Tag: Second Life

LL and Content

Posted on by Inara Pey

Way back in the mists of time – during the OpenSpace farago, to be precise, a number of people, myself included, wondered if Linden Lab weren’t considering a shift from merely supplying land to moving complete, ready-to-occupy prefab sims. Anne O’Toole actually gave voice to our concerns, as I mentioned in a past blog.

Now, in the latest from Linden Lab we find that the idea of the pre-fabricated sim direct from Linden Lab is actually about to become a reality. In amongst all the gloss of Torley’s video and the PR department’s carefully-compiled script is this nugget, commencing at 1:13 in the video: “We’ve also completely redesigned the land store experience to make to make it easier to use and understand. We’ve launched themed private regions which are ready to move into after purchase…” (my italics for emphasis).

Exactly what form these “themed private regions” will take is unclear – but I’ll frankly be surprised if they are not Homesteads – even if this does mean a shift in LL’s current policy that Homesteads can only be purchased by those owning at least one full sim. I’d even be prepared to wager that should this be the case, the policy will be revised so that those with a premium account will be eligible to purchase such “themed private regions”.  But – Homestead or full sims, this move (however it might be dressed up) marks a substantial shift for linden Lab, bringing them into direct competition with both private estate owners and content creators.

Perhaps this is also why Linden Lab is now seemingly keen to engage with the major land barons on the question of Mainland development, zoning  – and even perhaps future management(?) – as recently reported upon by Prokofy Neva. Taken together, these two moves are anything but coincidental – the one (Mainland zoning deals) smacks very much of sweetening the other (selling pre-fabricated private regions) and making it easier for the big land barons to accept.

Beyond this is a further spectre. Jack Linden has made no secret of the fact that Linden Lab are looking to create “partnerships” with those using Second Life who meet some pre-ordained criteria (details of which are unclear beyond the fact that anyone engaged in “Mature” (will that be “Adult” now?) activities are precluded from such partnerships). So…following-on from this, will we yet see certain content providers elevated to special status, able to supply houses and builds for these new “themed private regions” while lesser mortals are effectively locked out?

Indeed, are we starting down the road towards Second Life becoming an environment much like the much-hyped Blue Mars appears to designed as – where all content creators must in some way be “licenced” by LL in order to operate fully and effectively in-world?

I know it sounds outrageous to say this now….and I hope I am reading far too much into things. However, then you take this latest (somewhat buried) announcement with the likes of Jack’ comments in seeking partnerships and LL’s recent acquisition and rebranding of SL Exchange, one has to admit the paradigm seems to be shifting – and control could well be the name of the game. Certainly, it could be argued that reining-in content creation through the control of outlets and in a possible “licencing / partnership” arrangement with the Favoured Few in SL may well be the “simplest” long-term solution to the twin issues of IP protection and convincing the corporate world that SL is a “safe” place to “do business”.

Time will tell, as they say.

Rezzable’s Risible Rationalisation

Posted on by Inara Pey

IP protection has always been a matter of concern to content creators across Second life. While LL are apparently finally getting around to taking serious steps in the matter – albeit more to reassure potential major players: corporations, NGOs, educational organisations – than to help “everyday” creators, they face a very uphill battle when even the more “respectable” members of the community seem to be bent on undermining matters.

Take Rezzable for example: recently they caused a stir with the creation of BuilderBot, a tool that allows entire sims to be copied and saved on a local computer, and then uploaded elsewhere either within Second Life or on another grid entirely.

Now, let me state straight off, that there is actually wrong per se with Rezzable making this tool – it was designed to fulfil a unique situation Rezzable have. As many know, Rezzable have had a large presence in SL and have worked hard with content creators to develop unique sims – sims and builds that they not only own but to which they also own the IP rights. More recently, Rezzable have been investing in developing their own OpenSim presence. As such, they wanted a means by which they could move all the content they own and to which they have IP rights to from SL to their OpenSim environment. Building a tool that would copy and save an entire sim, rather than invdividual items (as with most copybots and Second Inventory) was the most expedient way of doing this.

So far, so good. Rezzable are acting totally within the SL ToS – which grants, remember, full IP rights to content creators – who therefore have the right to protect their work beyond relying simply on LL’s altruism and asset cluster.

However, where Rezzable fail is in the fact that – acknowledging that their BuilderBot can ignore all rights of ownership and creation on objects (thus potentially allowing it to be used for content theft), they nevertheless announced that they’d be making the code available as open source.

This was nothing short of utterly irresponsible, and despite more recent assurances on the matter, it still seems Rezzable believe themselves justified in potentially releasing the tool as open source going on the comments made by RightAsRain Rimbaud in a  recent interview hosted by the folks over at Designing Worlds.

In the interview, Rimbaud used what can only be described as a the most risible of rationalisations to justify Rezzable’s initial descision (which is merely “on hold” right now, rather than having been scrapped altogether) to make the BuilderBot code freely available to all. Rationalisations that include:

  • Inventory copying software already exists in the form of illegal copybots and inventory recording software such as Second Inventory
  • Because content is already effectively cached on local PCs, then BuilderBot isn’t really doing anything different to how Second Life “works”
  • BuilderBot uses the lib0inv library – which is “already out there”

So, in other words, because dubious software (in the case of copybots) is already out there, it is OK for Rezzable to put software that potentially offers the means to rip entire sims up on the “open market”, and that furthermore, as SL does record information on content on local drives, it is OK to exploit the Second Life software.

Shaky ground indeed. It’s the equivalent to saying that because Copybot A already exists on the grid, it is OK to develop and release Copybot B….

His inclusion of Second Inventory is also misleading – Second Inventory scans an avatar’s inventory within the SL Asset Cluster not anything cached on the local drive, and also respects permissioning.

Rimbaud digs a deeper hole in that he states that a) Rezzable don’t know how big the potential market for such a tool might be and b) that really, there are few individuals or organisations in SL who share Rezzable’s unique situation which lead to the creation of the tool.

Well, if both (a) and (b) are true – why even consider releasing the tool before investigating the matter first – taking the time to contact other organisations and content creators? Instead, Rezzable simply posted a notice of their intent to release the code and only paused when the (inevitable) backlash struck.

In this regard, all of Rimbaud’s justifications for the intial “release first, assess later” approach to BuilderBot ring hollow. As does his comment that “it was never our intent to damage the Second Life community”.

To suggest one never really considered how making such a powerful tool, based, no less on the same technology as existing copybots, available as open source code, readily available for tweaking, modifying and altering into something far more nefarious than it’s original intent is at best frankly breathtaking in its naivety.

The very fact that BuilderBot does make the wholesale copying of sims  – prims, textures, and even scripts – so easy and the admitted fact that it is based on Copybot software (thus potentially making it very familiar to content rippers and thus even easier to tweak and play with)  – should have given a responsible organisation such as Rezzable pause to consider the validity of releasing the tool long before they considered making any announcement on the matter. Doubly so when Rimbaud admits the legal “market” for the tool is probably small to non-existent.

A further rationalisation Rimbaud uses to justify Rezzable’s position is that no-one elsewhere would take an illegally copied sim – IBM, for example, wouldn’t simply access copies of sims from a “creator” (ripper)  without solid proof of ownership / IP rights ownership, ergo, there is little to fear from BuilderBot.

But this is again a risible argument – as Angela Talamasca herself points out in the same interview. The problem with BuilderBot is not that it can “simply” copy an entire sim for distribution elsewhere – it is in the fact that it potentially allows a content ripper to obtain the contents of a sim: the malls, the shops, the contents of said shops, the contents of houses, the house designs, etc., and then comb through them at leisure and select individual items and textures they wish to rip and illegally resell either in SL or elsewhere. Sure beats the risk of wandering around a store and risking interception when using a Copybot….

It’s also ironic that Rimbaud belittles the idea of entire sims being potentially ripped, when Gospel Voom is sitting beside him in the interview. Voom himself is the victim of “sim ripping”, having seen a sim he built (and to which he retained the IP rights to the builds) in Second Life copied, taken down and then reappear on another grid. Quite what was used to copy Voom’s work is unclear….but the fact remains the work would have been considerably easier with a tool like builderBot being readily available in the manner Rezzable originally announced.

While Rimbaud does give some assurances in the interview that Rezzable are considering introducing a means of protecting permissions on objects copied using the tool (a step in the right direction), he still tends to naysay the need by stating in the same breath that such controls could be “bypassed” (the implication being “so why bother?”). Again, this misses the point.

There may well be cases where a tool such as BuilderBot does have an appropriate use; I’d be a fool not to deny that – and the problem of IP right protection is not one for the likes of Rezzable to solve; that’s a matter for Linden Lab to finally and properly work out.

However, where Rezzable do have a responsibility it is in ensuring the tool they have built doesn’t become the means by which content rippers can expand their activities. This in turn means Rezzable need to take steps to ensure their tool is probaly safeguarded – up to and including not making it available as open source, period.

This is where Rimbaud’s other argument of “why punish those people who want to do the right thing because some people will always find a way to do the wrong thing?” falls down.

By his own admission, the potential legal use of such a tool is limited. He himself makes the strong differentiation between ownership “rights” on objects and the actual Intellectual Rights (simply put: you may own a copy of one of my houses, but you don’t own the IP to the design of the house – *I* do) – so to suggest that dumping a tool into open source that is so clearly capable of misuse as is for those who “will always find a way to do the wrong thing” is somehow “helping” those people “who want to do the right thing” is …. well, nonsensical.

Surely, a preferrable way of providing the tool to those “who want to do the right thing”  would be to formalise the software, licence it and sell it as a bracketed, out-of-the-box tool? True, this doesn’t prevent it being hacked, but it does reduce the overall risk of hacking / misuse occurring compared to dumping it into an open source library – and it certainly demonstrates Rezzable are sincere in their desire not (to again quote RightAsRain Rimbaud) “to toss a grenade into the room” as they are leaving….

Content Management Roadmap

Posted on by Inara Pey

Cyn Linden seems to have rolled on from the ill-considered, ill-planned and ill-executed Adult Content changes to look at the question of content creation and rights protection.

Leaving aside Cyn’s somewhat patronising comment that we “deserve” to know LL’s thoughts on the matter (we don’t – with LL portraying SL as a platform of commerce and drawing-in users on this basis, we are entitled to know of any changes that could impact our ability to trade, and are entitled to have input to said changes in order to ensure they are fair to all) – that LL are looking at the matter is long overdue, but nonetheless potentially welcome.

Copybots and the like have been the scourge of LL commerce, to say nothing of the likes of texture rippers like GL Intercept. However, when it comes to policing content and protection of content creator’s intellectual property, one has to admit it really is an uphill battle – and while LL have been inexcusably slow in meeting the challenge, I for one don’t envy them the task of getting things sorted. It is just a shame that given the aforementioned “entrepreneurial” promotion of the platform by LL tool, IP and content protection were never properly considered from the start rather than being regarded as a bolt-on nice-to-have, as in many ways over the years it has been.

But that said, at least now LL are looking at matters and apparently doing so from all sides. As Cyn acknowledges, while there is a need to protect creator’s content fully and fairly, so to is there a need to recognised that copy tools actually do have legitimate uses – such as backing up ones own creations. But again, a meaningless line is already being drawn in the sand; leaving aside other issues around copy tools, Cyn indicates LL are concerned about content being created in SL and going “outside the grid”  – i.e. to opensim platforms or to something like OLG – although they are perfectly sanguine about content being copied to their own behind the firewall “solution” – something which in itself raises similar content protection concerns as copying content elsewhere.

Again, while safeguards should exist to stop the wholesale illegal copying of content for use elsewhere, LL should also be prepared to recognise the rights of the content creator to move and use content they have legally created and have rights to wherever they wish – whether it be in the open SL grid, on the behind the firewall “solution” – or indeed to another grid entirely.

As Cyn states, the matter is in the early throes of discussion and much will, frankly, depend upon LL beefing-up aspects of their own tools (such as ensuring copy tools cannot reassign names to the content creator field, etc., that metadata on ownership can be included in objects easily, and that such metadata actually allows for one object to contain prims / sub-objects from several creators without screwing everything up, etc.), as well as LL working with copy tool manufacturers to develop workable standards that can help prevent the illegal activist. But tools alone won’t solve the issue. Much needs to be discussed and anyone who is involved in content creation should get over to the “forum” and join the debates and make your concerns and idea heard.

This is a major subject, and LL should neither rush into “solutions” nor be allowed to push the content creation community down any biased path.

This is particularly true of the last section in Cyn’s post, and the one that initially causes me greatest concern – if only because it is perhaps the “easiest” change to implement on the part of LL – and that is the concept of a “Content Seller Program”. This is, as Cyn explains:

…a program that sellers may participate in if they meet certain eligibility standards intended to show a level of trustworthiness and quality of content.

Which sounds innocuous on the surface, but alarm bells quickly start ringing as one reads on:

For example, we currently offer the Gold Solution Provider Program for Solution Providers with a demonstrated track record of successful Second Life projects and client satisfaction.

Uh-oh.

And it gets worse as Cyn reveals:

We are starting the process of planning a content seller program, and we would like your input on possible program criteria. At a minimum, participation in the program will require that the selling Resident:

  • have identity and payment information on file with Linden Lab;
  • be in good standing and not have been suspended for any violation of the Second Life Terms of Service;
  • meet a minimum threshold for content transactions; and
  • affirm that all necessary intellectual property rights and licenses have been obtained for all content that the Resident has for sale.

Indeed, reading this entire section of her post, one can only assume that LL are at best looking to set-up another of Prok Neva’s infamous “Feted Inner Circles” (FICs)  – this one of content creators who enjoy a favoured nations status within SL based on somewhat subjective criteria, or at worse, looking to leverage fees out of a somewhat skewed programme of recognition.  Why?

Well, at its heart, the “gold solution provider program for solution provider” (a mouthful in itself) is – when one strips away the glitz and glamour – a fee-based enrollment system. Those selected (by Linden Lab) for inclusion in the program pay an annual “membership” fee ($500)  – and even if an organisation is turned down by LL, they sell have to stump up $125 non-refundable just to be considered. If LL are speculating along these lines (in addition to any other criteria listed by Cyn, of which more anon), then SL is immediately in danger of having its whole commercial attractiveness unfairly twisted in favour of those who generate sufficient revenues to afford the cost of enrollment in such a “program”.

It may not be $500 a year. It may only be $75 a year, but it makes no difference. $75 a year could represent months of turnover for smaller content creators and wipe out any hope they have at making a profit, or even recouping costs – and just because they are small, doesn’t mean they are either any less dedicated to producing quality goods or any less trustworthy as those who can stump-up the fee for the Linden Lab thumbs-up. And making the program “voluntary” doesn’t excuse this, given that those joining the program will get favoured nations status with LL, which will likely include open promotion from Linden Lab  (tailored MOTD on the login, for example?), further driving up their ability to make sales and wipe out the smaller competition.

Then there are the criteria specified by Cyn – and it is interesting to note the tone of her post suggests these criteria have already been decided on and are thus tablets of stone):

  • have identity and payment information on file with Linden Lab – of them all, this is the only criteria that comes close to making sense, although some would argue that there are some content creators who don’t have payment info on file. However, given there is no cost involved in registering a payment method, and that doing so is little different from, say registering payment info with PayPal (with whom many NPIOF residents are registered with), i don’t see any reason why people can’t simply register to avoid this issue
  • be in good standing and not have been suspended for any violation of the Second Life Terms of Service – while this sounds reasonable on the surface, it is actually a pretty dangerous criteria. LL are already linking forum suspensions with account suspensions – so speak out-of-turn in the forums, and you are locked out of SL for 3 or more days for your felony. The suspension (and AR) mechanism is already biased against the accused – all too often LL’s reaction is to ban first and then consider asking why after; and even when you lodge an appeal, it is nowadays seemingly heard by the individual imposing the ban – again, as Prok Neva and others have found out – who is hardly likely to be sympathetic to your appeal. Thus, linking the content seller program to suspensions, when the latter are at times so arbitrary, is hardly balanced. People are people – and a wrong word said in the forums is hardly indicative of a lack of morals or trustworthiness in in-world business. This criteria at best, therefore, needs clear-cut and unambiguous qualification.
  • meet a minimum threshold for content transactions – and here we hit the first of the big two of the questionable criteria. Just what is this threshold? Turnover? Hardly fair. Just because merchant X achieves monthly sales of $$$ while merchant Y only makes $ does not mean Y’s products are of a lesser standard to X’s, or that Y is any less trustworthy. Many content creators (I openly count myself among them) are not making content to generate massive turnover. We’re not into SL to make money or run a business. We make content for two reasons: a) it forms a creative outlet for us and b) it helps offset the cost of being in SL in the first place. And what about those who make perfectly good content – clothes, scripts, etc., and give the same away for free, massively helping newbies to SL? Use turnover as a criteria and a large portion of the merchants in SL are excluded from the run. Turnover works the other way as well: X may charge $$$ as an average price for wares; whereas Y only charges $ – so Y’s sales must be an order of magnitude over X’s to achieve the same level of turnover. And these arguments apply to a threshold based on volume: just because X outsells Y by a ratio of 3 or 4 to 1 does not mean X’s products are any better than Y’s, or that X is the more trustworthy.
  • affirm that all necessary intellectual property rights and licenses have been obtained for all content that the Resident has for sale – again sounds fine on the surface, but is a minefield of risk underneath. Just look at the number of full permission textures available in Second Life as a single example. Are all of these genuinely royalty-free items? Are those that make them available their genuine creators? Are the creators still active within Second Life available to contact and confirm the status? What quantifies a licence? Are, say, builders (the subject closest to my heart for content creation) going to be expected to include an explicit statement that every texture they have used in their build is duly “licensed”. Who is to say it isn’t? How will allegedly violations be policed?

However one looks at such a programme, it is hard to see how it fits with the rest of Cyn’s proposals. Content protection and IP right protection are issues that need addressing. So to does protection against illegal copying and the illegal use of valid copying tools. However, the tack-on of a “content seller program” to the rest of Cyn’s post seems somewhat uneven: it’s not a vital requirement that will in any way make the other issues she raises any more manageable. Rather it opens the door to the potential for the entire SL marketplace to be openly gamed and manipulated far more than it is right now. It’s really hard to see how anything other than merchants with favoured nations status among themselves can emerge from such a move.

Let’s protect again IP infringements and content rip-off. Let’s hit those who persist in such activities as hard as we can – but please, in doing so, let’s not tilt the commerce playing field to the point where the smaller players slide off the edge into oblivion through no fault of their own. And let’s certainly not start creating yet another two tier system within SL.

Double standards

Posted on by Inara Pey

Just over a week ago, I published a commentary in the official SL blog accusing Linden Lab of double standards. At the time I was heavily critiqued in private by a member of Linden Lab for doing so.

To be fair, the LL rep concerned had a point: in making my comment, I had been overly critical of one person, where the problem is more endemic to Linden Lab as a whole. I duly modified said post to make it more generic.

But… the crux of the post remains valid. The Adult Content changes do smack of double standards. For example:

  • People repeatedly ask why Linden Lab won’t engage on open communications with the user base to ensure everyone is properly informed of the upcoming changes ahead of time – say by putting out a mass e-mail of the subject….but Linden Lab respond that users don’t like receiving “spam” emails from them…
  • ….yet when it comes to the “good news” on Homestead prices, or putting the word out about the Land Expo, LL has no hesitation in sending out “spam” e-mails to users far and wide…

(I use inverted commas around the word “spam” because that is the precise term used by a member of Linden Labs when defending their position of not informing the user base about the AC changes in a more open manner.)

At the start of the AC farrago, LL made a big play of the fact that the changes were aimed at extreme sexual and violent [my emphasis] content within SL. Yet as time ticked on, the “violent” element became more and more of a passing mention, while the “extreme sexual” term seemed to somehow come to mean almost any sexual activity within SL. And if you want proof of that, just check out the words known to have been restricted by LL.

Now we get another demonstration of the double standards – and where do we find it? Well, none other than at Linden Lab’s own “Land Expo”, which features, among other things, combat roleplay, and where the following picture (with thanks to Prokofy Neva) was taken.
secondlife-postcard.jpg.scaled.1000
Extreme Violence promoted by LL?

Yup, a “body” sliced in two and trailing blood and entrails. This to me is extreme violence. It is also something (even tho pixelated) I’d rather not come across in my “predictable” SL wanderings – but to Linden Lab, it is perfectly acceptable and apparently needs no safeguards – unlike sexual content, which by-and-large completely avoids such graphic and violent depictions but which is still censored nonetheless.

Two words: double standards.

OK… I was wrong – possibly

Posted on by Inara Pey

Not long ago I gave a possible reason as to why LL’s attempt to introduce Adult Content has come now, and possibly why it is confused.

Well, it’s now official: I was wrong -possibly. Not lesser person than Ken Dreifach (Ken Linden) – Linden Lab’s Deputy General Counsel has put me right on this (albeit indirectly). When asked about the FTC investigation by Mitch Wagner on Sunday 31st May, Dreifach responded:

“That’s not behind this, we actually learned about that…well I guess it’s this month….uhh…that there was something in the….I guess it was one of the appropriations bills back in March where, ah, Congress asked the FTC to, ah, do a study on what types of content – adult content, other content – are available in virtual worlds, and whether, um…what the accessibility to and by minors is. But that’s not focused specifically on Second Life, that’s just a study that they’re doing…and we’ll all read it in about a year…”

However, I do find Ken’s words somewhat surprising in that a) he has apparently been unaware of an investigation which received funding inDecember 2008 as a part of HR 110-920 (and not in March as he states); and that b) the outcome of the investigation could impact all virtual worlds, including Second Life. Again, to quote the specifics of the appropriation:

“In addition, no later than 9 months after enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit a report to the Appropriations Committee discussing the types of content on virtual reality sites and what steps, if any, these sites take to prevent minors from accessing content.“

[Above emphasis mine.]

Given this statement, one would assume Linden Lab would be looking at the FTC investigation a little harder than Ken’s words would perhaps suggest. But be that as it may. It’s not my place to second-guess corporate thinking.

What is clear is from the comments passed during by Linden Lab representatives during a recorded discussion, is that for something that has been under consideration for between one and two years (time period dependent upon which Linden rep was talking on-camera), this entire matter has managed to become an unmitigated mess which (despite Ken’s words) now smacks of being rushed through without any clarity of thought – or real consideration of the upheaval it will create.

So…maybe I was wrong about the FTC. Or perhaps this is something LL were thinking would be something they should do back when they first foisted age verification, but they never actually got round to thinking how it could be done…..until the launch of the FTC investigation panicked them into “action”. If the idea has been floating nebulously around the LL offices for the two years since age verification was introduced, even if no direct action was taken until recently, then technically Ken’s statement is accurate.

But then, so to is my guess as to the reason behind the matter becoming an almighty rush.

Maybe I *am* a cynic, but…

Posted on by Inara Pey

Jack Linden’s latest post on Homestead tier rates makes interesting reading.

In it,  we are informed in glowing terms as to how “Linden Lab’s business remains strong and our revenues are healthy”, so that they can now very kindly “forego the planned homestead price increase in July for one year and also Grandfather tier on Homsteads to the current $95 USD/month”.

Of course, there is a catch: this very “kind” offer is limited to all Homesteads currently operating on the Grid, and those purchased or reactivated before July 1st 2009.  Anyone attempting to buy a Homstead after that date will still get whacked with a hefty purchase price increase and a tier hike to $125 USD/month.

Worse still, anyone who abandoned their OS sim prior to January 1st gets no benefit either – as the offer to reactive sims at no charge doesn’t go back beyond that date, despite the fact many surrendered their sims prior to the end of 2008 because Jack (and others in Linden Lab) stated categorically that Grandfathering was not, and would not be an option. Period.

But even so, at least LL are making an effort, and that should be applauded, surely?

Well, actually no. This “good news” (as Jack has the barefaced cheek to call it) is nothing short of again gaming the land-owning community within Second Life. Why? Well, because:

A) The subject of Grandfathering was first raised back when the whole OpenSpace / Homestead debacle came up at the back end of 2008, and was given exceptionally short shift by Jack himself. It simply wasn’t an option. Now, suddenly it is. So why the shift? One can only assume it is because Grandfathering always was on the cards, but Jack and Co simply wanted to keep this card up their shelves, knowing that if they play it a lot closer to the announced July 1st additional hike in Homestead pricing / tier they could spin things into looking like they are doing people a favour and possibly encourage those who simply abandoned their old OpenSpace sims at the end of 2008 into reclaiming them.

B) If LL are doing so well, with a “strong” business and “healthy” revenues, one has to ask why Homestead tiers are being Grandfathered at all…why not simply announce that the planned price / tier increase has been completely abandoned for the foreseeable future?

Such an announcement would be worthy of note: it would genuinely demonstrate that Linden Lab are prepared to stop profiteering and put user interests first for once. Furthermore, it would potentially make far more enconomic sense over time. After all, what is likely to generate more income:

  • A 6-week opportunistic attempt to artificially bolster Homestead sales before their price / tier makes them economically unviable
  • Maintaining prices & tier at least a further 12 months, thereby keeping Homestead sims on the cusp of profitability for land owners & thus encouraging their continued purchase over a much longer period of time.

But what of those already with homestead sims – surely this is a boon to them, as they are no longer facing a $30 USD/month tier hike on their sims ($360 a year). Well, yes it is – if one assumes that the July 1st tier hike was going to be applied as originally stated. As I’ve said above, I really don’t think this was the case. I think Jack and his gang always intended to offer Grandfathering in this manner. Thus any perceived “saving” is just that: perceived, not actual. so any thanks given  for the “move” in policy is potentially premature.