Jump to content

New Gacha Policy Discussion


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 76 days.

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

Recommended Posts

I couldn't care less about gachas, but you haven't given us a reason why this new policy. It can't be considered gambling because in gambling you can also lose (more often than not). In gachas you always get something for what you have paid.

Is there any law that you have to abide by?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Natasha Petrichor said:

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. 

I take what you say seriously which is intelligent and based on real experience. But you can't show that it applies to this situation Maybe on MPAA you can bring suit, but on this it will really be a lot harder precisely because the SL gatcha does not fit the definition of these European and Asian laws. It does not. 

Lots of things go on in Europe that are overreach for Americans. LL collects VAT, it puts up those silly privacy nag messages to the absolute minimum but isn't in your face as much as European and some more skittish American sites. I totally get that a company like EA may act preemptively but LL isn't EA and gatchas aren't lootboxes. The two ingredients in the lootbox cases were 1) kids and distraught parents 2) lack of informed consent. In the SL gatcha arena, there are tons of gatcha policy statements everywhere from merchants on their profiles and in stores and from re-sellers. It simply cannot be compared in that respect. LL could have adopted a completely different stance on this. But it didn't, due to the political nature of the new owners whose plans and roadmap for SL aren't clear at all. This is their opening card to the user population. Not good at all.

Ultimately, none of your points apply to real life, where Apple didn't lose the case launched against it but won. What has Europe got to do with it? It might seem prudent not to wait for litigation but in fact if you are determined and big enough, you don't have to lose. LL has tens of thousands of merchants on its side if it chose to fight this, some with real clout and connections in RL. 

It's not over until it's over. LL reacted to various signals to the environment but obviously didn't look at the Apple signal as the one to go by, and it should have. But we can't know because they are telling. I see a very big political factor here in the form of one of the new owners with the justice background at the consumer affairs board. 

But all the Internet lawyers here are invoking other things they think were operative, Belgian law, Californian law, whatever and that is really the last thing going on here, in my opinion.

Let's look at what an actual RL lawyer Vaki says, first as warning, then as commentary. (Funny, nobody mentioned that warning here on the forums, guess there isn't that much readership of NWN). The trend of New World Notes, whose editor worked for the Lab as an official PR employee for years, is not to question the LL and be slight on criticism. So Hamlet rounds up the opinion of an authority and doesn't report any merchant distress which isn't of interest to him.

I totally get that this fellow, unlike all of us in the thread here, is a real lawyer with real clients.

But that's just it. That role has its limitations. Lawyers need business and clients. They have a vested interested in hyping scary things and then providing the remedies for them. They need to appear as if they are always prowling up ahead at any sign of threat to clients and then pre-emptively reacting to them. They aren't in the same mode as a civil rights attorney defending clients from misuse of the law or even questioning unfair law. They don't question the law so that they do not appear on the wrong side of the issue. Who wants to go up against distraught parents?! Even Vaki admits that the gatcha in SL is not a clearcut lootbox equivalent. 

Hamlet writes airily "A bill that would regulate loot boxes was recently introduced in Congress, and even if it doesn't pass, "this doesn't mean that we won't see guidance from the FTC, or from individual states." But truth in advertising would admit where that bill came from -- Josh Hawley, insurrectionist, and put it in context. The bill did not make it into committee. It is an overblown description to describe this as some kind of serious Congressional activity. 

Any response should also note that there is no case law in California against SL at all. That matters. 

Vaki says ""Second Life isn't the top of everyone's list in the way that Roblox or Fortnite is," "but if legislation (or legislative guidance) passes that clarifies that loot boxes/gacha are gambling, SL will crack down."

Well, legislation did NOT pass. He knows that. So please explain why SL is cracking down? On what basis? Will he defend clients caught in violation of this policy or not? That's the real question. He knows full well there are arguments to be mounted about how any law on the books or that might appear modeled on European laws does not apply to SL, regardless of what you say about international jurisdiction about which there are multiple opinions -- where notifications have been made, where children are not present, and where amounts are small. Invoking gumball machines for a nickel in Texas just doesn't cut it when there aren't cases. Gumball machines of more than 1 cent might be illegal. Can we point to actual cases of police raids or legal fights over it? 50L is 20 cents so perhaps it applies. How come it didn't apply for the last five years of the existence of gatcha machines?

In short, there is never a need to be supine in these situations.

Activists do not take things like this lying down, and even people who aren't activists but simply merchants, should stand up for basic decent treatment here. I've outlined remedies I think LL simply must apply -- more time for compliance, more alternatives for sales, sit-downs in world, etc. We've heard of none of it. Instead we have heard the usual ignoramuses baying for blood in an arena where they don't even make or sell gatchas -- it's stupid. Real merchants are sending out messages all over now in distress, ranging from a call to get gatchas now for 25L that will retire in a month to saying the new fatpacks will cost $5000. $5000! It's ok to fight this. Indeed, you must, if you are in business in SL.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never been a big fan of gacha machines, neither as a creator nor as a consumer... But it seems to me that 1 month of notice before being banned is frankly a short time! I know creators who make a living working only with gacha and who make their products months in advance. I think at least 6 months in advance would be the most correct

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Blue Conover said:

The gacha resell market will die because there will be no influx.

The way it works is the new shiny things attract customers. Gacha machines attract customers to items, and then they go to resellers to find the exact item they want and hope to find it at a decent price.

Now you have none of that. you just have  Word of mouth? Random find on MP when you are looking for something?

thats IF someone has correctly labelled it rather than just "gacha Sale"

Anyone who believes this will result in no loss for gacha resellers, and will result in a "bigger better" economy.

Are naive to the supreme

Its one reason why cigarettes are still sold despite knowing they kill people.

No country can afford the loss tot he economy

 

It's true that fresh supply drives a lot of the buys. But people buy gatchas from me that go back to 2016. Who knows why. They stumble on it somewhere, they realize they don't have all the pieces, it is retired, whatever. BTW gatchas are only a small part of my business and only a time suck to put out or load up to the MP so I barely bother with them. In fact, I give them away as group gifts. The biggest purpose of gatchas for me is to give out group gifts, since I can't make them except in an amateur way, or commission them, which is way too expensive for a little operation like mine.

So many of those selling models on the MP to be used in your creations, which I do buy and make, stipulate that you cannot give away the item made from those models, and must sell it even for at least X price. So there's no 10L hunt prize here, and that's a shame. It really cramps my style personally that the things I do make that people do want to get for free have to be scrupulous in observing the TOS of every single model maker. So if some maker of fine berries wants me to sell them for $50, I have to take them out of my magic sword or fruit place to give them as a group gift. I hope we will see some easing up on this particular crippling action which is based on needless fear that buyers of models will outperform in sales and distribution the model makers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, don't take this the wrong way, but I'm not sure how 30 days isn't enough time.

To package items into a vendor, given that you already have screenshots, shouldn't take more than a thirty seconds, tops, per item. So even for someone with a hundred gacha machines with 30 items in each would easily get it done. I'd have that done in a single workday. Even less if one was to display the items individually - just set "buy copy".

The remaining 29 days could be spent on considering pricing and future plans.

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

The gacha creators should start by selling their content on the Marketplace. Is not that easier to do than creating or buying vendors and redo their inworld stores?

Pulling apart a gacha with 20 single items and listing them individually on the MP should not take more than one day? So they would have time to list 30 gachas in a month. Or if they sell it as fatpacks, that time would speed up.

This would make sure the creators has no loss in income when the ban is starting, and they close the inworld store to set up the new vendors. I also think it is smart to lower the price to play gacha as soon as possible. I am sure they will have many more people coming there to play, so the lower price would mean no loss in income.

But then, people has a real life. Many is on vacation. Some may already have paid for a stall in gacha venues to come. To have 30 days to do sort out all this is unnecessary cruel. I believe in a few days, LL will have changed it to 60 days or more.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, WarmAnimations Lisa said:

I've never been a big fan of gacha machines, neither as a creator nor as a consumer... But it seems to me that 1 month of notice before being banned is frankly a short time! I know creators who make a living working only with gacha and who make their products months in advance. I think at least 6 months in advance would be the most correct

Nothing prevents them from selling those products directly now 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Harry333 Allen said:

Linden taxes Europeans according to their tax laws . When your Eurpean country has a tax rate of example 21 percent linden will charge all your land buys 21 percent extra to abide to that European countries tax law . Linden says its been paid to your European countries government. yeah like hell it is lmfao show me the bill Linden ggg.

I'm gonna assume you're joking, you do realize there was a time when Linden Labs did not charge VAT for Europeans right?

Can you guess what eventually happened?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Patch Linden

I hope LL reminds their policing enforcers that it's vacation time. Please give offenders the benefit of the doubt and remove the machines with just a warning and by providing a link to the new regulation. Lots of the owners of so called "zombie shops" still are attached to SL despite having moved on for most parts. The way you deal with them will affect your retention rate of this type of long time customers.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

@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.

i had a look into California

in recent months there have been a number of lawsuits over lootboxes brought in California courts by parents against companies like Sony, EA, Apple and Google

some of the lawsuits have been dismissed by the courts, some have been referred to mediation and some court decisions are pending

it seems that the lawsuits are based on the California Penal Code:

Quote

 

330b (d) For purposes of this section, “slot machine or device” means a machine, apparatus, or device that is adapted, or may readily be converted, for use in a way that, as a result of the insertion of any piece of money or coin or other object, or by any other means, the machine or device is caused to operate or may be operated, and by reason of any element of hazard or chance or of other outcome of operation unpredictable by him or her, the user may receive or become entitled to receive any piece of money, credit, allowance, or thing of value, or additional chance or right to use the slot machine or device, or any check, slug, token, or memorandum, whether of value or otherwise, which may be exchanged for any money, credit, allowance, or thing of value, or which may be given in trade, irrespective of whether it may, apart from any element of hazard or chance or unpredictable outcome of operation, also sell, deliver, or present some merchandise, indication of weight, entertainment, or other thing of value.

337t (c)(f) “Gambling game device” means any equipment or mechanical, electromechanical, or electronic contrivance, component or machine used remotely or directly in connection with gaming or any game which affects the result of a wager by determining win or loss. The term includes any of the following:
(C) A storage medium containing the source language or executable code of a computer program that cannot be reasonably demonstrated to have any use other than in a slot machine.

 

I think the question that these lawsuits are raising: Is the gain of a 'rare' seen as a win and the gain of 'common' seen as a loss. The defendants in these lawsuits have no doubt argued that there is no win or loss, everybody wins as everybody gets a prize of some kind

this argument I think is immaterial in California as games that use 'random' to give everybody-wins prizes of varying values have to be licensed. Everybody-wins prizes, where the prizes are perceived to have varying values, are typically found at carnival fairs which do have to licensed in California

it may be that it is the licensing requirement that Linden legal department has run into, along with all the other companies similarly affected

not that I am a member of the California Bar or anything. I just think that these lawsuits are becoming problematic for the companies. These lawsuits are civil cases, and in the USA juries in civil cases can be quite financially punitive sometimes

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, yestothis said:

Nothing prevents them from selling those products directly now 

Let me repeat the notice of a merchant on this point, your comment has been said by someone who has never packed a box and sold anything no doubt. This is from Keira at Raindale, who makes wonderful high-quality fantasy items and is very generous with group gifts and hunts, and has kept gatcha pull prices reasonable. Note in particular the part I put in red about all the repacking and all those prims -- just not practical!

I am really trying to cope with this news and to figure out what to do next, but right now I feel very lost.

Most of my income came from gacha and I seriously doubt that I'll be able to cover my SL and RL expenses with regular releases only...


My C|M collections never get as much sales as gacha sets (even when they have 10+ items in). It's not about quality, time and effort. I can spend 60+ hours on a highly detailed project, and it will never bring as much money as a gacha set made in a week...

As you might notice, I don't make a lot of gachas these days.  Arcade covered my fullsim rent + other fees, and an extra set every other month helped me to maintain my modest middle class lifestyle here in Russia.
In order to make this money without gachas I'd have to create 10-15 new releases a month - that's unrealistic, and I will be burnout in just a few weeks.

I do love gacha both as a creator and a shopper, I think 2/3 of the stuff I've ever bought were from gacha machines, and it really feels like one of the last things I actually enjoyed in SL is soon to be gone.

Maybe it's a sign for me to move on and finally do something else outside of SL.
I'm not closing Raindale just yet, and have no such plans in the next few months! But if it turns into a hobby without any real profit - I'll have no choice but to minimize my time here.


The most confusing part for me - is what to do with existing gacha sets.

There is no way I could possibly re-package hundreds of items into individual products, make new pictures, replace note-cards etc... it would be a huge waste of time and prim space (especially since I'll most likely have to move to a cheaper sim with less prims)
________________________
What I decided for now:
________________________

I will make copy+ full-sets for gachas that are currently in main-store - after September,1

I will have to completely retire (remove from store) most of the older machines in the Outlet area.

I will try to hand-pick the best prizes from all the sets and re-package them into copy+ releases - it will take some time and there is no guarantee that a certain product will ever be for sale again individually.

I will still exchange all the prizes purchased earlier (or from re-sellers) to copy+ on request
*yes, re-selling gacha prizes is still going to be legal

________________________

For now, I put all of my machines on 25L$ per play - let's enjoy our final days of "risky gambling" and "lucrative business" XD

Of course, I'm open for your requests, ideas and suggestions - just drop me an IM/NC

*my English is in a bad shape today, because I'm pretty upset - if you didn't understand something from this NC - please ask!

Keira ♥

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Monstaar said:

While this is correct, it is slightly misleading. I know several creators who have received correspondence from the event staff of the events they participated in that due to the recent events they are released from those rules.

It is highly unlikely that ANY event will make any attempt to hold creators to their word now that Gachas are going away entirely.

If this just becomes a rumor it could become damaging, everyone please contact the hosts of the events you were in to get information on your individual contracts! Creators deserve to be able to monetize their creations after the Gacha ban if they so choose to!

Well I don't see that this could be a "rumor" as it is a fact. Many Gacha events had that rule. "I" (and everyone else in the events) agreed to that rule. So 'I" at least will hold to it  -- and I can see from the new Gacha Goodbye Sales List at Seraphim -- that many other creators are also retiring their products. 

 

I agree that contacting the event owners -- if they are still available -- is a very good idea == but again, from the CONSUMER'S point of view this is changing the agreement after the fact.  Granted, it wasn't a willing change.  So I don't agree with your position on this and that's fine. Each creator will have to make a decision -- both moral and monetary -- as to what they will do with their gacha goods.  

 

I believe in keeping promises and agreements -- even if it isn't the easiest choice.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

i had a look into California

in recent months there have been a number of lawsuits over lootboxes brought in California courts by parents against companies like Sony, EA, Apple and Google

some of the lawsuits have been dismissed by the courts, some have been referred to mediation and some court decisions are pending

it seems that the lawsuits are based on the California Penal Code:

I think the question that these lawsuits are raising: Is the gain of a 'rare' seen as a win and the gain of 'common' seen as a loss. The defendants in these lawsuits have no doubt argued that there is no win or loss, everybody wins as everybody gets a prize of some kind

this argument I think is immaterial in California as games that use 'random' to give everybody-wins prizes of varying values have to be licensed. Everybody-wins prizes, where the prizes are perceived to have varying values, are typically found at carnival fairs which do have to licensed in California

it may be that it is the licensing requirement that Linden legal department has run into, along with all the other companies similarly affected

not that I am a member of the California Bar or anything. I just think that these lawsuits are becoming problematic for the companies. These lawsuits are civil cases, and in the USA juries in civil cases can be quite financially punitive sometimes

 

 

Mollymews, if you are going to Google around and try to one up my point, at least be honest and say that *Apple won the suit*. That's important. APPLE. Parents came after them, in a year, they fended it off. And for good reason. Especially when they mitigated the issues with notices of informed consent

No defendant has argued ANYTHING about rares a "win" and commons "a loss" BECAUSE THERE ARE NO SL RELATED CASES. So please do be honest on that score as well. There is no judicial decision declaring that SL gatchas are lootbox equivalents, and people need to stop pretending or theorizing that there is. There isn't.

Licensing by LL to be compliant with a carnival law is not a big deal, small and large entities do it all the time in communities, 4-H clubs and little towns. There is no financially punitive case that has won.

I think you can't contribute to this vague "regulatory climate" nonsense coming from LL without more specifics. When you cite specifics, you have to be truthful about what they are. Distraught parents and lawyers who are like ambulance chasers in this case did not succeed. LL should have been leading the charge against this, not caving to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Not when everything you buy from now on 100% no-modify.

Please explain this reason to me? I am a content creator in SL of Jewelry. I honestly dont use gachas much in my store because I make the item to include a HUD that will change metals, gems etc, and just make it one price for everyone. I never leave my items modify though... an item doesnt have to be modify for you to adjust it after its attached. so what other reason would creators have to leave little funny animals and things modify.. When you leave something that way as far as I know... the person buying it will then be able to get into all of your scripts or if its Trans as well they can just link a prim to it and call it their creation.

I do understand the time limit is crappy and creators will have to work hard and repackage thier items to sell normally, I feel your pain. Listing seems endless  🙄 but I have seen stores that sell a hair.. and if you want the style HUD or fat pack of colors you have to pay extra for it. Clothing stores sell items as a single color or in a fat pack, sometimes multiple fat packs of different colors.

Can we not just go back to doing things that way and sell at a reasonable price for creator/consumer alike?

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

6 minutes ago, rainbow Fairymeadow said:

Please explain this reason to me? I am a content creator in SL of Jewelry. I honestly dont use gachas much in my store because I make the item to include a HUD that will change metals, gems etc, and just make it one price for everyone. I never leave my items modify though... an item doesnt have to be modify for you to adjust it after its attached. so what other reason would creators have to leave little funny animals and things modify.. When you leave something that way as far as I know... the person buying it will then be able to get into all of your scripts or if its Trans as well they can just link a prim to it and call it their creation.

Please, for your own sake, as a creator - you should look into how the permissions system in SL works.

A modifiable item does not need modifiable scripts inside it. And linking a root prim doesn't change who created the original object, which is what people will see when inspecting the item, anyway... meaning that any lies about who created it would be very transparent. (not to mention they'd still only be able to sell one copy of it, assuming it's set to no copy...)

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

2 minutes ago, Cinos Field said:

Please, for your own sake, as a creator - you should look into how the permissions system in SL works.

A modifiable item does not need modifiable scripts inside it. And linking a root prim doesn't change who created the original object, which is what people will see when inspecting the item, anyway... meaning that any lies about who created it would be very transparent.

Thanks for the answe :) I am just trying to figure out WHY they are modfiable in the first place.. help me out :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, rainbow Fairymeadow said:

Please explain this reason to me? I am a content creator in SL of Jewelry. I honestly dont use gachas much in my store because I make the item to include a HUD that will change metals, gems etc, and just make it one price for everyone. I never leave my items modify though... an item doesnt have to be modify for you to adjust it after its attached. so what other reason would creators have to leave little funny animals and things modify.. When you leave something that way as far as I know... the person buying it will then be able to get into all of your scripts or if its Trans as well they can just link a prim to it and call it their creation.

I do understand the time limit is crappy and creators will have to work hard and repackage thier items to sell normally, I feel your pain. Listing seems endless  🙄 but I have seen stores that sell a hair.. and if you want the style HUD or fat pack of colors you have to pay extra for it. Clothing stores sell items as a single color or in a fat pack, sometimes multiple fat packs of different colors.

Can we not just go back to doing things that way and sell at a reasonable price for creator/consumer alike?

I sometimes change one or two textures to make it something I really love intsead of it being something I like or even don't like. and resizing, when it's not rigged, is soooo much easier with edit then even an xyz stretcher.  even changing the size of one linked prim... or the glow or the transparancy. I also sometimes will remove parts of something that I don't like... or even items that can't be made smaller with a resizer I can shrink  and readjust further with scripts that I have. I've had to do it with even major hair makers like magika because the hair was too big and the resizer couldn't shrink it more

Edited by Deathly Fright
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Deathly Fright said:

I sometimes change one or two textures to make it something I really love intsead of it being something I like or even don't like. and resizing, when it's not rigged, is soooo much easier with edit then even an xyz stretcher.  I also sometimes will remove parts of something that I don't like... or even items that can't be made smaller with a resizer I can shrink  and readjust further with scripts that I have. I've had to do it with even major hair makers like magika because the hair was too big.

Ahhhh see now we are getting somewhere :) Starting to understand. Thanks!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, rainbow Fairymeadow said:

When you leave something that way as far as I know... the person buying it will then be able to get into all of your scripts

Scripts have their own permissions. You can put a no-mod script in a mod item and the script will still be no-mod. The item itself will still remain mod, which means I can delete that script if I want (or even put my own in!), but I won't be able to open the script itself in a way that will show me the contents.

Edited by wesleytron
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Lucia Nightfire said:

In all fairness, I think LL needs to officially state whether this practice will be acceptable or not as it looks like a lucrative  alternative that could come into practice.

The law can very well prohibit it, but so far with what Patch said on page 9:

seems to be the focus and as long as what is pictured/expected is what you get upon payment, that part should no longer come into conflict with the change.

Re-randomizing occurring AFTER expected product is paid for and receiving, might be an entirely different ethics/legal issue altogether.

You're actually paying for two items: the item displayed *and* a random luck-of-the-draw outcome. Can you honestly say that no one will ever pay into it for an item they don't want just for the chance of being able to buy the rare on the next roll of the dice?

Since gacha items have RL monterary value due to the thriving reseller market you essentially end up playing a slot machine knowing what the outcome will be, but mostly for the chance to win big if only you just feed it a little bit more money for one more spin to see what the next outcome will be... which to most people would feel like gambling.

(I'm not arguing that it isn't allowed under LL's definition but just that it's as predatory as gachas and not an improvement over just selling the items in a regular vendor at fair value)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other than what Deathly said, there is also the situation where a buyer might like the mesh a creator made, but perhaps not the textures, so we might remake them. I personally love that kind of... iterative nature of SL, taking a creation I bought and customizing it to be just perfect for me.

Also the ability to delete the scripts inside it to save sim resources if not needed, but this functionality can be duplicated with good modifier-scripts, too.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you insane LL? It is our choice of whether or not we want to spend our money on something that is totally random. It is our right to choose how we spend our hard earned money. This is literally akin to outlawing casinos everywhere and every which way in the real world. This is a power you should NOT have at all as it is basically deciding for us how we should be spending our money. If we want fat packs, we'll buy freaking fat packs. If we want to take a chance and gamble then we will do so. Simple as that. It's a matter of choice. To all those who say that THIS is a good idea, NO! IT IS NOT! This is literally stealing away our ability to choose how we spend our own hard-earned money and at the end of the day, is only the beginning of someone being able to take away all of our choices on Second Life at the end of the day.

 

TL;DR: If you wanna take a chance on something, then you will. If not, buy the fatpack. CHOICE PEOPLE! EVERYONE HAS ONE AND NO ONE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THAT CHOICE FOR ANYONE ELSE JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE IT!

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

21 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Let me repeat the notice of a merchant on this point, your comment has been said by someone who has never packed a box and sold anything no doubt. This is from Keira at Raindale, who makes wonderful high-quality fantasy items and is very generous with group gifts and hunts, and has kept gatcha pull prices reasonable. Note in particular the part I put in red about all the repacking and all those prims -- just not practical!

I am really trying to cope with this news and to figure out what to do next, but right now I feel very lost.

Most of my income came from gacha and I seriously doubt that I'll be able to cover my SL and RL expenses with regular releases only...


My C|M collections never get as much sales as gacha sets (even when they have 10+ items in). It's not about quality, time and effort. I can spend 60+ hours on a highly detailed project, and it will never bring as much money as a gacha set made in a week...

As you might notice, I don't make a lot of gachas these days.  Arcade covered my fullsim rent + other fees, and an extra set every other month helped me to maintain my modest middle class lifestyle here in Russia.
In order to make this money without gachas I'd have to create 10-15 new releases a month - that's unrealistic, and I will be burnout in just a few weeks.

I do love gacha both as a creator and a shopper, I think 2/3 of the stuff I've ever bought were from gacha machines, and it really feels like one of the last things I actually enjoyed in SL is soon to be gone.

Maybe it's a sign for me to move on and finally do something else outside of SL.
I'm not closing Raindale just yet, and have no such plans in the next few months! But if it turns into a hobby without any real profit - I'll have no choice but to minimize my time here.


The most confusing part for me - is what to do with existing gacha sets.

There is no way I could possibly re-package hundreds of items into individual products, make new pictures, replace note-cards etc... it would be a huge waste of time and prim space (especially since I'll most likely have to move to a cheaper sim with less prims)
________________________
What I decided for now:
________________________

I will make copy+ full-sets for gachas that are currently in main-store - after September,1

I will have to completely retire (remove from store) most of the older machines in the Outlet area.

I will try to hand-pick the best prizes from all the sets and re-package them into copy+ releases - it will take some time and there is no guarantee that a certain product will ever be for sale again individually.

I will still exchange all the prizes purchased earlier (or from re-sellers) to copy+ on request
*yes, re-selling gacha prizes is still going to be legal

________________________

For now, I put all of my machines on 25L$ per play - let's enjoy our final days of "risky gambling" and "lucrative business" XD

Of course, I'm open for your requests, ideas and suggestions - just drop me an IM/NC

*my English is in a bad shape today, because I'm pretty upset - if you didn't understand something from this NC - please ask!

Keira ♥

you should tell your friend about the gatcha that people came up with in this thread where there is a hovertext that says the item that will be sold but the next item will be random... as far as I can tell that will be allowed. but if I were a maker I would check if that is ok

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cinos Field said:

Other than what Deathly said, there is also the situation where a buyer might like the mesh a creator made, but perhaps not the textures, so we might remake them. I personally love that kind of... iterative nature of SL, taking a creation I bought and customizing it to be just perfect for me.

Also the ability to delete the scripts inside it to save sim resources if not needed, but this functionality can be duplicated with good modifier-scripts, too.

those are awesome reasons too 😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 76 days.

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

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