New World Notes

Women & RL Height Displays Have Been Driving Down the Size of Formerly Gargantuan Avatars (Comment of the Week)

Good alternate perspective from "Irihapeti", responding to my observation that Second Life avatar height seems to have been driven up  by fragile RL male egos:

SL avatars, both male and female, today are on average shorter than they were in the early years. The downward shift began when Linden Lab added inches and centimeters to the height slider. [See above]

Prior to this the slider height was only measured on the scale: 0...100. So most guys not surprisingly set it to 100. Unsurprising as there was no useful indication as to what 100 meant. In-world there was a feedback loop. Avatars are set to 100 > furniture is set for 100. More avatars > more furniture > most avatars > most furniture

It was women in the main, who broke this feedback loop. When they saw that the slider now said 7 feet plus they started to reduce. Their men began to follow them down. People went even lower when third party viewers changed the height slider to measure from sole to top of head. The Linden Lab viewer still measures from sole to eye level.

When I played in the early years I was 185cm[i.e. about 6 feet] by prim measure in bare feet. I was squiddy as, compared to pretty much everyone else adult human avatar then. I am still 185cm. Yet now when at shopping events I am slightly above average in height for a female avatar.

This sounds right, certainly for the fashionista crowd. I think it's likely that both our perspectives are generally true --depending on the SL subculture: That is, average heights have been coming down in social circles where women predominate, while avatar heights remain largely gargantuan where male competition predominates -- think virtual nightclubs, roleplay areas, combat zones. 

Did Fragile Male Egos of Real Life Men Cause Second Life's Giant Crisis?

The trend toward incredibly tall avatars continues hurting the SL economy (bigger avatars need more virtual land, more virtual land costs more money per month), but why are avatars so huge in the first place? (For instance, pictured at right: Male Second Life avatar in the typical 7-8 foot range, next to a female avatar who is actually 5'7", i.e., on the taller side for women IRL.). But what keeps driving up avatar height? Reader "Pulsar" points out it could be a common culprit -- the fragile male ego:

In the last years I'm seeing more realistic sized avatars, especially at shopping events. Perhaps you should count more on women with this. I suspect the issue touches guys more, as they (usually, I don't mean everyone) don't like to appear shorter that other men, so they raise their height and so on. Of course there are also individuals affected by giantism in real life, but the whole population 8 feet tall is a tad odd. Women instead (again, in general) could feel not so comfortable in towering above everyone else, including their boyfriend.

This sounds right. I vividly remember creating my first avatar, setting the height to 6 feet tall, teleporting to an event... and feeling like Kevin Hart at an NBA party. Studies consistently confirm people form an empathetic relationship with the avatar that they control, so it's easy to see how real life height standards (which tend to affect men more than women) would carry over into the virtual world, nudging many or most male users into a tallness competition. And many or most female users would then feel nudged to follow suit, so the height disparity wasn't so vast. And as average avatar height increases, monthly land costs grow, until they're unsustainable for many, and the land ownership attrition increases too.

Or to put it another way: Linden Lab the company keeps losing revenue due to toxic masculinity.

Second Life Style Has Been Influenced by Kim Kardashian Long Before She Started Using Second Life in Her Social Media (Comment of the Week)

At the risk of over-exposing Kim Kardashian's Second Life-based social media campaign (then again, isn't over-exposure the whole point?) reader Blaise Glendevon makes a really good observation in response to SLers complaining about it:

I don't understand why so many of you are surprised or put out. The KKW aesthetic has been at the forefront of [SL] fashion and blogging personas for as long as I can remember. A lot of the top 'urban' brands in the events take great inspiration from what the Kardashian-Jenner sisters wear on social media.

That the patrons of this look have taken notice of SL isn't a surprise. That it took so long might.

This strikes me as exactly right. Looking at back at the SL fashion that was popular in the early years (as here and also here), you see quite a difference -- it leaned more toward goth/steampunk, on the one hand, and high-end and uptown, on the other. But Keeping Up with the Kardashians came out in 2007, and in the succeeding years, SL fashion styles have largely followed suit. So that nowadays, my Second Life social feed is swamped by glitzy, urban, highly sexualized avatar images similar to those that the Kardashians have made popular and mainstream since then. Or to put it another way: It's Kim Kardashian's virtual world, we're just logging into it.

Pics via Liz Milan West's Instagram.

Linden Dollar Increase Threatens Second Life's Impulse-Driven Economy (Comment of the Week)

While many readers are dismissive of concerns over Linden Lab's increase of L$ purchase fees, Clara Seller points out a subtle problem:

It's the intimate relationship between Linden Lab and a person's credit card that keeps all of this going. This comment thread is being very condescending to those who have become the lowest on the Second Life social food chain. The social food chain isn't the real power of the economy. It's just the pretend one created by the most visible residents.

Impulse buying is everything. Kill it at the peril of of everything. Without impulse buying, you just have a fruitless small town of big egos like Sansar.

The last thing you want is to force your little people to think about spending their money on "nothing". School them and talk down to them until they wake up. Then it's "game over" for everyone.

Maybe not "game over", but she's right that even a small price increase can cause many people to reconsider where they spend their discretionary income. It's why, for example, that free-to-play mobile games -- despite being loaded down with intrusive ads and constant IAP offers -- are much more popular than premium mobile games. Even putting a $1.99 or 99 cent price tag on an app causes most consumers to clutch their wallet.

L$ Transaction Increase: Not Much in Real Dollars, But Quite A Lot Relative to Second Life Economy

Linden Lab's increase of Linden Dollars purchase orders to  $1.49 per transaction (compared to the previous rate of 99 cents per transaction) may not seem like a lot, but the way Angelina Sinclair does the math, it may actually seem like quite a lot:

This transaction fee increase is insane. I am one of those impulse buyers of Lindens usually doing $10 or $20 a pop. For me, SL is my fun. It is like I spent that money at a bar getting a few drinks. However, in that same scenario it is like I am getting a drink or two less because of a sudden, poorly explained price increase. Why? It doesn't make sense.

Now consider this. If I were to make sure my [SL] purchases were still exactly $10 or $20 and using $20 as an example, I would get (L$4627L). If it was the old 30 cent fee then that would be (L$4925). A different of L$302L!

Even if you consider the previous fee of 99 cents that's (L$4752) or a L$125 difference. Whether L$125 or L$302 that's enough to buy something simple from the [SL]  Marketplace.

The costs increase considerably when those are purchases are added up over time:

Why It's So Hard to Create a Successful Successor to Second Life (Comment of the Week)

Good conversation on OpenSim's struggle to become a viable consumer product capped by this comment from reader "Pulsar":

For years Opensim attracted some because of the lower prices, larger regions and other features like that. But after a while, you see those who tried that, go back to Second Life (only few stay or stay in both).

Why? Usually the answers are: «My friends are in SL» and «...all the inventory I have too» and they have to restart from zero [in OpenSim]. The inventory maybe isn't the bigger deal (not to mention those who resort to copybotting, although that won't get the scripts), but given how many people use SL for social things, you have the old issue: People stay where people are. For the same reason it has always been hard to make a popular alternative to Facebook or Whatsapp (or MSN messenger before), until either something game-changing comes (e.g. the advent of smartphones and tablets) and/or you offer something new that works well enough (e.g. Instagram). Therefore a SL clone would have an hard time, no matter the good features.

There's been several attempts to create a Second Life successor -- Cloud Party was showing promise, until Yahoo! gobbled it up a few years ago, where it remains, presumably undigested somewhere its corpulent innards -- but none have really gained traction as yet. Pulsar has a theory why:

Second Life Needs Live Call Center Trainers to Grow (Comment of the Week)

Good points from Oobleck Allagash, who's now a successful SL entrepreneur, reflecting on his own early challenges with using Second Life, and the high rate of visits to the official website, which somehow doesn't translate into user growth:

I think the curiosity aspect has been and is always there, especially given all the hype lately with VR. But what we have always known is that retention is the issue. A steep learning curve seems to be the stumbling block of getting these new users through the door and actually investing the time and money to learn the platform.

It seems so simple. If a real effort was made by Linden Lab to provide actual services and landing point assistance (tours, workshops, and live tutorials/concierge services). While I see this exist to an extent it's clearly not enough. The new user island (whatever it's called) is often empty other than noobs and I recall back in the day that the only way I stuck was that someone I met actually helped me in real time.

Interestingly enough, I always felt that this is something LL could actually do with real people that are, perhaps, at an offshore style "call center" which could have an actual paid (with minimal costs) group of "trainers" who would be avatars positioned to help and answer questions in-world. The bean counters of course know better than I if this would effective. What is the lifespan cost and reward of retention per avatar? 

Certainly seems worth trying. Some quick back-of-envelope math:

Second Life Land Developers Have (Mostly) Left, Hobbyists (Mostly) Remain -- Comment of the Week

Good point from "irihapeti", analyzing the news that the loss of private Second Life sims is (finally) slowing:

Most of the sim/parcel ownership downturn I think is that historically a significant number of people obtained land and built on it a space for others. When the others didn't/don't come then the land is abandoned.

Building spaces for others often comes with an owner hope/expectation (stated or unstated) that the others will contribute to the tiers in some way. Item purchases, parcel rentals, donations, tips, group fees, tier contributions, etc. When the hope/expectation is not met then abandon.

Linden Lab has never released any data on the status of the others but I am pretty sure that land occupants today are more proportionately residentials/hobbyists now than in any previous year. Residential and hobbyist occupants who have no expectation that others will contribute to the occupants' tiers/costs.

In other words, we're at the point where SL sims are either owned by "land barons" who have a stable income source -- or folks can afford to pay hundreds of dollars a month without depending on monetizing visitors:

Mesh Generator: Advantages & Caveats for the SL Prim-to-Mesh Converter

Good conversation on the pros and cons of The Mesh Generator from Naonao Watanabe, the tool for converting prim-based builds into mesh in Second Life, from two longtime builders. First some advantages (and tips) from Han Held:

I've been using the Mesh Generator tool for roughly three or four years now. It's been a huge lifesaver for me, and there have been a number of times when I've managed to get significant LI savings by using it... Even though I am playing with Blender and related tools (like Avastar) the scales haven't quite fallen from my eyes yet. Mesh is still a confusing jumble for me.

One thing I'm doing with generated meshes which seems to help some is to import them into Blender and then clean them up there. Using the "mesh" > "clean up" submenu in Edit Mode and then hitting the object with "degenerate dissolve" and "decimate geometry" and re-exporting it.

I only usually end up doing that for OpenSim, which has become more finicky about meshes since the release of 0.9. But occasionally when the LI is through the roof in SL that procedure has helped to bring it down to earth.

That said, there are still a number of times (like 1/4th of the time) where I find out that the LI of the Mesh Generator-created mesh object isn't that much less than just simply prims ...in that case, I just stick to prims.

Some caveats from Chic Aeon, referring to the tutorial video featured in the original NWN post:

Comment of the Week: Don't Be Optimistic Just Because the Loss of Private Sims in Second Life Has Slowed

Last week when I pointed out that the constant loss of private sim estates in Second Life (Linden Lab's main revenue source) has been slowing, reader "Granger" wasn't having any of that:

Optimism is useful when warranted... misleading when it's not based on reality. It is difficult to look at the trendline of that graph and find anything of positive validity. SL dropping "only" 2% as compared with a prior 4+% is putting icing on a mud cake. The reality is it is still dropping.

When we drop the optimism, a more productive and realistic route is to try to figure out WHY it is still dropping. That trendline is still significantly downward and all the optimism in the world isn't going to change that. So we do well to address the issues rather than say, "Well, it's not as bad as it could be..."

The key reasons for the continued loss of private sims, as Granger sees it: