New Gacha Policy Discussion

[Marigold Devin]

1 minute ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

The value of something is always in the eye of the purchaser.  Even if every item in the "gum machine" is a single dress, but in multiple colors, some of those colors will be seen as more valuable than others -- and every individual person will have a different take on which colors are the valuable ones.

Whether or not it is exactly equal to gambling is really irrelevant.  The law of various locales have said that Gachas are illegal - or that they will be greatly regulated.  And the list of locales looking at severely regulating them or banning them outright is growing.

Given LL's hard stance on the 30-day window, something is definitely happening now and they need to deal with it.

Thanks, LittleMe, for explaining. I am a little (a lot) out of touch.  Just a shame a compromise isn't possible on this one. Linden Lab can't risk a lawsuit, and we can't risk losing Second Life over anything seen to be illegal, immoral ... (oh my!).

 

My head hurts

[Experimental Scientist]

On 8/2/2021 at 11:54 PM, Prokofy Neva said:

I fail to see how a merchant in SL -- mainly female, mainly not rich in RL but usually low income, often minorities -- is engaged in a "scam". You get something you pay for -- a couch for $50 instead of $150. You don't get the rare fireplace, but then you can buy that on the MP. And still can. And I hope merchants will now make $100 formerly rare gatcha fireplaces that we used to sometimes get for $50 -- AND PUT THEM ON TRANSFER.

Nigerian scammers are also low income minorities.

And hey, merchants are free to keep making transfer/no copy stuff, and I'll continue not buying that trash as I'm rather spending my 400 USD monthly SL budget on stuff that I don't risk losing on a single buggy sim restart.

[Rosa Hexem]

2 minutes ago, CelestineDemetria said:

So do Breedables then fall into a different category than the 7seas?

The Item does not work properly without the purchase of additional Items. I.E Food & Vitamins,etc. So if you want the intended outcome of the name of the Animal (Breedable). You the buyer need to Buy into the system and keep buying into the system. So the Item the animal births isn't free. It also is "random" well to what is on the server and what is spit out. You are just Circumventing paying for that Item that you birthed. To then turn around and sell it for more or less, because they are transferable.

 

I think we're still waiting for an answer on this one. It depends though, someone more intimate with the mechanics of breedable systems will have to lay it out but essenitally the big difference is if the paid component is neccisary to the getting of randomly birthed animals. If you need to buy food to have your animals give birth then it's technically a gacha, if food just speeds up that process then it's like 7seas and, in turn, ok. (as far as I understand this)

[Gwin LeShelle]

1 minute ago, CelestineDemetria said:

So do Breedables then fall into a different category than the 7seas?

The Item does not work properly without the purchase of additional Items. I.E Food & Vitamins,etc. So if you want the intended outcome of the name of the Animal (Breedable). You the buyer need to Buy into the system and keep buying into the system. So the Item the animal births isn't free. It also is "random" well to what is on the server and what is spit out. You are just Circumventing paying for that Item that you birthed. To then turn around and sell it for more or less, because they are transferable.

 

I never really liked breedables. But I wonder if this will fall into the same category. I think the Lindens are still figuring that one out too, since Patch said something about the legal team and such.

I would not be unhappy to see them go tho x3 but I think many breeders own regions and such or rent big places for all their pets to grow, so that would probably mean lost money for LL so they need to weigh that one carefully.

I also do not think the gacha decision was made light-hearted, I only wish they would have explained further from the first moment of the statement, I think designers deserve at least a "why". But hopefully this will get cleared further too with a new announcement.

[CelestineDemetria]

1 minute ago, Viche Hexem said:

I think we're still waiting for an answer on this one. It depends though, someone more intimate with the mechanics of breedable systems will have to lay it out but essenitally the big difference is if the paid component is neccisary to the getting of randomly birthed animals. If you need to buy food to have your animals give birth then it's technically a gacha, if food just speeds up that process then it's like 7seas and, in turn, ok. (as far as I understand this)

I agree with you, for some without that food crystal- whatever incentive. The item does not work as intended.

[Arielle Popstar]

33 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

 

It can be called gambling or it can be called a fun game or it can be called a number of other things.

What it all boils down to is that LL has been told by LEGAL EXPERTS that they need to stop allowing it.

If you disagree, go argue with all of the lawyers, politicians, etc.... that are equating it with gambling and created the laws that LL must follow.

Was that clear enough or do I need to go down a few grades.

Do I dare point out that in spite of your apparent clarity, LL has been having to confer with their legal experts as to the specifics and limits of these new rules as it relates to the various questions being asked in this thread? Obviously to the people who want Gachas gone it is clear cut but to those who have relied on this for their sales or purchases, there is a necessity for a more exact definition of what is considered to be gambling.

Thinking of how yesterday when I was inworld shopping there was a cute skirt from one creator that didn't have a demo available and it struck me it was a bit of a gamble to buy it without being able to try it on first. Should not that sort of common scenario also fall under this as I do not know exactly what I would be buying other then a box with a picture of a skirt on it. Often enough items are not exactly as shown because of photoshopping, specific posing etc.

[LittleMe Jewell]

1 minute ago, Gwin LeShelle said:

I only wish they would have explained further from the first moment of the statement, I think designers deserve at least a "why". But hopefully this will get cleared further too with a new announcement.

I've been thinking about this -- especially given LL's hard stance on the 30 days. I'm thinking there is something going on in the background - something legal - that we don't yet know about.  If it is like many legal things in the US, folks often can not talk specifics until everything is said and done.  Even then, if the issue is resolved via some sort of agreement between two parties (as opposed to a court making a decision), sometimes the agreement will stipulate that the specific details cannot be discussed with anyone outside of the agreement.

[Deathly Fright]

2 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Thinking of how yesterday when I was inworld shopping there was a cute skirt from one creator that didn't have a demo available and it struck me it was a bit of a gamble to buy it without being able to try it on first. Should not that sort of common scenario also fall under this as I do not know exactly what I would be buying other then a box with a picture of a skirt on it. Often enough items are not exactly as shown because of photoshopping, specific posing etc.

this is such a good point

[LittleMe Jewell]

1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Do I dare point out that in spite of your apparent clarity, LL has been having to confer with their legal experts as to the specifics and limits of these new rules as it relates to the various questions being asked in this thread? Obviously to the people who want Gachas gone it is clear cut but to those who have relied on this for their sales or purchases, there is a necessity for a more exact definition of what is considered to be gambling.

The issues that LL is still discussing with legal folks have to do with the "fringes", so to speak.  The basic Gacha -- put money into a machine and get a random item out -- is going away.  It is the misc other items that are not called Gacha, but might fit the definition that they are working out.

[Rei Waifu]

2 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Do I dare point out that in spite of your apparent clarity, LL has been having to confer with their legal experts as to the specifics and limits of these new rules as it relates to the various questions being asked in this thread? Obviously to the people who want Gachas gone it is clear cut but to those who have relied on this for their sales or purchases, there is a necessity for a more exact definition of what is considered to be gambling.

Thinking of how yesterday when I was inworld shopping there was a cute skirt from one creator that didn't have a demo available and it struck me it was a bit of a gamble to buy it without being able to try it on first. Should not that sort of common scenario also fall under this as I do not know exactly what I would be buying other then a box with a picture of a skirt on it. Often enough items are not exactly as shown because of photoshopping, specific posing etc.

No this doesnt count..... you know that your buying a skirt ... you dont think your buying a skirt, but get a hat in the box..... yeah the quality might be crap, the rigging awful, but you still got exactly what you paid for

[Alex Carpenter]

The problem with gachas and the problem with the 'conveyer' proposition is that it exploits customers in the same way. It's not delivering the content the customer wants to buy, but a randomized chance that they will get the item they want. And that will, in a large number of cases, cause the person to unintentionally spend more than they intended. The only difference between gacha and 'conveyer' is 'when' the randomization occurs. Moving the random aspect one step back does not change the fact that the way many, many merchants use this has more in common with a slot machine than anything else it's argued to be.

I think people defending gachas and whatever this 'new' form it is are just accustomed to the income that comes from making customers gamble instead of selling them what they want to buy. I don't have any sympathy for such people and my respect for them is waning fast.

Personally, I hope SL shuts down breedables next. They can be just as 'loot-boxy' as gachas, if not worse in some respects. They're also a pain to deal with from a lag perspective.

Edited August 4, 2021 by Alex Carpenter
addition instead of making another post.

[LittleMe Jewell]

3 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Thinking of how yesterday when I was inworld shopping there was a cute skirt from one creator that didn't have a demo available and it struck me it was a bit of a gamble to buy it without being able to try it on first. Should not that sort of common scenario also fall under this as I do not know exactly what I would be buying other then a box with a picture of a skirt on it. Often enough items are not exactly as shown because of photoshopping, specific posing etc.

You are still getting a skirt in whatever color/pattern you choose. Whether or not it ultimately works for you is a different issue.

As to the issue of photoshopping the pictures, I don't think that equates to Gacha, but it is most definitely a deceptive practice in my mind.  I simply avoid buying from such creators.

[Gwin LeShelle]

2 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

I've been thinking about this -- especially given LL's hard stance on the 30 days. I'm thinking there is something going on in the background - something legal - that we don't yet know about.  If it is like many legal things in the US, folks often can not talk specifics until everything is said and done.  Even then, if the issue is resolved via some sort of agreement between two parties (as opposed to a court making a decision), sometimes the agreement will stipulate that the specific details cannot be discussed with anyone outside of the agreement.

Thank you for explaining 😸 And I agree, I talked to my hubby about it tonight and we both think it's a legal thing too. Nothing that LL just came up with because "some machines gave out rares not often enough" like some group chats inworld indicated. There is for sure a legal reason behind it. 

[Arielle Popstar]

Just now, Aria Fae said:

No this doesnt count..... you know that your buying a skirt ... you dont think your buying a skirt, but get a hat in the box..... yeah the quality might be crap, the rigging awful, but you still got exactly what you paid for

Sorry but no. I did not in some cases get what I was paying for if there was poke through on certain poses or airbrushing involved. 

[Tari Landar]

11 minutes ago, CelestineDemetria said:

So do Breedables then fall into a different category than the 7seas?

The Item does not work properly without the purchase of additional Items. I.E Food & Vitamins,etc. So if you want the intended outcome of the name of the Animal (Breedable). You the buyer need to Buy into the system and keep buying into the system. So the Item the animal births isn't free. It also is "random" well to what is on the server and what is spits out. If the Birthed animal/item cannot contact the server it's literally just a box it spit out for you. You are just Circumventing paying for that Item that you birthed. To then turn around and sell it for more or less, because they are transferable.

 

That you need one product to make another product work after purchase, such as feeding breedables, is nothing like a gacha, in any way. What an item does after you purchase it (such as with breeding animals giving you offspring) has no relevance in this discussion to the initial purchase of an animal. 

They are completely unrelated because there is no randomness, except in the case of starter packs (and random vendors which are being made obsolete regardless, so, a non-issue) which will require LL looking into them and advice from their legal team on how to help creators of breedables proceed with that. I am certain that creators will need to ensure starter packs are no longer random, in order to comply. Otherwise, the remainder is fully complying with both the letter and spirit of the law, as it were. 

 

[KT Kingsley]

"Scheme"

Although it appears that in US culture the word "scheme" is commonly taken to mean "a plot or secret, devious plan", in the UK (and presumably in other English-speaking cultures) it generally means "a systematic plan of future action".

The online dictionaries I've glanced, briefly, at seem to put the more benign interpretation first.

[Rei Waifu]

Just now, Arielle Popstar said:

Sorry but no. I did not in some cases get what I was paying for if there was poke through on certain poses or airbrushing involved. 

did you get that skirt in the exact color you paid for or not? quality doesnt equate to randomness ....

[Very Mysterious]

6 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Thinking of how yesterday when I was inworld shopping there was a cute skirt from one creator that didn't have a demo available and it struck me it was a bit of a gamble to buy it without being able to try it on first. Should not that sort of common scenario also fall under this as I do not know exactly what I would be buying other then a box with a picture of a skirt on it. Often enough items are not exactly as shown because of photoshopping, specific posing etc.

This reminds me of those tops with static mesh arms built in but you don’t know they’re static arms until you buy it. God I hate those.

[Arielle Popstar]

2 minutes ago, Aria Fae said:

did you get that skirt in the exact color you paid for or not? quality doesnt equate to randomness ....

That can depend on the lighting used even and I have certainly had that happen where I thought I was buying a particular color but because the setting that was used, the color was quite different in default then pictured. I did not get the color I was wanting or thought I was getting and as a result had to buy another one that was closer.

Edited August 4, 2021 by Arielle Popstar
added

[Gwin LeShelle]

Just now, Arielle Popstar said:

That can depend on the lighting used even and I have certainly had that happen where I thought I was buying a particular color but because the setting that was used, the color was quite different in default then pictured. I did not get the color I was wanting.

Well. Same goes for me and my husband one person's "turquoise" is another person's "mint" or some call it "hot pink" some "magenta" that's all in the eye of the beholder and if you start there than LL would need to ban all sales in general XD 

[Silas Merlin]

Item #4 is the only one that is being offered for purchase.

In my experience, it is mostly resellers that actually played the gacha machines.
When they decide to play on a machine they do not even wait to see what they are getting. They simply play the machine a given number of times that they know will statistically give them the whole set.
They do not resell the items "at a highly inflated price". They got it wholesale so to speak, and they are reselling it at what they deem is their actual value.
It makes more sense for the "end user" to stay away from gacha machines entirely. when you want a specific item only from a series, it is up to you to first look for it on Marketplace, and if that fails, go to yard sales and look for it.
I am not interested in selling the item directly to you, thank you.
When you do get the item, come to me to trade it in for mod/copy if you want.

 

As stated above, in my view, as the creator, I am not interested in selling the item directly to you :
I want to spend my short time on this earth making things. Not in marketing (finding ways to reach out to the general population in numbers, in hope to reach the few people who will want my item).
Resellers are willing to do that work (find the buyer who will actually pay a "fair price"). Resellers will buy my items in quantities that will make up for the low cost.

 

 

This is correct, it makes absolutely no sense for you to buy this item you do not want.

The point of this new vendor is to make the items artificially scarce, so that resellers can do their thing, and so that collectors feel (rightly imho) that they own treasures.


to recap :
-If I sell items mod/copy myself, I have to stop creating to spend energy and time reaching buyers, which in itself requires skills that I do not have in the first place.
-If I sell the items mod/trans directly from a vendor, the supply becomes unlimited and resellers will have no interest in them whatsoever, and collectors will have trinkets instead of treasures.

The only two viable alternatives I see for myself are :
-To sell the items mod/trans in limited quantity with a total value that represents what I want from my work. In this scenario I still have to find the buyers myself, and the resellers vanish along with the yard sales.
Yard sales both in SL and in real life are something that make life more interesting, imho.

-To use second life only for the pleasure of seeing my creations inworld. That is, to keep them to myself, take pictures, make exhibits where you can't buy, etc...
And to sell the mesh on external online stores only, which means that should you buy them there, you would not be allowed to upload them to Second Life, because you didn't make them.

Part of the issue here is that we are putting very different things under the same label "gacha".
In order to explain, Ihave to make the same mistake, and create categories that are bound to not encompass everything, but I do not see how to say this any other way :
-There are series that contain a single item in different colours, one of which has a texture that is actually different from the others and has more work put into it and it is the rare. (many "duds")
-series with a myriad items in slightly different variations of colour. Everything might be interesting in itself, but the sheer number of them and the fact that they come in variants make it so that you are bound to end up with very many semi-duplicate, which also effectively makes them "duds".
-series with a quantity of absolutely unique items, without variants (or the variants are a single item with a texture changer). This type of series often contains one or more items that are marked "rare" and may or may not be more elaborate than the commons.
This last type is what I am personally talking about.

Were gachas not going to be banned entirely I would like a label to be created by some authority, and you would have to adhere to certain standards in order to use the label, much lke it is done for things like "organic food" in the real world.

"Less content" ? I doubt it, there is already so much content in SL that no single person will ever see it all, I think.
"less new content" ? Definitely.

For creating content, start with a tool like Sculptris or sculpt GL, it is very much fun, you don't really need to know much at this point. Once hooked, you will gradually learn all you need to know.
(Just very basic concept you need to know : mesh is made up of vertices (points in space), edges (that connect the vertices), and faces (when three points are connected by edges you get a triangle). A mesh can be coloured, or it can be textured. in order to be textured, it needs to be "uv-mapped", that is, make each spot on the mesh correspond to coordinates on a flat texture).

The problem here in my opinion is that what is being taken away is one of several intangible concepts that makes Second Life so special for all of us, whether we are aware of them or not. They are characteristics that, put together, make the virtual space very real in our mind. Real in the sense that they make for a space that we want to live in.
Some of those things we take for granted, yet they are lacking in other virtual worlds, because people tend to just fail to grasp their importance, and simply discard them when designing a new world, albeit for good reasons (performance, feasibility, scalability, whatever..).

Some of them that come to mind :
The feeling of interconnectedness the world map provides : despite regions and clusters of regions being totally disconnected from each other, the world map gives that wonderful feeling of being part of a larger world.
The ability to see accross region borders, and even cross the borders !
"live editing" : the mere ability to rez a cube...
The myriad of ways in which you can customize your look (in some worlds you would have to commission an immutable avatar with clothes that will never change, for a fee of 1000 real dollars).
....And gachas, items that are scarce, can't be copied legally, and that can be traded, gifted, and resold, along with the fear of losing them through some mishap. This makes for a wonderful, very real feeling. This goes away ?

Opensim ? naaaah, it just doesn't have the numbers that Second Life has, which is also one of those essential intangible treasures that make SL so special.

Yes, that, exactly that.
 

If you play a machine put out by the creator, the quantities are unlimited.

It is only if a reseller chooses to sell their items in a machine that items will run out.

 

 

[Qie Niangao]

2 minutes ago, Aria Fae said:

did you get that skirt in the exact color you paid for or not? quality doesnt equate to randomness ....

Also, everybody who bought the ugly skirt got the same ugly skirt, as opposed to a chance at getting a prettier skirt now or in the future.

[Arielle Popstar]

1 minute ago, Gwin LeShelle said:

Well. Same goes for me and my husband one person's "turquoise" is another person's "mint" or some call it "hot pink" some "magenta" that's all in the eye of the beholder and if you start there than LL would need to ban all sales in general XD 

Or require all products to have a demo....to cancel out that potential randomness.

[CelestineDemetria]

10 minutes ago, Tari Landar said:

That you need one product to make another product work after purchase, such as feeding breedables, is nothing like a gacha, in any way. What an item does after you purchase it (such as with breeding animals giving you offspring) has no relevance in this discussion to the initial purchase of an animal. 

They are completely unrelated because there is no randomness, except in the case of starter packs (and random vendors which are being made obsolete regardless, so, a non-issue) which will require LL looking into them and advice from their legal team on how to help creators of breedables proceed with that. I am certain that creators will need to ensure starter packs are no longer random, in order to comply. Otherwise, the remainder is fully complying with both the letter and spirit of the law, as it were. 

 

Ok , so say you and your friend decide to  buy an LE pack knowing the coat does not transfer. But you know that in that Item there is a Hidden Item pops out every now and then. Besides all the known traits already in the background that pops out  (Randomized)

You and your friend take it home. You both do the exact same thing I.E buy the food, Etc., to have that animal do what it's name intends it to do. (Breed)

You and your friend wait About a month. Wham! your friends Animal which has everything exactly the same, same food, Same Vitamins, same everything that you have given your animal. Spits out that Randomized hidden thing on the Server. (Its a numerical Sequence that decides when it comes out)

What is that Called? Randomization and Luck - A chance that you breeding them 2 LE animals together for that "hidden" thing in them, and you getting the luck or chance for it to come out.

So your friend got the luck of the draw and dropped that new thing even though both of you put the exact same money into that animal.

Edited August 4, 2021 by CelestineDemetria

[Deathly Fright]

3 minutes ago, Alex Carpenter said:

The problem with gachas and the problem with the 'conveyer' proposition is that it exploits customers in the same way. It's not delivering the content the customer wants to buy, but a randomized chance that they will get the item they want. And that will, in a large number of cases, cause the person to unintentionally spend more than they intended. The only difference between gacha and 'conveyer' is 'when' the randomization occurs. Moving the random aspect one step back does not change the fact that the way many, many merchants use this has more in common with a slot machine than anything else it's argued to be.

I think people defending gachas and whatever this 'new' form it is are just accustomed to the income that comes from making customers gamble instead of selling them what they want to buy. I don't have any sympathy for such people and my respect for them is waning fast.

Personally, I hope SL shuts down breedables next. They can be just as 'loot-boxy' as gachas, if not worse in some respects. They're also a pain to deal with from a lag perspective.

I don't think anybody disagrees with you about conveyors still being predatory. however, if considered that they fit within the law and how LL thinks it applies, they should be allowed.

I have been arguing for conveyors, mostly out of my curiosity about the rules and how they will be applied. but my main worry is about creators not wanting to continue, or not seeing how they would be able to make money, and just leaving SL. due to mesh and rigging it harder then ever to start being a creator. it's not like it used to be before sculpties and mesh where anybody with a client and photoeditor could make things and have enough money coming in to maintain a store.

less good creators making things, less people want to stay and spend money in SL. leading to less creators because of less people, and then SL itself death spiraling. if conveyors can fill the gap that creators need to keep making things, then even though I won't use them either, allow them.

the other benefit is that cheap commons mean cheap resale. almost so cheap they are freebies, this allows new people to get a nice avi for cheap meaning new people stay in SL despite it's worts.