Jump to content

Natasha Petrichor

Resident
  • Posts

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Natasha Petrichor

  1. I just noticed this too, and I don't have a Premium Plus account, so it seems like a glitch to me
  2. You're not wrong that laws governing internet communications/transactions are not self-enforcing. But, that's a highly simplistic view that does not reflect the reality of doing business on the internet. For example, I work for a company that is based/incorporated in the US, and hosted in the US (on AWS, in fact), like Linden Labs. However, like Second Life, we have a *lot* of users and do a *lot* of business in other countries, enough to be legally considered a non-resident business entity in those countries. Which means we can be held legally and criminally liable under their laws; as long as the prosecution can establish that the company is conducting business in the country, being based somewhere else doesn't really matter, and thanks to the international nature of the internet (and precedents set by the RIAA and MPAA, unfortunately), establishing that an internet service can be sued/prosecuted in another country's courts is trivially easy. I imagine you knew that much (just making sure we're on the same page), but here's the part I think you're missing: In the world of corporate law, if there is already a case against you, it's too late, you've already lost. The potential fines are so high that most companies cannot survive paying them, or even an out-of-court settlement, and the legal fees to fight a case can be equally devastating. Some companies, as you pointed out, will fight to make a point, but they are the exception, and tend to be the ones with unfathomable millions to spend. SL is bigger than most people give it credit for, but it's not THAT big. So, when there are new international regulations that apply to a company like Linden Labs, the question is never "are we literally being charged with a crime or threatened with a lawsuit right this second?". If that question is being asked, it means the company's lawyers failed so spectacularly that they'll probably be fired after asking it, because corporate law is about calculating and mitigating risk. The primary job of corporate lawyers is to anticipate legal cases *before* they happen, and give advice on how to prevent them from happening. Thus, the real question when evaluating new regulations is "how much liability could we face under this law if we don't comply, what is the cost of compliance, and how much will it cost to just not do business in that country?". Coming back to the issue at hand: It's reasonable to assume that the regulation of lootboxes as a gambling mechanic is the most likely reason for this policy change for LL, because while that's probably not on the immediate horizon in the US, many EU countries (like Germany) have already passed laws imposing various restrictions on lootboxes in video games, and more are in the works. Thanks to companies like EA and Activision doing everything they can to fight those laws (because unlike LL, they have the resources to afford the risk, and a more obvious fiscal incentive to do so), the lootbox situation in the EU is escalating, and more countries are exploring even stronger restrictions. And to any reasonable observer, there is no distinction between the mechanics of a loot box in a video game and the mechanics of a gacha machine in an SL store: Pay real-world money for virtual currency, then use that virtual currency to buy a loot box for a set amount, which awards a random prize that may or may not be what the player wanted, with the most desirable prizes having extremely slim odds of being unlocked, encouraging players to buy more and more loot boxes to try to get what they want. You can argue whether those mechanics constitute "gambling" (which is, at time of writing, an unsettled question in most courts worldwide), but trying to argue that the gacha machines in SL stores work differently in a legally-distinct way is not an argument anyone will ever be able to win in court. Even the late Johnny Cochrane wouldn't have been able to pull that one off, and I could not think of a legally-significant difference to use in a rhetorical comparison when writing this paragraph. So that's the legal landscape most likely influencing this decision - it's possible that it's something else, or somewhere else, but given that this unfolding situation has been dominating gaming media for over a year, it's as good a starting point as any. Because even if the underlying motivations are completely different, the same questions would need to be answered: How likely is it that this will turn into a real liability, and when is that likely to happen? If it does, how exposed is the company, and what would the potential damages and legal costs look like? How much would compliance cost the company? How much business would the company lose if they took door #3 and ceased doing business in the affected country/countries? Those are the questions that would've needed answering in making this decision, and based on what's been happening thus far, we can extrapolate that the answers were, respectively, "very likely to be a real liability, and very soon", "so extremely exposed that the damages could pose an existential threat to Linden Labs", "total cost of compliance via a policy change is the lesser of three evils", and "we cannot afford to cease doing business in every country where this risk exists". We can debate/question whether those were the "correct" answers, but the legal calculus behind answering those questions (or even just the first one) is so much more complex than "did LL receive a legal threat from a prosecutor about this?" that the existence of such a legal threat isn't really even relevant. Because, as I said, if such a legal threat existed, it's already too late, the lawyers have already failed to do their job of anticipating a threat before it happens. And that's just the legal calculus, which isn't the whole story. This is also a marketing and public relations issue. As I mentioned, the legal situation regarding lootboxes and other gambling-adjacent video game mechanics in Europe is a relevant legal situation that applies to SL gacha machines as much as it applies to video game lootboxes, and it seems like the most probable legal motivation behind this policy change. But the legal battle over lootboxes did not arise spontaneously, it was the result of massive mainstream press coverage about these mechanics preying on children, causing them to lose thousands of dollars, bankrupting their families before their parents even realized what was going on. It's not the only negative impact of these sorts of game mechanics, nor is it necessarily the most severe way in which these mechanics damage people's lives, but it's the most sensational and motivating impact. And it got a LOT of attention, to the point that almost everyone (especially in Europe) has at least seen the shocking headlines of kids spending tens of thousands of dollars gambling on FIFA. So, from a PR standpoint, on one side of this battle you have distraught parents in financial ruin because their kids just wanted to see their favorite football player in a video game and didn't understand the concept of what they were doing or how the game worked. And on the other side of the battle, you have some of the biggest and wealthiest entertainment companies in the world, who have also been making unflattering headlines for unrelated reasons, making clumsy, obtuse statements about obscure legal technicalities while blaming those same parents for not understanding something they never explained clearly. Even if the legal arguments are completely removed from the equation, it doesn't take a PR expert to figure out which side of that battle has the winning optics in the eyes of the general public (whether you *agree* with those optics is irrelevant, because PR is about understanding the perceptions of an outside audience, and figuring out how to make your case in the court of public opinion). Which is why a lot of video game studios that aren't owned by EA or Activision have been making a public, performative point to remove lootboxes from their games; even if they're not facing immediate legal liabilities, they probably had corporate lawyers arriving at the same conclusions described above, combined with PR experts saying "even if you could win this case in a court of law, no one can win this case in the court of public opinion", and decided that it was cheaper and easier to just stop. There are more factors in a decision like this - community management, revenue analysis, etc - but as someone who's spent every day of the last six months with a front-row seat to a nearly identical (but unrelated) situation, that my analysis of what's happening here. Did LL's lawyers and PR advisors miscalculate? I don't know, and that's a reasonable and specific question to ask. But I doubt the official on-the-record details eventually released will ever be as meticulous and detailed as you seem to want, because that's not how PR works. What I *do* know is that it's not helpful to base assumptions and extrapolations on a narrow view of what does and does not constitute a valid legal threat, because the cardinal rule of corporate law is to never, EVER underestimate the potential risk of a rapidly-evolving legal landscape. Because unless your company operates with a budget in the same order of magnitude as Amazon, it is ALWAYS cheaper to be cautious than cavalier, especially when analyzing and anticipating laws that are actively being written and debated.
  3. Bump with snapshots! The terrain is displayed fully-reverted to show the baseline that the terraforming limits are based on; if you'd like to see other terraforming options, let me know!
  4. I know hilly land isn't everyone's favorite, but I have just under 4096m of gentle-hillside in the Hogback sim (Sansara continent), close to the large inland sea, and all of it is roadside along a popular mainland driving route! This provides excellent visibility, perfect for any business or other public venue, and it's a very quiet, low-lag, beautiful sim! The property is currently subdivided into two parcels - 1024m and 2960m - but I can combine them or subdivide further if desired. Current listing price is L$1.5 per square meter, so the total price for the full 3984m is L$6000, but I'm open to reasonable offers. http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Hogback/113/91/108 http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Hogback/159/43/108 Contact me in-world (username: Natasha Petrichor) to make an offer, discuss details, or inquire about rental options if preferred. Thanks!
  5. I haven't taken part in these forums in like a decade, but it's comforting to see that I'm not the only one infuriated by this. Doubling the MP commission is irritating at best, and makes me even less interested in putting anything cheap on the Marketplace. Especially since they had the nerve to compare themselves to mobile app stores, which is a flawed comparison on multiple levels: 1. Most non-free mobile apps carry a per-sale pricetag higher than most SL Marketplace items, especially for sellers who specialize in smaller items; 30% of $1-5 is more tolerable than 10% of $0.05-0.25. 2. An average mobile app, even paid apps, will have higher sales volume and higher visibility than most SL Marketplace sellers' entire stores, by an order of magnitude, so a commission increase will be felt a LOT more for all SL Marketplace sellers except for the highest-volume big-name brands. 3. Mobile apps have access to additional revenue streams (like running their own subscriptions and in-app purchases, and showing ads), and while most of those are ethically questionable at best, it can't be denied that they exist. SL Marketplace sellers don't have access to any of that, all we can do is sell a thing. 4. Not all SL Marketplace sellers have infinite copies of their products to sell, and sellers who don't will probably be hit extra-hard by this, since they're usually low-volume sellers with a fixed number of times they can sell each item. And while I personally find it frustrating to sift through gacha reseller listings while browsing, it's a legitimate usage of the Marketplace and I'll be the first to defend it. A better comparison would be services like Ebay or Etsy, where 5% (the current SL MP commission) is a very fair, reasonable, and competitive amount for all sellers, and where 10% would be ridiculous.
×
×
  • Create New...