« "Juroney": Second Life Machinima Takes Post-Apocalyptic, Road Warrior-Style Action to the Next Level | Main | UK Developer Gets $1 Million in Funding for Language Training in Second Life (That's Not Branded as Second Life) »

Tuesday, March 22, 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


It would be easy to see these posts as a cynical attempt to troll the user base with insults and blame in order to get page views and renewed relevance, but I'll try to respond fairly.

You keep trying to state answers to the question "Why are users resistant to change" when you haven't proven that it's a valid question. It's a leading question and a false premise.

It's been said in the comments repeatedly: users are resistant to BAD changes, not just any change. In fact, users WANT to see changes to Second Life in the form of wide-reaching and continual improvement. We haven't seen much in the way of improvements, and only wide-reaching and continual mistakes.

You also TRIED make a point that doesn't seem to have any connection to the rest of your statements (I won't say "argument", because you don't put forward any logical one): that users parrot a marketing theme from years ago that SL is not a game, when earlier it was marketed as a game. Odd, I don't recall any such reversal since I've been around. So I don't remember LL promoting it as "a game", but setting that aside for a moment, if users say that SL is not a game, what of it? You didn't make any point or support your statement.

The principal thrust of this and the previous post is that you think SL users are angry, irrational, and oppose all change. Let's see Linden Lab show us some positive changes, and we'll see how the user base takes them. Already, there's positive response to Rodvik Linden and an early tentative positive response to Bagman Linden. We'll see how they do.

Hitomi Tiponi

"it's a vocal minority of users that angrily opposes growing Second Life" - I must say I have never met any of those. Stop portraying the residents as resistant to change - they want changes, they may not all agree what change though, or even know what it is they really want.
I am willing to cut Rod Humble some slack on this - I have no doubt he has many ideas by now. Just as long as he doesn't listen too much to the vocal minority of tweeters, forum hogs and blog writers I think he is our best hope for the future.

Argus Collingwood


I joined your group In-World to see if you send out notices about your blog. Short answer, you do not seem to do this. Why not utilize the tool sets LL has given us to socialize? Could it be that LL gives us so many tools even long time residents are not aware of how cutting edge these tools are? [BTW your group charges liabilities to the Everyone Role and the Group needs more land contributions to bring it current;-) ]

Carry on;-) I am not really enthused/amused about your cartoon above but you have succeeded in that I came and read your blog.

Casper Jideon

It is ok for Second Life to end, it is not the end of the world.

Alberik Rotaru

It would also be good for you to write a few blog posts on how resistant to change Linden Labs is. many companies would respond to the Viewer 2 disaster by asking themselves how did we get it so wrong. LL responds by asking how the residents could get it so wrong.


Well said, Cubey.

Hamlet, this post is even more nonsensical than the first. It's *you* we are aggravated by.

Ciaran Laval

I'm not quite sure which direction you're trying to take this conversation, I agree with you that LL need to find other revenue streams, I'm just not sure why you think people are resistant to change that prevents that from happening.

Which changes to do with LL's revenue stream are people opposed to?

Facebook isn't the answer here.

Ordinal Malaprop

Hamlet, I do quite like you despite having never met you, but really, this isn't a good idea. One confrontational post might be considered reasonable, and will (and did) garner aggrieved comments. A series of them is just going to lead to apathy and desertion.

Marianne McCann

::reads Cubey's reply::

::reads Ordinal's reply::

Well, they already said anything I would have, so I guess I'm stuck saying, "Me too"


Hi, Hamlet,

I am not at all resistant to change. It needs to happen, SecondLife needs to be able to compete with the growing, less expensive virtual worlds. What LL needs to do, IMHO, is to survey it's residents about proposed changes, and ask for feedback after changes. The survey needs to be anonymous, but also should verify the respondents' length of time in SL/number of log-ins. There needs to be some measure of the "expertise" for each of the questions asked. Although you often do surveys, it is not reflective of most users.

I would not oppose a monthly fee in exchange for reduced land tiers. I already pay a premium membership for what?, I'm not sure. I love that SL is free, but nothing is really free. Maybe offer a 3 month free membership to new residents?

There ought to be a way to allow the unlimited and creative user created content while protecting copyright.

There's got to be a way to maintain the educational and government sims in SL with a competitive fee to other virtual worlds. The turnout this past weekend for VWBPE (Virtual Worlds Best Practice in Education) was quite impressive.



It's not an all or nothing sort of thing. Older users are resistant to some change that would beneficial, because these users have invested their time into becoming adapted to the quirky old systems. If a new and sometimes easier way of doing things comes up, they have lost their advantage over new players. Why bother if anyone can do what they spent so much of their life figuring out.

On the other hand there are many glaring flaws in the SL experience that don't have many redeeming qualities for anyone. Except for the odd people who feel perhaps sentimental about what makes them suffer. Most others would be able to stomach letting go of what they are accustomed to.

Each change you would make to sl should be considered differently. It's not productive to group them all together and then accuse people of being resistant to change. And it's not productive to accuse people of being overly enthusiastic about change that could be destructive.

Hamlet Au

Cubey, I mentioned a couple examples of vociferous resistance in my original post -- point-and-click movement and Facebook integration. As I said there, many more abound.

"Odd, I don't recall any such reversal since I've been around."

I was with Linden Lab when the company positioned Second Life as a game/game platform. In 2003 I was with the company at E3, the leading game expo, where we did that. I personally helped write a lot of the marketing copy that described SL as a game/game platform on the site. And I was also with them in 2005 when the new marketing VP issued a company-wide directive, "OK, Second Life is a platform and the next generation of the web, not a game. Stop calling it a game."

Robustus Hax

My problem with Second Life always has been it does not improve/change fast enough. Aside from Voice and Windlight a few years ago, the place is virtually the same. I do notice slight improvements in performance, but with the amount of money/resources the Lab has, you would expect more.

I suspect the disdain for the Lab has really come from people being disillusioned. Second Life was supposed to take the world by storm by now, and it hasn't, it has been the opposite. A disappointment really. It is not attracting new users at a pace that current users have been leaving. Before Rodvik arrived, it seemed every change, and project the Lab has been working on in the past year-year and a half were only designed to make the Lab more money. They bought Xstreet and its competitor, got rid of the competitor (monopolizing the web market) and began to pocket % of your sales. They also outlawed freebies and started charging for them. They also now own the revenue from advertising on the marketplace, AND the classifieds. They cut discounts for educators and non profits. You see where this is going...every move was made only to increase the monetary income of the Lab, and obviously that takes cash out of the virtual economy, and less people are able to afford their land (which was their biggest cash cow, which is now struggling, do to all these prior changes I mentioned.)

Those of us who pay the bills and thought Second Life would eventually replace the Internet (boy is that thought a joke now) now see the Lab as a greedy pyramid scheme.

The Lab launched SL Enterprise, who knows how much money and resources wasted on that, which really was a decision by the Lab and had nothing to do with the residents. Then they launched Viewer 2 with little input from the residents in its construction, which was also a major fail and they had to axe 100 people because of it. These 2 fails which wasted what 1-2 years of SL's development could have been avoided if they actually LISTENED to their users, not being so arrogant as to think they know what's best (especially when those people making the decisions don't use, or get, Second Life)

There are many reasons why SL hasn't been mass adopted, but for me, I ask how can we say it has failed to mass adopt when Linden Lab has never run a mass advertising campaign? I have never seen one commercial for Second Life on TV or radio, or in a magazine. I have seen a few Google ads around, mostly vague ads telling people they can become a vampire in Second Life, while failing to convey what Second Life really is, a world where you can do anything.

But hey, the masses should be running in here to become a vampire.

In route to mass adoption, tough decisions are going to have to be made that are not just about increasing the revenue of the parent company. There really is no long game or road map that we, the users, can point to, just policy flip flops and decisions based on how much more money they can make in quarter X of this year. Sorry, but that ain't gonna' work.


Hi Hamlet,

I think that in at least some cases you're mistaking the object of resistance as the reason for resistance. Take Facebook: the reason many people oppose LL's (and your) promotion of Facebook integration is not some mindless opposition to change, nor opposition to Facebook as such; I think the reason for most people's opposition is that it looks like a very poor use of limited resources when there are so many *fundamentals* that should be prioritized instead. That's certainly why I oppose it. How often do people complain about things like lag in rezzing, movement and chat, inventory failures, prim limits, poor building tools and the like, compared to shortcomings in the 1.2x viewers? If the problems people actually raise on a consistent basis were fixed, many of us would be much happier, and happy people are more likely to attract new people to SL than Facebook. Having a lot of people saying "SL sucks" on Facebook because you can barely walk if there are more than 30 avatars on a sim won't increase the active user base. I'd say a lot of the "resistance to change" is actually resistance to a poor set of priorities. LL needs to focus on the *infrastructure* rather than things on the fringes (of which Facebook integration, screen names and the like are typical disheartening examples).

Ordinal Malaprop

Does Mr Rodvik mind you appropriating his image in this context, by the way? I'd be interested to see his response (since clearly you must have asked him).

Melissa Yeuxdoux

"Only Resistance to Massive User Growth is a Threat to Second Life's Survival"

It's _a_ threat, but not the only one. Performance had better be reasonable with that massive influx of newcomers.

"Only a Vocal Minority are (Actively) Resistant to the Changes Needed to Save Second Life"

Perhaps. How many will be passively resistant? We don't know. For that matter, that statement presumes that we know what changes are needed to save Second Life. I'll agree that at the highest level, the most important change is an increase in the number of users and a move away from tier as the main support of SL. I have a hard time, though, agreeing that movement by point and click or integration with a system that itself resists that integration by refusing to accept avatars is needed to save Second Life. On the other hand, perhaps LL will come out and say "Thanks, immersionists; we've used you to get this far, and now you're a burden. Bye!"

Little Lost Linden

We all want change, just not FaceBook Change. That's the worst change there is...

My Change Wishlist:

1. Change the Graphics (make them better)
2. Change the Performance (make it faster)
3. Change the Lag (make it less laggy)

oh, and when it comes to Facebook...Change the Channel!!

Deoridhe Quandry

Insulted People Respond Negatively; Film at 11.

I was thinking about changes I'd like to see, and near the top of the list is a SL programmed AO. Half the problems animators seem to have is fighting the base animations for second life, and while the AO programs are a workaround they struggle with battling the default animations because you can't turn them off.

The addition of an alpha layer, and the tattoo layer are awesome, though. I'm at the point where I rarely bother with shoes I can't use an alpha layer for.

I'd love a more integrated, over time chat thing, too. Like, it would be nice to be able to send personal messages to someone's mailbox when they're offline. The workaround of sending a notecard isn't always, and I can't count the number of times my offline IMs have been capped. Some sort of "catch all" for things when offline in general would be awesome, actually. I don't know how much I miss from subscribos because I'm not online to get things, but it would also be nice to have them segregated off in case my notecards folder is going out of control.

A way to do magazines besides the awesome workaround could be cool, too.

I could see some serious benefit to adding in easier motion capture capabilities, too. I love photography in SL, but sometimes things really would translate better in video.

Kimberly Rufer-Bach

I haven't seen any evidence that the changes you suggest will "save" SL from its supposedly impending doom. Where are the quotes from Rodvik? Where is the evidence? I have 26 years of online community management experience and I disagree with you. Show me something that convinces me that these are more than your personal theories.

Have you done any testing inworld? Where are the surveys? Where is the Facebook integration you have tried inworld and the resulting metrics? How many newbs did you set loose in a region with a click-to-move system, and did they stick around longer than the control group?

It's going to take more than a blogger's observations to make me change my own opinion.

P.S. Your fear-and-hate-and-blame-the-Residents post cost LL at least one region sale this week. Big ol screaming rants about how SL is doomed, with scary off-putting headlines ... not a good way to encourage anyone to invest in SL. Far worse than a little whining in the comments section.


Bertolt Brecht had the Solution to this 60 years ago - http://wp.me/p4QUI-A9


Bertolt Brecht had the Solution to this 60 years ago - http://wp.me/p4QUI-A9

Laetizia 'Tish' Coronet

We really could do without that picture of you hangin' with The Man Hamlet. It doesn't help at all, you know.
Imagine that the Washington Post White House reporter posts piccies of himself buddying with Obama, with our without funneh captures. I'd change newspaper, seriously.

Foneco Zuzu

And the show keeps going on!
And yet no comment from any official Lab source.
So or they really dont even care, or they really agree with your agenda or they just think is not even worth commenting on it.
But as Sl users quit, shocked and join other Open worlds I hope LL will have to make a statment sooner they expect.
No newbies will replace the ones leaving for Avination, Hypegrid or os grid.
And the worst is that Sl with a good computer, a good connection and an open mentality is really a alternative not only to any other platform but also for the internet as we do see it today.
So my 2 cents:
As All already stated, AS Rod Humble Himslef stated.
1st: solve the bugs that make Sl resindents life in world a pain.
2nd: Keep the actual residents on Sl, making their efforts worth, listining to their complains, letting them create more (more prims, less tiers and so on).
3th: Make sure Sl can support a influx of new users before trying to bring them on, nobody will stay if they start and crash, start and crash, will not start a 3th time for sure!
This week we saw (we that are on Sl more then 3h all days, not the ones that not even bother to come, and dare to speak about it!), as series of crashes, lag, failing logins and so on.
How can any expect to bring new users if the old ones had to keep strugling to stay there.
And last:
Sl is not a mainstream game!
Is a place where some dare to spend 2500 Usd just to get the best computer to be able to enoy it, spent at least 200 Usd month to use it and want to keep and enjoy it.
And as a premium member i can say, that the times i had problems they where solved and LL listen to them!
But i regret being premium cause it really didnt benefit me in any other way.
And the base of Sl now its outisde Usa so dont even try to stop letting it be free!
Many cant afford month payments on their countries, but can come, learn and start working to get the money that will let them acess all the amzing content around!
If they have to open their legs, just start building or whatever is not Linden labs concern!
What should be its concern is to keep them in World, and as the time passes they will spend more and more and one day they would realize who Sl is amazing with a Usd 2500 computer and will buy that, just for Second life, not anyting else.
And then tey will spread the word and more will buy those Usd 2500 comps just to enjoy Sl.
And its worth to have only 50000 residents online when they all can enjoy Sl at max, but to have 1.000.000,00 that cant stay for more then a min???

Laetizia 'Tish' Coronet

I crunched some numbers for you, Hamlet.


old true

like when all cults flounder, the mouthpieces and most engorged taunt the faithful as not being "good" enough.

so transparent...

Arcadia Codesmith

The tier model is unsustainable (not just the current amount of tier, the entire concept of tier).

A very small minority is very vocally opposed to changing it, because they have a lot of real world money tied up in virtual real estate, and it's going to cause them real world hardship if the tier system goes away.

Oh well, that's speculation for you. If you provide the value add of a well-crafted community, people will still give you money even if undeveloped land is free and unlimited.

But if you're just flipping rectangular islands in a water grid with no services beyond basic maintenance... ouch, time to find another career choice.

Having said that... beware anybody who invokes the Silent Majority. Tricky Dick did that way back when, and as it turned out, the Silent Majority were more quietly attuned to the dirty commie hippies than they were with the oppressive and corrupt military/corporate power stucture that Nixon personified.

Talvin Muircastle


Everything you are saying about this, all of this "The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves" series of yours, could easily and truthfully be restated in a way that doesn't look like you are pointing fingers at the customers.

"Linden Lab has lost the trust of the hard-core users."

When the SL Education Wiki got a Cease-And-Desist even as SL was using it to show how wonderful SL can be, I lost trust in SL.

When the Community Gateway program was closed without any warning or explanation, I lost trust in LL.

When Helen Keller Day was used by LL to exploit people with Disabilities while they ignored repeated complaints that VHH was violating the TOS by releasing personal information about people who use Max, I lost trust in LL.

When Virtual Ability was lauded for receiving the Linden Prize, but Tom Hale showed up at a meeting where a significant number of Deaf Residents (and many of us who are not) asked him to please use Text, and he insisted on using Voice, I lost trust in LL.

And when Hamlet, who is viewed as a "plausible deniability mouthpiece" for LL, proceeds to add even more insult on top of injury in his website, I lose trust in LL.

If you know anything at all about business, you know that Trust is the one true currency. If nobody trusts you, nobody will do business with you. If even a minority distrusts you, they will tell others. I remember being taught in the days before the Internet: ONE dissatisfied customer will tell TEN OTHERS on average. Since then, we have gotten blogs and Twitter and yes Facebook. And SL! And we're talking to one another.

Stop flogging people for doing what dissatisfied, wary customers have always done, and work on regaining that trust.

Rin Tae

Interestingly I still hear more criticism about the lack of change then the change itself when it comes to LL so would like to see where the basis of the assumption is, you have presented in this and the previous post. I mean, there is agreement on the problems SL has and there has been so much written about it in all the various blogs and forums surrounding SL that one could never even imagine reading it all.
There is also agreement, and you write it yourself in this post, that a lot is to blame on LL and while reading it, it does look more like you have switched from blaming the residents to blaming the lab now without admitting to having changed your opinion.
You write, that only a minority is opposing to change so how does this minority manages to hold up the development of SL? LL could shrug them off and do it knowing that they will be applauded by many. Sadly, they are not. The prise and applause is sparse and rarely seen and far to many point out why it wont come over and over again. Looking at the changes done, there is no reason to applaud and many anticipated changes never even made it to the grid. Script limits for example generated some resistance when they have been announced but the idea has been greatly embraced by the scripters and lead to better content. It is now one of the things people are wishing to have. Mesh is another of those. No one knows when it will finally appear but the moment it will, SL will be flooded with new content. People are waiting for change to happen and are angry, because LL does not move fast enough or stop half way through. Like they did with Avatars United and also Windlight.
You write, that resistance to change is not bad on unreasonable in itself. Resistance to change is good if the change is bad and the cited example of viewer 2 is like a shining example for this. The cutting of the discount for the education and non-profit groups, age-verification or the land-price hike are another. Viewer 2 has been opposed to because it really did not met the requirements of the userbase and far too many problems, that have been pointed out during the closed-beta phase, have been left unaddressed for far too long. A horrid communication policy and absolute failure to react to the first wave of negative commentary did the rest and so the following improvements did not lead to the mass adoption of the viewer even when it started to become better and better. Also thanks to lots of open source contribution, but lots of drama could have been avoided, if LL had done so from the start on. After all, when thinking back to the period of introduction of the viewer the comments have been mostly: “I want the features! I love them and they are great! Thank you LL but would you consider wrapping them into a usable package, please?”

People who fear change would not massively use third party viewers (that actually change and have frequent updates) I think.

Besides, when you write that viewer 2 is the best example of the kind of resistance you see in the userbase and then say, that the userbase can't be blamed for failing to embrace it because of the problems, I would do ask, who you would blame then?

So yes, LL is to blame for a lot here, because they lost the trust of their customers. Now when they announce a change it is met with rolling eyes and bets on what will break now. Mesh is again a good example here because while there are tons of content only waiting to be uploaded (SL might consider to get new asset servers online before mesh come to the grid) there is also the expectation, that LL will for sure do something wrong. How can a company expect it's customers to be happy about what they do, when they have only provided them with negative examples. The residents does not fear the change itself. They are more nervous about 'how' the change is going to be made. And this is something that puts the ball into LLs side of the field hopefully making them look back and for once evaluate their past actions and think about how they get into this kind of situation.

And their failure in capture the mass market is not for the most part their fault. It is only their fault as it has been their decision not to run marketing campaigns (they still don't do it obviously) and it has been their fault not to think forward to actively address problems before they arise. Age verification, VAT, adult content, freebies and almost any policy decision could have been managed better if LL would have put some business strategy in place and really looked into what is developing on the grid. So far, they have been only reacting what lead to reactions that came too late and only lead to more frustrations. They have missed opportunities and continue to miss them. I hope, that this has changed and that results will be visible once everything falls into place. You have written it yourself: “(...) most Lindens (past and present) could have done more to prevent that fate.”

So I guess the residents are not to blame for this, right?

Only massive growth will help SL. This is right and there is agreement on this no matter where I go and who I ask. The way on how to do it differs however. The revenue model is not sustainable in the long run. There is no disagreement on this too as far as I can tell and changes to this are being asked for and would be welcomed. LL does not need to put weight to the opposition, but they need to give the feedback they are getting a serious thought. If enough people point out, that there is a problem, then maybe there is one. It is just a thought, but when enough people say, that the plan one is following will lead to disaster and point out why, then maybe it is time to rethink the strategy. Change it completely or maybe explain it better. This is the most important point, because once the customers trust the company, they will happily do everything to help it and don't mind the shortcomings of the platform knowing, that it will be addressed and fixed. Sadly this is not the case so far and LL need, besides thinking about how to best get new users, also thinking about how to actually keep them in world. And this will only be achieved when they can provide a product worth to invest money, creativity and time into.

And I would also like to know if Rod Humble knows that you are using his picture in such a posting-series. I mean, it might be a problem for him when his picture is used in a way that is potentially understood as being insulting to the customers. What kind of PR would that be and what good does it do to SL when the CEO of the company is shown like he would agree to insulting the userbase?

Emperor Norton

"Only massive user growth will save Second Life after its existing revenue model inevitably implodes"

Translated: Second Life is a pyramid scheme.

You know Hamlet you have yet to present any serious argument for us customers to give a shit about Linden Lab's idiotic buisness plan, which sounds more and more like it was mainly a stock scam.

Ann Otoole InSL

It ain't the residents killing SL. We were doing great on our own before this so-called "Commerce Team" showed up.

What changed in relation to search and how business is done in SL? There is who is killing SL.

Maybe Hamlet should survey the populace to see what the people paying LL's salaries think of Brooke Linden and her jury of Lindens that decide who gets free advertising and who ranks in search.

Oh and currently LL gets most of the income from merchants in tier. When AIS rolls out we won't need stores anymore and instead of LL getting all or most of our sales revenue in tier then LL only gets 5%. Smooth move there rodvik. Better hire some people that know wtf is going on and correct some trends your latte drinking free lunch eating never used SL in their life overpaid staff is doing.

Sling Trebuchet

Resistance is fertile !

Second Life is a platform on which the *users* create the content.

LL should concentrate on the platform.
It is the *content* that will draw in new users and keep them. People will even put up with a certain amount of borkiness.

Annoying the people who pay tier in the pursuit of some grand plan to pull in a laggy grillion free accounts seems sub-optimal as a plan.

Melissa Yeuxdoux

I bit the bullet and tried the Snowstorm client that allows point and click movement, and was not impressed. It's an option that might be handy once in a while, but it's utterly stupid, walks right into obstacles and stops, and will obligingly take you into an intervening lake, or, I expect, an intervening space of open air thousands of meters up.

Am I opposed to it? Only when I consider opportunity costs. What useful thing has NOT been done so that someone or some group could implement this pointless feature?

Melissa Yeuxdoux

Re the last bit in the preceding comment: no pun intended. Sorry...

Talvin Muircastle


You forgot the chickens.

Chickens are very important.




I really wish you respond to this question.

What kind of revenue model are you advocating?

As I asked in the previous post, which you did not respond to, how can you have a revenue model that is not based on server usage?

All of SL consists of sims with prims, sculpties and scripts that use server memory. This is the basis of SL's variable cost. More sims means more servers.

Are you advocating getting rid of sims and user generated content? Please answer this question. I need to understand your position.

Also Hamlet, why are you trying to get rid of users like me? I am not interested in playing a game. I feel too old for that. I just like logging in to my sim and building stuff, and occasionally talking to the odd person, listening to music and then logging off. I spend hours doing this.

Call me crazy, but that's all that I want to do in a virtual world, and for that for that I pay US$100 a month. Why must I be denied this little pleasure?

The only way for there to be a space for people like me in SL is for SL to provide a platform that allows people to do what they want to do, like I've said one thousand times before.

Why must I be a prisoner of the masses? You must respect the rights of minorities as well.

Hamlet Au

"that's all that I want to do in a virtual world, and for that for that I pay US$100 a month. Why must I be denied this little pleasure?"

Because it's not a little pleasure -- it's an expensive one that few can afford, and there's not enough people like you to keep paying $1200 a year, and attrition continues eating into that existing revenue base. Far as the alternative revenue model *I'd* support, that's for another post. :)


Well Hamlet,

Thank you for making this crystal clear to me. You are now my enemy and I hate you.

I am prepared to die for what I want. Are you?


I hope you and your view SL fails miserably.

I will dedicate my self to your destruction.


You're a sick little man who gets his kicks off playing video games. Get a real life.

Get married, have some kids and do some real work, like me.



God, I wish I could meet you in person. LOL



If you are so desperate for money, as you seem to be, contact me on my email and I'll see if I can set you up in a proper job, so that you can stop your time wasting, grow up, and be a productive member of society.

Winter Jefferson

Machine; was that hand or blow?

Ann Otoole InSL

Well for all those people paying $100 a month for casual non sexual entertainment there are alternatives.

In current baffling news, LL, for unexplainable reasons, appears to not want money from europe. Those people will not be happy campers if they lose their sims and land and accounts are terminated because of the LL Commerce Team's decision to use a gambling company for payments when that european gambling company apparently doesn't take payments from Europe.

Is that in your revenue model idea Hamlet? Refuse to accept payments from Europe?

Some really weird stuff going on with LL. And utter silence from LL as well.

Was hoping to see Rodvik start kicking the tires and lighting the fires. Not really seeing much at all. From what I see it looks more like there are people being paid by LL to destroy LL. Like wiping out the thousands of content business stores that pay all their income to LL in tier and instead they can have a free SLM store with no need for land and LL only get 5% instead of all of it. That makes a lot of sense. Not. Perhaps they too are taking money from Blue Mars. One job 2 paychecks! woohoo!

Hope I am wrong and by the end of the week we will see a miraculous turn-around at LL with some energy applied to making people want to sign up and LL willing to accept money easily. Currently it just looks... weird. Like LL wants to go bankrupt or something.


the problem is not the userbase, the problem is LL. they fail on making good decisions. they want more users? i am sure there are no more users because you have to install a software then. lot of people dislike that/are not able to do so with their little handhelds. google lively - dead too but for different reason - had started walkin on the right path. it should be possible to log into SL with your webbrowser. so people could send links to their friends like sayin "hey see what crazy place i found/made in SL" and then the whole thing could become more viral. companies could include rooms on their webpages or easily invite people to events. lot of possibilities. easy to join. but as long as i have to install a software this will be the biggest barrier for more growth. but the lab keeps makin little changes from inside the game that most of the possible new users (and old too maybe) will never use. no good


I still wonder... SL was growing like gangbusters back when it was possible to have a private island (OpenSpace) for $75/mo. What would happen if you could get something like that again for $50/mo? I really feel like LL's missing the boat by not recognizing the need for a lot of different sim environments, traffic loads, and consequently different price points.


To Winter:

Both, hehe

shockwave yareach

Users don't have a problem with change, especially in a virtual world. But they expect changes to make sense and not impede their use of the product. The number of LL missteps and its adversarial attitude towards its own customers are astounding to anyone with even passing knowledge of business. They have turned their fantasyland into a lifeless and unexciting lawschool where someone saying hello to you causes you to check the TOS for the approved way to respond. They've stolen (yes, that's accurate) people's property without legal due process. They've committed fraud in the form of Bait and Switch tactics. They've set fire to the US Commercial code -- you cannot say we own something (and have receipts) and then say we don't later.

LL had a money making fantasyland that needed only small controls. M and his NoFunBunch overly restricted anything fun and tried to ignore the fact that ALL the lab has to sell is... fantasyland. Take out the fun and the fantasy and nobody cares about it anymore.

I could turn SL around in under a year. It would be very easy to do, too. Just tell people that yes, they own their property in SL (and what conditions will result in forfeiture), there will be three rated continents so no kid can even SEE anyone/thing in M, and for ratings, what you do/say/see in M is your own business as long as it's not visible from public roads without camming. Tada, confidence is restored. And a few other ideas will double the income in less than 18 months.

But since LL won't listen to customers because LL knows better, we'll just enjoy listening to the band as the ship slips deeper and deeper into the deep blue sea.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Making a Metaverse That Matters Wagner James Au ad
Please buy my book!
Thumb Wagner James Au Metaverse book
Wagner James "Hamlet" Au
Wagner James Au Patreon
Equimake 3D virtual world web real time creation
Bad-Unicorn SL builds holdables HUD
Dutchie Evergreen Slideshow 2024
AWE USA discount code
Juicybomb_EEP ad
My book on Goodreads!
Wagner James Au AAE Speakers Metaverse
Request me as a speaker!
Making of Second Life 20th anniversary Wagner James Au Thumb
PC for SL
Recommended PC for SL
Macbook Second Life
Recommended Mac for SL

Classic New World Notes stories:

Woman With Parkinson's Reports Significant Physical Recovery After Using Second Life - Academics Researching (2013)

We're Not Ready For An Era Where People Prefer Virtual Experiences To Real Ones -- But That Era Seems To Be Here (2012)

Sander's Villa: The Man Who Gave His Father A Second Life (2011)

What Rebecca Learned By Being A Second Life Man (2010)

Charles Bristol's Metaverse Blues: 87 Year Old Bluesman Becomes Avatar-Based Musician In Second Life (2009)

Linden Limit Libertarianism: Metaverse community management illustrates the problems with laissez faire governance (2008)

The Husband That Eshi Made: Metaverse artist, grieving for her dead husband, recreates him as an avatar (2008)

Labor Union Protesters Converge On IBM's Metaverse Campus: Leaders Claim Success, 1850 Total Attendees (Including Giant Banana & Talking Triangle) (2007)

All About My Avatar: The story behind amazing strange avatars (2007)

Fighting the Front: When fascists open an HQ in Second Life, chaos and exploding pigs ensue (2007)

Copying a Controversy: Copyright concerns come to the Metaverse via... the CopyBot! (2006)

The Penguin & the Zookeeper: Just another unlikely friendship formed in The Metaverse (2006)

"—And He Rezzed a Crooked House—": Mathematician makes a tesseract in the Metaverse — watch the videos! (2006)

Guarding Darfur: Virtual super heroes rally to protect a real world activist site (2006)

The Skin You're In: How virtual world avatar options expose real world racism (2006)

Making Love: When virtual sex gets real (2005)

Watching the Detectives: How to honeytrap a cheater in the Metaverse (2005)

The Freeform Identity of Eboni Khan: First-hand account of the Black user experience in virtual worlds (2005)

Man on Man and Woman on Woman: Just another gender-bending avatar love story, with a twist (2005)

The Nine Souls of Wilde Cunningham: A collective of severely disabled people share the same avatar (2004)

Falling for Eddie: Two shy artists divided by an ocean literally create a new life for each other (2004)

War of the Jessie Wall: Battle over virtual borders -- and real war in Iraq (2003)

Home for the Homeless: Creating a virtual mansion despite the most challenging circumstances (2003)

Newstex_Author_Badge-Color 240px
JuicyBomb_NWN5 SL blog
Ava Delaney SL Blog
my site ... ... ...