We just watched Ready Player One again and..........

[Kathlen Onyx]

6 hours ago, SynesthetiQ said:

Oh ok then, I'm glad that's all sorted out 😀

OHHHH, another Alt. I'm slow this week but I get it now.

[Rowan Amore]

8 hours ago, SynesthetiQ said:

suspect the new owners of SL will gradually institute tighter controls over user behaviour and attitudes, not really because they care about your potential addictive tendencies or ensuring your civil liberties as a self determining adult.

It will all be done purely to ensure that SL is seen as a safe and socially palatable haven for investors to place their money and expect a good ROI in the forecast context of the next 5 to 10 years. 

And how exactly would that make it seem more safe or palatable?  The more restrictive they make it, the less people will log in.  The less people who log in, the less revenue LL will see.  Why would anyone purchase land if LL were to restrict how often you could use it?  If anything, it would make SL seem less attractive to potential investors.

 

 

 

[SynesthetiQ]

15 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

And how exactly would that make it seem more safe or palatable?  The more restrictive they make it, the less people will log in.  The less people who log in, the less revenue LL will see.  Why would anyone purchase land if LL were to restrict how often you could use it?  If anything, it would make SL seem less attractive to potential investors.

 

 

 

I think the point I'm making Rowan is that nobody really cares what the current pool of aging (both in terms of SL and RL) residents think - least of all the new owners, nor any prospective investors.

You guys are a given, you're the aging cow the farmer keeps on for its dwindling milk production, right up until it costs more to keep you than he would make by sending you off to the local abattoir.

Mostly you're prime examples of the sunk cost fallacy, LL could institute a new technology tomorrow which relegated avatars to decorated poo emoji and you wouldn't leave.

I keep hearing people on these forums shout "PERSUADE US - SELL IT TO US" - trust me, nobody's selling to you.

I know it sounds really harsh and I apologise for that, but I just want to really clearly articulate some things.

1. LL was "acquired" by Randy and Brad. I'm just going to ask what people here think the motivations where for that. Why did LL decide it was time to sell out, why did Randy and Brad think SL was a worthy of their cash?
    
2. Whatever the reason, R & B will be looking at two things (not rocket science by the way):
   1. ROI (Return on Investment) - if they decide to keep SL and develop it, they'll be expecting a decent ROI over the medium to long term. I can guarantee that if SL stays as it is with no major changes to platform and target demographic and adhere to merely satisficing the current aging pool of residents - they ain't going to get anywhere near that ROI.
       
   2. A forecast profitable Exit. Nobody, and I mean nobody looks at an acquisition like this without considering when and how they might exit, which at the end of the day means answering the question "Who in hell will buy this thing off of us when we're done?".
       

Whatever people here think, all the gradual incremental changes in technology and online behaviour we've seen over the past decade are now reaching critical mass and I think most commentators and the investors who listen to them agree that the next 5 years isn't going to look anything like the past 15. (just to reiterate - you guys can agree with the forecasts or not - nobody actually cares).

To cut the chase, and I'm as sad about it as you, the fact is "What it looks like", is much more important than "What it is". 

So for SL:

1. Less latitude when it comes to accepted behaviour and acceptance of "kinks".
2. More sensitivity as to what transactions are accepted through Tilia.  Nobody wants even a whisper of Tilia being a glorified laundering mechanism for virtual prostitution or gambling (just two examples).
3. More necessity to be perceived as a Good and Responsible actor in today's zeitgeist. So implementing policies which "appear" to manage levels of addiction and general emotional wellbeing - including the expulsion in the event of any hint of sexism, misogyny, or illegal sexual behaviour - notice I emphasise the word "hint".

That's it really. I completely understand nobody on these forums agree with this and I'm completely open to the resulting ridicule - sorry and all that 😀

 

Edited October 9, 2021 by SynesthetiQ

[Alwin Alcott]

16 minutes ago, SynesthetiQ said:

...nobody really cares what the current pool of aging (both in terms of SL and RL) residents think

....That's it really. I completely understand nobody on these forums agree with this ....

 

oh but i'm quite sure they do care ...
we'r the ones that actually have something to spend freely in SL .. higher budgets, region owners, long term premiums and other spenders... wanna bet they care?
See the energy they put into Belliseria... all for premiums...to have and to hold..  in good and worse times....    

Edited October 9, 2021 by Alwin Alcott

[Rowan Amore]

2 hours ago, SynesthetiQ said:

I think the point I'm making Rowan is that nobody really cares what the current pool of aging (both in terms of SL and RL) residents think - least of all the new owners, nor any prospective investors.

You guys are a given, you're the aging cow the farmer keeps on for its dwindling milk production, right up until it costs more to keep you than he would make by sending you off to the local abattoir.

Mostly you're prime examples of the sunk cost fallacy, LL could institute a new technology tomorrow which relegated avatars to decorated poo emoji and you wouldn't leave.

I keep hearing people on these forums shout "PERSUADE US - SELL IT TO US" - trust me, nobody's selling to you.

I know it sounds really harsh and I apologise for that, but I just want to really clearly articulate some things.

1. LL was "acquired" by Randy and Brad. I'm just going to ask what people here think the motivations where for that. Why did LL decide it was time to sell out, why did Randy and Brad think SL was a worthy of their cash?
    
2. Whatever the reason, R & B will be looking at two things (not rocket science by the way):
   1. ROI (Return on Investment) - if they decide to keep SL and develop it, they'll be expecting a decent ROI over the medium to long term. I can guarantee that if SL stays as it is with no major changes to platform and target demographic and adhere to merely satisficing the current aging pool of residents - they ain't going to get anywhere near that ROI.
       
   2. A forecast profitable Exit. Nobody, and I mean nobody looks at an acquisition like this without considering when and how they might exit, which at the end of the day means answering the question "Who in hell will buy this thing off of us when we're done?".
       

Whatever people here think, all the gradual incremental changes in technology and online behaviour we've seen over the past decade are now reaching critical mass and I think most commentators and the investors who listen to them agree that the next 5 years isn't going to look anything like the past 15. (just to reiterate - you guys can agree with the forecasts or not - nobody actually cares).

To cut the chase, and I'm as sad about it as you, the fact is "What it looks like", is much more important than "What it is". 

So for SL:

1. Less latitude when it comes to accepted behaviour and acceptance of "kinks".
2. More sensitivity as to what transactions are accepted through Tilia.  Nobody wants even a whisper of Tilia being a glorified laundering mechanism for virtual prostitution or gambling (just two examples).
3. More necessity to be perceived as a Good and Responsible actor in today's zeitgeist. So implementing policies which "appear" to manage levels of addiction and general emotional wellbeing - including the expulsion in the event of any hint of sexism, misogyny, or illegal sexual behaviour - notice I emphasise the word "hint".

That's it really. I completely understand nobody on these forums agree with this and I'm completely open to the resulting ridicule - sorry and all that 😀

 

That still doesn't explain how limiting what people can do will be increase the profitability.  You're talking about implementing policies that could, in effect, close down a lot of the adult business.  People who own land for adult clubs, stores.  People who buy those items to use in their homes.  But honestly, if you made poo emoji avatars, I certainly wouldn't be logging in to spend money dressing it up (in what, I have no clue) nor would I bother keeping my premium account or my land.  

Limiting access is an entire other can of worms.  How long would land owners keep their land if they were unable to access it whenever they chose?  The land rental.companies who spend 100s of thousands?  Or do they get special treatment?

Btw, the 'sorry and all that 😃, at the end does not make up for using the aging cows analogy.  Just sayin'.  🙄

[SynesthetiQ]

1 hour ago, Rowan Amore said:

That still doesn't explain how limiting what people can do will be increase the profitability.  You're talking about implementing policies that could, in effect, close down a lot of the adult business.  People who own land for adult clubs, stores.  People who buy those items to use in their homes.  But honestly, if you made poo emoji avatars, I certainly wouldn't be logging in to spend money dressing it up (in what, I have no clue) nor would I bother keeping my premium account or my land.  

Limiting access is an entire other can of worms.  How long would land owners keep their land if they were unable to access it whenever they chose?  The land rental.companies who spend 100s of thousands?  Or do they get special treatment?

Btw, the 'sorry and all that 😃, at the end does not make up for using the aging cows analogy.  Just sayin'.  🙄

First off I'm sorry for the various analogies.

To be fair the "aging cows" thing was more a reference to the fact that I think the current population and business model is seen as a cash cow asset to be sweated with the minimum investment, rather than an insinuation residents are seen as individuals displaying any sort of bovine traits.

In this context then, yeah of course, if you have a pool of residents only 40% of whom are premium and/or own land, it's always easier to sweeten the deal and try to convert the remaining 60% to fee paying customers. That's not even a strategy, that's just tactical, It's cheap and easy and doesn't hurt you too much if it fails.  

By all means take some petty cash from the pot (because I'm sorry, but relatively that's all it cost) and plop out a new set of Linden Homes or whatever. Again, sorry for the analogy in advance, but it's like waving a shiny cheap trinket in front of a baby to distract her while you change her diaper.

The trouble is that pot of prospects is finite and seems to be contracting. 

Personally (for what its worth) my reading of the situation is that the new owners aren't here just to sweat the assets for the next 10 years and then call it a day - which ironically feels like the preferred option for many in these forums.

Given the rapidly evolving ecosystem for businesses like SL, there are incredible opportunities in the short term to leverage SL into something great - something that makes the current revenue streams look pretty small.

In order to take advantage of these opportunities however, a lot will have to change including how SL is perceived as a brand and the values it communicates to the wider world.

Which means modifying some policies and accepted behaviours, particularly for people flagged as potentially vulnerable, whether by age or observed behaviour or whatever other metric LL wants to use.

I do admit one of many flies in my ointment, is that in my mind's eye I have a halcyon view of what SL might evolve into - and truly I don't expect anyone here to share that view.

I mean if you really wanted to, SL could stay as it is give or take and be a self supporting backwater for 10 years, and that might be fine.

Another way might be to forget porn and gambling controls and any other behavioural interventions, SL could be the virtual pornhub of 2025 - a good living to be made in that.

To be fair we've already imported the whole lovesense thing I believe into our sex clubs so we're not against opening up a bit to the brave new world!  A hard NO to "pixie dust" NFTs and the Blockchain, but by all means let's get some of that LoveSense action on board 😀

It all depends on your personal vision for the future of SL and how we might get there. 

Edited October 9, 2021 by SynesthetiQ

[SynesthetiQ]

 

 

Lessons for us all I think (me included).

 

I admit I'm guilty more than most of the whole "Come writers and critics, Who prophesize with your pen" thing, but the future interests me and I enjoy taking a punt at guessing what's around the corner.

 

We'll all see what's coming soon enough 😀

[Kathlen Onyx]

19 hours ago, SynesthetiQ said:

First off I'm sorry for the various analogies.

To be fair the "aging cows" thing was more a reference to the fact that I think the current population and business model is seen as a cash cow asset to be sweated with the minimum investment, rather than an insinuation residents are seen as individuals displaying any sort of bovine traits.

In this context then, yeah of course, if you have a pool of residents only 40% of whom are premium and/or own land, it's always easier to sweeten the deal and try to convert the remaining 60% to fee paying customers. That's not even a strategy, that's just tactical, It's cheap and easy and doesn't hurt you too much if it fails.  

By all means take some petty cash from the pot (because I'm sorry, but relatively that's all it cost) and plop out a new set of Linden Homes or whatever. Again, sorry for the analogy in advance, but it's like waving a shiny cheap trinket in front of a baby to distract her while you change her diaper.

The trouble is that pot of prospects is finite and seems to be contracting. 

Personally (for what its worth) my reading of the situation is that the new owners aren't here just to sweat the assets for the next 10 years and then call it a day - which ironically feels like the preferred option for many in these forums.

Given the rapidly evolving ecosystem for businesses like SL, there are incredible opportunities in the short term to leverage SL into something great - something that makes the current revenue streams look pretty small.

In order to take advantage of these opportunities however, a lot will have to change including how SL is perceived as a brand and the values it communicates to the wider world.

Which means modifying some policies and accepted behaviours, particularly for people flagged as potentially vulnerable, whether by age or observed behaviour or whatever other metric LL wants to use.

I do admit one of many flies in my ointment, is that in my mind's eye I have a halcyon view of what SL might evolve into - and truly I don't expect anyone here to share that view.

I mean if you really wanted to, SL could stay as it is give or take and be a self supporting backwater for 10 years, and that might be fine.

Another way might be to forget porn and gambling controls and any other behavioural interventions, SL could be the virtual pornhub of 2025 - a good living to be made in that.

To be fair we've already imported the whole lovesense thing I believe into our sex clubs so we're not against opening up a bit to the brave new world!  A hard NO to "pixie dust" NFTs and the Blockchain, but by all means let's get some of that LoveSense action on board 😀

It all depends on your personal vision for the future of SL and how we might get there. 

It's Lovense not Lovesense. So to be fair you really know nothing about it do you?

[Dellard]

On 10/8/2021 at 10:06 AM, Sam1 Bellisserian said:

According to whom? I'm an adult. If I want to spend 24/7 on the computer why would I want a social media gaming site to limit my use on their platform?   I play a game here in SL that you level up according to how much time you are logged in with the HUD on. I stayed log in all the time just for that reason, even when I am sleeping or doing other RL things.

If this were a platform where children under the age of 18 played then I could see some merit to it but since it is played by adults we don't need Big Brother dictating how to spend our time. 

So you need to be logged in 24/7 to get points in a game within a game even when you're not actively playing either of the games? 

[Rowan Amore]

3 hours ago, Sam1 Bellisserian said:

It's Lovense not Lovesense. So to be fair you really know nothing about it do you?

Always good to see someone who has been here 3 months has SL and it's users all figured out.  

[Kathlen Onyx]

3 hours ago, Dellard said:

So you need to be logged in 24/7 to get points in a game within a game even when you're not actively playing either of the games? 

Did you need more clarification on  that or were you just repeating me?

[BjorJlen]

   To the OP:   "At the end they mention that the new owners of that digital world shut down that world for 2 days a week.On Tuesday and Thursday. So people dont forget their RL life. This might be an unpopular opinion but i would not be opposed to Second Life being down one day a week. I am curious what others think."

   Please excuse me for coming late to the discussion, but I have a question. Are there any other games/simulations currently on the market and being played that do this? From my understanding, there is not, but I could be wrong. As a gamer myself (currently playing Jedi Fallen Order), and a adult with at least some common sense, I do understand that RL come's before game life (or in this case, SL), so I try and manage my time accordantly. However everyone is different and is entitled to their point of view, but as some here have mentioned already (like @Orawr for example) some people might not be able to enjoy RL things due to disabilities or other conditions which limit them. So to limit them being able to play a game which they enjoy and gives them a sense of accomplishment and freedom is a non starter for me.

   To each their own, and that sorta thing ya know? So while many folks here have made some excellent points (yes, including you @SynethetiQ, though you "sorta" strayed from the OP a bit), both for and against limiting play time in SL, I would have to vote no. Oh and this also reminds me of the Truman Show, or the ending more specifically. While not about gaming in any way, it was also about TV life vs RL activities (and TV addiction loosely as well). And when the Truman Show ended, did people start playing more sports, or go dancing, or anything else? No; they instead said "lets see what else is on". So by example, if SL were to be shut down for even a day, and people wanted something else to do, more then likely they wouldn't generally do more "RL stuff"; They would instead play another game.

   So I am not sure if it would even be possible (generally speaking) for it to have any real behavioral change in peoples lives. When we enjoy doing something, when that is taken away, we as a people tend to switch to something similar until said "something" comes back. And that applies to RL things as well, like if you couldn't play Football for some reason (like that would ever be shut down), you might instead take up Soccer to pass the time (sorry for the pun lol). So again, good point but overall I don't think it would happen for many reasons...

 

Peace...

 

Edited October 10, 2021 by BjorJlen

[Persephone Emerald]

Second Life is nowhere near as all-consuming as the Oasis was, so no I don't think it would be a good idea for SL. For Facebook however, shutting it down for 2 days / week might be a great idea. 🙂

 

[BjorJlen]

   Now that is a idea I could get behind lol (and why not put twitter in the mix too). Of course I don't use either, so what do I know (though I am much less stress free then some folks I know who use it lol)?

 

Peace...   

[Arielle Popstar]

On 10/7/2021 at 6:09 PM, Jules Catlyn said:

It is nice to see everybody's views on this. Some valid points are being made. Some are almost going on the barricades. I am inworld a lot so i see all the points made, some i agree with, others i do not.

One possibility I would find interesting is if they for one day a week closed or shutdown all remote communications, so like forums, groups and IM's so for that day, all communication would have to be in local, "face to face" so to speak.

[Kathlen Onyx]

40 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

One possibility I would find interesting is if they for one day a week closed or shutdown all remote communications, so like forums, groups and IM's so for that day, all communication would have to be in local, "face to face" so to speak.

BUT Why???? Why do people want to force how they play SL on other people.  Again, what if that day happened to be only the day you were able to be in SL. What if you have a severe anxiety disorder and don't want to be around people face to face? What if you need technical help on a product from a creator? Should they park themselves at their sim on that day so they can give support face to face?  What if you are working on an important project that day and need to get information from another resident. Are you supposed to just pop over to where they are and interrupt them? How would you let them know you were coming? What if they were busy doing "adult" things and blocked you from their sim and you really needed that to finish your project?  I could go on and on and on.  

I have another possibility. Why don't we just leave it the way it is and let people play SL when they want and how they want. Leave access open 24/7 because if they don't I guarantee someone will come up with a platform and use that to entice everyone away from SL.  Unless SL or another resident is paying therapy bills for me to learn how to balance RL and SL it's really no one's business how often I'm on SL nor should they care.

[Polenth Yue]

The reality of the longer downtimes of past games was that people would hang out in chat rooms and forums complaining about not being able to play. They didn't go out into the world.

"Ready Player One" is pretty typical of LitRPG stories in having a nostalgic view of the way old games operated. But those things were dumped because they didn't work, not for any other reason. Permadeath and letting people kill each other freely being two other mechanics that LitRPG loves and didn't really work. To be fair, it's a fiction genre, so they only really want to make a good story rather than a good game/virtual world. You should keep that firmly in mind before you start trying to use LitRPG books/movies as design blueprints.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

17 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

Always good to see someone who has been here 3 months has SL and it's users all figured out.  

Well, I may of course be wrong, but I have the strong sense that Syn is not actually as new to SL as the age of his account suggests.

Ironically, were he actually new here, I'd be more inclined to find his insights useful. Most of us here have been around a while, a fact that means almost by definition that we like how SL operates. We mostly just want it to do what it currently does better. A new person would give us some insights into how someone viewing the platform from a novel perspective sees SL. And we needn't agree with those insights to find them interesting and useful.

I like seeing new blood here, personally. Despite our disagreements on some issues, we are, as a tribe, occasionally a bit of an echo chamber here, perhaps?

[Scylla Rhiadra]

On 10/6/2021 at 6:04 PM, Jules Catlyn said:

At the end they mention that the new owners of that digital world shut down that world for 2 days a week.On Tuesday and Thursday. So people dont forget their RL life. This might be an unpopular opinion but i would not be opposed to Second Life being down one day a week. I am curious what others think.

[Reposted with minor changes because the original was "hidden" by the forum software]

I am pretty agnostic on this suggestion, although I probably lean towards the response given by most here -- that it's unnecessary and unlikely to really accomplish what it is supposed to. And also that it would unfairly disadvantage some.

Social engineering gets a bad name sometimes, and it can, of course, manifest itself in negative ways. But most of our RL laws are, in fact, social engineering: there are laws against violent or fraudulent behaviours because "we" have determined that these are behaviours we want to discourage. And when we have conversations about sentences and punishments, as for instance, capital punishment, the argument is usually less about ethics than it is about what makes the most effective deterrent for those behaviours.

And social engineering is not exactly new, either in the digital realm generally, or SL in particular. Most social media programs, MMOs, etc., incorporate social engineering in the foundational base code, I think. Facebook, Twitter, online multiplayer games -- they are all designed to encourage certain kinds of engagement, and particular kinds of community, and discourage others. And, as the recent revelations about FB's algorithms make clear (as if we didn't already know), it's mostly about the money. What kinds of social engineering will generate the most revenue?

SL is no different in that regard. I don't think LL has probably ever introduced a new affordance, rule, or constraint for ethical or moral reasons. It's always about money, and the continued viability of the platform. When certain kinds of activity were banned about 15 years ago, it wasn't because LL had suddenly determined that they were causing social harm: it was because there were serious threats of legal action, as well as a lot of bad publicity. When LL introduced a new rating system, when it closed down SL "banks" (i.e., ponzi schemes), when it banned gambling, and, now, when it got rid of gachas, it was always about external forces at work. I'm sure that there are many in LL who agree with these changes -- but it took governments who didn't necessarily have SL itself in their sights to trigger them.

So, LL isn't going  to institute enforced down time merely because it is worried about its customers. If something like this is ever instituted, it will be because some government somewhere has decided that it would be a good thing.

[Gwin LeShelle]

Everyone has different SL behavior. 

After work and family cuddles I log in check my messages regarding my tiny store and blogging (usually 5 minutes lol)...aaaand wander off into RL but keep my av logged in and alone in my home office (tiny Violine). I go to the park, play with the kids, cook, clean, grocery shopping and whatnots ...often I forget that I am logged in and logout in the mornings when packing my bag for work 😂

Almost same routine sometimes in the mornings x3 just with less AFK time. 

So whoever prioritizes their SL over their RL...well those people won't be helped by one day the grid being off, those people have deeper issues or things going on(be it their happy choice or addiction is not my place to judge)and one day won't fix that. So when you have a problem with your SL times well it's your choice alone to log off and wander in the sunny and green RL fields or not XD 

But I also know people in SL being disabled in RL and their way of "getting out of the house or daily routine" IS being on SL. Are we going to take away this from them just because people who could make the choice and go to real movie theaters (an example) are not able to control themselves?  I assume everyone in SL is an adult and can decide for themselves. 

When LL decides they need a day where the grid is down like they used back then for technical reasons , ok but saying we need to put the grid down so people won't neglect their RL ...er nope just put on the big girl pants and make the FOR YOU (and only for you) right decisions.

Sorry for my horrible English tho ʕಠ_ಠʔ

[SynesthetiQ]

2 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

[Reposted with minor changes because the original was "hidden" by the forum software]

I am pretty agnostic on this suggestion, although I probably lean towards the response given by most here -- that it's unnecessary and unlikely to really accomplish what it is supposed to. And also that it would unfairly disadvantage some.

Social engineering gets a bad name sometimes, and it can, of course, manifest itself in negative ways. But most of our RL laws are, in fact, social engineering: there are laws against violent or fraudulent behaviours because "we" have determined that these are behaviours we want to discourage. And when we have conversations about sentences and punishments, as for instance, capital punishment, the argument is usually less about ethics than it is about what makes the most effective deterrent for those behaviours.

And social engineering is not exactly new, either in the digital realm generally, or SL in particular. Most social media programs, MMOs, etc., incorporate social engineering in the foundational base code, I think. Facebook, Twitter, online multiplayer games -- they are all designed to encourage certain kinds of engagement, and particular kinds of community, and discourage others. And, as the recent revelations about FB's algorithms make clear (as if we didn't already know), it's mostly about the money. What kinds of social engineering will generate the most revenue?

SL is no different in that regard. I don't think LL has probably ever introduced a new affordance, rule, or constraint for ethical or moral reasons. It's always about money, and the continued viability of the platform. When certain kinds of activity were banned about 15 years ago, it wasn't because LL had suddenly determined that they were causing social harm: it was because there were serious threats of legal action, as well as a lot of bad publicity. When LL introduced a new rating system, when it closed down SL "banks" (i.e., ponzi schemes), when it banned gambling, and, now, when it got rid of gachas, it was always about external forces at work. I'm sure that there are many in LL who agree with these changes -- but it took governments who didn't necessarily have SL itself in their sights to trigger them.

So, LL isn't going  to institute enforced down time merely because it is worried about its customers. If something like this is ever instituted, it will be because some government somewhere has decided that it would be a good thing.

Thanks for this Scylla, for what it's worth I agree with you completely (currently more a poisoned chalice than anything - sorry 🙂)

The only thing I'd say additionally is that, from a business environment analysis, the scope of external stakeholders affecting SL policy will also include:

1. Sales prospects (prospective new channels, business partners, consumer groups/demographics)
2. Investors

From my perspective these are critical to any promising future for SL;  one which doesn't see it relegated (as some commentators predict) into simply being a virtual sex and kink platform.

Maybe I'm just misreading the writing on the wall, but isn't it the case that:

1. the current pool of residents (measured by concurrency and/or DAUs) and associated economic activity is contracting and has been for a long time (despite a much misinterpreted COVID bump)?
    
2. Genuine new signups that stay longer than 5 minutes are also stagnant, indicating that the current offering isn't attractive and that current marketing and onboarding  isn't working?

Any attempt at a PESTLE (ish) analysis for SL now versus 2 years ago (pre acquisition and and pre COVID) suggests the need for a change - which I'm sure the new owners are only too aware of..

That's just me though and, as revealed by my ignorance of the brand names within the SL sex industry 🙂, what do I know?

Genuinely though I do have a lot of love for SL - admittedly more so from my first incarnation (back in 2005-2007) - but that might be more to do with where I am now vs then.

Really  I'm just open for a debate, for which I agree I sometimes err too much on the side of obnoxious "Devil's Advocate"!

Anyway, that's my last post on this subject (everyone will pleased to know) because I know I've hammered it ad nauseum.🤐

Edited October 11, 2021 by SynesthetiQ
mucking about with embedding urls

[Ceka Cianci]

14 hours ago, Persephone Emerald said:

Second Life is nowhere near as all-consuming as the Oasis was, so no I don't think it would be a good idea for SL. For Facebook however, shutting it down for 2 days / week might be a great idea. 🙂

 

They can shut down Facebook for good and it wouldn't hurt my feelings one bit.. hehehe

There are so many ways for families to keep in touch now that, I hope it runs it's course soon.

[Arielle Popstar]

12 hours ago, Sam1 Bellisserian said:

BUT Why???? Why do people want to force how they play SL on other people.  Again, what if that day happened to be only the day you were able to be in SL. What if you have a severe anxiety disorder and don't want to be around people face to face? What if you need technical help on a product from a creator? Should they park themselves at their sim on that day so they can give support face to face?  What if you are working on an important project that day and need to get information from another resident. Are you supposed to just pop over to where they are and interrupt them? How would you let them know you were coming? What if they were busy doing "adult" things and blocked you from their sim and you really needed that to finish your project?  I could go on and on and on.  

My reasoning in suggesting it was from the experience in another virtual world that brought in voice and IM for all residents and after only a few months removed voice altogether and IM became a VIP only option. The reason being that from the moment they were instituted many of the public meeting spaces became quiet instead of the usual chatter. This of course had an immediate impact on new user retention because these newbies were expecting a social world where they could join in but were instead met with silence because so many existing residents were now in IM or on voice. This is in my opinion the biggest reason for the dismal user retention of S/L. We as the existing users are by and large not new user friendly enough to keep people coming back except those in our own existing cliques. The idea of shutting down IM's etc for a day or two a week, might prompt more chatter on the local chatters and would in some ways help enormously with showing newbs that there is some socializing going on here.

[Rowan Amore]

Yeah, no.  Local chat has been hit or miss depending on where you are since I've been here.  Maybe disabling it on some regions (is that even possible?) could be done but overall, not a good idea.  Many merchants only use IM to communicate with customers or employees.  Maybe the only day this week they can log in is NO IM day.  I'm sure they could use Discord but again, that's outside SL so what would be the point?

If anything, voice has been the biggest killer of local chat. 

[Silent Mistwalker]

The addition of voice to SL is what "killed" local chat in the end. Local chat activity was already dying due to groups and IMs when they added voice. Then along came Skype and Discord.