How To Destroy Secondlife and The Secondlife Economy

[ralph Alderton]

@Stella, just checked and Confucius's real name was Kong Qiu

And let's not forget Shakespeare :

What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;

[Josh Susanto]

Thanks to ralph for denying the specific things he denied.

I will be happy to post my real name, and the date and location of my birth here as soon as I am certain that there is no objection. I take responsibility for any controversey I introduce to this forum, and I am prepared to do so by name.

I have one alt: Kampu Oyen. This is no secret and never has been.

The only reason I can see why ralph shouldn't be at least half as forthcoming as I am is that he has something to hide that the rest of us don't.

This is probably related to the fact the he always shows up with his schtick right about the time that LL needs or is going to need merchants to be distracted from some kind of technical change.

I didn't see him show up around 13 September. Maybe the fact that that change was unannounced, specifically in terms of its timing, could be used by LL to narrow down their list of malefactor suspects to people who, while they otherwise have system access, were left out of the decision to deploy at that time, or simply to people who were too busy to be ralph, being caught off guard by the abrupt decision and urgent technical follow-up. 

(Not that I think they care)

[ralph Alderton]

@Madelaine, This problem, the SUPERABUNDANCE of dross, has existed for several years and now is reaching fantastic proportions.

Perhaps, Madelaine, you should ask yourself why Secondlife is not growing ?

Why retention rates of new users are so poor ?

Why is the grid getting smaller ? 650 sims lost last year

There are a number of reasons for this and one of them is the SUPERABUNDANCE of dross, 10L$ poor quality products at the marketplace.

If Secondlife doesn't look good, how will it attract and retain new and existing users ?

 

[Stella Carver]

Now you're either being silly by pretending to misunderstand, or you really are a bit dense.

Shakespeare, Confucious, Cary Grant, whatever your main account is that you actually create and sell on, are the names attached to whatever reputation might be negatively impacted by controversial statements. The name that people know your work by.

Surely you don't think I'm suggesting you post under your real, real name? My point was and still is, you continue to state that freebies and cheapies are ruining your ability to sell what you make. Without seeing what you make, and by default, finding out who you are, how do we know you aren't just an untalented creator with a case of sour grapes?

[DanielRavenNest Noe]

---

ralph Alderton wrote:

@Madelaine, This problem, the SUPERABUNDANCE of dross, has existed for several years and now is reaching fantastic proportions.

There are a number of reasons for this and one of them is the SUPERABUNDANCE of dross, 10L$ poor quality products at the marketplace.

 

---

To quote Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word.  It does not mean what you think it means."

When I do a search for "Shoes" under "Apparel" in the Marketplace, 7% of the items are priced at $10 or less.  When I exclude the ones tagged "demo" that drops to 6%.  That is hardly "Fantastic Proportions".  The only superabundance here is your hyperbole.

[Rabid Cheetah]

blah blah blah blah

 

No, I DON'T feel like reading the entire thread!  :womanvery-happy:

 

This is like going to a flea market and yelling at everyone for selling cheap goods.  Or sending a Letter To The Editor (ask an elderly person about these old-tyme blogs they used to print on wafer-thin slivers of wood) complaining that Kmart is damaging business for Nieman Marcus.

 

So what the heck would you suggest doing:  Forcing merchants to charge a minimum price?  As opposed to *GASP!* letting the market drive price the old-fashioned way?  You know, Adam Smith, The Invisible Hand, Supply & Demand, and all that jive.

 

I work a stone's throw away (and yes, it IS tempting to throw some stones) from the RL idiots who want price fixing, albeit the other way, via the elimination of corporations or whatever their pot-induced hipster-doofus demands are THIS week.  The last thing I want is to have to deal with this warped worldview in my escape from the real world...

[Sea Warcliffe]

I dont think I sell a single thing that doesnt have a cheap or free similar counterpart somewhere available. Yet my stuff does sell. So what does that mean?

People who are determined to spend little to no money would not magically become my customers should freebies and inexpensive items disappear from the grid.

[Medhue Simoni]

Well, I'll agree with Ralph, but not fully. If many insecure merchants panic everytime they have a bad week, it is not good for the economy as a whole. From an individual stand point tho, ultimately, merchants will only make themselves less and less relevant over time. Of course, you can't really paint with such a broad brush, but in general term, this is true. Even if they make the best products on the market. Why? Because, the lower they charge, the more they flood the market with their products. So, they make no real money, and the market is saturated with their products. Eventually, they will dry their own business up, and have to rely on an influx of new customers just to pay rent,unless they keep pumping out new stuff on a regular basis. It's just not a sound business plan. When your customers walk around and see every1 else with the same thing, you can bet they will likely seek out another creator who does not sell so cheap to ensure they don't walk into a party wearing the same dress than half the girls there, lol.

Personally, in 5 years, I've only lowered the price on about 4 products since i started, and most of that happened the 1st year. I would much rather add more to the product, than lower the price, mostly to respect my past customers who paid that price for the product. Oh, and, of course, I send all the past customers an update.

 

[Chelsea Malibu]

---

ralph Alderton wrote:

@Madelaine, This problem, the SUPERABUNDANCE of dross, has existed for several years and now is reaching fantastic proportions.

Perhaps, Madelaine, you should ask yourself why Secondlife is not growing ?

Why retention rates of new users are so poor ?

Why is the grid getting smaller ? 650 sims lost last year

There are a number of reasons for this and one of them is the SUPERABUNDANCE of dross, 10L$ poor quality products at the marketplace.

If Secondlife doesn't look good, how will it attract and retain new and existing users ?

 

---

Odd assertion.  To correct your figures, SL has in fact lost 7,000 sims since it's height and I guarantee you, not due to freebies.

Look deeper dear double anonymity poster, and you will see that SL is actually a pretty freaking boring place.  Ad to it drama and odd assertions and you have a place that oddly resembles a smoke filled roadhouse with a lot of drama and warm beer.

SL has changed and changed a lot.  What has changed it are the same people who created it...Us.  Corporate America bailed first and why? Well if you do the research, most have told their stories and are online.

In short, SL just does not have the ability to reach large audiences everyone thinks it does.  The numbers don't add up and never have.  What was once 80,000 concurrent is now 30 - 40k yet somehow, the economic figures never change.  Regardless of how many users there are, the financials never change. 

Anyone question this?  The truth is that LL is doing a great job of destroying SL on it's own and I guarantee the freebie, or the 10L junk item is having no affect on this place.

 

[Ciaran Laval]

Gordon Bennett make it stop! Ralph stop it, just make better products and take some marketing tips.

If you'd post on your main you'd embarrass yourself.

[Ciaran Laval]

---

Chelsea Malibu wrote:

 

In short, SL just does not have the ability to reach large audiences everyone thinks it does.  The numbers don't add up and never have.  What was once 80,000 concurrents is now 30 - 40k yet somehow, the economic figures never change.  Regardless of how many users there are, the financials never change. 

Anyone question this?  The truth is that LL is doing a great job of destroying SL on it's own and I gaurantee the freebie, or the 10L junk item is having no affect on this place.

 

---

The bot ban fixed some of the artifical concurrency figures but there do seem to be less people here in my opinion, that should actually make things better for the remaining content creators, not worse.

the freebie and 10L stuff is not harming the economy here in any great way, some people won't buy items at those prices as they assume they must be poor, most of the people who do buy those items, do so because it's what they want.

[Medhue Simoni]

I call BS, not on all of what you said, but most.

Yes, SL, in general, is boring, but why? Cause way too many creators don't have a clue what they are doing, which causes lag. You can't do crap if you are always lagged out. SL, could be as smooth as butter, but only if you get people to understand that 500 prim hair is not smart. Way to many creators think adding more prims for detail is going to get them more sales. They even think they are choosing looks over function. The reality is that some1 knowledgable can make something that looks twice as good, and be 1000 times more efficient. I blame this all on LL, not the creators. LL does a terrible job of getting creators, and landowners the info they need to make good choices.

There is actually alot to do in SL, beyond creating, but it is all just marginally fun. Take for instance, combat. People can't do combat here, and not because the platform can't handle it. We could actually make an even more engaging combat game in SL, just because we have the best of both worlds. For years, many many games have claimed to be the first FPSRPG, and they fail massively for many many reasons. SL could be that.

So, why is it not? Well, you have people with 120000 ARC now wearing a 200 prims gun with 10 sculpties and 20 textures. Now, try and put 10 of those people in a combat area and see if they can even shoot each other. The coders of the system don't even actually make the weapons. You have 1 person coding with no thought of lag, give that script to hundreds of gun maker that don't think about lag. In the end, a good, fun combat game is impossible, under that scenario.

You can apply this to just about any fun thing to do in SL. Why would some1 put up with this when they can have more fun in a less interesting world. We pretty much have everything we need to create exactly the same thing that other games can, we just have no standards to be able to make anything usable unless the person is all alone.

Right now, SL is a world of pretty avatar statues, cause the lag keeps any1 from moving. Again tho, much of this can be placed at LL's feet too. Some because they do not inform, and some because they have not put out a reasonably stable viewer in almost 2 years. Any viewer that even gets close to stable gets trumped by the next update.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

ralph Alderton wrote:

@Madelaine, This problem, the SUPERABUNDANCE of dross, has existed for several years and now is reaching fantastic proportions.

Perhaps, Madelaine, you should ask yourself why Secondlife is not growing ?

Why retention rates of new users are so poor ?

Why is the grid getting smaller ? 650 sims lost last year

There are a number of reasons for this and one of them is the SUPERABUNDANCE of dross, 10L$ poor quality products at the marketplace.

If Secondlife doesn't look good, how will it attract and retain new and existing users ?

 

---

I see little evidence that anything in SL is reaching fantastic proportions. Where are the numbers to back your claim?

I have wondered why Second Life is not growing and I don't believe it's your "cause" at all. Many immersive games are seeing declining hours in-game as people are drawn away by things like Facebook. I just read yet another article (don't have the link for it) that said console game manufacturers are scaling back the depth of their game designs to address the fact that a substantial part of their development effort goes unseen. Players are no longer sticking with games into the deeper levels. This is a recent development, thought to be brought on by the explosion in lightweight mobile games and social networking platforms with gentle learning curves.

Zynga (founded 2007), the game developer responsible for Farmville (debuted 2009), is currently valued at north of $15 Billion. That's 30-50 times more than Linden Labs. Zynga's 2011 profits will be greater than Linden Lab's revenues. The Farmville game alone is worth several times Second Life. The world in which Second Life competes is shifting, regardless of whether anything inside SL itself is shifting.

SL has a steep learning curve, intensive UI (by virtue of being immersive), heavy hardware/internet requirements (can't run on a phone) and no clearly marketable "hook". Couple this with management missteps along the way and you have more than enough large reasons for SL's current state.

Two links in support of my numbers (I don't claim they are gospel, but the decimal points are in about the same places I've seen in other reports).

http://www.launch.is/blog/report-second-life-making-100m-a-year.html



http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20075199-93/ipo-values-zynga-at-$15-billion-to-$20-billion/



Now, having suggested some reasons for SL's current state, let me pull up some figures to refute your claims. I went to a website that tracks SL metrics and pulled five transaction plots spanning April 2006 to September 2010. They've segregated LL's transaction history into price ranges. I picked four ranges.  If freebie/L$10 dollar sales were reaching fantastic proportions, you'd see it in the first two chats, no? You'll see that upscale purchases are growing faster than the L$10L stuff you rail against and L$1 purchase seem to be in decline.

This last chart is total transaction volume, which is doing better than the cheap transactions and about as well as the mid/high dollar transactions. If anything, I see slight evidence that consumers are moving upscale.

It took me only a few minutes to find all this evidence. Before you claim you know a cause, I suggest you find some evidence of your own.

ETA: Charts came from here: 

http://gridsurvey.com/economy.php



Anybody know what caused the spikes in April and August last year?

[Chelsea Malibu]

The statement SL is boring is not a fact, it's a opinion and as such, 'calling my bs' does not quite fit here.  However, you can clearly disagree with my opinion.

What has bee reported is that 85% of all new users will quit by the end of 12 months.  They have a survey they used to ask when people deleted their account and among them where questions about what people wanted in SL.  Many said they did not feel this was a game and that their was no "achievement based" systems. 

I have invited dozens to come play with me in WoW and of them, none have come back to SL (cept me).  Ask any of them or my hundreds of friends I've met in SL who don't come here anymore and they all say pretty much the same thing, there wasn't much to keep their interest.

I'm sure there are many who could have a blast with a toilet paper roll and some tape but not many. Some are just entertained easier than others. 

My point to be clearer is that SL just does not have the creative things to do anymore.  Sims that where awesome go offline and are never seen again.  Each time a well made activity sim goes offline, some of the game goes with it with little to no backfill.

We now have a great place to shop, dance and create.  If you don't fall into this category, then you will more than likely be part of the 85% who will leave within the first 12 months.

My point is, which is the theme of this thread, that a 10L item is not what will destroy SL.

 

Edit...btw Madeline, thanks for posting this.  This is where I think our OP was confused.

[Medhue Simoni]

I would give all those corporate figures little value. I'm not talking the SL figures. As been said by more than half of SL, it's not a game. Comparing SL to the console market would be wrong. If some1 did not see the decline of console games coming, they have to be a moron. It was not sustainable, especially at the rate they were going. I'd actually be surprised to see the next version consoles even make it to the market, despite the fact that they have been promoted like crazy making ridiculous claims. It actually surprises me that they lasted so long. Heck, a console can't even keep up with how fast hardware moves. Plus, I could never understand why some1 would want to use a controller. You might as well go back to the super nintendo controller, lol.

As far as games like Farmville and phone games, IMHO their hay day is over. They will only decline from here. They aren't fun at all. They are mindless nothings.

Compare this to SL, which again should be pointed out as getting 16k new customers a day. SL can still compete, and many of the hardware problems will lessen over time. Being in SL means you are a person with somewhat realworld consequences. Doing or making something actually means something. You actually are some1 to people, and can interact at a level that mirrors RL. Find me another place that can do that.

You never know tho. I just got an email from AT&T telling me I went over my 150g and they will be charging me 10 buck for every 50g I use over 150. If every1 is going to worry about their internet limit, we could be in for trouble.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Chelsea Malibu wrote:

The statement SL is boring is not a fact, it's a opinion and as such, 'calling my bs' does not quite fit here.  However, you can clearly disagree with my opinion.

What has bee reported is that 85% of all new users will quit by the end of 12 months.  They have a survey they used to ask when people deleted their account and among them where questions about what people wanted in SL.  Many said they did not feel this was a game and that their was no "achievement based" systems. 

I have invited dozens to come play with me in WoW and of them, none have come back to SL (cept me).  Ask any of them or my hundreds of friends I've met in SL who don't come here anymore and they all say pretty much the same thing, there wasn't much to keep their interest.

I'm sure there are many who could have a blast with a toilet paper roll and some tape but not many. Some are just entertained easier than others. 

My point to be clearer is that SL just does not have the creative things to do anymore.  Sims that where awesome go offline and are never seen again.  Each time a well made activity sim goes offline, some of the game goes with it with little to no backfill.

We now have a great place to shop, dance and create.  If you don't fall into this category, then you will more than likely be part of the 85% who will leave within the first 12 months.

My point is, which is the theme of this thread, that a 10L item is not what will destroy SL.

 

Edit...btw Madeline, thanks for posting this.  This is where I think our OP was confused.

---

Chelsea, your observations match what I've read. Games like WoW are crafted to a specific vision designed to draw people in and keep them there. The production levels are very high, including beautiful scored music and high performance graphics resulting from careful scene design. There is no cohesive vision like that in SL, this place is a free for all. Some of us like it, apparently most dont.

[Anaiya Arnold]

The grid is shrinking in part due to the high cost of the service, particularly relative to its quality and in consideration of the "kind-of" existence of competition. 

But mostly it's shrinking because many of the original users have gotten over it and that user type was a limited group to begin with.  Younger generations in this crop have other things to do as they are usually early adopters and it's no longer "early" if you adopt SL now.

Those users could be called "Linuxy-types".  That does not mean they run Linux, but that they were the kind of people who would have been bothered with installing Linux, using a command console, understanding how their machine worked, and actually often enjoyed troubleshooting, and finding and reporting bugs via JIRA type thingies.  The failure of a technology to work out of the box is a fun challenge to this kind of user and part of the adventure rather than a roadblock to fun.

That market having been saturated in its time, and with any kind of time-heavy activity often being limited in longevity, SL needs to go mainstream to what I would call the "out of the box" users if it is to grow. 

These people expect immediate functionality and excellent and immediate help resources.  Needless to say SL is still quirky enough and its documentation is poor enough that these people are highly likely to leave SL as soon as they run into trouble and find out how troublesome problem-solving often is.

That's if they make it past such oddities as the absurd basic viewer. 

Let's face it, you'd have to have highly ineffective design and testing processes to lock new users into a basic viewer they cannot so much as change clothes in (the first thing most new users want to do), without closing the viewer, opening the viewer, changing settings, closing the viewer, opening the veiwer, and finally logging on (again).  Really, who the heck thought that was a good idea, and why did no one effectively explain to them why it was not a good idea?

 

Such evidence of a complete inability to get things done sensibly and to a reasonable standard, given the needs and preferences of an out-of-the-box, mainstream demographic, are abundant.  If SL is to grow, it will need to broaden its market to the mainstream, and not merely the most patient and tolerant of such users. 

It needs to be "out-of-the-box" friendly.  It needs much better, easier to find and navigate, up to date, no broken links, and complete, documentation and help resources. 

It needs sensible and effective design and testing.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

I would give all those corporate figures little value. I'm not talking the SL figures. 

---

It's the SL figures that refute the OP's contention, that's enough for me. We can wonder what IS causing the stagnation of SL, but cheap goods, if you believe the SL numbers, are NOT the cause.

[Medhue Simoni]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

I would give all those corporate figures little value. I'm not talking the SL figures. 

---

It's the SL figures that refute the OP's contention, that's enough for me. We can wonder what IS causing the stagnation of SL, but cheap goods, if you believe the SL numbers, are NOT the cause.

---

That depends on what you consider stagnation is. If you think it is how much land is owned, then why would you rule freebies out as at least 1 factor? Look again at those graphs and ask yourself when did LL take over the marketplace. You will not be able to deny that LL took over Xstreet around the exact time of the start of the stagnation. Yes, other things were going on at that time also, but to deny that this could be a factor would not be honest. Plus, consider that when Xstreet was privately own, freebies were not at the top of search results. It is also not a stretch to say that people sold their sim because they were no longer making enough to pay the tiers. So for any1 to say that freebies are definitely not a factor is completely false, and is totally backed up by the exact figures you posted.

All that being said, if any1 knows me or remembers my past arguements about freebies, you will see that I actually was heartly against LL charging for freebies, and lobbied for LL to keep freebies on the marketplace. This did not mean that I thought they should ever show up in search, unless explicitly searched for.

Oh, and let me make this clear, I consider anything under 50 lindens to be in the same realm as a freebie.

[Josh Susanto]

Not that I don't think ralph isn't ultimately full of beans in the final analysis, but I think one of his main points has probably been roundly misunderstood by the lot of you.

His complaint about the abundance of cheap stuff is not specifically about how much of it is sold, but about how much of it is rezzed and remains rezzed, including free copies.

If I understand him correctly, what he seems to be trying to say is that the almost automatic proliferation of copymods, facilitated by the fact that everyone's first copy is cheap, fills in space that people don't bother to fill with something better because they already have something they perceive to be culturally sufficient, due to its ubiquity. 

Is this correct, ralph?

If we can agree what we are arguing about and what we are not arguing about, that will save a lot of time and effort.

Other points:

1) It really doesn't matter if Second Life is boring to a lot of people as long as it remains profitable; less profitable than before is still profitable. Declining profits are not losses. Losses are losses. A LOT of other companies are posting actual LOSSES right now. SL is not. Please think about what this really, really means.

2) Second life remains profitable not by being interesting to everyone, but by providing creative opportunities to people who can't find something more gratifying elsewhere for a comparable price (much less with actual compensation). The participation of this demographic group may fluctuate due to both in-world and off-world variables, but there's no reason to fear that (other than due to massive decision process failures by LL) they'll all suddenly just log off and join WoW. WoW is not competing for me. Not really. Not Farmville, either. If this is also true in your case, you must be able to see my point.

3) Real Life is boring for a lot of people, too. If you think Second Life is boring, ask around. You might be surprised how much more boring are the other activities available to a lot of people; boring to those people, at least. Concurrency isn't slipping because RL is becoming less boring. It may be slipping because RL is becoming more demanding. The growth of SL may be limited by the fact that it remains boring to a lot of people. OK. Fine. But duplicating the retention strategy of WoW or Farmville is not going to duplicate their results; it's only going to make SL less interesting to people who already like it (BAD idea).

4) Combat is the obvious utility model for game platforms, and I really wish SL could somehow be made to better accomodate the demand for combat simulation, if only because, deep down, I want to see a simulator that simulates "everything", all with one account and one avatar, in one continuous, uninterrupted physical and social environment. But the fundamental appeal of combat simulation for normal users is not ultimately the simple gratification of adolescent ego-driven power fantasies. The appeal is the joy of solving a problem that one could initially not solve. Until the lag problem is better considered by content developers, there "should" be ways to produce other kinds of challenges which can be used either in conjuction with combat, or separately. Animated target ranges are OK, but producing a threat to the shooters has been complicated. Zombies are laggy. I hope that mesh robots will turn out to be less laggy. The easiest way to produce damage without lag, though, is to give people a lot of stuff to fall off of in a no-fly. Why don't we see more of that?

5) ralph is almost certainly here to distract you from technical changes going on behind your back, as he almost certainly has been in the past. I have indulged the discussion because I think some of it is worth indulging, in spite of the fact that it detracts from the amount of attention we should focus on what kind of bait-and-switch LL has cooked up for us this time. If I can't get everyone back to that quickly enough, I suppose it's partly my own fault. Sorry.

 

[Madeliefste Oh]

A system like SL needs micro merchants, that charge micro payments. They keep the economy going at the end of the long tail…

 Back in the days of hope and glory there were a lot of possibilities to make a few dollars a week to spend in SL. You could pick dollars from trees, you could camp, there were so many opportunities to work as a greeter or a dancer in a club.

 There are a lot of newcomers who do want to buy a dress, a piece of hair, shoes or an ao, but don’t feel comfortable to put money in their account,yet. Nowadays it’s much harder for a newbie to find some Lindens to spend. You can find enough free goods, but money to buy what you really desire is much more difficult. People who have some creativity can use the marketplace to make a bit of money. The current 10 L$ sellers are what the campers were in the past… people that safe micro amounts, to pay for things they like to buy for themselves. (This will not count for all 10 L$ sellers, some will make enough to make it worth to take the money out of SL, but this won’t be the majority).

Don’t be surprised that those cheap sellers you fear so much are your paying customers.It is not the small fish that eats the big fish, it’s the big fish that eats when there are small fishes around.



[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Josh Susanto wrote:

Not that I don't think ralph isn't ultimately full of beans in the final analysis, but I think one of his main points has probably been roundly misunderstood by the lot of you.

His complaint about the abundance of cheap stuff is not specifically about how much of it is sold, but about how much of it is rezzed and remains rezzed,

including free copies.

If I understand him correctly, what he seems to be trying to say is that the almost automatic proliferation of copymods, facilitated by the fact that everyone's first copy is cheap, fills in space that people don't bother to fill with something better because they already have something they perceive to be culturally sufficient, due to its ubiquity. 

Is this correct, ralph?

If this is what he means, that too has been true been true from the start. I'd need to see some indication that the proliferation of cheap copymod stuff has somehow reached an inflection point. Does Ralph have anything other than "gut feel" so show this? I don't see it.

[Josh Susanto]

Again, I only think that that must be what he means.

I haven't seen any reason to agree with it, at least in terms of it being a problem.

The cheap stuff is the bottom end of a ladder that most users will have to climb either in terms of consumer confidence or in terms of personal productivity before they are ready to buy the stuff ralph seems to want them to buy instead.

If you cut off the bottom rung of the ladder, some people might step up faster, but most of them won't step up at all. 

I still suggest people charge 9L, not 10L, though.

LL just keeps the 10th, so I just let the customer keep it instead.

[Mickey Vandeverre]

yo Ralph....just read the Mr. Rodvik's report, and he says that August was the highest growth month for new users in 4 years (or something like that).

so evidently things are AOK.

describe your target market a bit, and maybe we can help you get back on track.

you're not catering to all the oldbies stuck in a time warp that write blog rants 5 times a week....are you?

surely you have some items to spare at 5L to 25L that would appeal to all the new users?  sounds like there is a bunch!

can we get you back on track with that? 

[Josh Susanto]

I'm sure he'll lighten up as soon as the areas around the telehubs have all been turned into exclusive golf courses.