Any Issues After Paid Last Name Change?

[Mercedes Avon]

Has anyone who paid LL for the premium name change have issues with products, redeliveries, games, server accts, breedables etc. after the paid name change?

When the paid last names were released, I paid to give my alt a proper last name (who I use socially while I use this acct primarily to work). It was seamless it seemed. I had not had any issues until this week when something I bought stopped working (and it was expensive). I contacted the creator who sent me to their CSR who then sent me back to the creator after sending me a blog post stating that I had to pay the creator $1,000 to 2,000L (depending on how busy he was) to restore use to my product which likely failed due to my name change. The fee is for the time and effort it takes for him to update my account on their server etc.

I am now wondering if I will regret the last name choice (which was not cheap either).

 

Edited February 21, 2021 by Mercedes Avon

[Stephanie Misfit]

No issues. That creator sounds like a jerk.

[Vanity Fair]

Yeah that sounds like a dick move to me, too. Take your business elsewhere if you can.

[LittleMe Jewell]

59 minutes ago, Mercedes Avon said:

Has anyone who paid LL for the premium name change have issues with products, redeliveries, games, server accts, breedables etc. after the paid name change?

When the paid last names were released, I paid to give my alt a proper last name (who I use socially while I use this acct primarily to work). It was seamless it seemed. I had not had any issues until this week when something I bought stopped working (and it was expensive). I contacted the creator who sent me to their CSR who then sent me back to the creator after sending me a blog post stating that I had to pay the creator $1,000 to 2,000L (depending on how busy he was) to restore use to my product which likely failed due to my name change. The fee is for the time and effort it takes for him to update my account on their server etc.

I am not wondering if I will regret the last name choice (which was not cheap either).

 

Holy crap.  That sounds like one horrid merchant.  If the product takes lots of time to update a name on their server, then I'd say the product was created poorly, no matter how well you like it and how well it worked before it broke.  If the product had been created properly -- or modified properly once SL announced name changes -- then it would be based on your UUID rather than your actual name.

I would not pay the fee (thus eating the original cost of the product) and I would tell everyone about this merchant and their policy on this.  Word of mouth boycotting, so to speak.

[Mercedes Avon]

4 hours ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

Holy crap.  That sounds like one horrid merchant.  If the product takes lots of time to update a name on their server, then I'd say the product was created poorly, no matter how well you like it and how well it worked before it broke.  If the product had been created properly -- or modified properly once SL announced name changes -- then it would be based on your UUID rather than your actual name.

I would not pay the fee (thus eating the original cost of the product) and I would tell everyone about this merchant and their policy on this.  Word of mouth boycotting, so to speak.

Yes. You are 100% right.

[ChinRey]

43 minutes ago, Mercedes Avon said:

Yes. You are 100% right.

No. She's 100% wrong.

Account names were a well established and safe unique identifier for 16 years. Until recently LL was very clear that it would remain so and content creators and merchants had no reason not to believe it. Nobody has any right to blame the content creators for any problems name changes may cause or expect them to spend time correcting such issues.

[Ceka Cianci]

have you tried to see if you can have the product redelivered?  This past week I've heard more than one time in different groups of peoples stuff not working.. There may be another issue..

Most products that I know of go by your account ID than anything..

What is the product and the problem anyways? We might be able to help you with it if some of us have experienced similar.. other owners that have purchased it may be able to also..

it's worth a try.

[Mercedes Avon]

1 hour ago, ChinRey said:

No. She's 100% wrong.

Account names were a well established and safe unique identifier for 16 years. Until recently LL was very clear that it would remain so and content creators and merchants had no reason not to believe it. Nobody has any right to blame the content creators for any problems name changes may cause or expect them to spend time correcting such issues.

If last names was breaking things all across the grid I would agree, but I am not seeing that and that is why I came in here to inquire on other's experiences. I didn't want to have a knee-jerk reaction without asking around. I do see why creators would be frustrated. Likewise, I have been frustrated myself over the years. I get it and I sympathize on that level.

However,  the last name thing was something that was told to the SL public for a long time before it was released. Creators had plenty of time to update their products to work with the avie's unique UUID and prepare for the new normal. To continue to charge 14,000L for something they know will break the second someone buys a last name is bad business.

 

[Mercedes Avon]

1 hour ago, Ceka Cianci said:

have you tried to see if you can have the product redelivered?  This past week I've heard more than one time in different groups of peoples stuff not working.. There may be another issue..

Most products that I know of go by your account ID than anything..

What is the product and the problem anyways? We might be able to help you with it if some of us have experienced similar.. other owners that have purchased it may be able to also..

it's worth a try.

The product is no transfer and no-copy. I am not sure that I want to say publicly what the product is because it would be pretty easy to figure out then who I was talking about. I did not really want to name or shame. I wanted to know if this was a common issue with other server hosted products before deciding whether I would pay for the update or not.

 

[Ceka Cianci]

2 minutes ago, Mercedes Avon said:

The product is no transfer and no-copy. I am not sure that I want to say publicly what the product is because it would be pretty easy to figure out then who I was talking about. I did not really want to name or shame. I wanted to know if this was a common issue with other server hosted products before deciding whether I would pay for the update or not.

 

Oh I'm sorry I should have been more clear with that part.. hehehe

I wasn't really meaning the exact product, but what it is.. Maybe some problem that we might be able to help with, that might be something some of us may have experienced..

[Mercedes Avon]

Haha! It is ok. I have moved on and decided not to pay to fix it and go enjoy myself somewhere else 🙂 Thanks for trying to help!

[Nova Convair]

Regarding scripts:

It's not the creators fault when SL changes things but there are some points to consider:

- a clean software design will make it easy to adapt to changes like this
- on the other hand - what you expect of SL amateurs - when even the pro's of the real world mess up alot of stuff
- The name change was no surprise - it was announced over a year before it happened - plenty of time
- Some people think free updates are mandantory - no they are not! But for an active item that is still selling: yes an update is mandantory in this case. (as long as the creator is still in SL of course)
- Since many creators are lousy scripters or no scripters at all they hire someone. Chances are that the scripter is no longer in SL and the creator has no clue how to fix things. A challenge 😁

So every creator that doesn't fix their stuff simply don't want to, don't can do it - or is no longer active.
My solution would be: delete the stuff, blacklist creator, go on. 

[ChinRey]

12 hours ago, Nova Convair said:

- Some people think free updates are mandantory - no they are not! But for an active item that is still selling: yes an update is mandantory in this case. (as long as the creator is still in SL of course)

What you all fail to consider is what this actually implies in terms of workload.

If I understand right, this is an item that uses an external database (provided by a 3rd party even) for user identification so I'll use that scene as an example.

Solution 1 is to have the merchant(s) update database entries manually every time somebody contacts them about a name change. How much time is that? Well, try yourself. Let's say somebody named Cory Ondrejka contacts you, tells you he used to be Eric Linden and asks you to update the thingie he bought from you so it works with his new name. First thing you have to do is check that the two UUIDs match (and let's do it with the official viewer where the UUID isn't on the profile popup). Yes, it seems to match... No WAIT! (For those not familiar with SL history, Cory Ondrejka and Eric Linden were two of the original LL crew and probably the two people who more than anybody else deserve credit for getting SL to work at all. More important in this context though, they have very similar UUIDs, a2e76fcd-9360-4f6d-a924-000000000002 and a2e76fcd-9360-4f6d-a924-000000000006 respectively.)

Once you have confirmed the UUIDs match, you have to find a way to update the database, a database that was never made to support such updates.

Would you do it? I probably would but I certainly wouldn't expect anybody else to be that stupid.

To add insult to injury, you have to do this job for free whiel you know LL is boosting their already bloated bottom line from these name changes. The average merchant-creator has no reason to love LL and lots of reasons not to. Of all the demographic groups in SL I'm a part of or familiar with, the serious small/medium sized creator-merchant is by far the one who got the worst deal from them.

---

Solution 2 is of course to upgrade the database to work with UUIDs rather than account names. I can't help notice that at least two prominent scritpers (one of them is even a Mole) gave likes to LittleMe Jewel's brainless heckling post so maybe one of them can explain how easy that would be?

Since we don't know the exact details in the OP's casem l et's create a case study with some credible figures:

• Database has been operational for ten years
• It serves 50 different merchants
• It serves 250 different products (5 per merchant on average)
• It has 100,000 entries, each with the customer's user name and about 50 fields with various info about their purchase(s)
• 250 different scripts in SL calls on the database. How many copies of these script there are in circulation is anybody's guess.

Please give us the upgrade by lunch tomorrow and make sure there are no bugs and no inconveniences for any of our clients or their customers.

---

Solution 3 is to throw in the handkerchief and give up. Close down that database and maybe even leave SL. That would mean every single copy of every single product that relies on it will be broken.

Edited February 22, 2021 by ChinRey

[AdminGirl]

1 hour ago, ChinRey said:

What you all fail to consider is what this actually implies in terms of workload.

If I understand right, this is an item that uses an external database (provided by a 3rd party even) for user identification so I'll use that scene as an example.

Solution 1 is to have the merchant(s) update database entries manually every time somebody contacts them about a name change. How much time is that? Well, try yourself. Let's say somebody named Cory Ondrejka contacts you, tells you he used to be Eric Linden and asks you to update the thingie he bought from you so it works with his new name. First thing you have to do is check that the two UUIDs match (and let's do it with the official viewer where the UUID isn't on the profile popup). Yes, it seems to match... No WAIT! (For those not familiar with SL history, Cory Ondrejka and Eric Linden were two of the original LL crew and probably the two people who more than anybody else deserve credit for getting SL to work at all. More important in this context though, they have very similar UUIDs, a2e76fcd-9360-4f6d-a924-000000000002 and a2e76fcd-9360-4f6d-a924-000000000006 respectively.)

Once you have confirmed the UUIDs match, you have to find a way to update the database, a database that was never made to support such updates.

Would you do it? I probably would but I certainly wouldn't expect anybody else to be that stupid.

To add insult to injury, you have to do this job for free whiel you know LL is boosting their already bloated bottom line from these name changes. The average merchant-creator has no reason to love LL and lots of reasons not to. Of all the demographic groups in SL I'm a part of or familiar with, the serious small/medium sized creator-merchant is by far the one who got the worst deal from them.

---

Solution 2 is of course to upgrade the database to work with UUIDs rather than account names. I can't help notice that at least two prominent scritpers (one of them is even a Mole) gave likes to LittleMe Jewel's brainless heckling post so maybe one of them can explain how easy that would be?

Since we don't know the exact details in the OP's casem l et's create a case study with some credible figures:

• Database has been operational for ten years
• It serves 50 different merchants
• It serves 250 different products (5 per merchant on average)
• It has 100,000 entries, each with the customer's user name and about 50 fields with various info about their purchase(s)
• 250 different scripts in SL calls on the database. How many copies of these script there are in circulation is anybody's guess.

Please give us the upgrade by lunch tomorrow and make sure there are no bugs and no inconveniences for any of our clients or their customers.

---

Solution 3 is to throw in the handkerchief and give up. Close down that database and maybe even leave SL. That would mean every single copy of every single product that relies on it will be broken.

I'm not a scripter so forgive me if my thoughts on this are a little "brainless", but I'm of the opinion that if the creator is still selling a product that is still relying on account names rather than uuid, then that product is in itself outdated. I can understand not providing free updates to a retired product. Otherwise, the creator should probably update it to be compatible with current mechanisms. To continue to sell it without the capacity to work with name changes doesn't seem right, unless it is stated in their product description that there'll be a charge for every name change so that people are fully aware.

[ChinRey]

2 minutes ago, AdminGirl said:

I'm not a scripter so forgive me if my thoughts on this are a little "brainless", but I'm of the opinion that if the creator is still selling a product that is still relying on account names rather than uuid, then that product is in itself outdated. I can understand not providing free updates to a retired product. Otherwise, the creator should probably update it to be compatible with current mechanisms. To continue to sell it without the capacity to work with name changes doesn't seem right, unless it is stated in their product description that there'll be a charge for every name change so that people are fully aware.

Yes, I can see that point but it is Solution no. 3 on my list. With no new sales there is no money to cover the hosting fee for the database so down it goes, breaking the content for all old customers as well.

It isn't fair to the buyers of course but nor is it fair to expect the owner of the database service to cover the expenses out of their own pocket long after the business and income stream was forced to shut down.

I do agree that the sellers should add a note to their product descriptions about the potential issue once they become aware of it themselves. But also, people who decide to change their account name should understand that they have to expect a few glitches.

[Rowan Amore]

I recall a few months back, someone complaining about a fishing game I think.  The creator was going to charge them to update them for a name change in their database.  Some of you all, at that time, were telling the customer they were the one responsible for changing their name so they should be responsible for absorbing the cost.  Now, we're changing our tune?  

 

[Mercedes Avon]

45 minutes ago, AdminGirl said:

I'm not a scripter so forgive me if my thoughts on this are a little "brainless", but I'm of the opinion that if the creator is still selling a product that is still relying on account names rather than uuid, then that product is in itself outdated. I can understand not providing free updates to a retired product. Otherwise, the creator should probably update it to be compatible with current mechanisms. To continue to sell it without the capacity to work with name changes doesn't seem right, unless it is stated in their product description that there'll be a charge for every name change so that people are fully aware.

This exactly!

I haven't seen anyone come to this thread with an example of a product that doesn't function for them anymore since their name change. That was what I was most concerned about. Thankfully, this does not seem like a grid wide issues for almost everyone who has bought a last name. That tells me a what I wanted to know.

And of course, no creator has to do anything. They can charge left and right for every little thing if they want to, and it's their right. They can make their own rules and I can take or leave them. In this situation I choose to leave them.

 

[Nova Convair]

It's no problem to make a little LSL script that can confirm the name change. I don't have to manually compare UUIDs.

If the creator's database can not handle the changes then he has a product that is no longer functional. 

But they are still selling it if I understand that right? In this case it's their problem and all difficulties don't have to care the customer!

Only if it's an old product and no longer selling then of course you can't enforce updates. But if they are still selling they have to make their product functional - point. I would not pay a single L$ then but drop and blacklist that creator.

[LittleMe Jewell]

14 hours ago, ChinRey said:

LittleMe Jewel's brainless heckling post

 

It was not a brainless heckling post. 

 

While I only dabble in SL scripting, I have designed & managed databases and coded applications for them for more decades than I want to think about.  If the database and associated processes cannot be modified within a year's time -- which is how much notice LL gave everyone -- the either everyone involved is incompetent or things were originally designed very poorly.  Hell, even with an extremely poor design, the database and processes can usually still get a major overhaul in a year's time - assuming there are competent people to work on it.

 

I stand by my statement --- I would not give any more money to such a merchant and I would advise all of my friends to also not give them business.

 

Edited February 22, 2021 by LittleMe Jewell

[ChinRey]

19 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

Hell, even with an extremely poor design, the database and processes can usually still get a major overhaul in a year's time - assuming there are competent people to work on it

Even if they ahd a year to change the database, it's still a lot of work to do.

What happened is that LL made a change that broke previously officially supported content. Content creators, including scripters, are obliged to make sure their works are compatible with SL at the time they make and launch it but they can't possibly take responsibility for any changes to the software that occur in the future. We had a similar situation back when ALM was introduced, breaking invisiprims. Invisiprims weren't even officially supproted yet I never hear anybody suggest that makers of invisiprim based shoes were obliged to make and deliver updated replacements.

It is certainly the creators' responsibility to protect new buyers, either by informing them or by withdrawing the product. That's a completely different issue. Did they do that? I don't know. You don't know or at least you haven't indicated that you do. But you assume they didn't and treat that assumption as a fact. That's why your post is heckling.

Also, I know is a bit aside the point and I don't know the situation for the content creators in this aprticular case, but I still think it's something we should take into account. Even the content creators who charge some Lindens for their works are not comemrcial creators. That is, a few are but the vast majority aren't. A few times in the past, when some new entrepeneur has asked how to make money from the works in SL, I have sugegsted they go out and start collecting deposit bottles instead. That's not a joke, it does pay better per hour than what the vast majority of creators/merchants can ever hope to make from SL. (It gives you a lot of healthy fresh air too.) Some were taken in by LL's empty promises of makign moeny in SL, others do it for the love for SL and for the joy of creating and don't expect to get any payment worth mentioning. Do you really want to blame them when they balk at taking on yet anotehr chore nobody will thank them for?

[Rowan Amore]

26 minutes ago, ChinRey said:

Even if they ahd a year to change the database, it's still a lot of work to do.

What happened is that LL made a change that broke previously officially supported content. Content creators, including scripters, are obliged to make sure their works are compatible with SL at the time they make and launch it but they can't possibly take responsibility for any changes to the software that occur in the future. We had a similar situation back when ALM was introduced, breaking invisiprims. Invisiprims weren't even officially supproted yet I never hear anybody suggest that makers of invisiprim based shoes were obliged to make and deliver updated replacements.

It is certainly the creators' responsibility to protect new buyers, either by informing them or by withdrawing the product. That's a completely different issue. Did they do that? I don't know. You don't know or at least you haven't indicated that you do. But you assume they didn't and treat that assumption as a fact. That's why your post is heckling.

Also, I know is a bit aside the point and I don't know the situation for the content creators in this aprticular case, but I still think it's something we should take into account. Even the content creators who charge some Lindens for their works are not comemrcial creators. That is, a few are but the vast majority aren't. A few times in the past, when some new entrepeneur has asked how to make money from the works in SL, I have sugegsted they go out and start collecting deposit bottles instead. That's not a joke, it does pay better per hour than what the vast majority of creators/merchants can ever hope to make from SL. (It gives you a lot of healthy fresh air too.) Some were taken in by LL's empty promises of makign moeny in SL, others do it for the love for SL and for the joy of creating and don't expect to get any payment worth mentioning. Do you really want to blame them when they balk at taking on yet anotehr chore nobody will thank them for?

I agree.  Any future sales should include info that if the customer changes their name, there may be a charge involved.  I don't feel a fee of less that $10 is too much to ask for the creators time in changing the name.  Could they redo using UUID?  Of course but they're under no obligation to do so.  

To me, it's the same as asking every creator to redo their clothing because a new body has come on the scene.  WE choose to change our names or bodies.  If something I bought under my old name ceases to function, I'll again choose to either pay for an update or not.  I can no longer use Maitreya only clothing from one top designer.  They aren't updating anything to legacy nor are they making anything new for it.   Should I expect them to do all that work just because I've made the decision to change bodies?  Of course not.

[Paul Hexem]

I have a number of products that use avatar names. Most use llGetOwner to update automatically. Except for one. If you set it up, deed it to group, then change your name, it's not going to work right anymore.

In that case, I'd give you a new one. No issue. No extra fee, because now the old one has no way of working correctly, it's never going to work quite right again.

If his product breaks on name change, why bother changing the database at all? Just leave the old one disabled and broken and give the customer a new one, and let the database put in the new name.

Unless he's manually entering all the data in the database for each one he sells... And if that's what's happening, this issue is entirely on him for being bad at making stuff.

[Mercedes Avon]

If a new mesh body comes out on the scene, I do not ask creators to update my clothing to work with it. The clothing I have doesn't stop functioning. The new mesh body is not a LL release and creators do not have to support the product of other creators.

And I am not a scripter. So let me ask this of those who may know? Why would a product break if it is using scripts with my username versus my UUID? Wouldn't it recognize my new name as a new account and work from there? And if that is not the case, like Paul said, couldn't this creator just pass me a new copy?

Linden Lab gives users an avenue to create and make income. I am having a hard time pointing a finger at Linden Lab for improving their product or for giving their user base something they have demanded for years. If you are going to feed off the success of Second Life, using their service as an avenue to make yourself income, then be prepared to make adjustments as the platform evolves, because if it doesn't evolve, it will die out and then no one will be making income off it.

 

 

 

[Mercedes Avon]

14 hours ago, Nova Convair said:

But they are still selling it if I understand that right? In this case it's their problem and all difficulties don't have to care the customer!

Yes, they are still selling all their products, both on the Marketplace and in-world.

7 hours ago, ChinRey said:

It is certainly the creators' responsibility to protect new buyers, either by informing them or by withdrawing the product. That's a completely different issue. Did they do that?

No. They are not warning anyone. It is still for sale. I am sorry I didn't make this clear. I was trying not to have a laser focus on this one creator but determine if this was a grid wide issues I should be concerned about.

With that said, I do hear what you are saying. I am a creator and have been for a decade. Do you know how daunting it was to take my entire store and turn it into appliers for every mesh body on the grid? I also owned a skin store and had to do the same. It is a lot of work. I get it. 100%. I almost quit many times back then. However, if I wanted to stay relevant and still continue to sell I had to roll with the new normal. And when mesh was released, that was the beginning of the end for me because, at the time, I did not know how to mesh.

Can you imagine if we still had prim and sculpt sofas, beds and the like? These stores had to learn to build with third party and sometimes expensive software or go out of business. I closed up shop and blamed no one and accepted that times were changing. It took me years to learn to mesh and come back around to creating again. Linden Lab shouldn't hold back advancements, so I can still make money off their service with my outdated products.

Edited February 23, 2021 by Mercedes Avon

[Jennifer Boyle]

I read the whole thread and didn't see what I consider the crucial issue addressed. It is, did the creator, having been given a year's notice that user name changes were coming, warn the owners of his products that, if they changed their names, the products would break, and that he would not replace them?

If he didn't, that the products broke when customers used a new feature of SL that he hadn't warned them would break his products is on him, and it is on him to make them whole.

If he did, it is on the customers that they chose to use a new feature that they had been warned would break the products, and he has no obligation to fix anything.

 

Edited February 23, 2021 by Jennifer Boyle
typo