Sets as Separates

[Anna Salyx]

One trend that seems to come and go, and i wish would mostly go, is the idea of selling "sets" as separates.  That is, tops and bottoms that logically go together being sold as separate items and thinly masking a (sometimes) significant mark up.  I do get it that some people like to mix and match and in general I'm on board with that, but at the same time I like to see merchants maybe offering single logical sets at a cost point somewhere in the middle of buying the two (or more items) separately.  then if I want to maybe do a bit of mixing, I can by added pieces at their normal separate price points. 

What really drove this post though was recently I saw a set at an event. It's a very cute outfit that consists of a shirt collar, top, skirt, and thong and each item was sold separately.  The total cost to get a 'single' outfit was just shy of $L900.  As a set I'd expect to pay maybe around 300 to  500 lindens (based on pricing on similar sets sold as sets) and that's a reasonable pricing based on the current market.  I'd have bought it if there was a color set grouping option in that price range but I (personally) couldn't justify 900 for single color pack so I reluctantly passed it by.

I'm not saying to creators to never split items in a set up.  I agree in principle that it is a good way to generate extra sales for those who like to mix/match, I just want to spark some conversation on the idea of also having logical color sets available as well at a modest middle price point. 

Anyways, that's all I got on this.  I tend to stick with designers who offer up sets more than separates, but if the pricing on the separates is reasonable I have no problem making my own sets, it just seems that some designers are using it as a way to double (or more) their income on some items.  and now I'm starting to repeating myself, lol, so I'll end it here.  Happy New Year everyone. 

[Tazzie Tuque]

I totally agree with you on this, that is why when I make an outfit to sell,  it always includes all the parts and because I know a lot of shoppers don't have tons of lindens to spend,  I also include the outfit on a texture/colour change hud.  so they end up getting all the choices and all the parts for a price they can afford..  between 325 and 450 L usually.  I do this because I appreciate finding items like this when I am shopping; all packaged up together with a reasonable price.  It just makes sense to me.

[Bitsy Buccaneer]

Also the trend of selling only bland colours as singles and putting interesting patterns in a very expensive fatpack. Not my cup of tea at all. I don't need or want 36 variations of a single dress. I'd just like some interesting ones. I miss the days when clothing designers were fabric-orientated artists rather than primarily mesh builders.

Fortunately I got some full perm mesh on a clearance sale, so I can just choose one to texture as I like when I come across a great texture set or fancy something different.

[Wulfie Reanimator]

If I can save 30% by buying only one half of an outfit because I've demo'd all of it and determined that the other half doesn't fit or interest me, you bet I'll pay that 20% markup.

Of course, each color should have its own set, not just a mega pricy (>1000L) fatpack. 

Edited January 2, 2020 by Wulfie Reanimator

[Desiree Moonwinder]

On 1/2/2020 at 6:44 AM, Bitsy Buccaneer said:

I miss the days when clothing designers were fabric-orientated artists rather than primarily mesh builders.

Agreed.  Particularly today, when it seems everyone is getting the same *.dae file meshes from the same sources.  The mesh may show them as "creator," but all they did was upload a *.dae file they bought.  

Texturing skills really set off a product.  Today, though, if you want to do a really good job you have to have the skills to paint on the mesh in 3D.  Its getting harder and harder to be competitive with just photoshop skills. 

[Maitimo]

I like at least to have the option of purchasing a set as individual pieces, even if the total cost would be more. Often I only like or need one part of a set and none of the others.

Also when I buy a set, I will nearly always split it up in my inventory; I put the top with other tops, shorts with other shorts etc. I only leave it as a complete set if the components cannot be worn individually. 

[Fauve Aeon]

In most modern casual-wear or classic clothing, I wear ‘sets’ rarely enough that I wouldn’t see the savings much and buying a la carte gives me just the things I want with no ‘annoying extra cost’ (and inventory bloat) for things I don’t. Plus I’m picky. I will often like only one part of something and I wouldn’t appreciate needing to buy an entire set in order to get that one part. It’s double work to package everything singly then make sets, then the demos and photos for it all too. I really can see why designers usually do one or the other but not both. I tend to spend more often with designers who give me the most versatile separates options. The rare times I do like, say a complete lingerie set, I don’t mind buying the pieces separately. 

[Anna Salyx]

@Fauve, I fully get that.  Truly and maybe about 30%  of the time I just want one piece out of a "set" but most of the time I'm looking for an outfit to add to my closet.  I don't know if I'm the norm on that aspect of shopping or the rarity.  Merchants might be able to tell based on buying patterns.

Now,  in counter point to some of your observations:

  * most designers who sell separates, usually bundle demo is an all inclusive box with all pieces and demo huds.. 

   * Ad copy is usually one or two of the more aesthetically pleasing combinations (the logical set I referred to) and maybe a separate texture of the different options to one side.  So in terms of demo and advertising it's no added work in most cases that I've come across. 

Moving on from that, in the biggest majority of cases that I've personally seen, the "in store" or "in event" displays, the merchant has arranged various separate pieces (top/bottom (/sometimes jackets or shoes or etc)) in an aesthetically pleasing display, in columns/rows suggestive of, again, what I term the 'logical set'.  Buy the top, by the bottom under it (and sometimes the extras).  Now, keeping it simple for this example though:   buy the top for 300, buy the bottom for 300, all I'm proposing/asking for, is an added option right under  each set column maybe an option to "buy this set" for 500.  The merchant is, in many cases, taking the time to create the aesthetic sets for display already.  I dunno of the potential extra sales it might generate would make for the extra work to create a few extra sale boxes.  But for me, personally: I pass on a lot of  "sets" that I'd like to have when the different components bought piecemeal ends up above what I'm ready to pay at that time...., so it might.  

Again, I'm not saying "do this or else!"  Sometimes I do see different combinations than the merchant did when they set up the display when I do I'm very glad I can buy the outfit piece by piece and make my own set.  Sometimes, I just want one single piece cause I have something already I think it will pair perfectly with.  So,  I don't want to see the separate sales go completely away.  No, I'm simply just throwing a suggestion out, asking for options as it were and seeing what might stick.

The conversations sparked has been good though, and that is always a positive. 

I just wanted to add a bit of extra on this on my perspectives that I didn't get to in the original post.  I"m not sure if I have anything to add more, so closing it on up again.   

 

[hectic1]

Hello,

Regarding sets and separates, what works best for me is hud-driven sets with hideable parts, and that's why I put the extra effort to make most of my sets like that. For a top and skirt set example, when you can hide either one is practically the same as wearing the other one as stand-alone (and of course mix and matching it with other clothes too).

There are also several advantages with this:
- You always reserve just 1 attaching point on your body for the said set, no matter how many pieces the set consists of
- You keep less items in your inventory
- No matter which piece you have hidden or shown, there is always just 1 script needed (instead of as many scripts as the count of the consisting pieces)

You can still "simulate" traditional 1 inventory item per clothing piece by keeping copies of the set, with only the desired piece visible, but frankly this defeats all the said pros lol It may take a little used to, but it really works and imo it is worth it too.

 

Edited January 21, 2020 by hectic1

[Wulfie Reanimator]

2 hours ago, hectic1 said:

There are also several advantages with this:
- You always reserve just 1 attaching point on your body for the said set, no matter how many pieces the set consists of
- You keep less items in your inventory
- No matter which piece you have hidden or shown, there is always just 1 script needed (instead of as many scripts as the count of the consisting pieces)

And the negatives are that the invisible parts are still streamed to your viewer and cached. They might not be visible, but they still affect performance.

Any piece of clothing should either be modifiable (in a perfect world) or at least have the option to remove all scripts.

[hectic1]

11 hours ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

And the negatives are that the invisible parts are still streamed to your viewer and cached. They might not be visible, but they still affect performance.

Any piece of clothing should either be modifiable (in a perfect world) or at least have the option to remove all scripts.

We can't have it all, I wish we could. It's always a trade-off, but it's good to have more options so anyone can choose what works best for them each time (pros vs cons).

For example, with the "traditional" way, an Undress Me set with say 3 pieces which can also be worn separately, would come with a HUD slave and an Undress me script inside every piece of the set (6 scripts for the set), would occupy 3 attachment slots on the body, and it would ship with 3 x NumberOfSupportedBodySizes items in the inventory (just for the big-3 this means: 3 Maitreya + 3x3 Belleza + 3x2 Slink = 18 items in the inventory). Wearing 2 out of the 3  pieces, would reduce the scripts count to 4, the attachment slots to 2 and the inventory items to 12.

The hideable-pieces alternative would always contain 2 scripts, would always occupy 1 attachment slot on the body, and it would ship with 6 items in the inventory. It's up to the potential buyers to decide if those are more important compared to the always-rendered hidden textures.
 
Among other things, modifiable clothing would allow everyone to apply their own textures on a clothing mesh they have bought at a multiple-times lower price compared to buying it full-perm or creating it themselves (could also mislead people who inspect the clothing in believing that this crappy/awesome texture was made by the displayed brand).

Script removing is something that has puzzled me too (whether I should offer it as an option or not). It is dead simple to put a Remove Scripts button in the HUD, but I decided against it, cause it totally cripples the functionality. and in 2020, clothing can do so much more than just keeping us warm.

[Wulfie Reanimator]

29 minutes ago, hectic1 said:

For example, with the "traditional" way, an Undress Me set with say 3 pieces which can also be worn separately, would come with a HUD slave and an Undress me script inside every piece of the set (6 scripts for the set), would occupy 3 attachment slots on the body, and it would ship with 3 x NumberOfSupportedBodySizes items in the inventory (just for the big-3 this means: 3 Maitreya + 3x3 Belleza + 3x2 Slink = 18 items in the inventory). Wearing 2 out of the 3  pieces, would reduce the scripts count to 4, the attachment slots to 2 and the inventory items to 12.

1. Your math seems off. A 3-piece set only needs one HUD, not 3. That's 4 scripts total, not 6. I'm a scripter, I know these things. (And incidentally I tried talking to the Undress Me creator about ways to improve things but I got stonewalled as is typical of all no-mod clothing creators.)

2. The number of inventory items per product doesn't matter. People should package their products with separate folders for each different body. It's extremely simple with Marketplace. If you're a shopaholic with 300K+ inventory items and it's causing you performance problems, that's a whole other problem.

The only legit worry is the number of attachment slots, but since the current trend is to make literally all clothing no-modify, you're not going to be linking sets together to reduce them anyway. That means it must be the creator's choice, which is even worse.

Edited January 22, 2020 by Wulfie Reanimator

[hectic1]

45 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

1. Your math seems off. A 3-piece set only needs one HUD, not 3. That's 4 scripts total, not 6. I'm a scripter, I know these things. (And incidentally I tried talking to the Undress Me creator about ways to improve things but I got stonewalled as is typical of all no-mod clothing creators.)

2. The number of inventory items per product doesn't matter. People should package their products with separate folders for each different body. It's extremely simple with Marketplace. If you're a shopaholic with 300K+ inventory items and it's causing you performance problems, that's a whole other problem.

The only legit worry is the number of attachment slots, but since the current trend is to make literally all clothing no-modify, you're not going to be linking sets together to reduce them anyway. That means it must be the creator's choice, which is even worse.

1. I said HUD-slave scripts Wulfie. Also I said pieces that can be worn separately (aka, the traditional way) Each one of them needs a HUD slave-script, so my math is quite good ( btw, I for one am willing to listen to your suggestions, since I'm about to release my own Undress Me line of clothing, with my very own script which includes a few extra twists... btw, there are more than just 1 undress me creators)

2. I am all ears *giggles* (I do hope though it is also extremely simple to do it in-world too)

 

[Wulfie Reanimator]

7 minutes ago, hectic1 said:

1. I said HUD-slave scripts Wulfie. Also I said pieces that can be worn separately (aka, the traditional way) Each one of them needs a HUD slave-script, so my math is quite good ( btw, I for one am willing to listen to your suggestions, since I'm about to release my own Undress Me line of clothing, with my very own script which includes a few extra twists... btw, there are more than just 1 undress me creators)

2. I am all ears *giggles* (I do hope though it is also extremely simple to do it in-world too)

What do you mean by the term "slave" then? The way I understand the term doesn't make sense in the context you're using it in.

And to have multiple multiple folders in your Marketplace products you would create a folder like this in your Marketplace inventory:

product
└─version
  ├─body1
  │ ├piece 1
  │ ├piece 2
  │ └piece 3
  ├─body2
  │ ├piece 1
  │ ├piece 2
  │ └piece 3
  ├─body3
  │ ├piece 1
  │ ├piece 2
  │ └piece 3
  └hud object

If you created the folder structure correctly, you can "Test Delivery" from your listings page and you'll get a folder with the HUD, and each body in its own folder.

[hectic1]

Someone has to tech me how I can split quotes so i can reply to individual parts (I don't seem to find an option to switch the forum editor into bbcode view).

Say you have a jacket, a top and a skirt, all controlled by the same HUD. Unless you link them all together (which is what I am saying right from the start) each of the clothing pieces should contain a slave script which will communicate with the master script (in the actual hud). Unless there is any other way I am not aware of.

Awe, that's what you meant it is simple. Yes it is, but also time consuming. An arguably  better option would be for the unpacker to offer options for unpacking individual bodies only and it would work the same on MP and in-world, and some creators do it. It is in my to-do list since a long time, but I'm not sure it is worth the trouble.

Edited January 22, 2020 by hectic1

[Wulfie Reanimator]

2 hours ago, hectic1 said:

Someone has to tech me how I can split quotes so i can reply to individual parts (I don't seem to find an option to switch the forum editor into bbcode view).

You can either quote the whole post and then remove the text you don't want to include, or you can highlight a part of the post you want to quote:

2 hours ago, hectic1 said:

Say you have a jacket, a top and a skirt, all controlled by the same HUD. Unless you link them all together (which is what I am saying right from the start) each of the clothing pieces should contain a slave script which will communicate with the master script (in the actual hud).

Yes, but if you have 4 objects, you only need 4 scripts. You said 6. What are the two extra scripts doing? I assume you would have 3 scripts in the HUD? You can easily handle all 3 separate attachments from one script in the HUD.

2 hours ago, hectic1 said:

Awe, that's what you meant it is simple. Yes it is, but also time consuming. An arguably  better option would be for the unpacker to offer options for unpacking individual bodies only and it would work the same on MP and in-world, and some creators do it. It is in my to-do list since a long time, but I'm not sure it is worth the trouble.

It takes less than a minute to create a folder for every group, rename the folders accordingly, and drag the objects into their folders... The "better option" is going to take much longer than that to implement. Even if you're going to consistently name your products (so that they can be parsed by the script) and account for the fact that sometimes you might not include the same body options, the folder method is going to be faster for at least a hundred products.

Edited January 22, 2020 by Wulfie Reanimator

[hectic1]

I'm sparing the quote splitting for now lol Thank you for explaining to me Wulfie, i'll use it when is mnore needed.. seems like we are the only ones taking now! ♥

Oh I think the confusion came because I used as an example an Undress Me set of clothing... so for each clothing piece i counted 1 script for the hud-slave, and 1 script for the undress-me functionality... I didn't take into account the hud-master script at all.

For the bodies, yeah neither option is perfect. Consider also that often I have to deal with 14 or more body sizes, add to that their demos, and sometimes different versions within each body. I do name my stuff consistently, but even if one doesn't, the script can look just for the body name (instead of the the whole item name). For example, unpack only those items that have "freya" or "isis" or "venus" (or any other alternatives one may use) would work for Belleza related items only, etc.

Anyway, tbh I don't think it's that important, since ppl can always delete all the bodies they don't want after unpacking anyway (else I would had already used such a script lol)

[Wulfie Reanimator]

5 minutes ago, hectic1 said:

Oh I think the confusion came because I used as an example an Undress Me set of clothing... so for each clothing piece i counted 1 script for the hud-slave, and 1 script for the undress-me functionality... I didn't take into account the hud-master script at all.

Okay well I have no idea what that means then. What is the "hud slave" doing? What is the "undress-me functionality script" doing? Why aren't they just one script?

[hectic1]

Texture/Color/Style/Gloss/Glow changer (that's what I called the HUD above) is usually a separate script from Undress Me.

Some reasons from the top of my head: maybe they were purchased separately, or maybe one was written long time ago and when need raised for the 2nd one it was not possible or was much easier to write a new one than refactoring and merging them, especially when you work on deadlines.

In my case the main reason is that each of them is pretty involved, so they don't fit both in 64k

Sorry, I should have been more specific.

Edited January 22, 2020 by hectic1

[Bitsy Buccaneer]

42 minutes ago, hectic1 said:

For the bodies, yeah neither option is perfect. Consider also that often I have to deal with 14 or more body sizes, add to that their demos, and sometimes different versions within each body.

 

3 hours ago, hectic1 said:

We can't have it all, I wish we could. It's always a trade-off, but it's good to have more options so anyone can choose what works best for them each time (pros vs cons).

It sounds like you've decided that your own efficiency is more important than the amount of data needed to be downloaded. If it were just you, maybe ok. It isn't, what with multiple-pieced, multiple-faced onion skin bodies with six feet instead of two, multiple "style" hairs, and so on. If this thing of wearing 2 or 3 complete outfits in order to mix and match were to catch on, the bloat would be even greater.

There are real costs to the grid.

[Wulfie Reanimator]

3 minutes ago, hectic1 said:

In my case the main reason is that each of them is pretty involved, so they don't fit both in 64k

I would love to rewrite those scripts so that they fit into a single script. Obviously I don't know the specifics yet, but I'm very curious. You can PM me if you'd like that.

10 minutes ago, hectic1 said:

Texture/Color/Style/Gloss/Glow changer (that's what I called the HUD above) is usually a separate script from Undress Me.

Some reasons from the top of my head: maybe they were purchased separately, or maybe one was written long time ago and when need raised for the 2nd one it was not possible or was much easier to write a new one than refactoring and merging them, especially when you work on deadlines.

Undressing should be just an alpha swap and an integer to keep track of the current state... It's very small and simple code on top of texture changes.

I understand it's a bit different when creators buy ready-made scripts without knowing LSL, but that's why I try to offer as much help as I can wherever I can. And there should still always be a way to delete all scripts from an object, even if it meant adding one more script into the dang thing. 

[hectic1]

54 minutes ago, Bitsy Buccaneer said:

 

It sounds like you've decided that your own efficiency is more important than the amount of data needed to be downloaded. If it were just you, maybe ok. It isn't, what with multiple-pieced, multiple-faced onion skin bodies with six feet instead of two, multiple "style" hairs, and so on. If this thing of wearing 2 or 3 complete outfits in order to mix and match were to catch on, the bloat would be even greater.

There are real costs to the grid.

Umm.... I see uncalled teeth,  makes me wonder whether I should use mine too in my reply. I choose not to, this time.

I shared an alternative that works for me and I explicitly presented it as such, in a specific context too, namely: clothing!

You made it sound like I tried to enforce it, and you generalized.

For starters I don't see what multi-pieced multi-face onion skin bodies have anything to do with mesh clothing. Your body will be rendered regardless of what other mesh you are wearing or not. Apples and oranges.

Then, I only talked about clothing, not hair. Btw linked multi-style hair is already used by many brands for quite a while, so seems like it's not just me who decided etc etc. Nevertheless, again hair and clothing is NOT the same thing. On average, the linked pieces and/or used faces of hair are multiple times more than any clothing or even a dozen of clothing pieces. I never suggested anything about hair, i didn't even talk about hair.

Everything costs to the grid, there is no such thing as a free meal. Moreover, not everyone has the same needs nor evaluate their needs with the same criteria (textures vs scripts, outfits vs separates, the list is endless really). Hence, imo, the more the options the better.

 

Edited January 22, 2020 by hectic1

[hectic1]

12 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

I would love to rewrite those scripts so that they fit into a single script. Obviously I don't know the specifics yet, but I'm very curious. You can PM me if you'd like that.

Undressing should be just an alpha swap and an integer to keep track of the current state... It's very small and simple code on top of texture changes.

I understand it's a bit different when creators buy ready-made scripts without knowing LSL, but that's why I try to offer as much help as I can wherever I can. And there should still always be a way to delete all scripts from an object, even if it meant adding one more script into the dang thing. 

In a primitive form yes, that's an undress me script. Mine is on steroids tho (well will be when released) *chuckles*

[Da5id Weatherwax]

1 hour ago, hectic1 said:

For starters I don't see what multi-pieced multi-face onion skin bodies have anything to do with mesh clothing. Your body will be rendered regardless of what other mesh you are wearing or not. Apples and oranges.

Then, I only talked about clothing, not hair. Btw linked multi-style hair is already used by many brands for quite a while, so seems like it's not just me who decided etc etc. Nevertheless, again hair and clothing is NOT the same thing. On average, the linked pieces and/or used faces of hair are multiple times more than any clothing or even a dozen of clothing pieces. I never suggested anything about hair, i didn't even talk about hair.

Everything costs to the grid, there is no such thing as a free meal. Moreover, not everyone has the same needs nor evaluate their needs with the same criteria (textures vs scripts, outfits vs separates, the list is endless really). Hence, imo, the more the options the better.

 

With respect, I'm afraid you are wrong. These are not apples and oranges..

avatar+hair+"bouncy or dangly bits"+clothing are ALL a bunch of meshes, with geometry and textures to download and allocate memory for, and everyone who renders that person on their screen has to download and store all that data, including all the components of it that are "hidden"

You are quite correct to call out hair as one of the most wasteful applications of "multiple hidden options" but that is only a difference in degree, not nature.

I am truly not trying to be judgemental here but isn't "everybody else does it inefficiently so I can get away with it too" just about the worst reason for making a particular design decision? Aren't you proud of your work and want to make it the best you can make? Do you really want to be one of the people whose customers get a really nasty surprise when/if project ARCTAN hits the grid and complexity gets rationalized?

[hectic1]

2 hours ago, Da5id Weatherwax said:

With respect, I'm afraid you are wrong. These are not apples and oranges..

avatar+hair+"bouncy or dangly bits"+clothing are ALL a bunch of meshes, with geometry and textures to download and allocate memory for, and everyone who renders that person on their screen has to download and store all that data, including all the components of it that are "hidden"

You are quite correct to call out hair as one of the most wasteful applications of "multiple hidden options" but that is only a difference in degree, not nature.

I am truly not trying to be judgemental here but isn't "everybody else does it inefficiently so I can get away with it too" just about the worst reason for making a particular design decision? Aren't you proud of your work and want to make it the best you can make? Do you really want to be one of the people whose customers get a really nasty surprise when/if project ARCTAN hits the grid and complexity gets rationalized?

Hello Da5id,

let me please try to elaborate a bit more. As first mentioned by Wulfie, hidden textures will always get rendered, no doubt about that and no argument either... hence my...

8 hours ago, hectic1 said:

We can't have it all, I wish we could. It's always a trade-off, but it's good to have more options so anyone can choose what works best for them each time (pros vs cons).

a few posts above. We all agree on that.

Regarding the "apples and oranges", calculating the rendering-cost of any mesh wearable does not affect the calculated rendering-cost of any other worn mesh wearable. Yes they all sum up in the end, but here our point of reference was the clothing set, not the overall sum of all the wearable meshes. Put otherwise, if you start with a mesh body that skyrockets your complexity by itself alone, there is little point in blaming a hidden 4-faces pair of shorts, or a hidden 1 face tank top, and so on. I hope it makes more sense now.

I agree hair is a difference in degree not nature, but in our case the degree is one of they key factors one should account before deciding whether they should go with one option or another.

For one, a fully worn set, render-wise will cost exactly the same regardless of its consisting pieces being linked or no. However, the unlinked one will carry at least as many more scripts as the consisting parts minus 1 (the texture changer slave script), and if the outfit is also interactive (any kind of interactive... undress me, water interactive, or whatever) chances are it will carry twice as much scripts in it.

So what is more important in this case? Frankly I am not to decide that. I believe it should be the customers' decision, and I assume the criteria would be quite different when the customer is say a stripper, compared to a home loner, a dj, and so on.

So texture rendering is one factor, script count is another one, attaching slots is yet another one, for some ppl items count in inventory plays a role too, and one's habbits/whereabouts/style of virtual life are some extra factors too. And there is more, computer rig, quality of internet connection come in mind.

Honestly I don't see what's the harm of having just another option in mind. We have like a gazillion options already. Most of which is out of our control anyway (I mean even if we walk around in system avatars with system clothes, we'll still have a hard time in a sim full of say moving trees, animesh creatures, and a gazillion little scripted 1024x1024 textured petty items all over the place... or even in a crowded club with 40 avatars crowded in and around a 5x5 dancing floor, having no control on the baggage they carry).

 

Edited January 22, 2020 by hectic1