SL hasn't had zero membership growth in two years, and concurrency figures have significantly changed since two years ago. You can see some long-term charts here.
Furthermore, LL is quite concerned about retaining members, just, different sorts of members. They're worried about churn but they also believe that long-term residents are likely to just carry on, as if they didn't have a good reason to stick around they wouldn't still be there. (This has some truth but is also a bit short-sighted.) They have been making significant changes recently to attract new users, and also retain them, with programs such as Linden Homes.
There is a simple reason that they would do that, or try to do that: LL doesn't make much money from user-to-user transactions. They make money from people buying land, all of which goes straight to them. They make some money from people cashing in and out but it doesn't account for that much of their income from users - that's land. People who come in, buy $100 worth of dresses and shoes and sculpty penises and then leave don't result in much profit for them.
As moderator of this community I suggest you read more carefully and do a bit more research before you jump in and start blasting away at anyone posting here.
"SL hasn't had zero membership growth in two years"
No one said it did. In fact the point we are discussing is that they have membership growth without active member growth. I almost always have a population hud when in SL that gives me constant readouts of the current number of people online. I have done that for years now. It ranged from 50,000 to 80,000 two years ago and that is still the range. There are about 71,000 online right now. When it gets much over 80,000 they start having serious asset server problems. That is zero active member growth. Which indicates a high turnover rate.
Some of the charts you refer to show total number of people logging on over specific periods. That of course is an entirely different statistic but it still backs the point. Even more people logging in but the same number of people online at any one time indicates even faster turn over. If I saw two million people on at once two years later that would be active member growth. That simply isn't the case.
And of course they are working to attract new members. That is exactly what I said. But retention of more members is simply not possible with their current infrastructure and it has pretty much reached it's expansion limits. It is just in their best interests business wise not to retain members that have stopped spending. They aren't in this for altruism.
As for member to member commerce, that is all irrelevant, of course, because the spending spree of new members includes property ownership fees and member fees. Most members that have been in there a while just become 'hobos' or leave. They don't need property. The club they started failed. They sold the property to the next noob who wants to start the "hottest club in sl". Google that phrase in quotes and you get 13,000 results, pretty much all defunct and long gone second life clubs and that is just the tip of the iceberg. All built by new people who have dropped a bundle in SL then stopped spending.
But SL isn't alone in this. Every social networking site is doing the same thing. Even LJ. Massive membership increase with very low actual active member growth. What we are doing here is observing something happening and discussing the possible sociological impact. I'm not even criticizing Linden labs. Just observing and looking at the sociological implications. I suggest we stick to that.
As a poster in this community, if you're going to immediately reply to somebody disagreeing with your opinion with the poorly-veiled threat "As moderator of this community...": cheerio.
unfortunately for your theory several people have disagreed with me and even corrected me in this community just today with no problems, so I doubt you will find an audience for your hostility here. Goodbye then.
Furthermore, LL is quite concerned about retaining members, just, different sorts of members. They're worried about churn but they also believe that long-term residents are likely to just carry on, as if they didn't have a good reason to stick around they wouldn't still be there. (This has some truth but is also a bit short-sighted.) They have been making significant changes recently to attract new users, and also retain them, with programs such as Linden Homes.
There is a simple reason that they would do that, or try to do that: LL doesn't make much money from user-to-user transactions. They make money from people buying land, all of which goes straight to them. They make some money from people cashing in and out but it doesn't account for that much of their income from users - that's land. People who come in, buy $100 worth of dresses and shoes and sculpty penises and then leave don't result in much profit for them.
Reply
"SL hasn't had zero membership growth in two years"
No one said it did. In fact the point we are discussing is that they have membership growth without active member growth. I almost always have a population hud when in SL that gives me constant readouts of the current number of people online. I have done that for years now. It ranged from 50,000 to 80,000 two years ago and that is still the range. There are about 71,000 online right now. When it gets much over 80,000 they start having serious asset server problems. That is zero active member growth. Which indicates a high turnover rate.
Some of the charts you refer to show total number of people logging on over specific periods. That of course is an entirely different statistic but it still backs the point. Even more people logging in but the same number of people online at any one time indicates even faster turn over. If I saw two million people on at once two years later that would be active member growth. That simply isn't the case.
And of course they are working to attract new members. That is exactly what I said. But retention of more members is simply not possible with their current infrastructure and it has pretty much reached it's expansion limits. It is just in their best interests business wise not to retain members that have stopped spending. They aren't in this for altruism.
As for member to member commerce, that is all irrelevant, of course, because the spending spree of new members includes property ownership fees and member fees. Most members that have been in there a while just become 'hobos' or leave. They don't need property. The club they started failed. They sold the property to the next noob who wants to start the "hottest club in sl". Google that phrase in quotes and you get 13,000 results, pretty much all defunct and long gone second life clubs and that is just the tip of the iceberg. All built by new people who have dropped a bundle in SL then stopped spending.
But SL isn't alone in this. Every social networking site is doing the same thing. Even LJ. Massive membership increase with very low actual active member growth. What we are doing here is observing something happening and discussing the possible sociological impact. I'm not even criticizing Linden labs. Just observing and looking at the sociological implications. I suggest we stick to that.
Reply
No wonder it's on the skids.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment