks in year one and 120 thereafter) get it. Alrighty then...

A lot of people will buy this. Good for business.

A lot of people who wanted it won't. Bad for business.

Your first line is ultimately the bottom line. It’s an option feature, an add-on, in no way required. 
I certainly don’t think anyone should ‘keep their mouth shut about it’ especially in open discussion places that should and hopefully do welcome everyone to speak their opinion. But there are going to be features that are not targeted at everyone. And with the new tier of premium still to be seen, more still to come that are being marketed to currently paying members, but don’t exclude those who wish to upgrade, either. 
Every member with an account in good standing is eligible to upgrade to a premium membership, everyone retains full access to display names regardless of account type so it seems no one will have any current options downgraded. Regardless, it’s OK for a business to decide how to upcharge their add-on extras. It will never please everyone.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bree Giffen said:

If you start a new premium acct then it's just the one premium payment for a first-last name. You could drop premmie after that but you want that sweet new house. 

Which isn't available.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Claireschen Hesten said:

I don't see $40 as too unreasonable it's at a enough fee to dissuade people from treating it like a display name. it's probably more effort and resource to change an account name than it is to have a display name

My guess is that LL doesn't really want to do it at all, and are trying to dissuade people and make it worth their while if people really want to do it. But who knows, they threw darts at coked-up armadillos for all I can figure of their business logic.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, CaerolleClaudel said:

Which isn't available.

All types were listed as available as of today, there was a massive number dropped and ongoing new regions still being rolled out as we speak. It’s here. 😉

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fauve Aeon said:

All types were listed as available as of today, there was a massive number dropped and ongoing new regions still being rolled out as we speak. It’s here. 😉

Wow, well I'll be, you are right! :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

You don't have to stay Premium to keep your new name.

Which removes all reason to restrict it to premium in the first place. If the revenue tied to buyers' premium accounts isn't the reason, there isn't one. It'll cut back on the number of people getting it? Nope. Not if you merely have to obtain premium and don't have to keep it.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Adam Spark said:

Which removes all reason to restrict it to premium in the first place.

  • 2020 premium membership numbers plumped, even temporarily. It counts in the year’s stats.
  • 1 month x n($11.99), and then the ones who forget to cancel before the deadline (*2) and the ones who try a Linden home and stay even another month or few, or decide they like the stipend, or appreciate never waiting long to get into a full sim (*n). It’s not a tiny sum. 

I think LL would always like people to at least give premium benefits a good working trial. Especially with the new housing continent. Piggybacking the name change to a 1 month premium requirement does that in a handy way. 

  • Like 4
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Fauve Aeon said:
  • 2020 premium membership numbers plumped, even temporarily. It counts in the year’s stats.
  • 1 month x n($11.99), and then the ones who forget to cancel before the deadline (*2) and the ones who try a Linden home and stay even another month or few, or decide they like the stipend, or appreciate never waiting long to get into a full sim (*n). It’s not a tiny sum. 

I think LL would always like people to at least give premium benefits a good working trial. Especially with the new housing continent. Piggybacking the name change to a 1 month premium requirement does that in a handy way. 

^ How to fail Master of Business degree.

That statement is just flawed. You a pinning your income on the hope that someone will forget to cancel their sub? LL have stated that they want to make premium subscriptions the new way for them to remove their income dependence on Land, and this is not the way to do it. Even if the name change was separate from premium it is still to expensive. You also seem to think that new users (who are or should be LL target for premium) are going to think "oh hey I want a unique user name in SL even though I can change my display name. I'm new and might only stick around for a month but hey ill spend $40+ to ''TRY' premium". The only people this name change is targeted to is older users.

You say LL would like people to give sub's a go and yet they haven't changed in any good way since their inception. Sure, they have added a few pointless bonusses, however adding the requirement to BUY a new name with a subscription only is bound to end up with the same low uptake of subscriptions as has always been the case. As far as the years stats no, it will produce very bad stats as it will show a large uptake of premium and then a huge drop in one go. To a shareholder it would be a negative and an effective way to show the shareholder that LL don't know how to generate, increase and keep income flowing steadily.

Makes me wonder who is actually coming up with these ideas in the Lab.

I also find it amusing people in this thread saying that a large portion of second life users wanted the last names reintroduced as if the amount of votes on Jira equate to a large subset of users. Considering the touted monthly unique login's LL promote, I would dare say the more correct way to say it is a large portion of forum users or SL meeting attendees wanted it aka, hardly anyone at all. It would be different if they sent out a survey and asked the entire userbase about it... maybe they did and I missed this survey?

There were so many other ways LL could have implemented a good system to provide both user wants/needs with a genuine way to keep a name change a regular income for them to further reduce tier reliance but, they failed once again. Taking over a year to do it as well as the resources they could have done better.

Seeing as I know the inevitable posts of how will come, here are some ways they could actually make money from it better whilst also make the system more secure and also easier for the user:

  • Make username changes part of a LL online store removing the pointless need of premium.
  • Charging less for it. $40 is insane. I think, like usual, all those in the USA keep forgetting that once currency exchange rate and fees are taken into place it is a lot of money for some. e.g. as an Australian it is $60 plus an additional $2-5 dollars for the foreign transaction fee not including the premium requirement.
  • Rather than spend the time on reintroducing a last name, they could have spent less time and resources in just hiding the username all together for sl residents and make the display name the one everyone sees. Then charge a linden dollar figure (say $500L) to change the display name rather than the 30 day requirement. This makes it more accessible to more people as well as makes it a more reasonable cost for long term income generation. It is also more secure and brings SL into the more accepted way of username - display name separation in other games, virtual worlds etc.

But hey, people will pay $40 for it, and glad they have the opportunity for that ever elusive claim of a unique name (like it actually mattered in a virtual world) I suppose...

Edited by Drayke Newall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

Rather than spend the time on reintroducing a last name, they could have spent less time and resources in just hiding the username all together for sl residents and make the display name the one everyone sees. Then charge a linden dollar figure (say $500L) to change the display name rather than the 30 day requirement. This makes it more accessible to more people as well as makes it a more reasonable cost for long term income generation. It is also more secure and brings SL into the more accepted way of username - display name separation in other games, virtual worlds etc.
 

this was the original Linden plan with the introduction of Displaynames.  To not show the Username in the viewer.  Then lots of really noisy people complained that they would be spoofed, as Displaynames weren't going to be unique.  Linden did suggest back then that residents should use avatar uuids to identify other residents, which they are suggesting again this time also.  But that suggestion kinda got lost in all the noise back then. And Linden crumbled to the noise

as an aside

i like your idea of a fee to change the Displayname any time we want. Having to wait a  week can be a bit bothersome. Building off this, what I think would be useful is if Displaynames could be a non-transferable wearable asset, 250L a pop - must buy from Linden.  We could then have as many Displaynames as we want. Different ones for different outfits/scenes

Edited by Mollymews
fee non-transferable
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

this was the original Linden plan with the introduction of Displaynames.  To not show the Username in the viewer.  Then lots of really noisy people complained that they would be spoofed, as Displaynames weren't going to be unique.  Linden did suggest back then that residents should use avatar uuids to identify other residents, which they are suggesting again this time also.  But that suggestion kinda got lost in all the noise back then. And Linden crumbled to the noise

That was slightly different though same principle I suppose. That said, I fully understand the 'noise' you suggest as me mentioning it in another thread got the same noise. People seem to think that you could get spoofed even today at the suggestion though that probability is 0 to none. LL should have learnt long ago that such noise in topics such as account security are just silly and should be ignored, they crumble to the few all to often and this has resulted in the many issues we still face today in SL.

In another thread I used the example of Steam and how they conduct their system. They also have a unique username hidden from the general public however allow a person to change their display name (alias) to whatever they want for their profile, gifting, game market and trading. Certain members still considered this even now a different case to second life and argued that the money transferred between SL residents was far in excess and different to Steam and therefore was irrelevant. My point was if a mega gaming corporation such as steam could do it and allow gifting of huge sums of money I cant see why LL cant. The mere suggestion of forum users saying that Steam users transfer inferior amounts of money between users (through their game gifting or trading card system) than second life is laughable at best.

I think a lot of the noise and issues people have is that they don't understand (or are ignorant) that second life is no different to any other modern computer program. I mean its even been argued in this thread that because "its second life" all other examples are different, such as those people arguing that every other company in history offers name changes for $10 so should LL (which it should). Only for these people to be shot down with the usual tripe of "this is second life the god of all games and software how dare you compare it to the mere viruses that other programs are". Such arguments are getting old and just show peoples ignorance in such areas.

Quote

i like your idea of a fee to change the Displayname any time we want. Having to wait a  week can be a bit bothersome. Building off this, what I think would be useful is if Displaynames could be a non-transferable wearable asset, 250L a pop - must buy from Linden.  We could then have as many Displaynames as we want. Different ones for different outfits/scenes

That is similar to Steam alias's. They have a drop down in the profile where you can select previously used alias's to quickly change between. I like the idea of that wearable asset. I would suggest it on Jira but I gave up offering feature requests on there as they were always knocked back with sorry we are to busy for that. Ended up giving it to Niran for their viewer instead to which it was implemented instantly. If your wondering one was the ability to use the obsolete calling card in your inventory as a method of allowing you to add contacts or people to the favorite bar on the viewer.

Edited by Drayke Newall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good thing I’m not going for that MBA then ;). All companies use their stats to present their company in the most favorable light and privately held companies aren’t required to disclose as much as publicly held ones. All in all I think this optional add-on feature probably isn’t that critical in the big financial plan but it’s important enough to monetize to see how residents react to the feature and the price before rolling the new premium tier. Perhaps a it’s bellwether? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Drayke Newall said:

But hey, people will pay $40 for it, and glad they have the opportunity for that ever elusive claim of a unique name (like it actually mattered in a virtual world) I suppose...

you mean my name doesn't matter? Thank you Grinch 😭

Share this post


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

That was slightly different though same principle I suppose. That said, I fully understand the 'noise' you suggest as me mentioning it in another thread got the same noise. People seem to think that you could get spoofed even today at the suggestion though that probability is 0 to none. LL should have learnt long ago that such noise in topics such as account security are just silly and should be ignored, they crumble to the few all to often and this has resulted in the many issues we still face today in SL.

 

One of the reasons that it is difficult to spoof someone in Second Life is that everyone's unique username is discoverable in world. My understanding is your proposal is that this should no longer be the case. Explain to us how this will keep someone from impersonating a well-known account, such as a merchant, in world. You've said that this isn't a problem because it could be "verified by Linden Lab." What good will this do if the money is given to an account that the giver has no way of verifying is the person they think it is?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole spoofing thing (and the viability of "hiding" a unique identifier) is kind of pointless in a world where the viewer:

  • is open source, and
  • must internally have a unique identifier for anything it shows (because imagine programming it any other way)

I suppose it's theoretically possible that the Lab could, by policy, force all TPVs to only show some spoofable identifier. That would make illegal viewers the only ones that are really safe to use, so... yay?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Drayke Newall said:

That statement is just flawed. You a pinning your income on the hope that someone will forget to cancel their sub?

Hi! Let me introduce you to the reality of doing business in 2020 (it's close enough now)! 

There are thousands of subscription boxes who rely on a business model that involves people forgetting or being too lazy to cancel. Amazon pushes subscribe & save for the same reason. Elebenty bazillion phone apps that charge a monthly fee. Services like Postmates. Netflix. Charities bring in millions (and the number is growing) through people setting up recurring donations and forgetting about them. 

You are vastly underestimating the sheer laziness of humans when it comes to stuff like this. I have pretty much everything in my life set up to be automatically debited and/or delivered. Rent, utilities, phone, insurance, cat food, toothpaste, deodorant, SL mainland tier, Apple storage, Spotify, Amazon Prime, Ipsy, Birchbox, Scentbird, donations to three different charities, and other things I'm sure I'm forgetting.

Some of those things I absolutely don't need every month. I'm over-loaded with toothpaste, deodorant, toilet paper, and things like that, but I will always need them so I don't bother changing the delivery. The subscription boxes - I really only want those every two or three months but I forget to go in and change the subscription. I never really intended to let my recurring gifts to the charities go on so long, but I feel guilty canceling them, and they are charities I believe in so I'm not really making any effort to get rid of them. 

But you think people won't forget to cancel their premium subscription? 

lol

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

But you think people won't forget to cancel their premium subscription? 

lol

🙄 Never said that people wont forget to cancel their sub. I said a business relying on that as a way to generate money is not good business practice. Sure companies push for subscriptions etc. but the vast majority (I'm sure there are some dubious companies that do) do not create subscriptions or perks tied to those in the hope people will forget to cancel.

44 minutes ago, Kweopi said:

you mean my name doesn't matter? Thank you Grinch 😭

Didn't mean it didn't matter to each person individually but meant that unique names don't matter. For a 'game' labeled as a Second Life imitating a first life where there are no unique names...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

I said a business relying on that as a way to generate money is not good business practice. Sure companies push for subscriptions etc. but the vast majority (I'm sure there are some dubious companies that do) do not create subscriptions or perks tied to those in the hope people will forget to cancel.

Again... lol. 

Yes, they most certainly do. We can go back and forth about this all day and night, but companies and charities absolutely work that into their business strategies and budget certain amounts based on subscriptions, automatic debits, etc., that people sign up for and pretty much just forget about. Their entire business plan isn't built on it, but it's absolutely a viable strategy because it works. Every organization should have diverse funding sources and strategies. Human laziness is a strategy, and it pays off.

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...