Fluffy Sharkfin Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 31 minutes ago, Cristiano Midnight said: The only power we have to "dictate" is with our wallets. A creator can do whatever they like, and we are free to support or not support them based upon whatever criteria we choose as a customer. We are also free to express our opinion of certain behaviors by those creators. I agree 100% 31 minutes ago, Cristiano Midnight said: Your final sentence makes no sense - who is claiming that by purchasing, we have a right to make the creator change the item? Second Life offers the ability for users to make changes to objects at will. It is built into the platform, and it is a choice for the creator to block this ability. It is theirs to make, and it is ours to not want to buy those items because of it. I was responding to a common argument in threads such as these that merely purchasing an item means that the purchaser has a right to do as they wish with said item and pointing out that simply purchasing said item doesn't automatically grant an entitlement to modify it, however I agree that the point wasn't directly on topic and I apologise for any confusion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qie Niangao Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 21 minutes ago, Extrude Ragu said: I'd guess it's because they can link it to another root prim, and thus the creator shown when right clicked doesn't mention them - A hit to the ego. That would be a good reason for a creator not to choose to implement a link-changer script, but it still seems anomalous that a creator cannot choose to do it if they wanted to. So yeah: maybe just no demand for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codex Alpha Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 2 hours ago, Qie Niangao said: It's interesting, though, that this particular modification is one that a creator cannot permit the user without making the object fully modifiable. That's in contrast to operations such as scripted resizing, tinting, relative position and rotation of parts, etc. I really don't know why creators are forbidden that specific flexibility. (Maybe some historical griefing vector?) I've experimented with and released products that have those options, precisely so that the consumer can still have all the options they want - that some have posted here, yet not having to allow unlinking of the product. - Please note that some care about unlinking some products so much, that they say they will rez the product in a script-blocked zone so they can bypass any scripts in the product. - so some go very far. This is to avoid any state llChangeLink? checks and such. I've included ability to change color and tint in my product, via menu scripts. I've experimented (but did not complete) a menu option that even accepts valid RGB values and apply to product faces. I've included resize scripts that resized all linked items so various avatars could fit, though unfortunately scaling will mess up sit positions and animation positions (and if one uses Av Sitter, consumer can't access it to tweak it). I've even experimented with repositioning parts, similar to animation, but they are poses that the product can do, but it is limited due to notecard size - saving the positions takes a lot of room. I bet every reason that someone would need mod (and demand it) can be answered through script interfaces anyway, which gives the consumer what they want even if it is no-mod - so I don't see the problem. Over the years when this discussion comes up, it always starts with something innocent as wanting to tint something, but when you go deep, unlinking objects and repurposing them seems to be the most popular (for products this might apply to). It would be great to grant all these permissions by default to simplify things and give the most options to end users, but just short of being able to read your scripts that may contain proprietary innovative code or methods, and unlinking your product if it is made up of several meshes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qie Niangao Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 17 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said: I've included resize scripts that resized all linked items so various avatars could fit, though unfortunately scaling will mess up sit positions and animation positions (and if one uses Av Sitter, consumer can't access it to tweak it). I'm not sure what this is about exactly, but AVsitter has a utility script, AVpos-shifter, that's extremely useful for handling global changes of sit positions. Also, I often change the root prim of furniture I buy, and this script is also indispensable for doing that—almost automatically. Thing is, AVsitter is very accessible for end-users to change things; even inexperienced users are practically lured into it once they experience the [AV]adjuster script and [AV]helper objects. (As I mentioned earlier, any configuration notecard read by a script, regardless of its permissions settings, can be effortlessly duplicated full-perm, and AVsitter scripts, etc., cannot be distributed except with full permissions unless accompanied with a whole license statement and disclosure how to obtain those full-perm originals.) So… "if one uses Av Sitter, consumer can't access it to tweak it" is confusing to me. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cristiano Midnight Posted May 1 Author Share Posted May 1 I do wish there were different levels of no modify. You don't want to let someone unlink? Fine, but let me resize it for example. The all or nothing approach makes the problem worse. I know some creators offer resizer scripts to get around making it fully mod, and I appreciate that, but that also adds unnecessary scripts as well. Some creators also let you customize color and texture by specifying a color vector or a UUID of a texture to use, which I also appreciate even if it is a bit of added complexity compared to just using the edit window. When creators provide options for those who know how to use them, it is a nice value add to the product. Fully no mod has no value for me. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Bliss Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 (edited) 1 hour ago, Codex Alpha said: Over the years when this discussion comes up, it always starts with something innocent as wanting to tint something, but when you go deep, unlinking objects and repurposing them seems to be the most popular (for products this might apply to). All my stuff is mod so don't encounter this, but I can confirm that a certain percentage of people buy my assembled gardens and skyboxes so they can get a lot of items cheaply for repurposing. I feel somewhat guilty, as I use other people's full-perm meshes as well as my own in these compilations, and the customer is getting all of the individual items so cheaply. I try to rationalize the problem by hoping all their repurposed items provide some advertising out in the wild for the full-perm mesh creator. Plus, creating 'scenes' is my bliss and I don't want to give it up -- creating compilations, the design of it all, how everything fits together -- and I want to use the best content available (and that's not always my own, and I don't always have the time to make it myself). Edited May 1 by Luna Bliss 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extrude Ragu Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 1 hour ago, Codex Alpha said: Over the years when this discussion comes up, it always starts with something innocent as wanting to tint something, but when you go deep, unlinking objects and repurposing them seems to be the most popular Oh no! The customer might use the product they purchased how they want to use it, and not how I want them to use it! How evil! 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Bliss Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 (edited) 54 minutes ago, Extrude Ragu said: 2 hours ago, Codex Alpha said: Over the years when this discussion comes up, it always starts with something innocent as wanting to tint something, but when you go deep, unlinking objects and repurposing them seems to be the most popular Oh no! The customer might use the product they purchased how they want to use it, and not how I want them to use it! How evil! You need to consider what the merchant intends for the item -- they often set various parameters around anything they sell and sometimes need to choose what's best for their business overall. For example, if they want to use a huge number of their landscaping items in a design and are willing to do that at a greatly reduced price if it's not mod and the parts can't be utilized individually then this is one of their offerings and they should be respected and not labeled as "greedy", "egotistical", or "inattentive to customer needs". The design of the compilation is the focus in such an item, and not the individual parts. I do think this is what Codex is referencing. Edited May 1 by Luna Bliss 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalificent Corvinus Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 11 hours ago, Codex Alpha said: if one uses Av Sitter, consumer can't access it to tweak it So, you know very little about Avitte then, thanks for clarifying that. First of all, there is an "adhjust" menu for poses built into the system, that allows each user to adjust the pose position and rotation to suit their avatar. Secondly, editing avsitter notecards is fairly easy, if the content creator wasn't a paranoid type who panics at the thought of "customers" who might know more about avsitter then they do. If one has the avsitter scripts, one can even add RLV functionality to something. Or "attached props", or if you have a different script kit, facial expressions. 11 hours ago, Codex Alpha said: I bet every reason that someone would need mod (and demand it) can be answered through script interfaces anyway You already lost that bet, even before you launch into anti-unlinking paranoia again. 11 hours ago, Codex Alpha said: it always starts with something innocent as wanting to tint something, but when you go deep, unlinking objects and repurposing them seems to be the most popular You keep trying to convince us that "unlinking" is some kind of dreadful crime against reason and common sense, and you keep failing. 11 hours ago, Codex Alpha said: It would be great to grant all these permissions by default to simplify things and give the most options to end users, but just short of being able to read your scripts that may contain proprietary innovative code or methods That is actually really easy, for people who ACTUALLY know how to use the edit window, to set the container to copy/mood/no-trans and the script inside to copy/no-mod/no-trans. It takes SECONDS, there's even an idiot friendly button in the edit window to help you adjust the perms on the contents of a prim. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalificent Corvinus Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 8 hours ago, Luna Bliss said: You need to consider what the merchant intends for the item The use of the word "merchant" implies they intend to "sell" it to "customers", so said "customers" can use it for what ever legitimate purpose they desire. Claiming that wanting to resize a chair for avatars UNDER 9 ft high is "evil overentitled art hating criminals with no vision" is NOT the "Way of the Merchant", that's the "Way of pseudo-intellectual whiny self-important Artiste-wannabe who enjoys not selling their stuff". 8 hours ago, Luna Bliss said: The design of the compilation is the focus in such an item, and not the individual parts Some arrogant "artiste" sells me a stack of wooden barrels, but I only have room for two barrels, not 5, in the location where I need them for MY composition, a build I'm doing on a parcel. But the Artiste sells the 5 barrel stack no mod, because apparently stacking 5 barrels on top of each other is an "artiste's Composition". The Artiste is wrong, it' not a "composition" it's not "art", there is no "vision". It's a stack of barrels that's no mod and too big to fit, so I DON'T buy from the artiste, I go buy from somebody SANE who makes mod perms decor items specifically for people to USE rather than to inflate their own artiste-wannabe egos. . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 13 hours ago, Codex Alpha said: I bet every reason that someone would need mod (and demand it) can be answered through script interfaces anyway, which gives the consumer what they want even if it is no-mod - so I don't see the problem. A lot of times I modify objects to take advantage of things that didn't exist as part of Second Life when that particular object was made - for instance, adjusting physics types on older objects to reduce their land impact. Advice: Stay out of Vegas... 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Nightingale Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 (edited) 16 hours ago, Codex Alpha said: I've included ability to change color and tint in my product, via menu scripts. I've experimented (but did not complete) a menu option that even accepts valid RGB values and apply to product faces. ... I bet every reason that someone would need mod (and demand it) can be answered through script interfaces anyway, which gives the consumer what they want even if it is no-mod - so I don't see the problem. Fantastic! So... I can add PBR metals to the old-fashioned baked metal effects, which even by simply dropping on a basic metal PBR texture to that face gives a much improved visual and matches the rest of the furniture in my room. OH, no, I can't, because your script didn't account for a new rendering scheme and additional options. Or the hair that still suffers alpha glitching when all I need to do is make the centre prim in it transparent to work with the recently introduced alpha sorting in the viewers to mitigate glitching. Nope. No-mod, because why would I ever need to, and the script in it didn't account for that??? But of course, nothing else will ever change that a script can't account for now, will it??? And yeah... as to AV Sitter... that's just nonsense. I modify it all the time both with the built in and available utilities and manually; after all, it's open source - the epitome of modifiable. I've even modified the scripts to integrate better with Experiences so I can use the furniture better, after replacing the older AVS scripts in that modifiable furniture with more modern scripts. I've frequently moved animations to fit with adjusted furniture, just by using AV sitters' own menus, which anyone can do with trivial ease. Thus I can continue to use and enjoy what I bought to the best advantage. Kudos to you for trying to make things easier for some purchasers to modify by scripting it (I do the same with rezzing&relinking HUDs to automatically reconfigure mesh options, colour tinting HUDs and texture changers... on my modifiable items)... but that in no way can ever mitigate applying no-modify permissions. We do not live in a locked down, No-Mod Second Life world. SL itself is in continual flux, so making your stuff No-Mod goes against SL itself by preventing it from being adjusted to suit those SL changes. (Oops, I said I was staying out of this thread. Better run before someone cleverly calls me out on that.) Edited May 2 by Rick Nightingale 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codex Alpha Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 16 hours ago, Qie Niangao said: So… "if one uses Av Sitter, consumer can't access it to tweak it" is confusing to me. My bad. It's been a while since I've used Avsitter (2.1) and forgot this was included for the customers. That's good, since AvSitter doesn't require objects to have mod ability, though I do believe they cause the product to appear no-mod when it's included. 15 hours ago, Luna Bliss said: All my stuff is mod so don't encounter this, but I can confirm that a certain percentage of people buy my assembled gardens and skyboxes so they can get a lot of items cheaply for repurposing. I feel somewhat guilty, as I use other people's full-perm meshes as well as my own in these compilations, and the customer is getting all of the individual items so cheaply. I try to rationalize the problem by hoping all their repurposed items provide some advertising out in the wild for the full-perm mesh creator. Plus, creating 'scenes' is my bliss and I don't want to give it up -- creating compilations, the design of it all, how everything fits together -- and I want to use the best content available (and that's not always my own, and I don't always have the time to make it myself). I don't have a problem with people unlinking stuff in general or having mod in general - that is just how I'm being portrayed by posters who don't read my initial arguments in good faith - and they don't understand that just because I present a position or thought - doesn't mean I believe in it or practice it myself. I just want to control certain products for whatever reason I want to - (which are not negative, egotistical, 'elite', and all the negative framings some have said), and I shouldn't be hated, targeted or cancelled for it. I guess the only thing to do is block those people because they can't have a civil discussion without getting personal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extrude Ragu Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 14 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said: I don't 14 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said: how I'm 15 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said: I just want 15 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said: I shouldn't You say your reasons are not egotistical, but nearly every sentence you have spoken in this forum centers only around yourself. When describing your customers behaviours, you use the word 'innocent' - The implication here being that you are subconsciously viewing anybody who buys your products as potential 'offenders' who you will fall victim to, rather than as well - Your valued customers. When responding to me, you spoke in instructions - 'Appreciate', 'accept this' etc. Using an authorative voice in a situation where you do not have authority, nor have made any statements of good will towards me or your customers that might indicate why authority should be accepted. When people like me are describing practises they do not like, you appear to be taking it as a personal attack, although nobody has mentioned your store as the source of their frustration, but simply the practise of selling everything no-mod - You repeatedly use terms like being 'cancelled' or 'boycotted' but nobody has called for any of this - You have taken a general complaint about creators and made it about yourself. Do you see how this might come off as self-centered? Although I do not claim it is your intention to be such. Many people do these things without even realising they're doing them. You may well intend to be the best merchant on the MP. I do not wish to make assumptions about your true intent, I am only pointing out how what you say here can come off to others. Finally, I want you to know I have no ill intention towards you. I am sure if you are a merchant or intend to be one you can make great products. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalificent Corvinus Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 7 minutes ago, Extrude Ragu said: Do you see how this might come off as self-centered? Yeah... Let's take a look at that. 45 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said: I guess the only thing to do is block those people because they can't have a civil discussion without getting personal. Apparently this translates into real English as: "Anyone who publicly disagrees with me again and again, no matter how many times I repeat the same laughable claims, is obviously attacking Me Me Me Me Me!" 49 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said: they don't understand that just because I present a position or thought - doesn't mean I believe in it or practice it myself. I just want to control certain products for whatever reason I want to And we're supposed to believe he's posting claims he DOESN'T believe in, "in good faith", but then he describes asking for mod perms as "starting innocently" then progressing to "unlinking" with the implication that is NOT innocent, but some kind of "Thought Crime". There is NO "good faith" in his posts, it's all about HIM thinking all customers are art hating criminals desecrating his "superior artistic vision". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PekeNL Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 For all the arguments back and forth, people are really hesitant to call out the elephant in the room. No-mod only serves to earn more money. The SL userbase is predominantly American. And if there's one thing americans are good at, it's capitalism. They smelled a chance and took it. I always believe SL is - despite it's an 'escape' of real life - a hyperbole of real life in many ways. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qie Niangao Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 1 hour ago, Codex Alpha said: That's good, since AvSitter doesn't require objects to have mod ability, though I do believe they cause the product to appear no-mod when it's included. You may know this, but just in case: When an item contains any permission-restricted assets, the item appears in Inventory to have the union of all restrictions of its contents. For example if a no-mod [AV]helper object were contained in the object, it will appear no-mod in Inventory (or in the contents of another outer wrapper object containing it). As you note, it's only appearance, not actual behavior of the object itself. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thecla Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 I buy a LOT of stuff for sim building and if a product is no mod, I won't buy it unless I absolutely have to and know that it will meet my needs out of the box for the specific application I have in mind. Do I find no mod stuff annoying? I'm over it. Creators have the option within the permissions system to make stuff no mod and I have better things to do than wonder about their motivation and/or ethics. The only time I get upset is when I buy a piece of clothing and find it to be no mod, somewhat gratuitously, and there is some flaw in it that I could correct if it were mod. I'm one of those people who takes everything apart and reuses pieces in various ways, and it's not to "get stuff cheaply", it's to acquire parts, scripts, etc. that I can repurpose in creative ways. I do have the skills to make my own mesh and will go that route if I cannot find what I need, but buying and modifying available items is generally faster and easier. In my experience, the leading creators (and by leading, I mean highly-regarded creators of high quality non-clothing products, almost to a person release their products as modify (specialized scripts excepted) and beyond that, are *extremely* helpful when you ask them for advice on modifying their stuff. For the most part, it seems that creators who make stuff no mod fit into two camps: those with less experience building for commercial purposes, and those that see their work as "art". Whatever. I just pass those things up. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qie Niangao Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 2 minutes ago, PekeNL said: No-mod only serves to earn more money. It's coincidental that you posted this just as I was going to mention something about how creators may believe they're making more money with No-Mod, but that may be very wrong—and it may be very difficult for them to see how much money they're actually leaving on the table by sticking with No-Mod. It's not that we don't buy No-Mod items because we're being difficult, nor even that we "prefer" to be able to mod something. Rather it's usually that the stuff is just useless for our purposes without Mod permission. But how would a creator ever know that we didn't buy their stuff because it's just not relevant to us? It's like @Thecla just posted while I'm typing, "it's not to 'get stuff cheaply', it's to acquire parts, scripts, etc. that I can repurpose in creative ways." Other than scripting, that's really most of what I enjoy doing in SL. I mumbled something about that earlier, in the context of "generational" differences, but now I think I conflated "longitudinal" and "cross-sectional" data. I now think newer residents will (almost inevitably) "graduate" to needing Mod-perm content to pursue activities they currently have no idea they'll ever want to do. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codex Alpha Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 (edited) 32 minutes ago, PekeNL said: For all the arguments back and forth, people are really hesitant to call out the elephant in the room. No-mod only serves to earn more money. The SL userbase is predominantly American. And if there's one thing americans are good at, it's capitalism. They smelled a chance and took it. I always believe SL is - despite it's an 'escape' of real life - a hyperbole of real life in many ways. Really? I thought it was about being able to fund my creative pursuits in SL and having the sales fund that so I can make more stuff, and if I'm lucky help to keep paying for the Premium account, software subs and replacements, computer parts and maybe the occasional coffee to help me continue. As I had said earlier, this more appears to be an idealogical movement promoting social change, rather than a good faith discussion on how SL can support both creator's needs while still giving users ability to customize their purchases at the same time. At the end of the day, I live in a society with high living costs and I have to eat, or I die. So anything I produce - be it creative or not - has to help pay my bills.... or I'm homeless and soon sick and dead. 29 minutes ago, Thecla said: I'm one of those people who takes everything apart and reuses pieces in various ways, and it's not to "get stuff cheaply", it's to acquire parts, scripts, etc. that I can repurpose in creative ways. I do have the skills to make my own mesh and will go that route if I cannot find what I need, but buying and modifying available items is generally faster and easier. In my experience, the leading creators (and by leading, I mean highly-regarded creators of high quality non-clothing products, almost to a person release their products as modify (specialized scripts excepted) and beyond that, are *extremely* helpful when you ask them for advice on modifying their stuff. For the most part, it seems that creators who make stuff no mod fit into two camps: those with less experience building for commercial purposes, and those that see their work as "art". Whatever. I just pass those things up. So I would suggest that users like you would seek out building kits that allow you to do that, that will all be separate and fully modifiable - and at an appropriate 'end use' price, vs buying a premade 'barn and fenced yard' and demanding mod ability to unlink it and use it as a building kit - which would probably be priced pretty affordably due to it's 'grab and plop' nature - which has it's own market in itself, as we may see in a Sims type platform or other. SL has both abilities. As i posted earlier - the end use of something does determine different prices - whether you like it or not. I understand why people want to do this, but it seems people are making more idealogical arguments than FAIR ones - that could consider accounting for people needing to fund their efforts... Yes, and for some creators - many of us who did not start off as pros, self-taught, put in the hours to learn and make stuff, with all the quirks and challenges and workarounds that SL requires - we may make decisions based on that. And yes, I see all my work as 'art', some are more art pieces than others, others are just utility common boring pieces - but I really want to focus on making building sets, and compositional pieces - and trying to find my way to providing those in a fair manner - but not giving away stuff for free - nor do I like to feel taken advantage of, as that discourages me from doing anything more on this platform. Seriously, I hope consumers and creators get the best of both worlds, but I think this really falls to SL staff as how they would like to proceed. Edited May 2 by Codex Alpha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codex Alpha Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 3 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said: It's coincidental that you posted this just as I was going to mention something about how creators may believe they're making more money with No-Mod, but that may be very wrong—and it may be very difficult for them to see how much money they're actually leaving on the table by sticking with No-Mod. It's not that we don't buy No-Mod items because we're being difficult, nor even that we "prefer" to be able to mod something. Rather it's usually that the stuff is just useless for our purposes without Mod permission. But how would a creator ever know that we didn't buy their stuff because it's just not relevant to us? It's like @Thecla just posted while I'm typing, "it's not to 'get stuff cheaply', it's to acquire parts, scripts, etc. that I can repurpose in creative ways." Other than scripting, that's really most of what I enjoy doing in SL. I mumbled something about that earlier, in the context of "generational" differences, but now I think I conflated "longitudinal" and "cross-sectional" data. I now think newer residents will (almost inevitably) "graduate" to needing Mod-perm content to pursue activities they currently have no idea they'll ever want to do. creators may believe they're making more money with No-Mod Personally money has nothing to do with my decision on the matter. I just want (a) product to remain intact as is - even at the same time wanting to give the end user the most access possible. it's usually that the stuff is just useless for our purposes without Mod permission. I would suggest that these needs could be filled by appropriate building kits specifically provided by a creator for that end use. I as a creator can provide a single product that is made up of similar pieces - like a house, machine or car - but have no intent to provide it as a parts kit (hence no-mod). If that no-mod blocks other functionality, like tinting, re-texturing, etc, I think people should talk to SL about that - or they can kindly contact the creator (as some have me) to get a custom if possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Nightingale Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 32 minutes ago, PekeNL said: No-mod only serves to earn more money. 7 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said: Really? I thought it was about being able to fund my creative pursuits in SL and having the sales fund that so I can make more stuff, and if I'm lucky help to keep paying for the Premium account, software subs and replacements, computer parts and maybe the occasional coffee to help me continue. Yes... all of which takes money! Whether it's sourced inside SL or outside, it's money to buy what you want to do what you want to do. Same as everyone here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qie Niangao Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 31 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said: I would suggest that these needs could be filled by appropriate building kits specifically provided by a creator for that end use. Oh, if such a kit presents itself immediately to my attention, perhaps. Otherwise as @Thecla mentions, it's usually not that big a deal to make it oneself, it's just tedious (and for me, more efficient to barter favors, scripts for mesh, until AI glTF scene builders get mainstream). Either way, the No-Mod creator isn't going to get any money. Like you, they may not care about money, and that's cool, but the point was that it would be very wrong for other creators to think they were making more by setting stuff No-Mod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codex Alpha Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said: Either way, the No-Mod creator isn't going to get any money. Like you, they may not care about money, and that's cool, but the point was that it would be very wrong for other creators to think they were making more by setting stuff No-Mod. I still think you may be viewing this issue through an Advanced User or Creator goggles. Similar to being a musician performing for musicians - that is never as fun as of course they can notice all the mistakes, and can be quite harsh and critical (and perhaps rightfully so more demanding of a higher skill). Meanwhile, the MASSES, the average user, concert attender just enjoys the show... In short.. no-mod is a deal breaker to a certain group, not all groups. I have plenty of no-mod purchases, and purchase no-mod items - because I buy them as they are presented. I don't think any creator in this topic has made the claim that it makes them more money, but rather stating reasons why they make some things no-mod - wrong/ignorant or not in doing so. In a way I'm not worried about my sales. I have had no-mod objects that sell quite well, and I'm not about to go back and 'fix' them now, I can go forward now with new strategies taking 2024 concerns. For me, any lack of sales were most likely do to making low-demand items, the quality not being up to par ( i frequently study, learn from and admire other creator's works), and not having a mass library. Not concerned about no-mod at all. I'll no-mod appropriate items - and leave it up to SL staff to provide an interface for customization, and most of my objects are mod anyway. Edited May 2 by Codex Alpha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubblesort Triskaidekaphobia Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 I almost always give my stuff away full perms, but I made a thing with no perms the other day. It was a photo album. I bought the album from The Black Forest. It's really nice, I highly recommend it if you are looking for an album like this. I added my photos, and changed the cover on it. I also set it up to attach to center 2 HUD, instead of a hand, and adjusted the position, in case somebody wants to read it without rezzing it on the ground. Anyway... The album came with a license that says I can't give it out full perms, and it had a couple of paragraphs about how I can give it out. I didn't want to deal with any of that, even if I probably would never be caught breaking the license. If I give somebody my photo album, I don't need them redistributing it, anyway. Also, why would they need to mod it? It's my piece of art. So I made it no copy, no mod, no trans, before I gave a copy of my album to friends. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now