Require a Disclaimer for Commercial Systems/Games Reliant on Server Access (or similar)
closed
Light Snacc
During my time in SL, I've come across several talented creators who maintain systems or games that periodically communicate with a server either in-world, or externally, to verify whether a user has permission to use the product.
In many cases, these systems are sold for an upfront fee.
The issue is that when someone pays for an asset that relies on ongoing server-side authorization, their ability to use that asset ultimately remains at the creator's discretion. This can create significant problems for customers, as access can be revoked at any time if the creator decides to ban them or discontinue authorization. I don't believe this is acceptable unless it is clearly disclosed before purchase.
I propose the following:
Any item that communicates with a server (whether in-world or external) for authorization, licensing, or functionality purposes should be required to disclose this fact. The listing/advertisement should also explicitly warn users that the creator may terminate their access to the product at any time.
I should clarify that this would be items that are sold FOR PROFIT, and not for free (as the loss is then not material).
This allows buyers to make informed purchasing decisions and better understand the risks associated with server-dependent products, rather than using it and ending up paying for something that they could lose access to over anything the creator sees fit.
Log In
SL Feedback
updated the status to
closed
SL Feedback
Hello, and thank you for your feature request.
Incoming suggestions are reviewed in the order they are received by a team of Lindens with diverse areas of expertise. We consider a number of factors: Is this change possible? Will it increase lag? Will it break existing content? Is it likely that the number of residents using this feature will justify the time to develop it? This wiki page further describes the reasoning we use: Feature Requests
This particular suggestion, unfortunately, cannot be tackled at this time. However, we regularly review previously deferred suggestions when circumstances change or resources become available.
We are grateful for the time you took to submit this feature request. We hope that you are not discouraged from submitting others in the future. Many excellent ideas to improve Second Life come from you, our residents. We can’t do it alone.
Thank you for your continued commitment to Second Life.
B
Big Blep
You can already attach PDF instructions to listings. I think it is fair that one is also added for Terms of Service. Requiring and policing listings would cost a lot. I would change the request.
steph Arnott
Am more irritated by sales of systems that don''t work from day one. LL need to remove them but it took them 5 years to remove film pirating and that was because the copy-write owners threatening to sue LL
Moo Boo
this has been brought up more times than I can count, and upvoted more than I'll ever know, and I agree with it wholeheartedly.
it's just that LL gets really really personally offended every time someone proposes adding any kind of database addition like this, as if it's not a single line of command and a 5 minute piping job. that and the fact that they despise consumer rights, their second largest profitable venture being the black void of ignorance that is the marketplace and not knowing what stores are actually still alive and active.
I'm upvoting this, but yeah good luck.
Beatrice Voxel
I agree with this disclaimer being a requirement.
However, as someone who helps manage one of those server-side minigames, I see a LOT of abuse/griefing from the user side. They intentionally and repeatedly break the TOS of the game. They find exploits. They set up scripted bot accounts. They run scrapes against the web backend which degrades the game for all users and raises the costs for web services past any reasonable expectation for the number of users connected. And each and every time these people are confronted with what they're doing, shown logs of the web traffic or shown screen caps of the inworld behavior, "I paid for this! I can do what I want!" or they start screaming the word "lawyer". It's amazing the level of entitlement people get when they've dropped a few hundred Linden on something, once.
Designers need to be able to lock someone out of a 'service' if that service is being misused, exploited, or deliberately broken. And LL should not be weaponized to prevent such users from being removed.
Light Snacc
Beatrice Voxel
Yeah, that's fine. I don't think restricting games or systems from using this is what I would like to see.
Specifically I'm asking that commercial products sold for profit simply disclose the use of a server backend to verify users and that access can be terminated at the wishes of the creator. It's a good way of making it clear to customers that: "Hey, you're not buying guaranteed access forever if I, the creator decide so".
N
Nya Jules
Beatrice Voxel "It's amazing the level of entitlement people get when they've dropped a few hundred Linden on something, once."
There is also the question if every creator who uses external services has a solid enough business model to support the services long term. I suppose the ongoing price hikes will be a good test.
There is really one clean way that I would see: LL needs to offer an easy to use subscription implementation that is integrated into the marketplace. Instead of purchasing an item that requires external services once, a creator can easily implement the reliance on continuous payments / subscriptions. This in the end may p*** off some, but it would be honest and fair. If you want to still give it out for free, you could still offer a $0 subscription which at the same time makes it clear that access to the free product is not guaranteed forever by nature. Then on the marketplace, as a customer, you could easily see your subscriptions and also easily cancel them.
Light Snacc
Nya Jules So, here's the thing:
It may be the case that the content creator uses Experience KVP (which works grid-wide, unlike permissions which don't). In which case, the price of upkeep is tied into the creator's premium subscription. Some creators have handled data storage (although I question the security of this) through Google Sheets which depending on how big that file is, might as well be free.
Also this really depends on how you make and market your product, if you sell consumables or one-time-use items for L$ you've effectively circumvented the need for subscription fees.
Also, if the scripter is competent enough and programs and entire framework to store data away from SL, this would also mean that they would be able to devise a way to make a subscription model work, there have been examples of this (e.g. R1, an advanced driving system for SL).
Yes, it is true that some customers can feel entitlement to work but the idea here is simply to
avoid
this problem by warning the user before a purchase that this may not be afforded to them as with a typical SL product.Rez Gray
I think "we need to be able to ban users" is a separate issue. You already can absolutely refuse service to problematic users.
I also absolutely empathize with your pain.
Cuddles Supply
Beatrice Voxel What you are describing is a very different issue than a product that relies on a web service the the creator/owner currently supports but may decide to stop paying for or supporting in the future.
That
dependency is not always clear to the buyer and should be clearly stated.AlettaMondragon Resident
Beatrice Voxel "Designers need to be able to lock someone out of a 'service' if that service is being misused, exploited, or deliberately broken. And LL should not be weaponized to prevent such users from being removed."
Use a user license for that. That should be mandatory for creators in these cases.