is a premium account worth it?

[JeanneAnne]

---

Sy Beck wrote:

Out of interest, what do you think would happen if all the paying customers took your advice too?  Your freeloading theory of SL economics is only possible because there are people doing all the things you advise others not to do, such as buying land, bringing money into the game and purchasing premium.

If your contribution to SL is to just take from it, well that's fine, but a little less disparaging and general disdain of others who choose to contribute wouldn't go amiss either.  They are after all the ones paying for your little free playground to exist.

---

Like I've said before Sy, I'm the wrong one to complain to about this. LL, in their divine wisdom, has made it possible - indeed, encouraged - the vast majority of us to play SL for free. If you don't like LL's business policy by all means feel free to complain to them about it. Maybe they'll listen... :matte-motes-big-grin-squint:

Jeanne

[Rolig Loon]

---

Sy Beck wrote:

Out of interest, what do you think would happen if all the paying customers took your advice too?  Your freeloading theory of SL economics is only possible because there are people doing all the things you advise others not to do, such as buying land, bringing money into the game and purchasing premium.

If your contribution to SL is to just take from it, well that's fine, but a little less disparaging and general disdain of others who choose to contribute wouldn't go amiss either.  They are after all the ones paying for your little free playground to exist.

---

The obvious answer is that SL would collapse.  While I agree with the sentiment of your post, however, I'm not sure that the question is relevant here.   Unlike in RL, a freeloading resident of SL isn't actually taking anything from the society around her/him.  Avatars need no shelter or food, so freeloaders truly can survive without taking anything from those who create or spend in world.  True, if everyone did that, the world would disappear.  If a reasonably small part of the population does, though, they are not a drag on the rest of us.

You are quite right, though ..... the disparaging tone was unnecessary.

[JeanneAnne]

---

Rolig Loon wrote:

---

You are quite right, though ..... the disparaging tone was unnecessary.

---

All I do is tell the truth, point out the obvious, describe things accurately instead of in terms of marketing hype... and somehow that comes across as "disparaging." Well... too bad. I am new enough to SL (<3 months) to see things from an outsider's perspective rather than from the acculturated perspective of those who have long since bought into the hype uncritically. From my perspective LL is a greedy corporation exploiting those they've somehow managed to finaggle money out of. I don't mean to disparage you guys, you content creators, you server space renters, you few who pay the way for the masses of us "freeloaders." I mean to disparage the rapacious corporate overlords who exploit you for the sake of profit. I like SL or I wouldn't even bother. 

Jeanne

[Sy Beck]

The question was whether a premium account was worth it and the answer to that varies depending on your wants and needs in SL, there is no right answer to it. 

You offered the advice to take everything for free, which I'll admit LL allows.  Many of the people who don't purchase premium membership though rent land/estates instead and bring RL money into the game for rent or purchases, which a percentage of goes into the LL coffers to keep the whole thing running.

I don't have a problem with LL's model appropos paying and non-paying customers, what I find ironic is somebody who cites corporate greed, but then goes on to advocate a lifestyle of take take take and don't give to others, and then disparages anybody who does give into the system that supports them as a fool.

But, meh, that's your SL, have a good ride. :smileyhappy:

 

[ETA] Thank you Rolig that's how I should have expressed it :matte-motes-kiss:

[Charolotte Caxton]

Hi.

I like your name, I think it's pretty.

If it weren't for the rapacious corporate overlords, would there be a SL to like?

[JeanneAnne]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Hi.

I like your name, I think it's pretty.

If it weren't for the rapacious corporate overlords, would there be a SL to

like

?

---

There very well could be, and a better one at that. If SL was run as a non-profit consortium of its members, with everyone paying a modest user fee, just to cover expenses, and a democratic form of governance, there well could be a SL we could all like better than the virtual dictatorship LL imposes. It could be a SL where inequality ceases to be the norm, where the class distinction between homeless & $L-less "freeloaders" and a wealthy & landed elite ceases to exist. SL could be run as a Marxist utopia rather than as a sordid Capitalist scam whereby the time, creativity and talent of content creators are exploited by greedy corporate overlords. I've said this before in these fora and been dogpiled by exploited apologists suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, for my troubles, but oh well... If you don't mind paying for the "priviledge" of creating content that enriches corporate executives and investors, rather than being paid for your services, then carry on ... It ceases to amaze me that the 99% will defend the 1% who exploit them.

Jeanne

[Void Singer]

so in your esteemed view LL should make everything available for free and never consider their own cost for maintaining and improving SL? and you don't think that's a rather naive and self centered position to hold?

you also implicate that the things you want and how you value them are the only things anyone should want, and how everyone should value them... whether that was your intention or not, that's what's being reacted to.

this isn't a slam, it's just my attempt to show you the reflection of what others are seeing in your words.

 

there's no argument that there is more free content in SL than any other virtual world platform, and the line is much blurrier than in other places where there are hard limits between free and paid content. but that does not change the value of the paid content/services to the people that desire them.

[Rolig Loon]

---

JeanneAnne wrote:

---

[..... ] I've said this before in these fora and been dogpiled by exploited apologists suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, for my troubles, but oh well... If you don't mind paying for the "priviledge" of creating content that enriches corporate executives and investors, rather than being paid for your services, then carry on ... It ceases to amaze me that the 99% will defend the 1% who exploit them.

Jeanne

---

Now you

are

disparaging us, and I for one do not care for the tone.  We are all here  by choice, as you are, and are free to leave at any time if we decide that the inconvenience of living in a world supported by corporate profit motives is greater than the pleasure we enjoy in it.  Far from being "Stockholm Syndrome," my own decision to stay in a less than perfect SL has to do with the fact that I can carry on a creative business and enjoy the company of friends on a day to day basis without being more than mildly annoyed at some of LL's decisions.  Put simply, I care about my own welfare and that of my neighbors in SL.  The amount of profit that LL makes -- a sum that I do not know, and doubt that you know either -- is irrelevant to my enjoyment of Second Life.

[Charolotte Caxton]

Oh, cool. Thanks.

Is that like a communist versus capitalism type scenario? Like how there used to be a huge communist socialist republic and a huge capitalistic democracy and the socialist one crumbled but the capitalist one flourished?

And I think Stockholm syndrome is when the captive becomes sympathetic to their captors from closeness or whatever. Unless one is playing with RLV, the borders of SL are free and open for anyone to stay or leave.

I think your ideology sounds pretty in thought, but is doomed to failure in practice.  

[JeanneAnne]

---

Void Singer wrote:

so in your esteemed view LL should make everything available for free and never consider their own cost for maintaining and improving SL? and you don't think that's a rather naive and self centered position to hold?

---

Of course the electric bill must be paid, Void, and maintenance & upgrades on the servers paid for, and salaries paid to the programmers & technicians & service personnel who keep the grid up & running. This is why I think everyone should pay a modest user fee for participation in SL. But dividends to shareholders and salaries that make millionaires out of chief executives only amounts to parasitism. If SL was run on a non-profit basis, this parasitism could be eliminated and the funds either spent on upgrades or saved in terms of reduced user fees. The self centered position is on the part of those who profit obscenely off the creativity of content creators who then must pay - rather than be paid - for the dubious priviledge of displaying their creations in SL. If SL was owned and managed by its participants content creators could perhaps be remunerated for their contributions, rather than having to pay tier & upload fees for all their time & trouble. It's remarkable how many of these very content creators will spring to the defense of the very business model that exploits them, how they will attack me (don't like my "tone," for instance) for even mentioning such an idea while seeking to rationalize LL policy. "Cohesion unto the oppressor" is a very real phenomonon.

Jeanne

[JeanneAnne]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Oh, cool. Thanks.

Is that like a communist versus capitalism type scenario? Like how there used to be a huge communist socialist republic and a huge capitalistic democracy and the socialist one crumbled but the capitalist one flourished?

...

I think your ideology sounds pretty in thought, but is doomed to failure in practice.  

---

Don't you have that backwards Charolotte? Isn't it the Capitalist West who owes the farm to Communist China these days?

How do you know that my ideology is doomed to failure in practice? Why don't we try it and find out?

Jeanne

 

[Charolotte Caxton]

Oh, I don't know for certain, I was just basing my thoughts on past socialist failures.

I can't imagine how we could try it. I do believe the SL code is open source which to me means anyone can start their own virtual world, so you could in theory I suppose start a Third Life, base it on socialist Marxism and then compare it to Second Life and see which one does better.

That probably would cost a lot of startup money though, which of course would have to come from a capitalist economy or generous donations, so therefore Third Life is in most probability doomed before it even begins

Although, now that I think of it, I bet if enough talented and technical persons got together they could make a socialist virtual world, they may even be able to get funding from research institutions and what not. Perhaps they wouldn't even need a whole world, maybe just a sim, or even a small plot of land in Second Life. They could be revolutionaries! Revolts are big right now, I bet some kind of inworld revolution, complete with blogs, media coverage, sponsored events and such would be fun for some for awhile perhaps.

[Sy Beck]

I'm going to be generous here and believe that you are under 25 and idealistic, which is good and proper and how young people should be.  Seriously though, you are looking at the world through rose tinted glasses and classroom dogma.  For what it's worth I was in the Communist Party of Great Britain when I was young and idealistic and I'll talk Marx, Engels, Trotsky and Maoism with you all night if you want to and I have spent the majority of my life in politics, so I have at least a basic understanding of how things tick.

I'll tell you the secret flaw in any political theory hammered out in a classroom or calculated on a piece of paper.  It's this, it involves people at the core of it and people are not a constant and any value/predictive statement you assign to them will vary from one day to the next and at times it will switch from one pole to another more dramatically than you could imagine.  You cannot build a formula around people unless you try to strip them of their humanity and turn them into machines that co-operate and even then as history has shown it still fails.

China owns the farm at present because it's doing a far better job at cut throat capitalism than the West, likewise India, but ask yourself, would you rather be poor where you are now or poor in either of those countries.  You rail against the shareholders and investors of a company.  These would be the people who took their own money and invested it in the first place in Rosedale's little pipe dream and took the risk.  Because of them a lot of people now have jobs and we get a cool playground.  Where was the people's collective when Rosedale was going round cap in hand asking for money.  What similar start up ventures are you currently donating to and when are you going to start your version of Utopian SL and where are the million other small donators that you will you need.  If you don't know I'll tell you a place where you can find a million little people who do make small donations as a collective to invest, it's called a stock exchange.

I can assure you of this, no system of governance or commerce is fair or perfect, each brings its benefits and each brings its bogeyman.  If you replace the system you will get different benefits, but you will also get a new bogeyman.  So far the Marxist bogeymen have no better record of treating the masses than others and often times worse.

/rant over

/me goes off to SL escape all this BS

[Void Singer]

you're still stuck in seeing things as a one way transaction...  and presuming some greedy motive on the part of corporations... corporations want what people want... value for what they've put out. most everyone wants to better their position because doing so increases one control of their immediate circumstance. survival isn't enough, improvement of quality is a life imperative.

the same merchants you claim are being exploited are actually (in that view) exploiting LL at the same time... the more and better they create, the more they personally earn, and indirectly the more popular SL becomes, and the more LL makes. as that popularity rises, that same merchant gains new revenues related to the new blood. the relation is actually symbiotic, not parasitic, regardless of who generates more money, because they both benefit from the exchange.

for there to be any oppression there must be a lack of choice... yet the reality here is there is nothing but choices. so it's little wonder when you insult someone for their choices simply because they are not the same ones you would make, that they would take offense. refusing to see any option or circumstance other than you own is a hallmark of immaturity, and it should be no surprise when you receive a "puppy correction" for it. I happen to agree that it was deserved.

you cannot change a system by attacking it's adherants, or even it's structure. the only successful way to change a system is to provide a better one, and prove that it works, both in competition with the current system, with itself, and by itself. so far, no such system exists.

[Ciaran Laval]

Premium members currently get access to project LR, it's coming for all soon but perks like this with early looks are nice.

[Charolotte Caxton]

(what's LR?)

[Void Singer]

http://community.secondlife.com/t5/English-Knowledge-Base/Project-LR-Frequently-Asked-Questions/ta-p/1057471

(I had to look it up too)

ETA:
This is where Lindens posting to external sites really hurts us... for instance I'd probably know all about this if I kept up with the forums over at SLU

[Rolig Loon]

And I'd want this perk because ..... ?

[Charolotte Caxton]

Oh.

It's a video game within SL.

What does LR stand for?

The FAQ does not say where to find these portals. Interesting.

[Void Singer]

you're really really bored?

I just heard about it in this thread, so it's news to me too.... it does open up the possibility of early access to new things for premiums, but that makes it another case of "wait around and it's free"

[Rolig Loon]

I don't think I have ever been bored enough to want to dash through secret portals in SL, picking up shiny coins and getting shot out of cannons.  Thanks, LL, but I'll let the kids have this perk.  :smileytongue:

[Charolotte Caxton]

Aha! A clue!

http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Mainland/Did-You-See-the-Linden-s-New-Game-Within-the-Game/m-p/1203819/highlight/true#M2236

[Perrie Juran]

---

JeanneAnne wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Oh, cool. Thanks.

Is that like a communist versus capitalism type scenario? Like how there used to be a huge communist socialist republic and a huge capitalistic democracy and the socialist one crumbled but the capitalist one flourished?

...

I think your ideology sounds pretty in thought, but is doomed to failure in practice.  

---

Don't you have that backwards Charolotte? Isn't it the Capitalist West who owes the farm to

Communist China

these days?

How do you know that my ideology is doomed to failure in practice? Why don't we try it and find out?

Jeanne

 

---

Except for the fact that if you look at their current economic model it isn't exactly 'communist.'

And the other side of this is how much of their economy is based on, I will use the Second Life term for it, Copy Botting!  Yep, IP theft.  And it has been proposed that if we were to actually collect royalties for what they have stolen they would be in the red (snark, snark, snark) to us!  And this idea has been gaining ground and support in the U.S. and in other nations.

There are a ton of products produced in China that they CAN NOT sell in the U.S. because of this.

Quite frankly, if I have ever seen a good argument for Linden Lab charging a sign up fee, it is your freeloading attitude. 

 

---

Void Singer wrote:

for there to be any oppression there must be a lack of choice...

---

THAT IS AN AWESOME STATEMENT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

[JeanneAnne]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

JeanneAnne wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Oh, cool. Thanks.

Is that like a communist versus capitalism type scenario? Like how there used to be a huge communist socialist republic and a huge capitalistic democracy and the socialist one crumbled but the capitalist one flourished?

...

I think your ideology sounds pretty in thought, but is doomed to failure in practice.  

---

Don't you have that backwards Charolotte? Isn't it the Capitalist West who owes the farm to

Communist China

these days?

How do you know that my ideology is doomed to failure in practice? Why don't we try it and find out?

Jeanne

 

---

 And it has been proposed that if we were to actually collect royalties for what they have stolen they would be in the red (snark, snark, snark) to us!  And this idea has been gaining ground and support in the U.S. and in other nations.

...

Quite frankly, if I have ever seen a good argument for Linden Lab charging a sign up fee, it is your freeloading attitude. 

 

---

Okay. We in the West had better pay royalties to the Chinese for gunpowder and for the wheelbarrow, then. That would be only fair, right?

I agree that there ought to be a sign up fee for SL, and a regular users fee charged after that. Everyone ought to pay the same fee and have the same priviledges. In exchange, private "property" and the $L need to be eliminated, and content creators paid by LL for their labor, rather than have to pay to upload it & store its code on LL servers. Then there would be no "freeloading," nor would there be any class distinctions. Prostitution and slavery would be mere role playing, instead of something imposed by economic necessity. I heartily agree that this would be a great improvement to the SL experience.

Jeanne

[Rolig Loon]

---

JeanneAnne wrote:

Okay. We in the West had better pay royalties to the Chinese for gunpowder and for the wheelbarrow, then. That would be only fair, right?

I agree that there ought to be a sign up fee for SL, and a regular users fee charged after that. Everyone ought to pay the same fee and have the same priviledges. In exchange, private "property" and the $L need to be eliminated, and content creators paid by LL for their labor, rather than have to pay to upload it & store its code on LL servers. Then there would be no "freeloading," nor would there be any class distinctions. Prostitution and slavery would be mere role playing, instead of something imposed by economic necessity. I heartily agree that this would be a great improvement to the SL experience.

Jeanne

---

 Like it or not, and you clearly do not like it, SL is rooted in a capitalist model.  Private property and a medium of exchange are the basis for the businesses that are a central focus for many of us.  They also serve as an extrinsic reward system by which residents recognize the work of creators.  It is certainly possible to imagine a different system for a virtual world, perhaps one based on the Utopian or utilitarian model you seem to prefer, but it would not be the Second Life that most of us are here for. 

Linden Lab, likewise, is not here for altruistic reasons.  They are a corporation in a capitalist society, here to make a profit for themselves and their investors.  Being privately held, they are not obliged to tell you or me how big their profits are, or what any of them are paid.  Their earnings may be obscene by whatever standard you may choose, and you are free to be offended by their business model.  You may also complain about the way SL is constructed and about the asinine decisions they make. We all do that.  If those things are too offensive for you, you are also free to find a better virtual world.  Quite a few people do that too.  If you decide to stay, however, don't expect LL to abandon capitalism, and don't be surprised when you don't find many of us climbing on your bandwagon.