Jump to content

Madison531

Resident
  • Content Count

    50
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Madison531

  1. And to be fair it costs lfar ess, given the stipend. But the increasedland allowance cost them almost nothing with all the empty land, so that doesn't justify making up for it.. I have trouble understanding why LL can have a huge price hike and be defended by many. People have said they should open financial info, and I understand why they won't do that. Ir's actually no win for them: They're either struggling financially and really need the revenue, which would justify the price increases but people would be screaming the sky is failling, that sl is in big trouble; or they're doing fine and just found a way they feel will make even more money. If that's the case, the price increases are awful. So, I want to restate they aren't obligated to share financial info at all, and I wouldn't if I were them regardless of the specifics, but so many want to give them the benefit of the doubt, though regardless there'd be better ways to raise money, which might have included a smaller increasein membership fees as part of it, but this is big. The old system was, in fact, a really great deal...but that's part of why it bothers me so much that they're making it a lot less great.
  2. Lindens are money, but LL can create it at will. I really don't know if it would cost LL money to raise the premium stipend. There are probably some complications. "Printing more money" could lower the value of the Linden. But if it costs (and I don't know if it does; it seems it would but I can't claim to be sure) LL a lot less to provide L$ than the L$ are worth to the user, then they should increase the stipend to somewhat make up for the increased prices. It doesn't have to be proportional. I'll take half the difference in L$ and be willing to accept the tradeoff and stop complaining.
  3. Okay, so maybe a way to characterize the changes is a "bail out" of the land baron business. I'd wish LL had let the move, probably largely brought about through increasing the free land with a premium account, toward small ownership and less land baron/renting continue, even encouraging it. Because, I think it's better without middlemen. I know that before this account price explosion, I told a lot of people how they shouldn't be renting and should be owning and only occasionally was able to convicne someone to make the change. It was so much of a better value, even before having no middleman. If land barons have trouble filling land, some will sell the 1024 sq m parcels they now rent, to people who can get them for no tier, and not have to deal with a middleman. And only the land barons who really treated renters well, would keep much occpuancy. I f LL was going to mnake more money from account holders, land barons should also have had to pay more, so the rest could pay less. LL should have been trying toi get as many people as possible into premium accounts, rather than actually indrecitly encouraging people to rent instead of giong premium.
  4. I'd have tried to build the base of premium users further, rather than making a lot more moneyper premium user. The increased land allowance for a premium account was a great example of that sort of action. LL could have found more tnagible things that didn't really cost LL to offer but would have been valuable to premium users. Enough of them and I'd even accept a smaller price increase than the large one they implemented without complaint.
  5. You posted why owning your own 1024 sq m parcel is still more for your money than renting one. Lots of people still rented, for, especially before the premoun account price explosion, reasons I couldn't understand. The fact is though that LLs' changes make owning a small parcel a much worse deal than it was (even if generally still better than renting), and land baroning a better deal (this is not an attack on full sim owners who rent parcels; if you have the money to invest it's a perfectly legit way to make money) I don't know why LL wants to make it even better when it was already pretty sweet though, while making everyone else with premum pay a lot more.
  6. I know that landownees in general are a mix and there are many that do a lot of very nice things for their tenants. I don't mesan to imply they tend to love to abuse power or anything. My big issue is that LL seems to be accomodating landowners at all others' expense.
  7. They get a cut, I get an increase. And when we did get the extra land, they got a cut then too. But if I were getting a cut, or more free land with membership, then fine they can get another cut too. But since I'm getting a 250% increase, they shouldn't get a cut that I'm helping to pay for. LL is pushing land baron/rent when they should do the opposite (which the increase to 1024 did) and encourage more to be members and own small parcels and less land baron/renting. The upfront cost is worse than meets the eye, because it means taking a risk that things on sl will turn bad and you decide to leave, and then youve wasted (the rest of) the year's fee. Quarterly was a good compromise for that, but for some reason LL decided they hate quarterly so are increasing that more than anything else, and new users can't even get it. In terms of cost counting the L$ stipend, then yes it's still a better deal than renting in almost all cases. But I tend to see that as a goal of LL, listening to land barons and wanting to make owning small parcels not as good a deal compared to renting.
  8. I want to focus on the one idea in the original post I really like: Minor premium, though I'd make it "a la carte permium." You pick the premium benefits. Each has a cost. Some are worth more so might cost more than others. But different people have different priorities, so defined tiers don't work. Like, I might buy a package of owning land (1024 sq m free and the right to buy more, with a tier fee cost for more of course) and one of higher group/offline IM limits. Someone in another thread said they value easier access to crowded sims but don't care about owning land. They could buy that instead. Because there would be no stipend, each benefit would be quite cheap (don't underestimate how much the stipend made premium before the price increases such a good deal, though less with the increases), but buy more than 4 perks or so and you're paying more in real terms than premium, so you only do it if you only value a few of the perks enough to pay for them specifically.
  9. What I think people are missing is that this is not an incremental price incrwase, as it might appear at first, but a huge increase percentagewise-- when you consider how much we will have to pay on top of the worth of the Linden allowance. Raising annual prices from $72/year to $99 (basically $100)-- that's still really big, over a 33% increase-- but it's even a lot bigger, because it was about $10 per year counting the value of the L$ allowance, and now, it's $37 per year counting the allowance. So it isn't really a little over 33%: It's 250%, in the real cost. That is exorbitant. make it actually a 33% increase after the Linden allowance by giving us most (not all) of the extra cost back in extra L$ allowance and it's reasonable. A 250% increase though is exorbitant. And make some of the miney back by not cutting full region fees. This seems designed to have less ssmall-user land owning and more land rentals-- the opposite direction the great change to 1024 sq m went. It seems to be driving toward fewer subscriptions but more cost per subscription. It's the exact opposite direction they should have been heading, trying to get more people to subscribe at the same price or even at an actual 33% increase (but not an actual 250% increase). Meanwhile, again in LL seeming to want less small land ownership and more rentals (where you're at the mecy of a landlord) they gave one group a price cut, the full region owners. That will, I'm sure, lower rental costs. But those of us who want true control over our land got badly screwed.
  10. If I'm going to consider paying for it, I have to be able to make the choice and see if a combo I like is available-- I'm known enough my first name will be Madison regardless, and if I can't have that with a last name I think is decent (whether or not I change my display last name, which I'm not sure one way or the other if I will), I won't do it. Related, of course, is that if I have to pay first and then see if something I like is available, I won't do it. That's like buying something expensive without demoing it. That's pretty steep, but it doesn't price me out of considering it. It raises how much I'd have to like the name combo. It means that anything that leaves me with a Madison531 (or other name than Madison with no extra numbers or letters-- not that if I were starting out I'd need that name but now that it's part of my sl identity it's the only one I'll use) first name is not worth considering at that price, probably wouldn't be at any price, but for $10 to replace Resident with something decent forever I wouldn't totally rule it out; and that price also raises the bar for what I'd accept as a last name to pay. I'd easily pay that much if I got to choose my exact first and last name, but I guess some pay tons of money for that so LL won't sell that even for $35. It almost has to be a full name I'd be happy with as a display name for $35 (it still is a one time charge I could keep forever), whereas if it were $10 and I could have Madison as my first name and something I found not-awful-like-Resident as the last name I'd probably do it even if I didn't change my display name.
  11. Well, now at least I understand why, so for custom last names they can continue to charge very large amounts. It defeats a lot of the purpose, though. Obviously as Madison531, I have that name because I couldn't just be "Madison." I don't remember for sure, but I don't think I even checked to see if that was possible. Since right now there's only one last name ("Resident") there's no way "Madison" wouldn't have been taken. I may keep my display last name regardless, but if my official name can be "Madison" as a first name with a last name that's even mediocre instead of "Resident" and that's $10 or $20 or something like that I'm almost certain I'll pay it, though I'm not sure if I'll change my display last name to match it (but I'll consider it). Just "Madison" as a first name would definitely be possible if I could choose a last name, not limited to a list. Unlimited last names would mean there could be 1,000 "Madisons". With a limited set to choose from, the chance of that will depend on how long the list of last names is and how soon I find out once that becomes an option. If I'm still going to have Madison531 (or anything else that doesn't sound like a real name) as my official first name, it's already a strange name to be known by, so I'm not sure I'll pay to get rid of "Resident" to change to a realistic official last name. So, if LL wants to sell a lot of people changing to a more realistic, but want to use a list so custom last names can still cost a whole lot, they should have hundreds of last names on the list or something. If there were, say, 300 last names available, there probably aren't many people who couldn't get their preferred first name (especially given that a lot of people will stick with Resident rather than even paying $10-20 regardless), so nearly all those inclined to pay for a realistic official name would be able to.
  12. That'll probably determine whether I do it or not. If LL wants my money for it, then the same as I demoed my mesh head to make sure I could get the face I wanted before buying it, they'll have to let me see what name I can have before I pay to change. I still don't get the having to choose the last name from a list though. If you choose your own last name than everyone can have a first/last combo they like, and If you want a profane name or something you can choose it as the first name, so I don't see how it prevents abuses.
  13. Wny a list of last names? Why not just let us choose any last name we want?
  14. As far as I can see, my house is entirely on my parcel. But there were some unused parts I've been trying to unlink (those parts I moved well within my parcel), and it won't unlink them because apparently there must be some tiny spot in which my house overlaps the neighboring parcel. I'd be happy to fix that, but I can't find where it is. It could be an invisible part, though I looked with it highlighted, etc.. How do I find it? I was trying to even think of a reason for the rule in the first place (any encroachment if I unlinked them is already happening with them linked), but I suppose without the rule someone could sneak something onto someone else's parcel by linking it, moving it on, and then unlinking it. But there should be an easier way to see what I need to un-stretch or move to stop the encroachment.
  15. It seems like edit shape makes your avatar look okay to you, but not to everyone else. They'll fix it of course, but until then Edit Shape only seems to help you look better to yourself (in my case at least).
  16. In this case I thought it was an avatar issue until someone told me it was gridwide. It looks to me like default hair and maybe the default mesh before skin makes it look human are being displayed on mesh avatars. Most gridwide problems I do check the status first. The type of problem made me think it was just my avatar, so publicizing better that many/most avatars were dealing with it would have been very helpful. Going into edit appearance seems to fix how it looks to you, but not to everyone else.
  17. On mp I tend to filter for copy, and depending in the item type that causes at least 1/5 to disappear once I apply the filter, even for clothes; and a lot more disappear in other areas. Today I forgot to filter, and was ready to buy something, but checked perms, saw no copy, and so didn't buy it. If enough people do the same people will stop selecting it if they want to sell things. No mod is also a very annoying thing. If I pay for the item I should be able to modify it all I want. The more people insist on copy/mod, the more such items there will be. I've read about how, before my time, most things were no copy; and then some sort of bug made a lot of things disappear on rez, so many wouldn't buy no copy; so a lot of creators gave in to that and made their items copy. I don't want more bugs, but I want what the OP seems to want, for creators to know they must do copy/mod or their item won't sell. Then more and more would by copy/mod.
  18. I think that's what should be the rule. Apparently the rule still is that in-world can't be cheaper, but just that many get around it, or am I reading something wrong? I think that it's backwards if the MP ad cannot state the in-world discount, though I think there should be a limit to the in-world discount, probably the 5%. Then I'd have a rule that if there is a cost difference between the MP and in-world, the ad must say so. But two reasons if I were a merchant I might want to offer the 5% in world discount, but actually should have to disclose it if I did: 1) There is a 5% MP commission. By default that is paid by the merchant, and that should be the default. The merchant should, however, be able to pass that along to me, a convenience fee for buying on MP, if the merchant chooses-- but should have to say so. Then I can choose to pay it and buy on MP, buy in world instead, or, if I were offended (which I wouldn't be but I'm sure someone might be), not buy the product. It would have to be pretty expensive for me to go in world to save 5% if I didn't want to buy it in-world otherwise. A L$500 would be at least L$475 in world, so to save $L25 I'm not going there unless I had some other reason to want to. A L$5,000 item to save $L250, then I likely would go in world to save that. 2) I think if I were a merchant I'd value in-store business more than MP business even if there were no MP commission, just given that someone in world is more likely to find something else to buy at my store. That's a discount incentive. Definitely, there has to be a limit or people would use MP at super-high prices to show their stuff off and then one would have to come into the store to buy it for a price that wasn't outrageous; but 5% is fair for that.
  19. It's not a win for me if I can't find otherwise good items that I can mod to taste. Fortunately most creators of things like furniture have made their items mod. It's mostly things like clothing that creators refuse to allow mod. The more copy/mod is the norm, the more wins for the end user. No, what you don't want is competitive behavior in the marketplace. If people won't buy no mod, more people create mod items-- which compete with yours, and you lose and are coerced by the market, if it's important to you to sell much. If you're creating them for yourself and don't care if you sell a lot less, you won't care. But hopefully, for the good of the end-users, items that aren't copy/mod will sell less and less, and that will lead to more being available as copy/mod, for those like me who want it. You're the one afraid of more competition from more good creators giving mod permissions.
  20. My taste as a consumer is better for what I want than a creator's is. It isn't better objectively, but I pay for the creator's ability to create things that I couldn't. I also can (if moddable) modify some things so that I like them better. That is not snobbish. A creator thinking that their creation will satisfy me more than I can satisfy myself by modding it, is what is snobbish. And if, as it should be, it is also copy, if my modified version turned out to satisfy myself not as well, I could get the old one back from the box, so win/win.
  21. I pay 3 months at a time, which is still just $7.50/month, which would be significant except for the Linden allowance. But since we get about $5/month worth of Lindens, my actual membership is only $2.50/month. At these rates, no one should rent now that 1024 sq m comes with the membership. Own and: 1) Outside the very loose limitations on all sl land, you can do whatever you want with the land (maybe a bit less if zoned PG, but don't buy PG land unless that really is okay with you). 2) No hassle if the landlord leaves sl, sells, or abandons the land. 3) No extra rules the landlord can place on the land, or additions or changes in the rules. 4) No landlord just deciding they don't like you so they kick you off. Linden houses, though I started with one, aren't enough for everyone. In the long run they weren't enough for me, so I bought some land and pay a bit of tier (even now with the larger free-for-premium allotment) So when premium membership only came with 512 sq m I understood renting so as not to have to be premium. $72 and a year at a time is a significant commitment, though if you're near completely certain you'll stay the whole year it's a great value, but even at $22.50/3 months, with $5 worth of Lindens per month (2/3 of that payment) returned as a stipend, for 1024 sq m, I don't see why someone wouldn't join and take the free land now (and even if they want a little more, paying tier is usually better than renting). The only way I'd recommend anyone to rent now is if they're just testing out sl. You need somewhere to rez items, and you don't want to have to have to do it in a public sandbox (though some clever people find other, more private, places they can rez), so renting for a month or two while seeing if you want to keep playing, I can see. You also aren't then paying for the land itself. Once you decide you want to stay, go premium, pay 3 months at a time (or a whole year if you're really sure you'll be staying that long), and get your almost-free 1024 sq m of land, that you can do anything you want with, you can't get kicked off for anything that won't get you thrown off sl, and would be a better value than rented land regardless, but the total freedom from a landlord makes it far better. Even if you want a bigger plot, tier fees are usually better than what you'll get from a landlord for the total number of prims and space you're getting, especially with the first 1024 sq m now free with premium.
  22. Well, it's confirmed as an outside attack, and it didn't disrupt things for very long...and I did edit one of my posts to add that I've been in sl over 9 months, during which nothing like this happened and if there's just one bad two day period per 9 months that's overall performance I can be very satisfied with...and credit should be given where it's do, but complaining should also occur when something is screwed up. If it were a glitch (hardware or software) that was purely LL's fault, and it were still going on now, 4 days later, I get the feeling there'd still be people saying not to be too critical, and that would be uncalled for. It was an outside attack, and it was fixed in less than 2 days, so I'm fine with it, and it's the scumbags who did the DDoS who ought to have to compensate people. It's absolutely true that almost all software makes you agree to "I have no rights and the developer has infinite rights," and LL just does in their ToS what everyone else does. I'd likely put that in ToS if I had a site, because I can and everyone accepts those, because if you don't accept those kinds of ToS you may as well not have a computer. You'll hardly find any software to run without onerous ToS. I also understand that in some cases that's likely led to results I'd agree with, that if LL didn't have some latitude to enforce rules they couldn't have realized they'd have had to enumerate, they couldn't have stopped some truly destructive users who might have found a way to cause a lot of trouble while adhering to the letter of a very specific ToS. I furthermore believe LL acts in good faith as far as how they enforce the ToS. My issue was with those who seem to want to support LLs' supposed rights not to act in good faith, if they so chose. If it were LL not acting in good faith, it's most likely that courts would not side with them; and regardless, while the extreme latitude the ToS gives them might allow them to close with no notice and no way to cash out unused Lindens (though I'd imagine if they did that they'd face and lose a class action suit if the closure was not by absolute necessity), people defending them would be justified in saying "They wouldn't do that; they've always played fairly." The problem is people who almost encourage them to abuse power in a way that my experience is they do not do. And the way I'd change the law would be to make it clear that no matter what ToS say, any company must act in good faith toward all users who act in good faith, and have some heavy civil penalties toward companies that did not. Courts might do that anyway, but I'd want laws to make that immensely clear.
  23. Actually, I've had cable go out, and if it goes out for at least three days (which has only happened twice), I call and demand a credit for the lost days-- and I get it. I don't know what would happen in court for a day or two or three of downtime. I'm more talking about what things ought to be like. Note in your quote my having written "if I could change the law." No matter how a court would rule, very few people would find it worth suing over a day or two or three of downtime. I know I wouldn't regardless of tier. I might be noisy about deserving a refund for lost use if I had a full region, although to be honest I'd probably decide it wasn't worth the trouble even then unless I'd lost weeks of service. Edited to add: Especially with things working better, I've calmed down enough to want to add that I've now been in sl for over 9 months and the last couple of days are the first truly bad stretch I've seen; so if this only happens for a couple of days every 9 months, overall that's solid performance that I can easily live with.
  24. I just want to say that the TOS doesn't only not make it okay if LL behaved wrongly. It also doesn't even make it legally binding. All software, online, offline, whatever, comes with terms of service that basically says I have zero rights and the creator has all the rights. Courts don't accept those in a lot of cases. There are a lot of rights you can't sign away, even if you chose to. Example: If it could be binding, every doctor's office would force every patient to sign something agreeing that no matter what the patient couldn't sue for malpractice. Every doctor would do it, so there'd be no other way to get medical care but to sign it. But courts would never enforce such a contract. There are TOS that courts definitely would enforce-- rules against griefing, sex with underage avatars, etc.. There are others that would be deemed so unfair that no matter what, like a pledge not to sue for malpractice, courts would not uphold them. Everything eventually ends, so whether it's in 3 years or 20 years or 50 years sl will at some point be closed. I hope (even if it's 50 years, in which case I'd likely be long gone from sl, for the sake of those who'd be on then) that LL feels the need to give some notice so people can get some use out of recently bought items, and also allow people to cash out unused Lindens. I hope if they don't do that, they get sued and lose. And if I could change the law, I'd make the law make it clear that any entity that charges for its use has to provide the product/service or refund the money, and that no terms of service could override that. There are reasons in the case of this down time to defend LL (besides the fact it's been a lot better lately), most clearly that from what I've read it's been caused by a malicious third party, not LL screwing up in a big way. I'm all for "Go LL! Defeat the DDos scum!" What gets me worked up is when customers defend ToS that basically say paying customers have no rights, beyond saying it's not only a SL thing but done in almost all software ToS-- meaning one can't blame LL for doing what everyone else does-- not just that they think it's automatically enforceable, but they want it to be. Why does any customer want no rights to what they paid for?
  25. They certainly aren't doing any of this on purpose, as it would be foolish for them to give intentional awful service to everyone. Quoting from my post, to show I said exactly that I know they don't want to do this; they'd only lose from doing it. I'm saying they shouldn't be defended, so as to increase the pressure to do better, and I probably wouldn't have even gone into the thread to do make that comment if not for the people saying defending their rights to refuse to behave reasonably if they chose to, even though as far as I know they are reasonable.
×
×
  • Create New...