Should LL Give Away Free Regions or Reduce Costs for RP and Non-Profit Groups?

[Prokofy Neva]

So I have commented against this proposal for LL to offer lower price incentives to non-profit projects -- just because throughout the history of SL, when the Lindens have given away free stuff or insider deals to their special friends, it has always ended in tears. Back in 2004-2005, the "free sim" (actually free set up and I believe only a free month of tier) actually didn't result in enough proposals to make it diverse. Because recurring tier is the real cost people face, and a boost on the set-up wasn't enough help. Furthermore, they encountered a slew of unneeded criticism of favouritism, and the projects failed in part due to infighting or impossible continued demands on the Lindens ("my invention won't work because you changed your code").

I think SL is a business; it has done the right and legal thing to relieve tax on sims only for customers that can produce evidence of a RL legal designation of non-profit. 

Of course some content creators have gotten even as much as 4 free sims -- free set-up and ongoing free tier -- because of their value to the Lab in content creation but it doesn't always last forever. I'm not for the Lindens doing this. I do not see that their past efforts in this regard led to more customers; only more of the same customers they already have, of a certain outlook and lifestyle.

Yes, there are specific circumstances re: the Canny proposal there which is what this particular wrangle is about in the comments, but that's actually all besides the point.

There is a generic question here: should LL give out free sims to any group for any purpose which they think will either be in the public interest or generate more log-ons and more premium accounts? Should they try this again, despite past negative experience? (The Linden who led the program left the Lab and went to work for a major RL philanthropy).

And my answer is: no, I think creators and particularly the top merchant creators and designers already get a lot of perks from SL:

o SLEA placement

o Shop 'n Hop placement

o Spots in the malls at the Welcome Areas

o Content creation for SLB and other event infrastructure

o Features on the blogs

o Pitches to the media

Everyone bemoans good sims going down. We see them all the time especially in the fine arts. LL does step in and "rescue" them rarely. Yay! 

But I think businesses themselves should be encouraged toward more philanthropy inworld.

And here's the thing: it's not fair to the OTHER people, just as good, breaking their backs to make good and attractive content, manage visitors, refresh content, try to make offsets like tip jars, finding long-term donors, even putting rental booths with related content, etc. -- they do this, and often succeed, without any largesse from the Lab. Why undermine them?

In fact, if you haven't got enough traffic/tips/reputational enhancement that leads to sales at your actual commercial operations, why do you deserve support for your non-profit sim?

I think if you have a commercial operation, you should support the arts anyway. I do that to the extent possible at my level. And you shouldn't be looking for a subsidy.

Since the Lindens have already accepted this for study, likely there is nothing that can be done. So then my proposal is: have the land grants be on the Mainland to soak up some of the abandoned land! Which resulted in a slew of anti-Mainland rhetoric which I think comes from just lack of actual experience on the Mainland. Trust me, there are entire, empty sims even in mature which could easily be converted to RP or non-profit cause sims, which in fact don't face blight around them -- in fact abandoned land stretches across sims. 

Trust me -- while some of the vaunted RP content creators scorn Mainland, if the Lindens said "We'll give you free abandoned mainland -- free of cost and free of tier as well -- to realize your dream" -- there will be lots of applicants.

Yet...The theory behind this proposal is that RP sims have to be stand-alone islands where all the ingredients can be controlled for costuming, behaviour, dialogue, etc. etc.On the Mainland, OMG they'd have to deal with 2000 textures and PBR! (as if those are Mainland problems!)  But then...how is that in the public interest?

I think from looking at my many tenants over the years, most people are not into RP. That is, any presence in SL is already a kind of RP, as you are neither identical to your RL self or limited to RL activities -- you can fly! But my observation is that most people are normies, and that's why Bellisseria is so popular!

This is ok to advertise the mobile app, featuring a furry girl as a dear deer -- but I think even more popular would be normies of the human species mowing the lawn or playing with breedables in Belli at a barbecue picnic.

 

 

[Persephone Emerald]

No.

[Tjay Wicken]

Perhaps some kind of discount for qualified and registered non-profits that goes through some kind of verification process. However I believe it should be contingent on a minimum level of activity related to the non-profit work.

But for RP groups. No, I don't think that is fair to all of the non-RP communities.

Edited November 26 by Tjay Wicken

[Scylla Rhiadra]

7 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

So then my proposal is: have the land grants be on the Mainland to soak up some of the abandoned land! Which resulted in a slew of anti-Mainland rhetoric which I think comes from just lack of actual experience on the Mainland.

Actually, this is a really good idea that kills a couple of birds with one stone, and wouldn't actually "cost" LL nearly as much as creating new estates for such purposes, while helping to revive the Mainland and reduce some of the emptiness and visual blight.

The devil, of course, is in the details, and the issue of "fairness" is an important one, but I like this idea quite a bit.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Tjay Wicken said:

But for RP groups. No, I don't think that is fair to all of the non-RP communities.

Agreed, but as much to the point maybe it would be very easy to game this, and create an "RP community" merely for the purposes of getting free land. As it is, there are RP regions that are pretty much devoid of actual RP.

[Paul Hexem]

I don't think anyone should get special carve outs or discounts on land for any reason other than as premium/premium+ perks (especially land barons that hold empty land for months or years at ridiculously inflated prices).

That said, I also think land is enormously overpriced and should cost significantly less for everyone.

[Prokofy Neva]

16 minutes ago, Tjay Wicken said:

Perhaps some kind of discount for qualified and registered non-profits that goes through some kind of verification process. However I believe it should be contingent on a minimum level of activity related to the non-profit work.

But for RP groups. No, I don't think that is fair to all of the non-RP communities.

 

I believe the Lindens still have a tax-free offer for RL non-profit educators and groups like American Cancer Society. I think they do need to review the actual RL paperwork and activity inworld, that's a good idea.

@Paul Hexem Yes, if there are easements to be offered, they should be across the board by some identifiable category, such as "people with groups with active membership" or "accounts older than two years" or something. But if you can't build your dream on a $109-a-month homestead and offset that cost with tips or content sales or group fees, you don't have a viable operation anyway.

@Scylla Rhiadra of course as soon as I said "put it on the Mainland," all those who loved the idea got cold feet and started invoking all these concerns about blighted views on the next sim. Except I really think there are entire swathes of good-looking Mainland where there are even entirely empty or nearly empty sims that could be used for projects, why not? If the top content creators turn up their noses at free Mainland, I think there will be plenty of others, even of the same caliber, who will not. People worry about paying the tier on an island? I have tenants outside of the First World who worry about paying for a US $5 rental for their art gallery and leave. I can only subsidize so much. Lindens could offer even 1024 Mainland to such people. I think SLEA is ok but limited. And I think such a program should not be limited to nonprofits because I think people should be able to make sales. But one way to prevent it from being another perk grab by top merchants is to insist that applicants cannot have commercial stores elsewhere if they do this project.

[Amanda Crisp]

When I recall the economic impact of a popular RP sim, this becomes more and more worthy of consideration.

Player-character avatars need to be outfitted and continually re-outfitted as their Story evolves. This represents a windfall for Creatives who make and sell clothing, equipment and structures in SL.

The main reason Roleplay sims fail aside from Player strife is the economic burden of footing the bill to maintain the Tier.

When I was involved with the management of a RP sim, I can attest that a chunk of the player-base was in SL and spending $ BECAUSE of the Roleplay sim (and left SL and stopped supporting the economy when the sim folded.)

So any subsidy given to a popular RP sim is an investment in Second Life and not 100% charity.

Edited November 26 by Amanda Crisp

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 minutes ago, Amanda Crisp said:

So any subsidy given to a popular RP sim is an investment in Second Life and not 100% charity.

Yes, this.

The tendency too often is to think of LL as a kind of "government." It isn't, of course: it's a business, and a plan like this should be evaluated by them as a way of enhancing and increasing their profitability, as much as in terms of the social impacts it might have in-world. The reality, I think, is that they need to find a balance between these two -- to be both relatively "fair," and at the same time pursue particular paths that will make the platform more viable. I think this would do that, administered intelligently and transparently.

[Amanda Crisp]

24 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Agreed, but as much to the point maybe it would be very easy to game this, and create an "RP community" merely for the purposes of getting free land. As it is, there are RP regions that are pretty much devoid of actual RP.

How about looking at this from the position of how much revenue a subsidized sim brings to SL? Land used as a private home or rental property earns little within a narrow sector of the economy. Player in a RP sim are near-constantly shopping for costumes, clothing, animations, body parts, weapons, props, vehicles and build components. That feeds $ into the inworld economy and thusly to LL.

[Love Zhaoying]

Idea: Tax skill-gaming to subsidize charities like those proposed by the OP.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Amanda Crisp said:

How about looking at this from the position of how much revenue a subsidized sim brings to SL? Land used as a private home or rental property earns little within a narrow sector of the economy. Player in a RP sim are near-constantly shopping for costumes, clothing, animations, body parts, weapons, props, vehicles and build components. That feeds $ into the inworld economy and thusly to LL.

True, but as per what I suggested above, there is also a need to ensure that this not be perceived as favouritism, or prone to exploitation, because that perception has a negative impact on the platform. As I said, I think they would need to strike a balance between doing things that they know will benefit the platform financially, but not also undercut its credibility among residents. People can and do leave if they think that a platform is being "unfair."

[Tjay Wicken]

8 minutes ago, Amanda Crisp said:

When I recall the economic impact of a popular RP sim, this becomes more and more worthy of consideration.

Player-character avatars need to be outfitted and continually re-outfitted as their Story evolves. This represents a windfall for Creatives who make and sell clothing, equipment and structures in SL.

The main reason Roleplay sims fail aside from Player strife is the economic burden of footing the bill to maintain the Tier.

When I was involved with the management of a RP sim, I can attest that a chunk of the player-base was in SL and spending $ BECAUSE of the Roleplay sim (and left SL and stopped supporting the economy when the sim folded.)

So any subsidy given to a popular RP sim is an investment in Second Life and not 100% charity.

But one has to ask - if members of the RP communities are willing to spend as much money as they are, why are they not willing to spend money to be a part of the said RP community?

Unless it is somehow possible to apply this mindset to any type of community-driven engagement, then it would not be fair to subsidize a specific part of the community while not also doing so to the other.

MCs are quite popular in Second Life for example, and one could argue that they need to purchase motorcycles, outfits and things like that. Would they also qualify for free land? Or what about the communities for the users who play child avatars, like the schools, camps and such?

I'm not particularly against the idea as a whole, but targeting a specific portion of the community would cause an uproar and frustration in all of the other parts.

[Amanda Crisp]

10 minutes ago, Tjay Wicken said:

But one has to ask - if members of the RP communities are willing to spend as much money as they are, why are they not willing to spend money to be a part of the said RP community?

Unless it is somehow possible to apply this mindset to any type of community-driven engagement, then it would not be fair to subsidize a specific part of the community while not also doing so to the other.

MCs are quite popular in Second Life for example, and one could argue that they need to purchase motorcycles, outfits and things like that. Would they also qualify for free land? Or what about the communities for the users who play child avatars, like the schools, camps and such?

I'm not particularly against the idea as a whole, but targeting a specific portion of the community would cause an uproar and frustration in all of the other parts.

The cost of maintaining the sim and of keeping one’s character are cumulative and can become cost-prohibitive. If a Subsidy based on economic growth to the SL economy could lower the “maintain the sim” component of that then we might see more economic gain to the creatives making items they purchase.

Technically Inworld Outlaw Motorcycle Clubs seem to qualify as Roleplay (I was connected with two in RP sims), so I can see them qualifying for an Economic Impact Subsidy; as long as the qualify month to month by bringing the economic value.

Edited November 26 by Amanda Crisp

[Tjay Wicken]

Just now, Amanda Crisp said:

The cost of maintaining the sim and of keeping one’s character are cumulative and can become cost-prohibitive. If a Subsidy based on economic growth to the SL economy could lower the “maintain the sim” component of that.

Technically Inworld Outlaw Motorcycle Clubs seem to qualify as Roleplay (I was connected with two in RP sims), so I can see them qualifying for an Economic Impact Subsidy; as long as the qualify month to month by bringing the economic value.

I get what you are saying but how would you even measure economic value?
Do you monitor the spending of each individual member of a community? What if a person is a member of two or more communities? Which community is accredited the purchase?

I have a hard time seeing this working without a huge administrative burden - and even if it was carried out that way, it would favor large communities and not smaller, new communities or groups of people.

A much better idea would be to simply reduce the overall cost of mainland ownership. You could likewise argue that if land ownership was lower, then people would be more likely to own land and thus also be more likely to spend money elsewhere within Second Life - all without additional administrative burden.

[steeljane42]

No.

And while I RP sometimes, and well aware how some people , myself included, contribute to SL's economy some extra when they/we make needed outfits for the said RP/theme... it's not like some "random shopping loving fashionistas" don't do that either. In fact some of them contibute a lot more than entire region worth of people, because they just buy entire events worth of fatpacks month after month.

And would LL put a certain criteria how "Spending X amount of money a month is enough to qualify for a discount" they'd need to factor in everyone else, including people who have no interest in land aside of their tiny skyboxes they use only for dressing up.

Not to mention that whole thing would be impossible to evaluate in the first place. LL can check spendings of any particular account easily, but what if said person is a member of 10 RP regions, frequent to 25 dance clubs and just explores a whole lot? Which particular region/community would get a discount?

Better to just not touch that can of worms and if possible reduce land prices some more for everyone.

Edited November 26 by steeljane42

[Clem Marques]

1 hour ago, Prokofy Neva said:

So I have commented against this proposal for LL to offer lower price incentives to non-profit projects -

I find this proposal absurd. It would be easily exploited by people, and would allow some unfair preferential treatment to take place.

Either give everyone a discount, or don't do it at all.

Edited November 26 by Clem Marques

[Cinnamon Mistwood]

I don't know about free or low cost for certain groups even if it helps get people to take another look at mainland. 

If a group gets access to a free RP region, then proceeds to close it off except for group members, decides furries or children avatars are not allowed, or decides you have to have a mesh body to go there, it defeats the purpose of attracting people to mainland.

Maybe non-profits could benefit if the regions were public and accepted everyone.

I'd hate for this idea to not work because it could be gamed and misused, but I think it would be gamed and misused.

Edited November 26 by Cinnamon Mistwood
Spelling

[Love Zhaoying]

You know, if LL gave away land, the recipients would complain about it. "It's too boring." "I can't have 20 kittycats." "I can't have sex on my lawn." "It's too free."

[Sid Nagy]

We forum members could roleplay to be roleplaying. And get us a handful of free regions to tinker with.

More serious:
Land is Linden Lab's bread and butter, always was and still is. So it will not happen any time soon.

 

 

Edited November 26 by Sid Nagy

[Arielle Popstar]

Hate to be the one pointing it out but if a group needs free or low cost Land that bad, they can always go get some in OS. Many of the Educators did that when they no longer qualified for low cost land in SL.

[Tantrica Banana]

2 hours ago, Amanda Crisp said:

The main reason Roleplay sims fail aside from Player strife is the economic burden of footing the bill to maintain the Tier.

No. The main reason RP sims fail is because they do not hit the nerve, the taste, the current mood.

If tier was *the* issue, everyone would be on some OS-Grid. Where the regions cost a fraction or are even entirely free. And if  regions were free we would see the same like at some "creative commons music pool" where you find thousands of titles to download - for entirely free - and 90% of them you delete right after the download because they are not the quality you expected.

[Michael Blackwood]

2 hours ago, Paul Hexem said:

I don't think anyone should get special carve outs or discounts on land for any reason other than as premium/premium+ perks (especially land barons that hold empty land for months or years at ridiculously inflated prices).

That said, I also think land is enormously overpriced and should cost significantly less for everyone.

Sadly, forum replies only have a "like" and a "thank you" button. I wish they had an "AMEN!" button to "AMEN!" your post.

 

Amen. 😁

[Michael Blackwood]

11 hours ago, Tantrica Banana said:

No. The main reason RP sims fail is because they do not hit the nerve, the taste, the current mood.

If tier was *the* issue, everyone would be on some OS-Grid. Where the regions cost a fraction or are even entirely free. And if  regions were free we would see the same like at some "creative commons music pool" where you find thousands of titles to download - for entirely free - and 90% of them you delete right after the download because they are not the quality you expected.

What Tantry says. 💘

Also, the tier used to be an issue often, back in the years, yes. That's why, way back, RP sims often had just 1, maybe 2 sims. If tier was an issue, how would you think 99% of the now existing urban RP sims have 4+ full sims?

Simple: A few years back, RP shifted from small 1-2 sim estates with active people to "lets bang as many sims as we can afford to our main RP sim, then fill it with houses, call it a suburb, rent the houses for an expensive price"... and oops.. they learned they actually break even or even make quite some money doing so. So more sims were added. And more. Other RP sims noticed and followed. "Mega RP Cities" were born. Those are no longer RP cities, they are now commercial enterprises to fill the pockets of the owners - most of the time that is, of course. Some try to hide it, some don't even bother hiding that fact anymore and flat out operate and advertise as commercial enterprise cities (where actual roleplay even becomes secondary now).

The problem: The larger those RP estates grew through that practice, the more stretched out became an already shrinking player base. So while 8 years back you had 20 active RPers wandering/driving around on 1 sim, now you have 10-15 players strolling around on 9 sims. With 7 of them being from one big family that only ever stays in their decorated home they pay a high weekly tier for.

Edited November 27 by Michael Blackwood

[Aethelwine]

3 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Actually, this is a really good idea that kills a couple of birds with one stone, and wouldn't actually "cost" LL nearly as much as creating new estates for such purposes, while helping to revive the Mainland and reduce some of the emptiness and visual blight.

The devil, of course, is in the details, and the issue of "fairness" is an important one, but I like this idea quite a bit.

When Prok realises that GTFO hubs are a form of roleplay, I suspect they will be less enthusiastic about this idea