Jump to content

New Gacha Policy Discussion


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 69 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

Still only made it to Page 23 now - so many opinions.  No reason to comment until I get to the END.  Except to tweek Prok.

As a Kittycat breeder, this new policy might affect my business model.  Still waiting for Callie's take on it, especially for the Special Edition vendor sales at her main shop.

I have bought from a Gacha twice in SL.  Both were at a Linden Home celebration where they made an exception for Gachas for a weekend.  I got one normal item for $100, which was about what it was worth.  The second Gacha I paid $150, and it never delivered any item.  The owner also vanished from SL.  I'd rather just pay what an item is worth, and forget the gambling.

Just remembered I did buy a music box gatcha from Contraption for only $75L  A common blue one that fits perfectly in the library of my castle.  Such detail and textures for a modest price.  Not sure why they can't be sold individually though - I would have paid more for one of his Rares.

 

 

Edited by Jaylinbridges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Faly Breen said:

HAH!

yea, the avatars will end up in less variations and will be heavyly overpriced - or do you really think if you can "choose the product you want" you get the same quallity as before from an item which is suppost to be LUCK BASED? No srsly, think about that for a moment.

Probabilities tells us that someone, has to be left holding the bag at the end of the day, you're just hoping it won't be you.

Gacha creators rarely published the odds on their "rares" (and never the machine's internal working which might not even be random at all) because the point of a gacha is to delude you into thinking that it might actually only take a single spin for you to get what you want.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Alwin Alcott said:

see hear say... no facts
And as you can see on regular happenings... copyrights are taken serious by LL.
But it needs action from the creator... and doesn't work for bought/ripped/free content on 3d website.... many so called "original" items come directly from turbosquid or other mesh creator sites.

Alwin if you have 10 hours to sit and discuss the matter in depth, there is a load of data and evidence. It's easy for you to refute someone in a few sentences on a forum about something you clearly have no knowledge about. Why would she make it up?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jewel Nova said:

So typical of LL to address this issue so quickly after having ignored the issue of copybotting for so many years. 

Since resales are still "okay" LL wont lose out financially as they make a nice cut [10%] from MP sales of gacha. (of course!)

Copybotting will now increase. If a creator decides NOT to open up their gacha packs for sale as copy, then the current gacha item will become even harder to come by therefore inflating its worth, hence the temptation to copybot by lowlifes will correspondingly explode.

I hope LL has a plan to combat copybotting. [Cue laughing out loud]

Yes, I AM biased as I own a gacha resale market.

SL has completely lost its worth to me. 

Enjoy your sex sims.

You people can laugh all you like. The reality is real people are losing real income sources. I dont think thats something to be laughed at. 

If you dont like gacha, dont play it. Its not hard. I think the biggest whiners and the loudest laughers are ones who have no self control and didnt know when to stop playing. For now, keep your laughing emojis to yourself. 

Show some EMPATHY!

  • Like 5
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:

Probabilities tells us that someone, has to be left holding the bag at the end of the day, you're just hoping it won't be you.

Gacha creators rarely published the odds on their "rares" (and never the machine's internal working which might not even be random at all) because the point of a gacha is to delude you into thinking that it might actually only take a single spin for you to get what you want.

Umm, that's kinda exactly the point of it... you CAN get what you want ina  single spin if you're lucky... it's not delusion... it's called odds and it can happen.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jaily Bailey said:

Why bother replying to her question, instead you post a generic reply because you dont know the answer.

 

I read the article, and therefore knew that it would provide the answer sought.  It was an encouragement for others to do likewise.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jewel Nova said:

You people can laugh all you like. The reality is real people are losing real income sources. I dont think thats something to be laughed at. 

If you dont like gacha, dont play it. Its not hard. I think the biggest whiners and the loudest laughers are ones who have no self control and didnt know when to stop playing. For now, keep your laughing emojis to yourself. 

Show some EMPATHY!

So the people who do play these are losing only monopoly money? 

I have used a gacha machine maybe 5 times in SL if i want a item i go  straight to the MP and buy it ... 

  • Like 5
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prokofy Neva said:

@LittleMe Jewell This is why it would have been better if LL had waited until an actual district attorney or state attorney general actually contacted them. Did that happen already? I doubt it. They could have waited until the cases played out. There would be findings that this did not constitute gambling if you got a prize every time, especially because a prize need not be called "rare" to be actually in demand, and "rares" get ignored despite their name. A good lawyer would find the arguments.

LL should also have given 90 days on this. It's not fair to events that don't happen to be on this month that are on a bi-monthly or bi-annual schedule to be left out. Epiphany is in session now and gains; Arcade doesn't. Etc.

@Mollymews you have a good argument, but I think the law as it is likely to be written and applied  (its existence in California or this or that state means nothing as there are not yet any SL-related cases yet) will involve only the blind purchase where you cannot see what you are getting. Waiting half an hour for a rare to appear that you can see is not a blind purchase. Your wait is no different than waiting in a long line for Grateful Dead tickets. Lucky chairs won't be affected as you can see the thing and decide to wait for your letter. It's a known operation. This idea is merely taking the Lucky Chairs idea and applying it to gatchas.

@Drayke Newall No one is forced to buy a gatcha. They are adults with free will. But the regulators are concerned about buying a thing you cannot see. That's mainly the thrust of the legal argumemnt, that it's a pig in a poke. If you wait until your item is thrown out for sale like Soviets used to throw out food products for sale suddenly on holidays, that's not deception. It's about the deceptive nature of the transaction.

@chesse Vyceratops anything that is random is likely to fall under the policy. A perk added if you buy 10 items would not be covered as it is a known transaction. The vendor might change the perk every hour or every day but it's visible.

@Little Jewell once again, there is no federal law in the US. It's not that "the federal bill expired" as Living in a Modem World put it, it's that the draft bill by one conservative senator (now indicted for Jan. 6), which *did not even make it to committee* which would begin its actual life didn't just "expire" but the session ended, and it was not put on the agenda in the next session, likely because that sponsor was preoccupied with other matters.

Again, the law in California has not been used against an SL resident.

@Marsellus Walcott I'm all for trying almost-gatcha devices to save people's revenue and go under the wire if they can but there's another thing they can do: make good things, sell them on transfer, and not charge a lot. Make a set, and issue each thing in it each week. Maybe the appearance of "the rare" could be an anticipated occasion and not spelled out. Or not. But the point is, to make things ON TRANSFER. Now they have a reason to. They will sell more of them. The end.

@Animal Haiku You may be right about that, and given the prevalence of such whiners and hall monitors on the forums, it could well be true. I think my theory of Raj Date jumping the gun is more likely.

@Chic Aeon I think you are being too literalist about this. People sell old gatchas as fatpack sets all the time. Maybe the "covenant" with gouging event organizers includes that, but obviously, with the new policy, they will have to change. The situation has changed. And they can't police all their former customers anyway. How? They won't get to RL court let alone the court of forums opinion if some poor gatcha creator sells the former objects one by one now even for the same price. 

It's good that you've flagged this unknown policy for these event organizers who oversaw the move to $100 gatcha pulls even as their fees for booths went up and up. But their day is gone now. None of them are in this thread and won't be. They may be privately complaining to LL or not, but they can't make this stick, no way. Monstaar is absolutely right.

Gatcha re-sellers don't need to stay in business, you do. And you come first in the commercial chain. So by all means put out your former gatchas for whatever you can get. I will try to find your blog for your other thoughts. But no need to labour under this burden of a promise made in another setting.

@Nixkie I find it hard to believe that you are able to rent a home with the funds for gatcha resales but maybe there's something I don't know. You will still be able to resell them and will have more competition but those with experience in selling should do well. You will now have to buy from more desperate gatcha owners because the supply from fresh content has dried up, but you should be desperate enough to do that, sounds like.

@HarrisonMcKenzie There is no court decision. There is no state attorney general who spoke out. There isn't even a conservative senator, because none of them have ever mention LL, but have in mind large online games where lootboxes are sold to advance in game play. No attorney or prosecutor has illustrated in a court of law that SL fits under this definition. It's a pre-anticipation that this might happen, and not based in a legal fact. Unless LL has been given a heads up of a crackdown in California coming down the pike, in a world where wildfires and the pandemic are more properly the concern of states, you can't speak of any "illegality".

@Cain Maven you make houses, not gatchas, so this isn't affecting you and yours. It will affect many people who make their living in SL or people who make or sell gatchas and then buy your houses. So this kind of comment is out of place. No one in SL should ever be rolling over and just following LL policy that does this much damage without criticism and demands for mitigation. And telling others to climb down. @Charlotte Bartlett you ought to know better than likey-liking such an arrogant and insular comment yourself. We are all in a shared economy, a tiny one. We will all be affected, one way or another.

@Rosekin1982 you're right that while it's true technically merchants can pivot and simply take a fatpack out of a gatcha fatpack and sell it for the same or more, they won't make as much money as the frenzy won't be there. The root of the frenzy is in part just some individual's fancy about what they like in a rare, but it's more about big-time gatcha resellers who came early to events, had the money to invest to get the rares and then sold them for a huge mark-up on the MP. Not a pretty sight, like the land business, but a previously legal one.

@cutencuddlybreedables Watch the Linden leave breedables alone on some technicality because they can. There is no federal law. California has not acted against them AFAIK and this is all on their whim. They can decide to leave their friends in the breedable business alone and save the axe of them for when the economy recovers from the gatchas. Indeed, we will see just how arbitrary this policy is when we watch how they leave out breedables on the technicality of the fact that you buy what you see, and their future value as breeders, only a potential, is not the transaction at hand. The reality is, people breed animals largely in hopes of getting rares to resell so it's merely an attenuated gatcha. Rares in breeding are random; gatchas are random. Favoring the one and shafting the other is a political act.

@Zoren Manray You've said a rare sensible and fact-based thing in a thread full of ridicularities. The only point is that the US is not making plans. What is the US? Congress. One senator had plans. Perhaps some state attorney general somewhere has plans. The California law wasn't applied to LL. Same with the Canadian law that enabled a class action suit which itself isn't a law like Japan. It's all pure hysterical hypothetical and we need to hear the reasons for it. The claw-back clauses would have course appeared and I predict we will see the return of gatchas in the Metaverse, if not in LL, and on big platforms where regulators will be forced to back off.

@Lucia Nightfire there is no court case or prosecutor or any legal entity that has done this because to do so, it would have to be public. You can't have a secret law and tell a company they will be fined under a secret law.

@Zoey Winsmore It's unlikely there was any "phone call from the Netherlands" or any other EU-based event. A phone call from Elizabeth Warren's office, sure.

That is the thing though - IF your breedable is setup so it requires an additional item to allow it to breed that you must BUY, then that would make what you are saying correct.

Our breedables, and some others, took the simpler less complicated method by having just 1 food. And the thing I want to make very clear - that you do not need to feed our animals, they will get sick and not breed if they are not fed, but they are perfectly working just as they are so i am not sure that we would qualify perse as a gatcha because of the single consumable [that is food] only.

I know its symantics, but its fact and its something that LL needs to give us a CLEAR line upon... Does a breedable work enough like "a gatcha" in that regard.

I am very curious as to their thoughts, and I have a lot of breeders who are concerned and worried over this, so of course I am hopeful that @Patch Lindenand his team gets back to us soon with some clear line on what is ok and what is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

I also have quite a bit of RL experience in how international law and cases work.

"Had" The world is an ever changing landscape you know.

You can't reasonably expect to make money in coutnry A while also being sheltered from any of its rules and regulations because you operate from country B. This type of loophole have been closing up for a long time.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course creators can set their full gacha content to fatpacks for 5000 L, but I doubt their income will match the income from the gacha machines.

A fatpack that cost me 5000 L will make me stop dead. I would have to play 66 times if the pull price is 75 L.

If a gacha is for a kitchen, and the sink, stove and a decorative set of hanging pots are the rares, I would play it and hope to get some of the rares as doubles, so I can trade one rare for another. The other prices like cookware, plats, bowls and dish towels, can I buy for 75 L or lower from resellers. I would get the kitchen I want for 1000-1500 L. Or that is how I think. It has worked so far.

But set the kitchen up for 5000, with no options than to pay 5000, I would say "Are you crazy!"

Creators would have maybe one or two sales of fatpacks, and nothing from all those who played the gacha for 1000 - 2000 L.

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SheyCutiePie said:

So let me get this right. it is gabbling right and all there people that is happy about this are from EU. Please tell me people are not going crazy. Can we now banned Lottery from the EU. This is not gabbling. Are you going tell a kid not to play with a toy vendor in real life to collect them all? This is silly and will hurt SL.

Don't worry, your... erm ... gabbling rights are still in place

It's not just the EU that's regulating this, a bill to regulate lootboxes has been introduced to American Congress and apparently Australia is considering it too.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the thing we need to focus on is the loss of income for many people that will directly effect their real life situations. I have been a gacha seller for 5 years and fortunately, despite a major investment, it has been more of a hobby rather than something that places food on my table. But there are creators and resellers who will be hit hard in an already tough COVID financial market. I just think if you didn't like gacha, that's your prerogative, but I would hope that people can be sensitive to the fact that to pull a business with just a month's notice is going to devastate some people and if you're only on here to talk about the perils of gambling, perhaps save it for another day. Gacha is going, breedables and the likes will need to follow because they are also an activity where investment is required and the outcome/ returns are based on chance. Sign of the times, where again we are policed to a degree because the minority who have a problem make it a problem for everyone else. 

I do also want to take this opportunity to thank every creator who worked to make it such an exciting activity that created a tight knit community for me. 

I also want to thank the people who have supported my business for the past 5 years and I will remain open for business with a gacha yard and MP store because I would estimate I have about 30 years worth of listing to do to get through my huge gacha inventory. 

Take care everyone.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

No they don't, that's ridiculous. First of all there is neither law nor cases you can point to that exist to trigger a legal decision. Second, if that were the case, there wouldn't be any customers from outside the US. You have a weak grasp on how international and local law in fact work. You need a law. You need a case. You need a prosecutor, like the German prosecutors who announced publicly they would prosecute for child pornography. But that had to be combined with other signals from the environment  for them to make a policy.

No district attorney or prosecutor abroad have said anything about the application of their laws to SL. And go back and read the CA law referenced above, and any other law and their intent. 

You're not wrong that laws governing internet communications/transactions are not self-enforcing.  But, that's a highly simplistic view that does not reflect the reality of doing business on the internet. 

For example, I work for a company that is based/incorporated in the US, and hosted in the US (on AWS, in fact), like Linden Labs.  However, like Second Life, we have a *lot* of users and do a *lot* of business in other countries, enough to be legally considered a non-resident business entity in those countries.  Which means we can be held legally and criminally liable under their laws; as long as the prosecution can establish that the company is conducting business in the country, being based somewhere else doesn't really matter, and thanks to the international nature of the internet (and precedents set by the RIAA and MPAA, unfortunately), establishing that an internet service can be sued/prosecuted in another country's courts is trivially easy. 

I imagine you knew that much (just making sure we're on the same page), but here's the part I think you're missing:  In the world of corporate law, if there is already a case against you, it's too late, you've already lost.  The potential fines are so high that most companies cannot survive paying them, or even an out-of-court settlement, and the legal fees to fight a case can be equally devastating.  Some companies, as you pointed out, will fight to make a point, but they are the exception, and tend to be the ones with unfathomable millions to spend.  SL is bigger than most people give it credit for, but it's not THAT big. 

So, when there are new international regulations that apply to a company like Linden Labs, the question is never "are we literally being charged with a crime or threatened with a lawsuit right this second?".  If that question is being asked, it means the company's lawyers failed so spectacularly that they'll probably be fired after asking it, because corporate law is about calculating and mitigating risk.  The primary job of corporate lawyers is to anticipate legal cases *before* they happen, and give advice on how to prevent them from happening.  Thus, the real question when evaluating new regulations is "how much liability could we face under this law if we don't comply, what is the cost of compliance, and how much will it cost to just not do business in that country?". 

Coming back to the issue at hand:  It's reasonable to assume that the regulation of lootboxes as a gambling mechanic is the most likely reason for this policy change for LL, because while that's probably not on the immediate horizon in the US, many EU countries (like Germany) have already passed laws imposing various restrictions on lootboxes in video games, and more are in the works.  Thanks to companies like EA and Activision doing everything they can to fight those laws (because unlike LL, they have the resources to afford the risk, and a more obvious fiscal incentive to do so), the lootbox situation in the EU is escalating, and more countries are exploring even stronger restrictions.  And to any reasonable observer, there is no distinction between the mechanics of a loot box in a video game and the mechanics of a gacha machine in an SL store:  Pay real-world money for virtual currency, then use that virtual currency to buy a loot box for a set amount, which awards a random prize that may or may not be what the player wanted, with the most desirable prizes having extremely slim odds of being unlocked, encouraging players to buy more and more loot boxes to try to get what they want.  You can argue whether those mechanics constitute "gambling" (which is, at time of writing, an unsettled question in most courts worldwide), but trying to argue that the gacha machines in SL stores work differently in a legally-distinct way is not an argument anyone will ever be able to win in court.  Even the late Johnny Cochrane wouldn't have been able to pull that one off, and I could not think of a legally-significant difference to use in a rhetorical comparison when writing this paragraph.

So that's the legal landscape most likely influencing this decision - it's possible that it's something else, or somewhere else, but given that this unfolding situation has been dominating gaming media for over a year, it's as good a starting point as any.  Because even if the underlying motivations are completely different, the same questions would need to be answered:

  1. How likely is it that this will turn into a real liability, and when is that likely to happen? 
  2. If it does, how exposed is the company, and what would the potential damages and legal costs look like? 
  3. How much would compliance cost the company? 
  4. How much business would the company lose if they took door #3 and ceased doing business in the affected country/countries?

Those are the questions that would've needed answering in making this decision, and based on what's been happening thus far, we can extrapolate that the answers were, respectively, "very likely to be a real liability, and very soon", "so extremely exposed that the damages could pose an existential threat to Linden Labs", "total cost of compliance via a policy change is the lesser of three evils", and "we cannot afford to cease doing business in every country where this risk exists".  We can debate/question whether those were the "correct" answers, but the legal calculus behind answering those questions (or even just the first one) is so much more complex than "did LL receive a legal threat from a prosecutor about this?" that the existence of such a legal threat isn't really even relevant.  Because, as I said, if such a legal threat existed, it's already too late, the lawyers have already failed to do their job of anticipating a threat before it happens.

And that's just the legal calculus, which isn't the whole story.  This is also a marketing and public relations issue.

As I mentioned, the legal situation regarding lootboxes and other gambling-adjacent video game mechanics in Europe is a relevant legal situation that applies to SL gacha machines as much as it applies to video game lootboxes, and it seems like the most probable legal motivation behind this policy change.  But the legal battle over lootboxes did not arise spontaneously, it was the result of massive mainstream press coverage about these mechanics preying on children, causing them to lose thousands of dollars, bankrupting their families before their parents even realized what was going on.  It's not the only negative impact of these sorts of game mechanics, nor is it necessarily the most severe way in which these mechanics damage people's lives, but it's the most sensational and motivating impact.  And it got a LOT of attention, to the point that almost everyone (especially in Europe) has at least seen the shocking headlines of kids spending tens of thousands of dollars gambling on FIFA. 

So, from a PR standpoint, on one side of this battle you have distraught parents in financial ruin because their kids just wanted to see their favorite football player in a video game and didn't understand the concept of what they were doing or how the game worked.  And on the other side of the battle, you have some of the biggest and wealthiest entertainment companies in the world, who have also been making unflattering headlines for unrelated reasons, making clumsy, obtuse statements about obscure legal technicalities while blaming those same parents for not understanding something they never explained clearly.  Even if the legal arguments are completely removed from the equation, it doesn't take a PR expert to figure out which side of that battle has the winning optics in the eyes of the general public (whether you *agree* with those optics is irrelevant, because PR is about understanding the perceptions of an outside audience, and figuring out how to make your case in the court of public opinion).  Which is why a lot of video game studios that aren't owned by EA or Activision have been making a public, performative point to remove lootboxes from their games; even if they're not facing immediate legal liabilities, they probably had corporate lawyers arriving at the same conclusions described above, combined with PR experts saying "even if you could win this case in a court of law, no one can win this case in the court of public opinion", and decided that it was cheaper and easier to just stop. 

There are more factors in a decision like this - community management, revenue analysis, etc - but as someone who's spent every day of the last six months with a front-row seat to a nearly identical (but unrelated) situation, that my analysis of what's happening here.  Did LL's lawyers and PR advisors miscalculate?  I don't know, and that's a reasonable and specific question to ask.  But I doubt the official on-the-record details eventually released will ever be as meticulous and detailed as you seem to want, because that's not how PR works.  What I *do* know is that it's not helpful to base assumptions and extrapolations on a narrow view of what does and does not constitute a valid legal threat, because the cardinal rule of corporate law is to never, EVER underestimate the potential risk of a rapidly-evolving legal landscape.  Because unless your company operates with a budget in the same order of magnitude as Amazon, it is ALWAYS cheaper to be cautious than cavalier, especially when analyzing and anticipating laws that are actively being written and debated. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, cutencuddlybreedables said:

That is the thing though - IF your breedable is setup so it requires an additional item to allow it to breed that you must BUY, then that would make what you are saying correct.

Our breedables, and some others, took the simpler less complicated method by having just 1 food. And the thing I want to make very clear - that you do not need to feed our animals, they will get sick and not breed if they are not fed, but they are perfectly working just as they are so i am not sure that we would qualify perse as a gatcha because of the single consumable [that is food] only.

I know its symantics, but its fact and its something that LL needs to give us a CLEAR line upon... Does a breedable work enough like "a gatcha" in that regard.

I am very curious as to their thoughts, and I have a lot of breeders who are concerned and worried over this, so of course I am hopeful that @Patch Lindenand his team gets back to us soon with some clear line on what is ok and what is not.

But everyone gets a prize with gacha also... generally a $50 value prize for a $50 investment. If you're lucky, you get something worth $100, $200 or even $1000. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, ananoelle said:

what do they copy tho?

When you have 10 hours spare i will chat to you about it... you will get bored after 10 minutes, so just trust the people who have lived experience. Some of the biggest sellers such as DRD, Bamse, Dust Bunny just to name a few can vouch.  

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Marianne Little said:

Of course creators can set their full gacha content to fatpacks for 5000 L, but I doubt their income will match the income from the gacha machines.

A fatpack that cost me 5000 L will make me stop dead. I would have to play 66 times if the pull price is 75 L.

If a gacha is for a kitchen, and the sink, stove and a decorative set of hanging pots are the rares, I would play it and hope to get some of the rares as doubles, so I can trade one rare for another. The other prices like cookware, plats, bowls and dish towels, can I buy for 75 L or lower from resellers. I would get the kitchen I want for 1000-1500 L. Or that is how I think. It has worked so far.

But set the kitchen up for 5000, with no options than to pay 5000, I would say "Are you crazy!"

Creators would have maybe one or two sales of fatpacks, and nothing from all those who played the gacha for 1000 - 2000 L.

 

I try my luck for the rares and if I get it, which is quite often, I then go to MP to buy the commons. Everyone had their own system. And the quality of gacha was awesome from the most of the popular creators. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A welcome and long ov

6 minutes ago, connorboy26 said:

I think the thing we need to focus on is the loss of income for many people that will directly effect their real life situations. I have been a gacha seller for 5 years and fortunately, despite a major investment, it has been more of a hobby rather than something that places food on my table. But there are creators and resellers who will be hit hard in an already tough COVID financial market. I just think if you didn't like gacha, that's your prerogative, but I would hope that people can be sensitive to the fact that to pull a business with just a month's notice is going to devastate some people and if you're only on here to talk about the perils of gambling, perhaps save it for another day.

Well Linden Lab has always been acting that way. Welcome to Second Life!

Furthermore: the only constant in business is constant change. If you are unable to adapt and it hurts you, then it's your fault to have not diversified your income streams in time upfront.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had the gatcha bug for a while - Most of the time I budgeted my spending but once in a while I would find myself standing at the machines like a casino zombie - blankly pulling the lever. Like a gambler, I remembered the wins, and not the losses.

I rationalized my habit by saying I would donate the items that I didn't want to one of my groups to be re-sold, but when I looked at what I was going to donate I realized most of it was a bunch of junk.

For the better items, perhaps creators can sell them as "limited editions" or "collectibles"?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bartholomew Gallacher said:

A welcome and long ov

Well Linden Lab has always been acting that way. Welcome to Second Life!

Furthermore: the only constant in business is constant change. If you are unable to adapt and it hurts you, then it's your fault to have not diversified your income streams in time upfront.

Beautiful, thanks for the economics lesson.... and the show of empathy requested. Must be hard being a wank all the time is it?

Edited by connorboy26
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I haven't read trough all the pages of comments, but I will assume that this will affect a lot of creators who mainly focuses on gachas, I personally used to love them when the whole gacha thing started to blossom within Second life, but over the years I realized it is basically an easy way for stores to earn in some cash, and is basically a scam. So I'm happy to see them go. However I do understand how this can affect the stores who mainly focus on gacha.

I have noticed over the years that some creators put more work, quality and creativity into their gachas than regular releases. With the same work, quality and creativity, your regular releases should do just as well, if I like something and want something, I will buy it regardless if it is a gacha or not. heck I will be more likely to buy it if it isn't from a gacha, I have been avoiding gachas for at least 2 years now. ( But no I won't pay 5k for a fatpack of gachas, I rather want to be able to pick and choose what I purchase, I think you are more likely to sell more like that, not everyone got 5k to spend on a fatpack, when they simply just want one color or one item from said gacha fatpack. )

Let's not forget there are people/customers who do not play gachas, so when you start selling your content as a regular releases, those people will start purchasing your content, depending on your pricing I can imagine.

I also think one month is too little, it will probably take more time for creators to do the changes that needs to be done, and also figuring out what to do with already released gachas.

I do hope that this doesn't affect the SL economy too much.

Good luck for those who need it 😅

 

Edited by PixelBerry
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am happy to support some of the gacha sellers in their new ventures, either by buying gacha during the window, fatpacks after the window, and letting them use some of my land rent free for a store if they can't pay tier. I only have one island though so can't give people huge areas in terms of space. My land is also themed so no big glowy boxes would fly, for example. I do have two mainland parcels I could let people use but they are on the Campbell Coast (2048 sq m and 1024 sq m) so again, they would need to be sympathetically furnished (one is furnished entirely in 8f8 gacha currently...). I am also happy to help them organise other events to boost sales and help run them, if that helps. Just notecard me in-world, I am UK so often parked afk/or offline when at RL work.

The caveat here is "within reason". I am one person and not a secret millionaire. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, connorboy26 said:

Beautiful, thanks for the economics lesson.... and the show of empathy requested. Must be hard being a wank all the time is it?

If you want my sympathy for that your business is now running down the hill, go looking somewhere else. Business is business, it sometimes calls for tough decision and sympathy brings you nowhere. Linden Lab understands this good enough, because they are still in business. So the question is do you?  Whatever.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, from a consumer's point of view I like the idea of stopping gachas. As for content creators as well as people craving unique items - I get that this might be bad news. But suggestion: what about designing limited edition items that are transferable, so the buyers might be able to resell at their own price? It is a big hit in RL particularely in the sneakers market - so why not in SL? Also raffles to get a chance to buy a limited edition item is an idea taken from the RL world of fashion, would that be allowed?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 69 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...