Jump to content

Willow Dion

Resident
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Willow Dion

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Yes we do disagree. I do find it insulting that LL choses to effectively ignore most of its existing user base. For at least ten years I’ve heard LL publicity harping how SL is user designed and expanded. But when they start to develop a new virtual world they that the same old we know better just accept what we give you. More disagreement: “Sansar also has to be a separate product from SL so as to not have to try and bring over content that is based on running on outdated technologyI am not talking about individuals computers I am talking bout server code and equipment.” Not sure how true that is. I’ve been riding the SL computer needed upgrade train for ten years. Back in 2005 I got acceptable performance for three years. Today that acceptable performance life of a personal computer is about a year and a half. Another disagreement: If Sansar had been designed as a replacement for as you call it SL 1.0 then there would be no need for LL to have both an SL 1.0 and SL 2.0 running at the same time. If the update were done correctly then the overall revenue from Second Life would increase rather than declining as it is now. Missing the point: “Being upset or feeling insulted that LL is developing Sansar to be a product that stands on its own is like being upset with EA Sports because it decides to make a new golf game when you are a big fan of their current football game.” It seems you are missing my point. Leaveing aside the debate about whether SL is or is not a game. It is the waste of resources that creating a new game causes. I find it ironic that LL trumpets the closing of one of its existing software products only to replace it with a new one. Wouldn’t those resources be better used by modernizing an existing software product that is showing its age?
  2. “They're not scheduled to open for public beta until end of the year -- and given the script situation, I very much doubt they'll make that target anyway.” From what I understood from the drips and drabs that is the Sansar communication the end of the year is Ebbe’s goal for the full production version of Sansar. Given the way Sansar is floundering in my opinion that is even less likely that a public beta by the end of the year. . BTW you’ve found another person that doesn’t take High Fidelity seriously. I found it interesting from a technical standpoint but as you say they have punted such basic things as text chat. Didn’t Ebbe respond favorably about a centralized official source for Sansar information back in November? Given the drips and drabs way Sansar information gest out that is needed to kill the rumor mill on the subject. But I haven’t heard anything else about that since then.
  3. I don’t agree. If you don’t include sufficient current user input you are setting yourself up to make the same mistakes as in the original product. Just because users are generally happy with an existing product does not mean it can’t and should not be improved.
  4. I have heard your point before about not involving users in the early development of a new software project. I spent twenty-three years professionally auditing software projects and the most frequent cause of failure was not including user feedback early in the design. How much to include is important but in my opinion LL’s minuscule inclusion is too small. On you second point that Sansar is not SL 2.0 I know that and said so in the original post. But in my opinion that is the root of Sansar’s problems. It should have been. Leverage that with using the extensive knowledge of existing SL user base there is a better chance of that Sansar will succeed. Not that it will guarantee success but that would improve the odds.
  5. I’m glad it doesn’t bother you Phil. But the waste of resources does bother me. I’m also concerned with as Ebbe says Sansar will cannibalize SL. The extent of that cannibalization is important. If it is too great and SL’s user base shrinks too much will LL really upkeep SL when it is losing money? Of course with the glacial progress of Sansar Ebbe will be gone from LL and the new CEO may not care that the previous CEO said SL will continue.
  6. You are right we don't know. By now we should know more. Sansar would have a greater chance of sucess if frome the middle of last summer (six months in to Ebbe's tenure as CEO) LL had emphasised it would be closer to SL and that current SL users would be more involved in develope of a next generation SL. I know they say SL and Sansar are seperate and that has been the major problem since the beginning of Sansar. LL had the potentional tools in existing SL users but they chose to ignore them.
  7. Why has Linden Lab chosen to insult its existing Second Life user base both by setting Project Sansar as a separate new product and allowing access to the developing future project by only those few it deems worthy? LL has an asset that none of the other upcoming Virtual Reality worlds has and that is an established user base of existing virtual world users. But LL has chosen to ignore that advantage and go off and develop just another limited new VR world like all the others that are coming out. I for one with my ten years’ experience in Second Life would have been pleased to be involved in helping to develop an updated SL. In effect I would have had “skin in the game“ so I would be loyal to a future LL project. Now like many of the other long term SL users I will ignore Sansar when it come out and I have no loyalty to Linden Lab’s future project. Willow Dion
  8. I think by watching the final scene of this video you will figure out why I've been around SL for almost ten years. Your What SL means to me video will be live at: http://youtu.be/J_F9b5QbAnI6/26/15 BTW there is no copyrigh infrindgement because I own right to the background music. Also expand your view to fullscreen. The video is high resolution. Willow
×
×
  • Create New...