Jump to content

Kadah Coba

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Kadah Coba

  1. 16 minutes ago, diamond Marchant said:

    Patch, when you do your FAQ, please address

    1. What laws in what countries and what regulatory climate are you concerned with? Has anyone be convicted or lost a lawsuit so far?

    2. If you use the criterion of "paying and receiving something  back by chance"... then will you also outlaw the following:

    - Current Linden Home allocation

    - Sploders

    - 7Seas Fishing using bait

    Number 1 is falling in to lawyers territory so do not expect much.

    SL Premium isn't purely for only Linden Homes, those are just one of the land types it allows for. Though the current why to get them could be improved.

    Pretty sure sploders (if they are what I remember from forever ago) are likely running afoul of a number of existing and older gambling type regulations in a lot of jurisdictions.

    7Seas would be a micro-transaction game mechanic instead of loot box. Would be affected by different, but similar laws against predatory monetization schemes.


    Predatory loot boxes from triple A and mobile game studios are the issue. The problem is the regulatory net needed to effectively capture them needs to be wide since the studios behind predatory loot boxes will just slightly tweak the mechanics, or simply just the vocabulary, as to get it reclassified to something similar that may still be allowed.

    We are talking about studios who, if they could get away with it (and I wouldn't be surprised if they are already doing this...), would make the drop chances "personalized" per-user via an analysis of their activity on social and other medias.

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1
  2. Exact same design but Modern Flat and in generic Modern UI ""dark"" Blue #1 instead of trademarked Linden Green. Ok then.

    I do appreciate, that other than the color, its pretty much the same general logo as the original classic logo (not whatever that weird 2010's App Store stylized encircled thing was).

    Given the trend of corporate logo redesigns when moving to the offensively-inaccessibility of modern UI designs, I was fully expecting the new SL logo to be completely different by being a generic, meaningless, and "inoffensive", arrangement of basic shapes in two colors, where one of those colors is transparent the other is so neutral that it  compatible (ie. barely works) on either dark theme light dark-gray or light theme dark light-gray backgrounds. Nothing like ruining your brand recognition by making your long standing logo something existing customers can't identify and new or non-customers still can't care about. lol

    I'm mostly relieved they settled on "fine, lets just make it blue then."  

    • Like 1
  3. 9 hours ago, Grumpity Linden said:


    We have approximately 90,000 basic members with 36 or more groups.  We have approximately 10,000 premium subscribers with 55 or more groups.  This is not a 1:1 change.  Does that help with the confusion?  


    Hmmm, likely safe to bet about 2-15% of that 90k are still active accounts. If I assume 20% active, that's max <3% affected. That's slightly higher than I would have guessed.

  4. 1 hour ago, Grumpity Linden said:

    There will be a new and shiny premium level, which you would be able to upgrade to from your old yet still pretty awesome premium level.  The specifics of how upgrades (and downgrades) will work are going to be announced at a later date, but the general idea is - you will get credit for the "old" premium towards the new shiny.  

    If its increased script mem limits or adding something useful to experiences, I'm on board for that.

  5. 1 hour ago, bigmoe Whitfield said:

    I own a webhosting/vpn/vps business and have since 1998,  our visa CREDIT card fee's just went through the roof, so we have stopped taking them as a form of payment,  we still accept paypal which just went up and we still take mastercards which just went up,  now I'm not talking bank cards, debit cards are fine,  it's the credit cards, the processors like paypal and our other merchant accounts is where the fee's are going a bit bonkers.   

    Speaking of other fee's.   depending on how LL has things setup,  payroll, power, datacenter fee's,  up and down stream providers,  all kinds of fee's.   people are way goign LL IS FORCING THIS OR THAT, when reality is, this is a business decision to help them along and keep our SL running and going.  sorry people are so upset they are just all over the place.  

    Yes I know LL I know, I'm trying to be the voice of reason , Even if I'm not correct on what fee's and such are what is happening, I am giving a gist, because of the rates the fee's have gone too from my end.

    LL is also based in California. You can assume everything in this state costs between 30-200000% more than it would in any other place, outside of Manhattan and Hawaii.

    9 minutes ago, Grumpity Linden said:

    There are few things I feel as strongly about as the outcome of that attempt - you may know them as web profiles and the profile feed.  A facebook clone is hardly possible without the facebook budget - otherwise you end up with what we have. 

    Your larger point about needing better solutions than the current overloaded group system is absolutely fair, and we're very much aware of it. 

    Projects to fix the various problems with groups have been going longer than Grumpity has been a Linden. xD

    I think we're past the point where we just make a new group system from scratch and migrate over.

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
  6. 9 hours ago, RuffertasAlt said:

    First, Thank you for the spreadsheet. I was trying to do the calculations myself last night, but this makes it a lot easier. I had been automatically assuming that having more premium alts would result in lower tier costs (what with group ownership reduction) but it looks like I am going to have to do some more thinking. I should add that I prefer to do the once-a-year premium payment rather than paying monthly tier because my outgoing expenses are irregular and some months I have a little more unallocated income than others.

    If you would otherwise buy the >$60 worth of L$ per year, then it starts being cheaper to have more than one premium account. The way the land tier prices scale as they increase makes it hard to beat just going up a tier verse getting another premium sub with an additional lower tier level. When the L$ stipend factors in, and only when you would buy L$ regardless, then the numbers shift towards something more complex.

    • Thanks 1
  7. 6 hours ago, Pamela Galli said:

    @Kat Linden  what about concierge membership (without Premium) — will we get IMs capped like basic accounts or premium?

    How is that even possible? I thought region ownership also required premium.

    5 hours ago, xxSaltandPepperxx said:

    For creators it's the main advertising tool. Now it will be even harder for especially new creators to bring people into their groups to get the word out and to bring more content to SL. As a premium myself I would rather not have more than 60 groups and therefore the basic accounts maybe could keep theirs. As @Blueberryxx already mentioned, maybe there is a way to fix those group issue as many jiras have been filed. The impact on cutting groups is tremendous for SL population 

    Offline group notices fail 50-95% of the time going back at least over 2.5 years. The causes for these issues and others with groups is often very hard to determine and solutions may not even be possible without complete replacements.

    Any project to fix the group problems is going to be a very long undertaking and massive scope.

    2 hours ago, Elvina Ewing said:

    *I* didn't see any reduction on *my* rent. Not even a 1$. And my landlord seems to be doing just fine to this day. I was hoping he would indeed need to compete, but apparently not at all.

    Mainland or private region? The previous discounts were only for mainland.

  8. Let me buy-down and I will use the unpoisoned and not-on-fire pitchfork instead. :V

    1 hour ago, Grumpity Linden said:

    We’re not lowering limits out of spite, groups really are quite a strain on our back end for a variety of painful historical reasons, including overloading group functionality instead of having other tools.  This subject alone is worth a novel liberally sprinkled with tears. So anyway, we don’t hate basic users, and in fact we work hard to retain our free-to-play offering as one of the most generous across many industries. But yes, no big surprise, we do want to nudge active residents to become subscribers, because we think it’s a great value, and - as many have noted - we’re also running a business. But no, we're not shutting our doors to non-premium residents. Rumors of our insanity and villainy have been slightly exaggerated.  

    Should have lead with that in the original post. I know what I say has little weight with other residents, but I will still add that the group backend is really taxed. Many-to-many instant message chat on the scale SL does is not an easy feat, and it's only something recent new chat platforms have managed to overcome with the power of massive distributed computing. (On that note, SL should add Discord support :V)
    Maybe the new Basic group limit should have applied to new residents. Or maybe at least promise that when the group backend gets its long past-due overhaul, Basic will get its 42 back.

    • Like 5
  9. 36 minutes ago, Kadah Coba said:

    You're right. I thought my sheet had accounted for L$ but it didn't. I had forgotten I had left that out as I haven't bought L$ in many years due to the small amount of rent income I get doing that for me.

    I updated my workbook to account for the stipend and the new and old premium pricing. I converted the stipend to an even $60/yr value as that is about where L$15600 (300/7*365) comes to without fees.


    Above assumes you would otherwise buy the L$. This one does not and would be annual price paid.


    The separate charts were annoying me, so I made a combined condensed one.



    • Like 4
    • Thanks 1
    • Haha 2
  10. 29 minutes ago, Ani Aunerfal said:

    Yeah, agreed.

    I feel like this blow could've relatively easily been softened by just adding value to premium membership that is more universal. An increase to the stipend or perhaps an entirely new feature - it doesn't need to be anything huge. But it would've been tactful to ship these changes along with a better offering.

    It's hard to avoid making people mad with a price increase, but there's a lot you can do to smooth the reaction.


    The transition fee increase should have been a separate thing done at least 6 months away from the other changes. These type of fee increases within the industry have been happening for years due to the added regulations. I'm surprised LL didn't do them earlier, but I''m guessing they waited to do one single increase rather than several smaller ones.

    Had they done it separately, they could have passed the blame off on regulatory compliance and increased payment processor costs.

    By combining it with the premium increase with its tiny crab apple treat than only a few of us horses will even get, plus also saying the ponies will get fewer carrots, it was more of an insult to all.

    Sorry for the equine analogies. I'm tired and was saw a lot of horses at the park this evening after work. x3

    • Like 1
  11. 45 minutes ago, WillowTenage said:

    300 a week, it adds up :) Before this change, you could almost justify having a premium account on the linden you earned alone.   The extra 1024 land was enough to push you well into justifying the membership.  It still is worth it, I'm keeping two premium accounts active, I might do so for the third if my tax return actually gets here before the shutoff date before the price changes.  

    You're right. I thought my sheet had accounted for L$ but it didn't. I had forgotten I had left that out as I haven't bought L$ in many years due to the small amount of rent income I get doing that for me.

    I updated my workbook to account for the stipend and the new and old premium pricing. I converted the stipend to an even $60/yr value as that is about where L$15600 (300/7*365) comes to without fees.


    Above assumes you would otherwise buy the L$. This one does not and would be annual price paid.


    • Like 3
    • Thanks 2
  12. 3 minutes ago, Ani Aunerfal said:

    It may not be a huge increase (for us. it is for some people) but it's still essentially a devaluing of the product, adding more cost without much in the way of meaningful increase in gain for the buyer. If you don't use premium homes, cap your groups or your offline IMs (which is actually more people than you'd think), this is basically just a price increase with no benefit. My land is allocated to a sim, i am not in that many groups and my IMs don't cap. So i'm just paying more money and that's it.

    Totally. Any premium user who owns less than a full private region is getting screwed by this. The only defend-able point about the premium increase is its the first one in a very long time and less than inflation. Combined with the changes to Basic and the translation fee changes, this whole thing is coming off as more of an insult to residents.

    I'm in the small class of residents that will get any benefit from this and its a >7% savings. Its a nice gesture, but not really going to change much. I guess I can treat myself to Wendy's twice a month now.

    • Like 6
  13. 2 minutes ago, WillowTenage said:

    Currently, it is $61.91 for 15,600 linden, in addition to that it is another $84 for 1,200 sqm a year, which is $145.94 a year..  This is still a bargain for premium accounts, if you are interested in land and linden, at $72 a year it was succulent even at the new prices it is a bargain.  I think premium is still worth it, but as I said there is a definite sense of loss, especially for people trying to keep to a budget, I don't know why linden let it go on for this long to begin with.

    Was that the old larger stipends or the 300L one? I did all my calculations last year with the 300L since that it what I am able to get.

  14. 4 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

    Ah, so it was 2006 when they upped it to 25. Just seemed longer. Thanks!

    I thought it was 2008 initially as that was what the wiki history turned, but dug further as I couldn't trust that result as the wiki was started in 2008. Anything before the end of 2008 is before my time.

    Just now, Selene Gregoire said:

    In case you didn't know, when you highlight to quote someone quoted in another post it won't show the original OP's name. It shows the other person. Like it's showing you quoted me when it was someone else. Not the first time it's happened. 

    I don't doubt it, Invision is only a little better than Lithium garbage.

    • Like 1
  15. 27 minutes ago, Randy Pole said:

    The price increase for premium membership is $2.49 which, considering there has been no price increase in over 10 years comes out at an increase only slightly above the rate of inflation.

    Yes any increase is unwelcome but in all honesty to have no increase in so long is good going.

    This. The annual increase (there is no reason not to do it annually) is only $2.25/m. Generally, the only reason now to get premium is for owning land directly and an extra $2.25 is not a huge difference.

    18 minutes ago, WillowTenage said:

    That is true, but when you have multiple alts, that adds up quickly. 

    3 accounts at the old price for a year subscription = $216 USD

    3 accounts at the new price for a year subscription = $297 USD

    Now, I'm going to drop my third subscription and be charged $198 USD, which is close to what I would have paid for three accounts, results in 1024 sqm of lost land allocation, and $15,600 lindens a year.  So, there is a real loss of value there.  

    I am not going to spend too much time fretting over it, but it does have an impact.  I do still think it is worth it in the long run, of course, I do think I have lost something as well.  

    It is cheaper to get additional tier on a single premium account than to have multiple premium accounts. Before this raise, there was only a few edge cases where specific total tier was cheaper and only slightly.

  16. 16 minutes ago, Matty Luminos said:

    Well this settles my debate on whether to put my alt back on premium - its no longer worth it.

    In all but some very iffy and narrow edge cases, its always cheaper to increase your tier than to premium up an alt. This increase only makes this slightly more true.

    13 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

    These changes hurt everyone except land barons and I suspect the lowering of region prices is to combat the expected exodus of users out of estate rental and into Linden Homes.

    Single private region holders will see a $17.75 savings off $255/m. It is literally not much more than a token gesture, but I'll take it. This will help pay for the slight increases in mainland holding I did for frientals and I won't need to sell off any old mainland for now.

  17. 15 minutes ago, Digit Gears said:

    Actually, 25 was a increase. Was around 15 at one point, I can't recall if it was lower than that.

    Was originally 10 groups.

    Nov 10, 2004 it was raised to 15. http://forums-archive.secondlife.com/32/40/26961/1.html

    2006 it was raised to 25.

    2011 it was pushed to 42. If I remember right, there was a technical limitation preventing it from being higher than 25 before this and Oskar or Andrew made it 42 as a reference to HHGTTG.

    2015 was when the 60 bonus was added to premium.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  18. 2 minutes ago, Ani Aunerfal said:

    As a premium user who does not own land, I feel like I have effectively been screwed for the benefit of land owners, especially since the only part of my premium perks that seem to have been adjusted are the parts that have the least value. No increased stipend, no new featuers, no extra allocation of land? You're just gonna.. Let me join more groups and get more offline IMs. 


    Its not land owners in general, its just private full region owners. Mainland only land owners are getting the same bupkis you are.

    • Like 3
  19. 1 minute ago, Selene Gregoire said:

    OMG! Yes! Even though he has been gone for years now some of the crap he pulled (and tried to pull) still chaps my @$$.

    Michael should have been canned years sooner, one of the worst things even to SL. Complete feature stagnation and many dumb mistakes like paying a design firm, who had never touched SL before, to design the Viewer 2.0 UI. It took years to begin to recover.

  20. 1 minute ago, j0Q said:

    ''IMs get capped please send a notecard.'' I pretty sure I will continue to read that.  lol  I want one of those one time fee Charter Memberships I was told some of those old timers are getting L$500 to L$1,000 weekly stipend.

    Offline IMs and group notices to email are not capped, but are subject to the same unreliability.

    1 minute ago, Fox Wijaya said:

    i think we know LL longer than yesterday... if they meant that they would have added that. Or not mention it at all.

    Lawyers usually prevent such things and why we get "may be subject to" instead.

  21. 4 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

    I think you may have forgotten to take one thing into account on the changing last name thing. A lot of us basic accounts have last names because we've been here that long and longer. So why shouldn't we be able to pay to change our last names?

    From what I remember, the plan with bring back last names was to allow for paid changed. Given how long it has been without any news on it, I think there have been further complications to bring them back. I think we can all agree that this is Michael's fault.

    4 minutes ago, Fox Wijaya said:

    i can have misread but i hear nobody about the VAT... as far i know EU residents now get the VAT on premium waved away, but it seems to come back again according the post!
    That is a adittional 20% for the raised premiums!!! ...ehm...guys that gets a bit nuts!

    VERY small font...


    I think that was more of a "we are not an accredited tax advisory, we cannot speak authoritatively on VAT for your specific situation".

  • Create New...