Linden Dollar Economy Announcement
Monday, July 17th, 2006 at 10:17 AM by: Philip LindenLinden Dollar Economy Announcement: Stipend Change for New Premiums, L$ Sales by Linden Lab, and LindeX Circuit Breakers
We are going to make several changes over the coming weeks in
order to provide Linden Lab with more tools to manage the Second Life
economy. Stability of the L$ economy reduces pricing problems for
creators and consumers of in-world content. As we have previously
announced, detailed information about Linden Dollar sources and sinks
is always available at https://secondlife.com/currency/economy.php.
Exchange rate stability requires a careful balancing of sources of
new Linden Dollars, sinks of Linden Dollars, and the growth of the
economy due to new Residents and increased economic activity. At
present, money is added to the L$ economy mainly through a fixed system
of payments related to the number of active SL users. Long-term, we
believe that these fixed-supply systems will need to be replaced with
dynamic mechanisms that respond to market conditions. So at a high
level, expect us to gradually reduce fixed stipends, and move toward
selling Linden Dollars into the economy at prices or using mechanisms
designed to keep the economy stable. This announcement details changes
in stipend amounts (for new users only), and specific guidelines for
sales of L$ on LindeX by Linden Lab.
Stipend Changes
New Premium accounts that are registered on or after Friday
July 21, 2006, will have a weekly stipend of L$400, down from L$500.
Stipends for current Premium accounts are not affected by this change.
Selling L$
As a dynamic source of L$ in the Second Life economy, Linden
Lab is going to sell a measured amount of Linden Dollars on the LindeX
exchange. We want to continue to give the community as much
transparency into our methods as we can, short of providing information
that allows people to take unfair advantage of market trading
opportunities. We will begin selling Linden Dollars on LindeX on or
after July 24, 2006. The following restrictions apply to our LindeX
trading:
1) Sales will not be secret. We will trade only from the
account name Supply Linden. Our sell orders will always be visible on
LindeX, and the supply of Linden Dollars sold by Linden Lab will be
displayed on a separate line on the Economic Statistics page.
2) Sales will not be market-sale orders. Supply Linden will list only limit-sell orders. We will not sell Linden Dollars through market-sell orders.
3) Sales will have restrictions applicable to currency tier traders.
Supply Linden will start trading under the limitations of Currency
Trader Tier 2. This tier is limited to US$10,000 selling per rolling 30
days, and also limited to US$5,000 per day. Further information about
currency trading tiers is available at https://secondlife.com/currency/describe-tiers.php.
4) Sales will be volume-restricted based on LindeX volume. In any 30-day period, we will not sell more than 5 percent of LindeX volume in the past rolling 30 days.
5) Sales will be volume-restricted based on Linden Dollar sinks. In any 30-day period, we will not sell more than Linden Dollar sinks in the past rolling 30 days.
All of these limitations are subject to adjustments, but all
adjustments will be announced at least 10 days before taking effect.
LindeX Exchange ‘Circuit Breakers’
In addition, effective immediately, we are establishing “circuit breaker” trading halts based on movement (positive
or negative) of the average exchange rate in any given day, as follows:
>10 percent in any 12-hour period: projected 1 hour halt
>20 percent in any 12-hour period: projected 2 hour halt
>30 percent in any 12-hour period: projected close until noon the following day
Averages will be determined for these circuit breakers at least
once per hour. We continue to reserve the right to halt LindeX at any
time for maintenance, or to investigate system misuse or malfunction.
In the event we determine any automated halt period to be unnecessary,
we may recommence trading prior to the end of the projected halt
period.
As LindeX becomes an increasingly sophisticated product feature, we will continue to evolve these and other measures.
July 17th, 2006 at 10:49 AM
How about doing things to improve things for those who do not wish to play the “economic game”?
I am strongly of the belief that the concentration on the ‘economy’ side of things is what will be the eventual downfall of SL, as people concentrate more on making money instead of having fun.
Lewis
July 17th, 2006 at 11:03 AM
Some of these measures seem awfully familiar, like fail-safes in place at CBOT and the MERC to keep things from getting out of hand ala Black Monday in 1939, and to that end I’m pleased.
That LL will be releasing currency, albeit at a rather controlled rate, into the pool via Lindex is frankly not surprising DESPITE the many protestations to the contrary in the past. Did I beleive that the non-participatory stance of LL would remain indefinitely? No. Do I (and I have to believe LL is as well) expect a firestorm of angst over this policy change? You betcha.
I am apparently, at my core, a rather naive person, as I expect folks to catch on and realize that SL isn’t a game, nor a platform at it’s root. SL is a business. The business provides a platform that can be “gamed” in a variety of manners, design, business, partying, socializing, lounging about are all valid uses of the resources provided on the platform by the business that is SL/LL.
To view the user/owner - resident/LL relationship in any other light is folly and leads to (from what I see) great dissatisfaction with the service (SL) provided.
I view these changes as expected, sensible and responsible. Would I rather that stipend bonuses and all those other revenue streams still existed? Yes, in a selfish way. Would I care to suffer the consequences? No, I spent time over at There.com. An empty VR world is a truly sad sight to see.
It’s tough being da boss if you care about the results I’m sure.
Good luck! (hands out asbestos suits for all)
July 17th, 2006 at 11:15 AM
They could at least try to come up with ways to make money easier to obtain for new players. They’ve done away with with dwell, which makes camping chairs useless (at least, more than they already were).. they’ve done away with the stipend for new accounts.. they’re lowering the prem account stipend.. and according to this they’re putting restrictions on even buying L$.
I’m sure there’s a lot of people going to throw a fit about this change, as they seem to with all the other changes. My only concern is how these changes are implemented. Like most things, making an adjustment in one area is going to have an effect in another area. Specifically, it’s hard enough for new players to make money. They opened the registration so now there’s a huge amount of new players with no money, and relatively little means of making any.
I’m not an econonomist or anything like that, but to me, this seems like it would create a concentration of wealth. Sure, by looking at numbers like volume and exchange amounts the economy might look like it’s doing good, but the problem is that there could only be like 20% of the SL population actually taking advantage of it. The whole ‘accounts after such and such date only get this much while older accounts get more’ would be a good example of that.
In all fairness, the stipends could be the same for all prem accounts. Afterall, the account holders are ‘paying’ the same amount. It doesn’t seem fair that they receive different amounts.
just my 2 cents.. for whatever it’s worth.
July 17th, 2006 at 11:59 AM
sounds like a good plan this was inevitable and to me it seems like a good plan over all.
July 17th, 2006 at 12:24 PM
The main thing this will do is selfpaying premium accounts. Sensible move for Linden to make money off, but not good for people planning to exist small scale on their minimal land while still keeping the game free.
Personally i think it would be better if income was made from landfees rather than basic land. Of course they are ways around premium accounts and still use land, but that’s not what Linden wants to achieve i think.
July 17th, 2006 at 12:28 PM
Unfortunately, this is a *source* and therefore a tax on the economy.
I know Philip won’t tell the truth here, but the lindens are taxing the economy by 10,000 USD per month with this technique.
July 17th, 2006 at 12:40 PM
Gather ye Roses, while ye may
July 17th, 2006 at 1:04 PM
I would really like to ask Phillip what he thinks the incentive to being premium is if you aren’t a land baron or a land renter? I mean I can get 2X the land for the same USD from land rentals as my tier would buy me. Now, with the cuts to new premiums, what incentive is there for any sane new player to even consider a premium? It was never a good value proposition if you didn’t want a LOT of land, now its even more a losing proposition.
July 17th, 2006 at 1:29 PM
I too would like to see more ways for newbies to make money. As it is, unless you BUY money, it’s almost impossible to get a start doing anything.
July 17th, 2006 at 1:30 PM
Well I’ll bring up a point that was put out already there is to much focus on the economic side of things. Its a point to make that the community in SL is what will keep things alive not the economy and if things are focused economically to much things based community wise will go down hill. Cutting more L out of the system will only work for a breif time and the L will always fluxuate no matter what is done. Only way it’ll go up is all L coming in is gotten rid of and greed mongers are allowed to control everything.
New policies dont hurt but your going to have to start looking at SL as a whole and work to balance between the two if SL is to survive in the long term. Its your descisions to balance economy and community that will decide the future. Hopefully you realize this and take it into careful consideration when deciding future policy because i for one rather enjoy SL and dont want to see the downfall of it caused by bad decisions. Ive seen it to many times in the past
July 17th, 2006 at 1:39 PM
All im saying is dont try to balance the economy to much try to balance SL as whole which exists as more then just an economy. Its a society its got a economy, community, and cutting more L out just leads to the ultimate downfall of any jobs in SL at all. Eventually things would just phase out job wise. Unless your planning on making a job market for us why do this? People are going to find L harder and harder to get. Lets hope this is your last move to try to take more L out of SL because its becoming harder for people to earn L each time you do.
And if you focus to much on L balance you will need to constantly lower it till no one earns any L and then you will need to add in L in small increments into Lindex. But your then forcing people to buy all their L and thats a bad move both business, economically, and socially, except for a few people no one would really benefit from much more economic policy changes and that includes you in the long run unless you intend to be the only one allowed to sell L into the future.
Please dont take this as being harsh but it is a response and will end up being the truth if you dont try to balance both economy and community which you seem to be shifting to far over on the economic side of things. If people have less L to spend these same people that think the economy is failing are eventually going to whine that they arnt making a profit because they have few sales or few people renting.
Community transcends Economy and you need the community to have a working economy.
July 17th, 2006 at 1:50 PM
Lewis Nerd wrote:
“How about doing things to improve things for those who do not wish to play the “economic game”?
I am strongly of the belief that the concentration on the ‘economy’ side of things is what will be the eventual downfall of SL, as people concentrate more on making money instead of having fun.
Lewis”
While I can sympathize, your comment appears to be made from the ‘SL is a game’ mindset. If Linden’s focus is on keeping SL a game, your suggestions make perfect sense.
However, its very clear from Linden’s perspective that their intention is to build the platform, not the game.
You may be correct that these changes further the demise of ‘SL the game’. However, that may be irrelevant if the focus and goal is to further the emergence of ‘SL the platform’.
I would strongly advise finding ways within yourself to embrace this future of the platform, rather than attempting to lay down in front of the bulldozer and halt it. Not doing so is both futile, and counterproductive for yourself.
Good luck!
July 17th, 2006 at 2:01 PM
More people - far, far more - are interested in ‘SL the game’ than ‘SL the platform’, especially when you realize ‘game’ encompasses such a huge variety of activities. Emphasizing the platform over other considerations is a limitation to your market, and thus will be a long term reduction in income (even if there are some short-term gains, and I’d need to see a few months of numbers before I was convinced of even that much).
July 17th, 2006 at 2:46 PM
Anonymous whoever you may be. The problem with focusing on either end of the spectrum is simply as i have said above. If one focuses to much on SL as a game it ends up the same as if they focus to much as it being a platform. How LL makes SL looks it has to balance the two and as i have stated those decisions to focus on both area’s as opposed to one or the other are going to make or break LL in the long run of things.
If they focus on it as a platform quite simply there will be people that just leave. A very large number of people are here for SL not due to the platform aspect but due to the game aspect and thats what someone saying SL is just a platform makes. They fail to see all of what SL encompasses. As i say to newbies who often question just what SL is. I say this. SL is what you make of it.
If you use it soley as a platform that is your perogotive but you should take into account that the majority of SL residents are not here for the platform aspect. SL is a game and SL is a platform at the same time. It would be you using it as a platform or a game though. One shouldnt force idea’s on other people and if LL truly hopes to make SL as good as it can be they need to balance it.
I hope in the future this is realized that SL is not just a platform and doesnt just exist as one. I hope LL realize that the majority of us suffer from the economic changes that are constantly being introduced. You cant alienate one group or another because quite simply look at it in this aspect.
First we run into the fact that if SL is to work as a platform it needs to work as a game as well. There are a few sides in this situation and quite simply they need to balance out for SL to work. You cant have it one way or another its gotta work in all directions to be successful.
July 17th, 2006 at 2:50 PM
I think these changes will be very beneficial for stabliizing the value of the Linden, particularly the temporary halt in trading when value fluctuates as defined by the margins mentioned.
The only area where I would like to see more tweaking is the stipend. The reduction should apply to all members across the board, although I do understand the reasons in favor of reduction for new premium members only. I do think, however, that stipends should move in increments toward elimination for all members.
I like these changes, and think it will protect against some of the market manipulation and value fluctuation that we have seen. Good decision!
July 17th, 2006 at 2:53 PM
I’d say not to penalize new players by reducing their stipend, instead stop paying stipends to the rich. If a person has over say $100,000L in their account for that month, they really don’t need a stipend. The stipend is for those starting out or don’t intend on making money in the game. I have over $400,000 L, why do I need a $500L entitlement every week? Stipends should go to those who need them.
July 17th, 2006 at 3:10 PM
katykiwi, ill state this again. If they focus on the economy it’ll be bad for SL. Getting rid of the stipends for all memebers leads to forcing people to buy L and guess what? Then only the rich or people that have L benefit. You appear to fail to see the effects of what this has on things a whole and are only focusing on a short term economic gain which will be very short lived mind you.
The fact is these are bad moves. The economy as is is quite stable at the moment. It has remained at about 300 > 1 usd for the past month and that is quite stable i’d say. As i have said there are a few sides here and there needs to be a balance. Unless you are sitting there rooting for the end of SL as anything more then just a place to build stuff where you have to spend money everytime you want to do something.
Changes in economic policy hurt everyone in the long run especially phasing out the stipend. As people have less money they are less likely to spend it as freely thus the people developing things end up suffering more then if there was more L in the economy. This causes them to have to drop down the price on their items and then the price of L starts to climb dramatically.
In which case LL can introduce new L to try to “balance” things but they are still forcing people to buy all their L. They would also need to do away with sinks to make this work at all thus doing away with using L from sinks to put up for sale thus causing them to have to sell money made out of thin air.
You also run into the point that this is pennalizing all players to benefit those that make money in SL but these people stand to make less in the long run of things. They may stand to have a rather short lived economic boost but after that things will only go downhill for everyone including LL. So actually these economic reforms if continued would be bad for everyone.
Regardless of what people may think its a cold hard truth LL, and the people selling L need to realize sooner rather then later. Hopefully they open their eyes before its to late.
July 17th, 2006 at 3:10 PM
That’s basically like what I was saying about concentration of wealth. At this rate, it’s going to be like a virtual third world country.
July 17th, 2006 at 3:13 PM
i think that these are generally good moves - the $L350 exchange rate was ridiculous. SL is a game and in my mind dollars have been the scoring system -a reward for skills and accomplishment - something that camping always stifled. A healthy economy that encourages initiative is a sign that Linden Labs is running the game correctly
As an SL Instructor i am hoping that players will spend more time learning marketable skills and get a balance in their SL lives - not just be looking for total pleasure but rather work towards a goal and relate to other citizens. Of course playing purely for money is as destructive as playing the whole game in casinos and brothels.
The only other element i would like is a set number of basic lessons with a set curriculum(building, social structure and commerce) which once completed, would see a new player rewarded with a one off payment.
Thank you for the announcement.
kitty
xxx
July 17th, 2006 at 3:28 PM
Kitty one problem. Not everyone is going to come here to work. I think asking them to work to enjoy SL is a bit off. They need a choice and without a choice its destructive to everyone. LL is both a platform and a game and its gotta be balanced well for things to succeed. I dont think forcing people to learn “marketable skills” is the right way to do things.
SL is enjoyed by the majority of its residents as a social game. And a few that use it as a platform and social game. Some focus sheerly on the platform aspects. I have taught people but it should be their choice they should just be forced into it as the only means to actually enjoy SL.
As someone who teaches independantly i can tell you personal experience on my end towards the individual person is a bit greater then that of the instructors. Everyone learns different and not everyone can learn every skill. But forcing it isnt really a solid answer. I think LL should of kept the economy as it was.
Whats likely to destabalize the economy is this announcement. The economy will need to rebuild and it’ll stabalize around the point. The change was rather uneccessary if you look at the value of L over the last month. The economy has been stable there was 0 reason for the change really.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:21 PM
I don’t understand all this economy thing and balancing thing its above my head and i’m sure many others head. I’ve been playing SL since 2004. I came to this game to have fun and learn a few skills. There are things I miss that we don’t see anymore because of the making money thing. I miss show and tell when people created and showed their quite unique inventions off and I miss seeing a dumb toilet made and laughing my head off. I miss pageants where we ran and bought our swimsuits and gowns just to look pretty for the nite. I just plain miss the inventive quality that is lacking in the events. I mean anyone can do cyber sex. Different strokes for different folks, but there are people on here who want to have some good ole fashion fun and then go have sex lol. I like trying to make a few things to sell but with all the competition these days its hard to make a buck. I wish there was a way to get more exposure for the things that we create. A lot of good scriptors and builders out there who haven’t got a chance. I’m grateful for what little stipend I do receive because of the lack of exposure for my things. I work hard on an item and can’t afford to place my things everywhere in world. Just a few comments from the peanut gallery
July 17th, 2006 at 4:24 PM
LL selling $L directly? Obviously it’d be a nice way for LL to make some extra cash (which I won’t compain about, I understand that LL is a business, etc.), but I don’t see how it helps solve the problem of perpetually devaluing $L. Am I missing some crucial point here? Or would it actually just make the $L worth less in USD terms?
July 17th, 2006 at 4:34 PM
Emphasizing platform over game will lead to a short term limitation to the market. 6 million people use WoW. It’s probably one of if not THE most successful online game ever. It’s a great number for a game.
1,023,000,000 use the internet. In the July 2006 Netcraft Survey, 55,622,584 web sites use apache. Microsoft IIS accounts for 25,726,748.
Each individual website has it’s own set of users. Google earned aproximatly $0.12 per search and around 1,831,600,000 searches are conducted per month on Google for aproximatly 220 million dollars in revinues per month.
Other sites may earn less or more, but Google makes much more per month than World of Warcraft based on advertising alone. The chance that someone of their many millions of users will click on and ad an maybe buy something.
In the USA e-commerce exceeds $130 billion dollars a year.
Emphasizing platform over game is how Second Life will grow beyond the scope of any game. The focus of World of Warcraft is the game itself. The focus of Second Life is to make anything possible including games like wold of warcraft that serve millions of users and services like Google that reach nearly half the internet population.
July 17th, 2006 at 5:08 PM
Problem there baba. Is Emphasizing platform vs game in second life may put the scope beyond that of any game but what will the user base of that area truly be? When you take game out of SL your left with something devoid of the social area’s that SL have and is just about business and developing it as simply a platform will lead to people consistantly having to work to do anything in SL.
Having games in SL is great but when no one can afford to play them or make them what then?
July 17th, 2006 at 5:58 PM
A great move, it will allow more flexibility in sources.
One concern is that it will make the premium account worth not as much. The previously calculated 361 break even rate is going to be 287 with stipend 400.
July 17th, 2006 at 5:58 PM
A great move, it will allow more flexibility in sources.
One concern is that it will make the premium account worth not as much. The previously calculated 361 break even rate is going to be 287 with stipend 400.
July 17th, 2006 at 6:45 PM
I really would like to know what you are planning to do to make Second Life more fun.
Anything that makes Second Life less fun is bad for Second Life, and having to scrounge for currency is not fun.
July 17th, 2006 at 6:59 PM
Are you sure “Supply Linden” is the best name? Analogies of drug suppliers immedietly comes up in my mind.
Also keep in mind that there will be many users who will not want to buy L$ via USD and will have no other way to get L$ other than begging if you move to a USD -> L$ only economy base. This is in large part why many users left There. Relying on users to create creative methods to give others “free money” (those who can not create objects and such) results in, well, nothing, as has been evident with the creation of dwell chairs and the like which were the only source of income for many.
A large portion of people are not comfortable spending large amounts of real money (and every $.02 cents adds up) for virtual money. Please keep this in mind.
July 17th, 2006 at 7:45 PM
I’m glad you’re trying to take measures to stabilize the Linden and keep the gains it has made in the last few weeks.
The premium account of $9.95 now makes now sense; you can buy the $2000 Linden for less than $9.95, and not everyone wants to sign up for 3 months at once to a new game or world. So stipends became senseless; it’s unfortunate that the other piece of the premium account, the subsidized free land, may also be jettisoned for people as they stop buying subscriptions to get the pay packet each week. First land is a great civilizing force and a huge boon to new players for learning and resale; I think you should tell us the real numbers of premium accounts these days, and of these, how many use the first-land option so we can understand if the civilizing forces are at work, or just the griefing. If retention is measured by move to premium accounts — are you retaining? Or do you have a new way to measure this now?
New players ought not to have been dinged by this cut; the fact that you’re hitting new players lets me know that you don’t have very many of them such as to worry bout them very much. It would have been more just to ding all accounts, and oldbies first — after all, most oldbies before 2005 had the huge windfall of all the ratings bonus stipends pouring into their accounts, which they could get from clubbing and socializing. You have done the right thing with cutting stipends; just backward, it should have gone 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006.
I suppose supplying money is necessary. I don’t get it. Yeltsin also printed rubles, and it led to the ruble collapse in 2002-2003 in Russia.
As for the circuit-breakers, I guess all this does is ding a few very large holders of Lindens because most people can put a market sell on and forget about it for a few days if they have to.
Please come clean now on your plans for changing anything about the tier structure. I’m sure that’s up your sleeve next, and you really need to be honest about that. If you are removing the 10 percent bonus, which would be really cruel and suicidal for mainland projects, people need way more than 3 months to adjust. If you are flattening tier such as to make rentals obsolete (except for outside firms with huge advertising budgets who can add content as a RL expense in a PR budget), than you need to be really straightforward about that.
July 17th, 2006 at 8:06 PM
Perhaps Linden Labs is doing this to try to improve the ’standard of building’, in a sense.
I’ve not been on the MG for over a year (since I transferred to the TG), but I have noticed that “virtual wasteland” can generally apply to the majority of builds I have seen; besides huge community projects with massive starting capital that SUCEED, few people I’ve seen truly strive to build something more than “adequate” buildings.
This is a key difference between SL and RL: the improving of skills from neccessity.
In Real Life, without relatively good skills, you lose many opportunities and are ‘doomed’ to fast-food restaurant-esque low-paying service industry jobs, if not unemployment, homelessness, or death by starvation or inadequate health care.
If, however, you study hard and get at least a high school degree if not a college degree, you have a much higher chance of getting a good paying job, thus you have a greater chance of living more comfortably, and certainly face less risk of homelessness or starvation.
In short, you MUST have skills of some sort, because lack of skills means you die or live far less comfortably than most would like.
In Second Life, however, there is no initiative as great as death. You CAN become a great scripter, builder, clothes designer, etc, and make some money, but:
A) You could just as easily pay for that same amount of money with RL cash and
B) Linden dollars are only neccessary as far as the person is impulsive and buys others’ designs.
So, you see people who strive to become the best, to produce high quality products… but they are not the majority. Most are content to slap up a box and say “That’s ok, I’ve done GOOD ENOUGH, and anything else I need I can just pay for with actual cash,” and this might just be what LL is trying to avoid.
In order to avoid “virtual lethargy,” they are providing the initiative to become creative: you don’t make something, you don’t get money to spend on your own desires. Surely nothing can be as great an influencer as death, but something is neccessary to try to improve the virtual ’standard of building’ and prevent SL from turning entirely into a virtual wasteland.
How efficient this might be, and whether it will have more effect than the uproar about the policy change it creates, is up to debate.
July 18th, 2006 at 4:38 AM
“”"”
Problem there baba. Is Emphasizing platform vs game in second life may put the scope beyond that of any game but what will the user base of that area truly be? When you take game out of SL your left with something devoid of the social area’s that SL have and is just about business and developing it as simply a platform will lead to people consistantly having to work to do anything in SL.
Having games in SL is great but when no one can afford to play them or make them what then?
“”"”
I never said to take games out of Second Life. I suggested that Linden Lab focus on enabling all kinds of uses for Second Life including games.
Nothing Linden Lab does will stop people from making games short of making a rule prohibiting them and banning anyone who plays games. That would be dumb. There is no Second Life game now nor has there ever been. There are only user created games, so where is the gripe?
The people who will work in Second Life will have the task of making sure nobody else has to work at it. If you don’t wish to design your own experience, you will seek one out provided by others. You decide, is Yahoo to my liking for email, or should I use hotmail? Do I want to shop on ebay, or Amazon? Do I get my news from Fark or the Washington Post? Do I play The Sims or Duke Nukem Forever? Windows Media Player or Winamp? AIM or MSN? Firefox or IE?
Your experienc is determiend by the choices you make. Some people will make entirely new things instead of using something provided by others, but you need not. Most of the services or product mentioned above were created by people whose job it was to make sure your needs were met.
July 18th, 2006 at 7:47 AM
The point i was trying to make is the platform they are moving towards isnt the same platform that exists now. They are focusing to much on the economic side of things which ends up hurting everyone and if to many policies are changed it will lead to people not making games due to them not being able to 1 make money off them and 2 people not really being able to afford to play some of the games as they will be forced to buy L to do so if the policies change to much.
What I want LL to do is balance things as opposed to shifting them one way or another. If they focus economically they end up ruining some of the things that make second life what it is. The same goes for focusing it socially though. There is a fine balance and LL is treading more towards the economic end.
Comerse exists in SL and if they buyers arnt happy and cant afford a product they are more likely to just not buy it in SL. Do you want to come to a point where the people developing things make so little money that they cant really afford to stay here because if economic policies keep cutting out the L that is the most likely root for SL’s future.
Simply put descisions need to be made for the good of all SL not just developers or people playing socially but everyone and these economic moves if continued will hurt everyone including the people pushing for it as well as LL.
July 18th, 2006 at 9:51 AM
How about we actually address the real issue of the money fountains not having sufficient sinks to counter them? If you keep taking things away from the players directly then you are going to cripple this game and it’s going to be nothing more than a neat way to teach Economics students how much their lives are going to suck!
The linked thread has loads of ideas, but I’ll summarise anyway since it seems that yet again LL is turning a blind eye to the suggestions forum despite it having a wealth of ideas and solutions to problem all over SL:
- Variable upload charges - the people who are wasting bandwidth with huge images are getting an easy time with the L$10 flat-fee uploads. The bigger the file, the bigger the upload charge, simple stuff.
- Taxes - at set periods (e.g daily or weekly) take a look at an account’s overall profit, and deduct say 1% as tax. MASSIVE money sink with very little impact to either casual players or business. Just remember to tax outgoing too (L$ -> USD$)
- Charge for the ability to enable P2P teleports on plots of land, just like listing in find places you pay per week to enable P2P on your land, doesn’t hurt home-owners, and business presumably make the money to do this.
With the taxes idea especially you get so much income that we can easily bring back dwell and make SL back into a game with a stable economy. Taxes work in real-life economics, so why not add them to SL to fix it’s crappy economy?
I really am losing faith more and more rapidly, as the only Linden who seems to listen AT ALL is Torley =S
July 18th, 2006 at 10:50 AM
The problem with P2P teleport payment is a bit off for starters not all businesses make money. I for one co own a club that really makes no sort of profit as we try not to. The point here is the economy has been stable for the last month and its shocking to hear another economic change that just does things the end up tightening the money that people have.
The last month has been great and has just proved beyond a doubt that the money coming in isnt a problem. Its more people’s confidence in lindex and patience that comes into play with the value of the L but most people fail to realize that. A game like WoW which was mentioned earlier has a flat rate fee or 14.95 a month. Project Entropia doesnt even charge a monthly fee and you can get all your money from monster drops if you really wanted to and look what their money is worth really.
There is to much to the equation to say its volume or new L coming in that is the problem but thats where people are focusing all the attention. 500L a week wasnt killing anyone at all and the last month proved this the 300L > 1usd exchange rate which has been stable for the last month isnt that bad and these tactics to get it up to 250L > 1usd are hurting the people buying L and the amount of L people actually get without being forced to buy something.
The stipends arnt just there to help people to get started. They are there for the casual player and so people have something to fall back on if all else fails. More sinks wont change LindEx and less money coming in wont either. How many people do you actually think are sitting there selling their stipends? Because that seems to be the logic here. The majority of us use our stipends to buy things and If i was forced to buy L i just wouldnt buy a thing. That would go the same for alot of other people.
SL is becoming less and less appealing to newer players and these actions only hurt everyone really. As i stated several times there needs to be a balance. Taxes arnt really the answer and more sinks arnt really.
Stopping changes to economic policy would stabalize things a bit more in reality because a few of the drops in the value were caused by panic due to announcements.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:23 PM
Hmmm,
Interesting.
I agree with many of the earlier comments that when it comes to the very core of things SL is a businessa and LL is entitled to make some money since they own the system, servers and fork over big bucks to keep the infrastructure humming along.
However with that said, something needs to be done to help alleviate the growing financial pressures on newer players who have no ready way to earn money.
Too many times I have come across new players who are tired and bored of sl becasue they become too pre-occupied with earning L so they can buy goods and services. They beome so concerned about earning a living that they do not or cannot take the time to let their imaginations run wild.
Yes SL may be a business but having fun in SL is the hook that is used to earn and keep residents and I hope the Lindens realize this before they to are looking at an empty grid.
I applaud the changes to the Lindex exchange but the changes can’t always be top to bottom. Many times you need to work on the base. So I would like to see a mechanism that will allow newer residents to make a little money and the creation of even more in world financial intitutions such as Ginko Finacial or other credit union type firms with better return rates.
Maybe even a “GASP!” a virtual welfare state that will allow newer users to become aclimated and allow them some learning time before being kicked out into the world.
The name of the game is competition, competition, competition but with a safety net just in case.
July 19th, 2006 at 6:33 AM
People don’t need a way to get free money.. If they want some Linden Dollars to spend they can find some way to earn them. I assume these people already have jobs and can aford to spend 5 USD(L$1500) per month on some Linden Dollars from the LindeX… If they can’t aford it, then they can make due with freebies.
I’ve probably never bought more than L$5000 in items in my 3 years in Second Life. My enjoyment of Second Life does not depend on having Linden Dollars. If your enjoyment does, try supporting yourself rather than asking for some handout.
July 19th, 2006 at 9:37 AM
A long time ago I sank my reputation over the game vs commerical aspects of SL. Apparently I was dead on with many of the changes that have since been implimented. The majority felt that SL was a commercial product and nothing else. The same question I had back then has still gone unanswered. So I will once again pose it to you:
“If you make sl only a business platform where ppl must either earn by being a creator or buy linden $. Who are you going to sell your products to?”
SL is losing it’s entertainment value rapidly, not by the hands of it’s “residents” but by the hands of LL.
Why would anyone want a premium account these days, the negatives far out weight the positives. I personaly would down grade to basic, take any subscription fees I would of payed and buy linden dollars. I would then rent land cheaper than the purchase price from LL and go shopping with the extra linden dollars. Or simply not purchase anything and save myself the fees completly.
In affect LL is discouraging ppl from subscribing. The history of this company is to continually take from it’s customers. I have no reason to believe that trend will change. Especialy given these announcements.
Not good for the economy, it’s good for LL bottom line, just as it has always been.
I put things simply and ppl tend to hate that but I don’t much care what you are left with is this:
“Continue to take away the entertainment value, and you will have few to entertain.”
Cat
spell check it your damn self,lol.
July 19th, 2006 at 5:17 PM
What we have here….is failure to economize….some Linden Labs you just can’t reach….so you get what we had here last month…Stability….but they didn’t like it…any more’n we did.
My apologies to “Cool Hand Luke”
The point is…if it ain’t broke….
And it wasn’t broke…. Places like Yadni’s and the GNUbie store are becoming more and more popular for a reason, people….Don’t sneer, I look damn good in freebies…and I have a friend that’s made thousands of $L in costume contests with freebies.
This change in stipends is bad and more over, it’s completely unfair. If you must lower it, lower it for EVERYONE, or lower/eliminate it for those who have a pile of cash….
July 19th, 2006 at 5:22 PM
Just to translate the announcement into plain english, it means that it’s now more expensive to play secondlife, and harder to make money there.
Thank you for your short attention spans
July 19th, 2006 at 10:23 PM
I’m a little puzzled by this. I can relate/understand why LL is doing this, but I don not see why the premium stipend is lowered.
As I signed up a while ago, my weekly stipend is 50L$ and this remains. For me, to go to a premium account, which would cost me USD10 (rounded) I get a whole 350L$ week more.
And what extra does it give me, beside the L$? The right to owe my own 512m2 of land somewhere.
Having seen rents that vary in price but generally speaking are around 100-200L$/week for 512m2 with often more prim allowance then your own piece of land would allow, what’s the use? Most of the First Land even is located at remote, abandonen (new) empty places, unless you are willing to cough up L$4-L$10 per m2 for a 512m2 spot somewhere in a busy/nice/prepared area Again still nothing a *new* account (even premium) could afford (unless buying a lot of L$ beforehand).
As such, premium accounts are more and more becoming for land barons and people that are really making a living out of SL. That’s fine for them.
But it makes it even more harder on new players. They saying goes “money makes money”. So only the people having money (either in RL being able to buy big amounts of L$) or in game (Linden$) already will be able to get more and more.
To me, the conclusion has become, it’s even becoming less interesting for me to get my own piece of land. I can also see people starting playing the free account not seeing the need to upgrade to a premium account just because of this.
And for the more casual player, they will loose interest soon, as there is virtually no way to gain L$ after the grace period of 30 days (money trees for example) and while camping chairs all over are being reduced.
Not everyone is capable of doing some kind of business in SL or want to.
Just my 2cts.
July 19th, 2006 at 10:28 PM
Forgot to add:
For USD10 you get a mere 1600L$/month and the right to owe your 512m2 of land.
Buying L$ for USD10 gives approx 3300L$, twice as much. One better would buy L$ when they need it then pay a monthly fee (unless they want to become landlords/barons)
July 21st, 2006 at 6:17 AM
People whose full time real life job is to be a “Land baron” need to make enough to support themselves. Presumably everyone else already has a job, and they have a *free* Second Life account. What more do you want?
You already have a job, which pays for your entertainment budget. You rent movies, or go out to the theater. Why not pay for some L$ and live it up in Second Life? Why is this somehow different?
So you don’t need a premium account, because rent is so cheap? Good for you! Go buy some L$ and rent your land for $2 a week. That’s about $8.00 a month with some Lindens left over to spend on whatever else.
Why does it matter who you are paying for the experience? Linden Lab or whoever you bought your Linden Dollars from?
>>>>
“”‘If you make sl only a business platform where ppl must either earn by being a creator or buy linden $. Who are you going to sell your products to?’
SL is losing it’s entertainment value rapidly, not by the hands of it’s “residents” but by the hands of LL.”"
Entertainment is business. What people find entertaining differs widely, but I’m sure someone is developing the next big thing in Second Life right now.
I played a pretty entertaining hack & slash RPG not too long ago that was built on LSL. It looked to be coming along nicely.
August 18th, 2006 at 2:34 PM
I’m probably beating a badly decomposed horse here, but as a new user, I have in my mind a set limit for land fee use, and for household prims and such, and am from the school that says good enough is self explantatory. Once I have a land big enough to support the prims I want, and have all the furniture I want. I’ll spend my L’s only if something looks better or has less oprims than what I’m using now; and maybe actually play in the community instead of parking on dance pads or camping out in casinos.
If Linden goes to an economy where people can afford to buy stuff according to their pain level of USD theyre willing to spend, I think in a non action environment, they’ll lose more customers than they gain. As it is now in SL there is small but very dedicated minority who are unhappy if they can’t harm someone or destroy things, I came here for the reasons that this is not about killing people or destroying things, but among the people who play games that is a very distinct minority.
I don’t where the balance is, Linden Labs has every right to turn a profit, if they lose money, we lose the whole world.
October 17th, 2006 at 8:24 AM
I see 3 types of accounts, the “basic” which is free, the “second” (or more) alt, which is the same but you bend over and pay 10 USD for, and the so called “premium” account.. If you are able to afford land, it makes no sense having a “premium” account… as you not only have to buy land, and pay the tier.. and have to pay 10 USD as a prem. fee as well.. Also, if you look around, usally you can find some land cheaper than their prices.. and not pay the 10 USD on top of that. Personaly, I can not afford to, due to my limited income, to pay 10 or more bucks for land to build a house, to call home. And there are wwaaaayyy too many people making things to sell, then you have to rent space for a vendor, at the very least, and *hope* you can make enough to pay the rent, not to mention some for your pocket. When it comes to land, A friend of mine and I pooled what little I had with hers last spring. And we had some land… that we “brought.” Then she got in a tight, and we would have lost all of it, with some people you “buy” from.. but it is not really buying. Because if you get in a tight.. you lose all you have in purchase price. and you have to pay a monthly “tier” on top of that.. So, is that “ownership? If you get in a tight, it doesn’t sound like it to me… when you can lose half to all of what you have invested in the land, depending on who you “buy” from. And there is no real way people who are new to SL can make a decent “income” unless they like and good at building, or a “dancer” or an “escort” type work and willing to do it. One couple who built, wanted 20K L, or 80 USD to build my “dream” home.. I built it myelf, thank you, back when we had property. Some people do make good money in SL, but they are few and far between, and almost all of those have the hundreds of USDs to put up front to make it work. One large and active store owner, that I know, said her busness has dropped 50% over the summer. That makes it even more scary to try to start one. Also, trying to find something unique to make, and sell well, is like looking a needle in a haystack!
To me, the bottom line, is LL needs to think about the masses, on the low end of the social-ecomic scale, and do something to make things more affordable, for the new people, and fixed income ones… And to find some way to strike a balance between jobs and income… Don’t ask me how, but it would make SL much more enjoyable without feeling money pressures.
Thank you
Adeel
February 9th, 2007 at 8:47 PM
Can I still sell my Linden for US Dollars?
July 11th, 2007 at 10:28 AM
Was it lowered from 400L to 300L?