Clickable Culture   Official Research Blog of Phantom Compass
  Linden Lab ‘Contingency Measures’: Reaction Roundup  
Posted 2007-02-19 by Tony Walsh
This weekend, Linden Lab announced a contingency measure aimed at reducing virtual world service interruptions by locking out non-paying users of Second Life during peak usage periods. I recently described my dissatisfaction with the plan--one of the main reasons being that it precludes business-friendly "try before you buy" scenarios by barring new users and those who haven't yet decided to pay Linden Lab for services. Both at and The Second Life Herald also expressed discontent. Today I've happened across a few alternate viewpoints worth responding to.

Metaverse content-creator Lordfly Digeridoo isn't happy with those who've complained about Linden Lab's inability to solve congestion on Second Life's grid, but who also aren't happy with the company's contingency measures. The way Digeridoo sees it, Linden Lab's limiting of freeloaders is long overdue: "If you ran a restaurant, and it suddenly became insanely popular because of it’s chili recipe, and you gave out free samples, but the free samplers just hung around in the dining area for hours on end while paying customers can’t sit down to eat, would you keep the freeloaders there? Or would you shoo them out to let people with actual money to come in, even if just temporarily?" In Digeridoo's example, there's really only one sensible choice. I feel that what he's missing is that the people lining up for free chili weren't aware that they were getting "samples" at all. They were invited by the restaurant to enjoy as much free chili as they could eat, as well as create their own delicious meals, under a banner that read "Your Restaurant. Your Imagination." Suddenly locking out invited guests with a sign reading "Access Restricted" isn't just an unfriendly move, it's an unexpected one.

Virtual monster-hunter Van Hemlock thinks the contingency plan makes sense: "[W]hy let people who have paid nothing toward the world's existence use up all it's resources, at the expense of those who are funding it all?" He does note, however, that the policy represents an about-face from its previous everyone-in-the-pool attitude. In my view, Linden Lab has had persistent problems setting user expectations at a level that can reasonably be met or exceeded--see my restaurant example above. The company can't very well say that Second Life is "Your World" if it's really "Our World: Access Limited to Paying Customers During Peak Times."

Over at the SLOG, veteran Second Lifer Gwyneth Llewelyn says that while only about 60,000 of 3 million Second Life accounts are Premium (paid), she's inclined to agree with "any sort of measure that benefits paying users--the ones that actually account for Linden Lab's present and future economic viability." Paying customers are important, I can't argue with that. But current paying customers are the ones that account for Linden Lab's present viability. It's the future customers I'm worried about. In the short term, the company's contingency plan blocks out those who may be ready to pay, but aren't able to log in or create an account. How many future customers would be lost this way? It's not just Linden Lab's viability that relies on patronage--user-created businesses, many of which cater to newcomers, need a steady flow of customers, too. None of this may not matter in the long term, though: I'm not sure Linden Lab's future customers will be comprised of end-users. If the company is proceeding with its plan to facilitate host-your-own virtual worlds, its future customers might be second-tier service-providers.

Meanwhile, Mark Wallace over at 3pointD has posted a follow-up to his initial thoughts on Linden Lab's contingency measures, based on an informal email from the company's CTO Cory Ondrejka. I agree with Wallace when he writes "The decision to limit access for unverified users also raises questions, for me at least, of how open a platform SL is intended to be," and in another paragraph, "This is hardly the kind of Web 2.0-style openness the Lab professes to be about. In fact, it hews very closely to kind of gentle discrimination implied by the locking out of unverified users: the Lab continues to make judgment calls about who may use different parts of the service, at which times, and for what purposes."

I don't object to change, and I don't object to running a business like a business. But I do think that Linden Lab's transition from the virtual world of brotherly love to the virtual world at five bucks a head has been painful and awkward. I remain optimistic that a more open virtual world--one that balances public and private space similarly to the World Wide Web--will arise. Whether from Second Life's evolution, its ashes, or from any of the numerous virtual worlds nipping at Second Life's heels.
  ... share via email digg bloglines fark reddit newsvine simpy blogmarks magnolia  
Comment posted by Brace Coral
February 20, 2007 @ 4:13 am
Comment posted by Tony Walsh
February 20, 2007 @ 11:57 am
Brace, that's crazy--so not only have the Contingency Measures already been enacted, but they've blocked out at least one Verified user. Ugh...
Comment posted by Brace Coral
February 20, 2007 @ 8:17 pm
Yep... and there's more. From the lindie blob on the subject at hand:

"Argus Collingwood Says:
February 19th, 2007 at 7:56 PM PST

I pay for two sims and access is DENIED. Not acceptable Lindens!"

I can see blocking me, cuz technically I'm a basic user, no matter what I've paid in the past. But dang it looks like even major "investors" are denied as well.
Comment posted by SpaceQ
February 28, 2007 @ 7:13 am
I think you didnt get LL point:
"When the Grid is under stress, resulting in content loss and a generally poor experience, we would like to have an option less disruptive than bringing the whole Grid down"

This less distruptive option is to instead of stopping all users to stop only not paying users connect to grid. This also helps to determine better problem.

Regarding scalability: Problems are just temporary .. their system is designed to be scalable as a whole. Hickups u see now are just breaking of chain elements which are known(during design) to be solvable/upgradable in case of their failure/overloading/.
[ Detailed Search ]
Clickable Conversation
on 4159 entries

Dinozoiks wrote:
Wow! Thanks for that Tony. Just posted a bunch of other tips here... Hope it helps someone... Dino...
in Dino Burbidge's '10 Things To Remember When Designing For Kids Online'

yes, many of the free little games are crappy. but as an artist who has recently published free content on the itunes app store,…
in Free iPhone Games Are Awful: Strategy?

I vote for popup radial menus. Highlight a bit of text, the push and hold, Sims-style radial menu pops up with Copy, Paste, etc....
in More iPhone Gestures, Please

Hey Tony! A client of mine is looking to hire an internal Flash game dev team to build at a really cool Flash CCG…
in Dipping Into Toronto's Flash Pool

Yeah, there's a lot of weird common sense things I've noticed they've just omitted from the design. No idea why though....
in More iPhone Gestures, Please

It also bears noting there's no mechanism right now for a developer to offer a free trial for the iPhone; the App Store isn't…
in Free iPhone Games Are Awful: Strategy?

@GeorgeR: It's on my shopping list :) I've heard good things about it as well. And Cro Mag Rally. @andrhia: meh, I don't know…
in Free iPhone Games Are Awful: Strategy? get what you pay for, you know? I actually bought Trism based on early buzz, and it's truly a novel mechanic. I've been…
in Free iPhone Games Are Awful: Strategy?

The only one I've heard good things about is Super Monkey Ball. Have you given that a whirl yet?...
in Free iPhone Games Are Awful: Strategy?

Advance warning: this frivolent comment is NOT RELATED or even worth your time ... But whenever i hear "Collada", i think of that SCTV…
in Electric Sheep Builds Its Own Flock

Clickable Culture Feeds:

RSS 2.0 ATOM 1.0 ALL



Clickable Culture
Copyright (c)1999-2007 in whole or in part Tony Walsh.

Trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments owned by the Poster. Shop as usual, and avoid panic buying.