Slashdot Mirror


Entrepreneur Makes Millions Selling Virtual Land

kkleiner writes "How much would you pay for a piece of imaginary real estate? Anshe Chung has made millions renting it. Today, Anshe Chung Studios has 80+ employees managing thousands of rental properties, helping design new 3D virtual chat rooms, and making tons of money on virtual to real currency exchanges. Anshe was the first person whose virtual property exceeded a real world value of 1 million dollars, and Anshe Chung Studios is perhaps the single largest third party developer of virtual property ever."

142 comments

  1. Buy virtual realestate with bitcoin now! by kotku · · Score: 5, Funny

    Do two scams cancel each other out?

    --
    The bikini - security through obscurity since 1943
    1. Re:Buy virtual realestate with bitcoin now! by igreaterthanu · · Score: 1

      Buy something worthless with something of equal value? I'd say yes it does.

      The joke's on the person selling the land; they thought they were scamming someone out of something of value.

      Dollars, BitCoins, what's the difference? :P

      --
      I dream of a nation where a man is not judged by his skin color but by an number assigned by a credit rating agency.
    2. Re:Buy virtual realestate with bitcoin now! by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      A dollar has two sides on which one can gamble real money. Do bitcoins even have sides?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    3. Re:Buy virtual realestate with bitcoin now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but if you pick two large random primes p and q (both congruent to 3 modulus 4), keep them secret but send n = pq to the other person, the other person can pick a random integer x and compute y = x^2 mod n. The other person keeps x secret but sends y to you. You know that y has a square root mod n (if it doesn't, your calculations will show this and thus prove cheating) so you use your knowledge of p and q to find the four square roots of -+a, -+b, of y mod n
      One of those will be x so you pick one at random (the "flip"), let's say a, and you send it to the other person. If a == -+x mod n then the other person can tell you that you have won. If a != -+x mod n the other person wins. Of course, this only works if the other person wants to win.

    4. Re:Buy virtual realestate with bitcoin now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just the equivalent of renting server space, at an (excessive) premium due to the total pricing control by the platform owner.

    5. Re:Buy virtual realestate with bitcoin now! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Sure, they're shaped like a regular trihedron.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:Buy virtual realestate with bitcoin now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brilliant - you just described how to simulate a random process, during which you used the phrase 'pick one at random'. Perhaps by tossing a coin?

    7. Re:Buy virtual realestate with bitcoin now! by tepples · · Score: 1

      Dollars, BitCoins, what's the difference?

      The United States Government takes USD as a bribe not to put you in jail for tax evasion. It doesn't take BTC.

    8. Re:Buy virtual realestate with bitcoin now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hadn't heard about bitcoin before. It actually looks like a cool idea. Why is it a scam? Can someone just make as many bitcoins as they want or what?

    9. Re:Buy virtual realestate with bitcoin now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dollars, BitCoins, what's the difference? :P

      One is a widely used currency accepted almost universally the world around. The other is some anarcholibertarian nonsense currency that can only be used to be internet drugs and alpaca socks.

    10. Re:Buy virtual realestate with bitcoin now! by Neoncow · · Score: 1

      One is entertainment/art and the other is a cryptographically restricted medium of exchange. They're only as worthless as you can devalue other people's definition of worth.

    11. Re:Buy virtual realestate with bitcoin now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do two scams cancel each other out?

      considering neither are scams you don't have to worry about cancelling.
      1) if people want to waste their money renting virtual property that's their own problem, but not a scam.

      2) bitcoin is a real currency, more stable than the U.S. dollar, but now highly unrecommended as losses in bitcoin have risen due to hacking, but still real currency none the less.

  2. Apple's Fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is Apple's fault. I blame Apple.

  3. Imaginary space for empty minds by jimmydevice · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A new paradiem for the declining economy.
    When I was younger, we called it castles in the sky.

    1. Re:Imaginary space for empty minds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      When you're older, you'll call it a paradigm.

    2. Re:Imaginary space for empty minds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Si vis noctem, para diem.

    3. Re:Imaginary space for empty minds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Castles beyond day!

    4. Re:Imaginary space for empty minds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the punks cried "Smash the dominant paradigm!"

  4. Call now and SAVE on Virtually Nothing! by toygeek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hey look, these are your VERY OWN 1's and 0's! We are taking painstaking measures to make sure that absolutely NOBODY ELSE has this same arrangement of 1's and 0's. Sure, we could randomly generate them and then check them by md5 sum against all other files in our database, but NO, we design them JUST FOR YOU!

    Hurry now and we'll throw in not just one set of 1's and 0's, but we'll sell it at HALF PRICE! That's right call now and only pay $1999.99, that's 50% off the normal price of 3999.98!

    But wait, there's MORE.

    Call within the next TEN MINUTES and we'll give you not just one set of 1's and 0's, but TWO sets for the same price! That's only 999.995 EACH! Yes, that's 75% off each set of 1's and 0's!

    They are virtually PRICELESS!

    1. Re:Call now and SAVE on Virtually Nothing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Butthurt much? After all she is richer than you.

    2. Re:Call now and SAVE on Virtually Nothing! by Serious+Callers+Only · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hey look, these are your VERY OWN 1's and 0's! We are taking painstaking measures to make sure that absolutely NOBODY ELSE has this same arrangement of 1's and 0's. Sure, we could randomly generate them and then check them by md5 sum against all other files in our database, but NO, we design them JUST FOR YOU!

      A great painting is simply an arrangement of inexpensive paint on canvas, a great novel is simply familiar words rearranged on a page, great music is simply the same notes rearranged, and great software is simply 1s and 0s (NB *never* a random collection of bits). Yet somehow all these things are valued above mediocre paintings, novels and software, and people are willing to pay for certain arrangements of 1s and 0s, not because they are stupid, and all 1s and 0s are the same value, but because particular arrangements of information are valuable.

      As we move the boundaries of our world to encompass more of the virtual than the real, information will become increasingly valuable, not less valuable. Digital information is also easier to copy than real-life encodings of information, which forms an interesting counterpoint, but that doesn't mean that 1s and 0s are inherently value-less or that any arrangement of them is the same as any other. Quite the reverse - it is becoming more and more clear that information (or order if you prefer) in and of itself has value, entirely independent of the physical world.

    3. Re:Call now and SAVE on Virtually Nothing! by macraig · · Score: 1

      I have no problem at all with buying a pair of cheap knockoff brand shoes. If they have the same arrangement of molecules and do the same job, what do I care what name is on the label? So if some other guy offers me the same arrangement of 1's and 0's at a lower price, what do I care whose name is on the office door... errr, cubicle?

    4. Re:Call now and SAVE on Virtually Nothing! by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      I'm just sorry I didn't think of it myself.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    5. Re:Call now and SAVE on Virtually Nothing! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You might as well argue that a painting is just some oil on a canvas, a digital photograph is a string of 1s and 0s. Creative works have value because they require effort to create.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Call now and SAVE on Virtually Nothing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Creative works have value because they require effort to create.

      Wrong. Effort has very weak correlation with creative work's value, although I admit that some works may be valued mostly because they took extraordinary effort to make. Untalented "artist" can waste all the effort one has, to no avail. Creative genius may create a masterpiece in seconds.

    7. Re:Call now and SAVE on Virtually Nothing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some items in virtual worlds are valuable, because they are generating revenue from in-game economy. In Entropia Universe quite large sums of money change hands daily. That is because participants have great trust in this economy.

    8. Re:Call now and SAVE on Virtually Nothing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The genius that went in to that painting was also effort on the part of his brain working its little ass off to come up with a good arrangement.

    9. Re:Call now and SAVE on Virtually Nothing! by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Who cares what it is, as long as someone is willing to pay for it? What's the difference between some 1's and 0's, and say the design on a Luis Vuitton handbag? People are (still) allowed to do what they want with their money and they will. Just sitting there and complaining about how stupid it is will not stop them. But if you were really smart you would be finding out what the next "pattern of 1's and 0's" is, and making money off of their "ignorance".

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    10. Re:Call now and SAVE on Virtually Nothing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You pay money for the arrangement of 1s and 0s in an MP3 or a piece of software, right? Or maybe you don't. But you'd pay to see the pattern of flashing lights known as "movie" and you don't even leave the theater with the sense that you've acquired anything. Humans will pay for entertainment, and if virtual property lets them enjoy their entertainment more, then it's perfectly reasonable to pay for it.

    11. Re:Call now and SAVE on Virtually Nothing! by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Eh no, creative genius is figuring out what it is that people are willing to call a "masterpiece". At the end of the day it's all about marketing. Throwing some paint in front of a fan at a canvas is unlikely to create anything unexpected, but if the name of the artist is right, people will pay millions for it. If you or I try doing it, however, we'll just be laughed at. Marketing.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    12. Re:Call now and SAVE on Virtually Nothing! by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Hey look, these are your very own pieces of cardstock. Sure, others may have ones that look like yours, but these are YOURS. You can collect them all, each with their own likeness of your favorite player!

      But wait, there's more!

      Buy ten pieces of cardstock, and we'll throw in a piece of gum, for FREE!

      Yes, in case you hadn't caught on yet, I am referring to baseball cards. Point is people have been collecting objects that may seem rather pointless to the masses for decades now. The fact that the medium has changed doesn't really make any difference. I can click on a virtual property and hold an old baseball card in my hand and be equally as disgusted as to the perceived value of each rather worthless object.

    13. Re:Call now and SAVE on Virtually Nothing! by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

      Throwing some paint in front of a fan at a canvas is unlikely to create anything unexpected, but if the name of the artist is right, people will pay millions for it.

      You're talking absolute Pollocks.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    14. Re:Call now and SAVE on Virtually Nothing! by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      There's argubly both.

      Additionally there's probably both good and bad fan splatter.

      But once a reputation is built, there becomes an inherent value.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    15. Re:Call now and SAVE on Virtually Nothing! by RobbieThe1st · · Score: 1

      I see what you did there. _ XD

    16. Re:Call now and SAVE on Virtually Nothing! by biodata · · Score: 1

      It sounds as though you arguing that the whole software, music and film industries are really just a giant scam. Oh wait...

      --
      Korma: Good
    17. Re:Call now and SAVE on Virtually Nothing! by bWareiWare.co.uk · · Score: 1

      Then why do most artistic works increase in value after the artists death? This is typically when the effort they are putting into creating the work is declining rapidly.

      It is commonly accepted in the physical world that the original is worth more than duplicates, even among people who can't actually tell them apart. However in the digital world it is not just that these duplicates can be created so cheaply, nor that they are totally indistinguishable, it is that the isn't even an original.

      Value only exists at the moment of origination (ask van Gogh how that works out).

    18. Re:Call now and SAVE on Virtually Nothing! by CrashandDie · · Score: 1

      So you mean that if I got a thousand monkeys watching the output of /dev/random, after a few hundred years they'd go "Woah! The Linux 2.6 kernel source code!"?

    19. Re:Call now and SAVE on Virtually Nothing! by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

      Nitpick: When you go to a theater, you're paying for the service of displaying the movie, not the movie itself.

      --
      SSC
    20. Re:Call now and SAVE on Virtually Nothing! by darkgrayknight · · Score: 0

      they are worth more after an artist dies because that artist isn't creating any new art.

    21. Re:Call now and SAVE on Virtually Nothing! by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      conservation of information?

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    22. Re:Call now and SAVE on Virtually Nothing! by wired_parrot · · Score: 1

      It's a bit more complicated than that.

      What people are actually paying for when selling virtual information like photographs and novels are the intellectual property rights pertaining to the work. It is unclear what intellectual property rights a third party developer retains. In many cases the developer of the virtual world will retain the intellectual property right (depending on the licensing agreements in force in the game) and the third party developer is merely selling a "presence" in the game. Without the creative rights associated with it, I'd argue the virtual land would indeed be of little value.

      And as to your analogies, in most cases people do pay tens of millions of dollars for paintings for the original, physical copy. Reproductions, even masterfully done ones, are only ever worth a fraction of the piece.

    23. Re:Call now and SAVE on Virtually Nothing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't agree Creative works don't have value because they require effort to create. . Creative works have value because we value them.

      How much value do you put on paintings of dog's playing poker or Elvis on Velvet or a set of naked lady playing cards? These all had effort put in to them.

      What about a child's art project? While Mommy and Daddy make think it is priceless, most people would just look right past.

    24. Re:Call now and SAVE on Virtually Nothing! by Solandri · · Score: 1

      A great painting is simply an arrangement of inexpensive paint on canvas, a great novel is simply familiar words rearranged on a page, great music is simply the same notes rearranged, and great software is simply 1s and 0s (NB *never* a random collection of bits). Yet somehow all these things are valued above mediocre paintings, novels and software, and people are willing to pay for certain arrangements of 1s and 0s, not because they are stupid, and all 1s and 0s are the same value, but because particular arrangements of information are valuable.

      The difference is that a great painting, the print issue of a great novel, and the original stamping of a great music album cannot be exactly duplicated. An arrangement of 1s and 0s can be exactly duplicated such that the copy is indistinguishable from the original. That doesn't mean it doesn't have value, but that does mean selling it in such a way that it is "the only copy in existence" is downright silly. If it's so great, you'll make a lot more money copying it and selling it cheaply until everyone has one.

    25. Re:Call now and SAVE on Virtually Nothing! by Yamioni · · Score: 1

      At current ticket prices it sure feels like we're paying for the movie.

      --
      Cool post bro, highfive \o
    26. Re:Call now and SAVE on Virtually Nothing! by Serious+Callers+Only · · Score: 1

      The difference is that a great painting, the print issue of a great novel, and the original stamping of a great music album cannot be exactly duplicated. An arrangement of 1s and 0s can be exactly duplicated such that the copy is indistinguishable from the original. That doesn't mean it doesn't have value, but that does mean selling it in such a way that it is "the only copy in existence" is downright silly. If it's so great, you'll make a lot more money copying it and selling it cheaply until everyone has one.

      Yes of course there are differences, and some physical objects are hard to duplicate but that doesn't make them inherently more valuable, except as trophies.

      These originals are already artefacts of another age in the case of novels and music albums - new productions are increasingly only released as information, not as physical artefacts. I was asserting that digital information (order) has value; something converted to digital information does not immediately become as valueless as random bits, as the OP asserted. It may be easier to copy, but that doesn't diminish its intrinsic value as information - as you say it just changes the equation when selling it as to production cost versus sale price, and makes it hard to artificially limit supply (though not impossible). The information still has value which is unrelated to any particular manifestation of that information (in print, on CD, on hard disk, on a server in the sky etc).

    27. Re:Call now and SAVE on Virtually Nothing! by Serious+Callers+Only · · Score: 1

      And as to your analogies, in most cases people do pay tens of millions of dollars for paintings for the original, physical copy. Reproductions, even masterfully done ones, are only ever worth a fraction of the piece.

      You're focussing on the wrong part of the analogy. I didn't say originals of paintings were worth less than digital copies, I said the information encoded was what transformed relatively worthless materials into something valuable (of variable value depending on the artist, market, etc, act). Just as the information in a given set of bits could make it worth more than another set of bits (as when you buy software online, you are buying information, or, if you prefer a license to use information (if you happen to believe click-through license agreements have some validity)).

    28. Re:Call now and SAVE on Virtually Nothing! by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      No, monkeys are still running 2.4. Expect the update within the year.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    29. Re:Call now and SAVE on Virtually Nothing! by Dabido · · Score: 1

      ... not just one set of 1's and 0's, but TWO sets for the same price!

      It was just a dream, Bender. There's no such thing as two.

      --
      Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
    30. Re:Call now and SAVE on Virtually Nothing! by Walter+Carver · · Score: 1

      I think that creative workd have value because they make us feel, think, and understand.

  5. I don't want to live on this planet any more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't want to live on this planet any more :(

    It's just fucking bits! Entropy! Their renting fucking entropy!

    1. Re:I don't want to live on this planet any more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely true. That is why I go into internet fora and post messages of despair.

    2. Re:I don't want to live on this planet any more by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Their renting fucking entropy!

      Speaking of entropy...

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  6. So would that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    make him a Virtual Millionaire?

    1. Re:So would that by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      make him a Virtual Millionaire?

      It's a "she", actually.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  7. umm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't you people go make fun of those who get paid to design video games OMG THEY'RE JUST 1's AND 0's!!!!!

  8. Oooold News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear god, this isn't news. This is ancient and she achieved this from at least 2007 onwards. This is like the equivalent of a newb discovering this cool OS called "lunux" which is for free and thinks he's special. As a SecondLife fanboi myself, please, shut the fuck up up Anshe Chung and focus on the people trying to demolish the walled garden and working on decentralisation and interoperation.

    1. Re:Oooold News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you can sit in your mom's basement and play games all day ?
      Some day, mom's going to croke, and you're going to be screwed after you liquidate
      her junk and house and end up living in a shelter or a drain pipe.
      This is a fact, I know unemployed people, and they're not going to be getting a job, ever
      I'm employed as a firmware guy (for now), and I'm as scared as hell,
      I don't know what my mentally-challenged 55 year old bus boy brother-in-law
      will do when the unemployment runs out.

    2. Re:Oooold News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:Oooold News by White+Flame · · Score: 2

      It sounds like Anshe is trying to regain some spotlight here. It never claims that she's actually "made" millions, just that she's got holdings of "millions of dollars worth of online real estate". That's a completely different thing, and if she were to liquidate, I doubt she would walk out with 7 figures.

      This is just the singularity hub going along with nearly 10-year-old "wow, people can like own 'virtual property' on teh intarwebz!" typical Second Life garbage hype, I'm guessing at her behest.

    4. Re:Oooold News by will_die · · Score: 1

      She does have 80 employee, even if they were all part time minimum wage student, I would expect that she must be pulling in a fair amount for personnal income.
      Do that for a few years and she could easily have 7 figures in real world money when this is all over.

    5. Re:Oooold News by evanism · · Score: 1

      don't forget the "in China" bit.

      I have a friend who has 250 employees in a coffee cup factory and their collective salaries come to less than mine monthly.

      Numbers are meaningless when you have 1.3 billion half starved peasants.

      --
      Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
    6. Re:Oooold News by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Except now with sculpt prims, mesh, shadows, and the new 64m limit they can be much nicer looking penises.

      I was there, arrived late so I didn't see the start of the griefing. The event hosts were stupid and unprepared, those kinds of attacks are easily stopped.

    7. Re:Oooold News by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 1

      I note the article doesn't say what kind of employees she has. Lots of SL "business people" have "employees" who get paid maybe 500L per hour (if they're high-paid) to do whatever work they're supposed to do. That's the equivalent of around 2 bucks an hour, and they most certainly do not get benefits. Saying "I have 80 employees!" sounds a lot more impressive than "I found 80 idiots willing to do a lot of work for me for significantly less than I'd have to pay if I outsourced to Pakistan." Hell when I was exploring around on SL I saw people "camping" for something like 20L per hour because they didn't want to buy any of the in-game currency. They didn't realize that you spend more than 20L per hour for the electricity to run your computer, and so they were actually losing money by wasting time with the camping crap. And this was a very popular activity, with many thousands of people doing it. With such a vast resource of dumb people who can't do basic math, it's not hard to get 80 employees without spending any money.

      As far as having virtual land holdings worth millions - she doesn't own anything. She rents server space, and then re-rents it to other people. Linden Labs could pull the plug on her tomorrow and then she'd "own" precisely nothing. They've done it before - in fact it was a lawsuit over them doing that that made me go look at SL in the first place to see what the hell the fuss was about that could make people sue in RL over a virtual chat system.

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    8. Re:Oooold News by Yamioni · · Score: 1

      Maybe you could pay him to teach you how to format comments properly.

      --
      Cool post bro, highfive \o
  9. I'm conflicted by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've never been into Second Life, or World of Warcraft, or any of those online games that've been known for people using real money to buy pretend stuff in the game - but, on an individual level, it's never bothered me. I figure it's those folk's money, so they can spend it however they want... just like I might buy a decent bottle of Scotch.

    But somehow, in the aggregate, this bothers me. I can't really put my finger on why, exactly; but it just seems like a sign our society is going down the toilet (or something equally dire). It's probably just because I'm older than most of these people, I suppose.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:I'm conflicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm with you, if only because this is another version of the dutch tulip investments.

    2. Re:I'm conflicted by wvmarle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually it doesn't really bother me, let them just go ahead.

      Many real-life games come with expansion packs as well. Settlers of Catan was (is?) a very popular one where people could buy extras to play with. It enhanced their enjoyment of the game, so they put down money to buy more parts for it - no problem with that, is there?

      Magic the Gathering is another game that has many expansion options. Many cards are there, some are becoming increasingly rare and have become collector's items. People pay a lot of money for it - even though it's basically just a piece of printed paper. There surely are people trading in this kind of cards, whether they make a living out of it I don't know but it will be possible.

      These virtual items I don't think are that different. It's a game, people enjoy it, and are willing to pay extra money to enjoy it even more. Some (probably most) of these traded items may be available to anyone playing enough, others may be created one-off by the game designer, whatever. But not everyone is willing to do all that work, they just want to buy the finished product. And as long as they're not scammed (i.e. they get what they pay for) it's fine with me. Let them go ahead.

    3. Re:I'm conflicted by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      buying wow gold is more like buying extra pawn pieces when playing chess.
      it's not like you get to bend the rules in settlers of catan by putting down real cash(well, actually many people would take that cash and let you have extra pieces..).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:I'm conflicted by will_die · · Score: 1

      It is what people are willing to spend on entertainment
      As for the feeling that it is wrong most people have it because of the lack of a physical product. It is something that you will never touch and is totally controlled by someone outside of your control or abaility to contact in person.

    5. Re:I'm conflicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it is weird that people are spending time and money on entertainment. These folks need to be doing what everybody else does and plop down in front of the tv in the evening instead of interacting with other folks over the intertubes. As for age, the age demographic for Second Life is older folks, and there is a disproportional high number of people with some sort of disability. It is a cheap and easy way for people to interact. It is basically a 3D chatroom that lets you build things. Personally, I would much rather see mom and pop doing this than vegetating in front of the tv.

    6. Re:I'm conflicted by grumbel · · Score: 1

      The bothersome part of all this isn't that people spend money on virtual entertainment, server space and computing time cost money after all, so one shouldn't expect to get everything for free. The bothersome is how it all developed in the last few years. It is no longer about providing the user with something of value, something that has actual real world scarcity, it all turned into a game of playing with human psychology and creating artificial scarcity. It's no longer about paying the provider for the servers and development time, now you are paying them for nothing more then removing the locks they put in place. It's also a model build inherently around a monopoly, as you can't buy your virtual goods from a manufacturer of your choice, once you bought into a game, you have to buy everything around that game from the manufacturer.

      Has somebody who used to hex edit his savegames, this really sickens me. Essentially the developers took the savegames (and dedicated server) away from the player and now want money for giving us very limited access to them. It's a loss of freedom without benefit. The consumer becomes nothing more then a mass to milk money from, without ever getting anything tangible in return. And it's not just games, every kind of digital trade seems to develop around that scheme.

      That dream of the Internet freeing us from the need for distributors? That bubble pretty much burst, we are now more depended on the distributors then ever, be it the Blizzard, Steam, Amazon, Apple or whoever.

    7. Re:I'm conflicted by gregor-e · · Score: 1

      Perhaps what bothers you is the niggling sensation that virtual life is slowly encroaching on real life, a trend that, by obvious extension, may ultimately mean that all the time and effort you're putting in on real life won't amount to a hill of virtual beans in the future. After all, who will want to visit you in your shabby little real-world McMansion when everybody else is living their own planet-sized castle?

    8. Re:I'm conflicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't help but to think of these online games where you exchange real money for virtual things as spending money to have a computer put records in a database. Yes, there's all the other things about the value of these, but as a programmer, I just see it as turning money into insert statements.

    9. Re:I'm conflicted by vux984 · · Score: 1

      (well, actually many people would take that cash and let you have extra pieces..).

      But then they aren't really playing settlers of catan anymore; its some derivative but its not the same rules.

      More importantly, I don't have to play with those people if I don't want to.

      If I could have that option in mmoprgs I'd be happy. Let the people who want to buy shit play on one server, let the people who don't play on another.

      Its cheating on one server, and heavily enforced bannable... and acceptable on the other. Hell... even fully supported in game for all I care.

    10. Re:I'm conflicted by WarlockD · · Score: 1

      Its about how transitory most things on the web is. Lets say you buy, a real example, Modern Warfare 3. It has a semi decent movie style single player campaign and a mufti player campaign you can play for months on. After a while you get board so they keep giving you DLC's to buy with new maps but in the end you put it aside for something else. A year latter when you want to play online again you find hardly anyone is playing anymore. You cannot get even in random ques to save your life. This doesn't happen with MW2 yet but it is with MW.

      Even in those "free to play, but pay to advance" games, I am willing to shell out 10 bucks on premium content to see where the game is going but then I get board and go on. Its not that I "care" about the $10, its just that I felt the game was interesting enough for me to invest in a small way. If you are using farmvillie as a reason for the "sign" you are half right. Those games are about showing off. My farm is better than your farm not because of the time I invested, but because of the cash I put in to accurate it. This is why Farmville and Facebook games and their owners get all crazy

      All this being said, in Second Life, you are buying art. You change your cash for in game currency and buy furniture for your homes, clothes for your avatars, and airplanes to fly around in. Every one of these items are built by the charters IN the game. Its a social chat room where you go in looking different from everyone else because of the things you decided to wear. There is nothing stopping you from making your own things or selling them, safe to know there is no easy in game way to copy them.

      With ALL this exposition, the REAL currency is land. If you own a sim, it means you own a server on the rack, witch also means you own a big chunk of land you can "rent" to anyone. Adult land goes for a premium. I had rented a small patch of dirt from Anshe before. Met her, well in virtual self, few years back. I can tell you first hand it was EXPENSIVE. Flat fee + a weekly rental for an off patch of the smallest sized dirt in an Adult restricted area in the middle of nowhere. She owns SO much that you get pressured by your friends to live close by. Its not that Anshe is unreasonable in late rent, but you decide to forget to pay ahead you will find everything there wiped:P

      I don't see any of this as a source of our society going down just a reflection. What REALLY worries me, however, is that Lindin Lab's prance Anshe around for attention on "how much money you can make!" rather than all the cool stuff people has built in there.

    11. Re:I'm conflicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bothersome is how it all developed in the last few years. It is no longer about providing the user with something of value, something that has actual real world scarcity, it all turned into a game of playing with human psychology and creating artificial scarcity. It's no longer about paying the provider for the servers and development time, now you are paying them for nothing more then removing the locks they put in place. It's also a model build inherently around a monopoly, as you can't buy your virtual goods from a manufacturer of your choice, once you bought into a game, you have to buy everything around that game from the manufacturer.

      Has somebody who used to hex edit his savegames, this really sickens me. Essentially the developers took the savegames (and dedicated server) away from the player and now want money for giving us very limited access to them. It's a loss of freedom without benefit. The consumer becomes nothing more then a mass to milk money from, without ever getting anything tangible in return. And it's not just games, every kind of digital trade seems to develop around that scheme.

      That dream of the Internet freeing us from the need for distributors? That bubble pretty much burst, we are now more depended on the distributors then ever, be it the Blizzard, Steam, Amazon, Apple or whoever.

      Speak on brother Grumbel, speak on! Encouragement aside, after thoughtless irritation at the changes taking place in digital distribution and more careful reflection on the situation, I've come to the same conclusion that what Grumbel identifies here is precisely what brought about that initial feeling. It is not so much the intangibility of the product as it is the increasingly bothersome restrictions and withdrawal of the user's access to certain parts of the product that make it discomforting.

  10. You can sell what others pay for by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    It is that simple. A piece of linen cloth with colorful specks arranged in a certain pattern is called a painting, and if it happens that someone named Gaugin or Degas left those specs on the linen it's worth millions. Why? It's just some pigments on linen.

    You don't pay for the pigments and not for the linen. You pay for the arrangement. Likewise, you pay for the arrangement of those 0s and 1s.

    Is it worth that? If you ask me, no. But for some people it seems to be, and as long as there are people willing to pay real money for certain arrangements of pigments or pixels, there will be a market for them.

    Hell, some people pay me to tell them how to get their IT infrastructure secure. I don't even give them pixels or pigments, I only give them information without a carrier medium (ok, not entirely true, it's most of the time also encoded in 0s and 1s). But by the logic expressed in most other postings here, I shouldn't even get a dime for what I'm doing, yet there are people willing to pay thousands of dollars per day. Because they want it, because they're willing to pay for it, and because I'm willing to sell that information.

    Welcome to the market economy.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:You can sell what others pay for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For crying out loud, why is the concept of Virtual Land so difficult for people to understand? It's basically just web hosting. You don't pay for the 1s and 0s themselves, but for them to be hosted and be usable/capable with the environment you play in. What you pay for is a slice of server time and memory to host your 1s and 0s and to have a bunch of object definitions between two Euclidean vectors whilst also indirectly paying for support and further development of the technology which runs your environment. The term "Land" is just a user facing concept. It's no more crazy than an MMO subscription or cloud hosting when you look at it for what it actually is.

    2. Re:You can sell what others pay for by Egor_but_no_hunch · · Score: 2

      It's not even market economy, it's just perceived value, and that's been going on since mankind could only talk in grunts, and cave women traded sex for food.

      Why is gold valuable? Its not good for anything, I don't think it's even particularly pleasant to look at, Silver is much prettier. It however retains significant value due to its relative scarcity, and the value people place on scarcity.

      ((I'm ignoring the digital issue, where anything digitised has effectively infinite quantities, because we seem to buy into allowing artificial scarcity to be created... which I don't get at all))

      Virtually everything is worth something to someone, so why is this actually so surprising? Would we be shocked if the story read "Man makes millions selling dung / water / himself"???

    3. Re:You can sell what others pay for by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      It however retains significant value due to its relative scarcity, and the value people place on scarcity.

      ((I'm ignoring the digital issue, where anything digitised has effectively infinite quantities, because we seem to buy into allowing artificial scarcity to be created... which I don't get at all))

      You basically give the reason yourself. People buy into artificial scarcity because people place value on that scarcity; they feel they're buying something of more value (and as long as the scarcity is guaranteed, they do).
      It's like any "limited edition" product in real-life. There's nothing stopping companies from producing more of these limited edition items.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    4. Re:You can sell what others pay for by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Its not good for anything,

      It's actually quite good for a few things. It never rusts, it's an excellent electrical and thermal conductor, and it's fairly non reactive chemically meaning it usually sticks around for a long time. Best of all, it's pretty rare and you can't print it. Thus it's a great store of wealth. However if you subscribe to the Ben Bernanke school of thought then yes, gold is absolutely worthless and people who think that it makes a decent store of wealth should be mocked for believing in "tradition". You need to trust these little green pieces of paper the US government is printing by the trillions instead.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:You can sell what others pay for by stinerman · · Score: 1

      As others have said on the subject, if you think that little green pieces of paper are worth less than gold, you are more than welcome to trade the little green pieces of paper for gold to someone who wants the paper more than they want the gold. No one is stopping you.

      I trust the paper because there isn't a single entity that I've done business with that hasn't accepted them in exchange for goods and services.

      If you're making an oblique reference to a gold standard, I respectfully submit that the Federal Reserve having control of the inflation rate is better than no one having control of it (or rather companies that mine gold having control of it). The fiat money system does have it's failings, but it's better than a federally-fixed price for gold.

    6. Re:You can sell what others pay for by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      I have traded quite a fortune of little green pieces of paper for gold, when the exchange rate was 400 pieces of paper for one troy ounce of gold. I traded another stack of green paper for silver too, when the exchange was around 20:1. Ask me again what I think of the little green pieces of paper today? The rest of them have been swapped for Canadian pieces of paper when the exchange rate was 7:10. Now the exchange rate is around 1:1. I think your little green pieces of paper are silly, they just keep losing value compared to my metal and my loonies. This is without getting into how many millions of green pieces of paper you would need to buy my land and lumber compared to how many you needed 10 years ago...

      As for the federal reserve having "control" of the inflation rate, I submit that it has as much control as the government has over unemployment. It's easy to hide inflation by choosing to ignore prices that actually are inflating. It's like me doing a medical study on diabetics but first we will exclude anyone with a blood sugar over 100. Plus the CPI only looks at a "basic breadbasket" that has absolutely no reflection with the real products and services used by real people. It is more a measure of survival than standard of living. Sure, you can live with little or no inflation, but you have to adjust your standard of living downwards over time.

      But ok, go ahead and believe what you want to believe. I don't have to convince you. I just have to make sure I stay wealthy for the rest of my life, and that my kids have a reasonable chance of success. I think I have managed and am managing. At the end of the day we each take care of our own.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:You can sell what others pay for by Egor_but_no_hunch · · Score: 1
      I was trying not to basically open up the can of worms that that is music and piracy. Copying an mp3 is only piracy due to the desire to create a scarcity of the item in question. Which in turn is supposed to drive up its value through that scarcity.

      Someone who copies this "scarce" mp3 could take pains to suggest that the value of the mp3 is artificial due to the artificial nature of the scarcity, and that if the scarcity is removed, it therefore intrinsically has little to no value any more.

      The default value of anything is the cost of the materials plus the manpower to create that copy, which for a digital item is virtually zero.

    8. Re:You can sell what others pay for by Egor_but_no_hunch · · Score: 1
      And those properties makes it valuable to my grandmother how? Yes to electrical engineers, no to my grandmother.

      Also, don't get confused with the difference between "value" and "money", the two are not directly related (One man may value something greater than the other, and therefore is prepared to part with more money to obtain it). If major investors in gold decided that the value of gold was decreased in some way, fatuously say a meteorite of pure gold flattens France, it would suddenly become a poor store of wealth as its perceived value would have decreased due to less scarcity.

      The only perceived value which is consistent is power, more of the variety of manpower or horsepower...

    9. Re:You can sell what others pay for by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      I doubt your grandmother appreciates the value of rhodium or copper, either. What does that prove? Nah, everyone who says gold is nothing special is full of shit, because if you saw a solid gold coin lying on the ground I guarantee you that you would pick it up, do a little happy dance, and sell it. Why? Because you instantly recognize the value. So does everyone else. That is what makes it valuable, the world over. Wars have been fought over gold for thousands of years. So take your "story" and shove it. History is against you.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    10. Re:You can sell what others pay for by Egor_but_no_hunch · · Score: 1

      I see little to no value in gold, however the person I would sell it to does, which is why I would pick it up and sell it. You want an excellent parody of this? Look no further than Douglas Adams. The survivors of the crash on Earth attach value to leaves, and are trying to find ways of limiting its availability, Ford and Arthur are bewildered by this as the leaves have no perceived value to them. It's excellent parody. I'll ask you, if gold suddenly lost its scarcity, would you still perceive it as being valuable? If I could sell you 100 tons of it at $1 per ton, where does the value lie?

  11. It isn't so strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People like to save their wealth in some neutral readily tradeable form. For some people it is old paintings, for others it is old postage stamps, for most of us it is a record of account held at a bank or bits of paper with some fancy promise to pay printed on them. It could be bits of precious metal, crystals dug out the ground.

    With the right perception management of the customer people can be persuaded to accept the value of the almost anything which isn't trivial to produce.

    The beauty of it is that once you have convinced a few people that a thing has value it becomes self perpetuating because when a few people are willing to pay for a thing, the value increases and others, seeing the prices paid for that thing, will also then consider buying it - increasing the prices still further.

    The trouble is that at some point the commodity being exchanged for whatever the new thing is starts to run out, the price stops increasing and the bubble bursts.

    The perfect scam repeated around the world daily. Convince two suckers your piece of crap is valuable and, hey presto, it really is valuable.

    1. Re:It isn't so strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem most people have with "Virtual" land, etc, is that it /is/ trivial to produce.

  12. But this is normal by furgle · · Score: 2

    Maybe I'm strange, but I spend my days managing websites. Which are essentially virtual newspapers / magazines/ posters/ directories/ whatever. So what if it is a online designed 3d room, its just a online facility people pay for.

    I feel a strange separation to my work, because I know in 1000 years from now, no one will ever no I was alive or a person. There won't be an antiques roadshow describing how wonderful/shit my work was, my work wont exist it will be simply gone. Ancient potters, blacksmiths, artist, or architects don't have this problem, part of their work can survive. Something physical something real.

    I would love to listen to the future documentaries describing how "clever" we are with our "Internet" and "condoms" and our "iPads". But how simple we were for not realising that we should really have a centralised computer attached to our brains, that can simply kill all the sperm in a man's body before we have sex, by analysing our thoughts and electro-shocking our testicles.

    I'm kinda sad that I wont see the future.

    1. Re:But this is normal by dadioflex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To be fair 99.999% of people will pass and be largely forgotten within 3-4 generations. Probably 99% of potters, blacksmiths and even architects toil in complete anonymity and their work will be effectively unattributed within their own lifetimes. Don't sweat it. I used to get angry at all this virtual malarkey, then the economy tanked and I realised it was all virtual.

      I find your testicle-shocking vision to be intriguing, please tell me how to sign up for your newsletter.

    2. Re:But this is normal by etrusco · · Score: 1

      I hope you're drunk (I sure am :D ). It's not the question whether the medium is "real" or "virtual", the matter is whether the "fact" is real or virtual.

    3. Re:But this is normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel a strange separation to my work, because I know in 1000 years from now, no one will ever no I was alive or a person. There won't be an antiques roadshow describing how wonderful/shit my work was, my work wont exist it will be simply gone. Ancient potters, blacksmiths, artist, or architects don't have this problem, part of their work can survive. Something physical something real.

      I know where you're coming from. When my last web gig was coming to an end, the planning for a new suspension bridge nearby was well advanced. I looked seriously into doing some training and getting a construction job, purely so that I'd leave something more permanent than the orientation of a few magnetic particles, something huge that I could show the grandchildren and say, "I helped make that."

      But the planning is still going on, economic reality intervened, and I'm back flipping bits. *sigh* Beats flipping burgers, I suppose. (I know, I've done that too.) Doing modular origami in my spare time helps.

    4. Re:But this is normal by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Doing modular origami in my spare time helps.

      My brother used to have a business doing that.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:But this is normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Greetings from the far future. You will be pleased to know that all Slashdot posts, including your own, still exist and provide a useful historical record of the early digital period. So, while all your other works may have been forgotten, some part of your work did survive. However, Slashdot posts are often more confusing than enlightening. We implore you all to heed the advice of the Grammar Nazis, as it's hard enough to read a dead language without also having to deal with spelling errors, weird idioms and references to long-forgotten memes. Also, please do not use URL shorteners, and when linking to Youtube please briefly describe what you are linking to, as all Youtube videos were destroyed when China invaded Google. Yours, B. Zog, Professor of Digital Archaelogy, University of Neotokyo.

  13. This is the best second life thing ever. by AnotherShep · · Score: 4, Funny
  14. All the ramblings are just Jealousy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It think it all comes down to this: Someone is making more money than I am and probably in an easier way than I do. It's more of a "wish I thought of that!"

  15. 2006 called by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it wants its news headline back.

    This was news back in 2006.
    This reeks more of an advertisement though.

    Linden Labs playing on people forgetting to pump new users into its dying platform, or a way for anshe chung to pump more people in because yes he, he used his wife for public appearances.. is likely hurting now that people are no longer interested in worlds like second life.

  16. Balant Slashvertisement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kkleiner owns the website that is referenced

    Many of the articles are ads for Second Life and other related things

    oh and this little gem:

    "Singularity Hub is aggressively building up its advertising relationships with new advertisers, so send us an email at hubadvertising@gmail.com today and let us help you reach our targeted audience.

    We offer many different banner sizes, including 728x90, 300x250, and more. In addition to the standard advertising slots above, we welcome advertisers to work with us to consider alternative, creative advertising solutions within the Singularity Hub website.

    Learn more about our advertising programs check out our advertising page "

  17. Those were the days... by F-3582 · · Score: 2

    Anyone remember this?

  18. I'm a BitCoin using Patent Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a so-called patent troll and early bitcoin investor.

    I am now worth over $20 million, mainly from selling rights to patents that I have trolled. Not bad for a kid from Houston with only an Associate's degree.

    1. Re:I'm a BitCoin using Patent Troll by cjcela · · Score: 1

      Well, and still, being well off as you describe yourself, you have the need to brag about 'how much are you worth', and have to post as AC .... sad.

    2. Re:I'm a BitCoin using Patent Troll by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      Congratulations, sir or madam.

      You have nearly won the contest for who can be the largest drain on our society.

      I do hope you are proud of your achievement, the world is a better place because of you.

      Please kill yourself now.

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    3. Re:I'm a BitCoin using Patent Troll by Lanteran · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but there's still the occupational hazard of being first against the wall when the revolution comes.

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
  19. Did you ever buy jewellery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I recently found a ring (on my property) - heavy but not really attractive (to me). So not really one for gold and diamonds, I took it to a jeweller to get an idea of what I'm dealing with here. Who told me that to buy such a piece today would probably set me back about 11000 (converted to USD). However, if I would sell it to them, they would pay me only the price for the materials, which would give me about 2000 (converted to USD).

    I think there are a lot of things like that in the real world. Ever eaten, or had wine, at a restaurant? Ever buy a painting or sculpture? Ever watch a movie? Wearing a watch? Had an internist have a pathologist perform blood test, then prescribe some vitamins to you, that you paid for out of the small change in your pocket?

    Guess you all know the joke about the engineer, having been asked to present an itemised bill, wrote: 0.05 for chalk mark, 1499.95 for knowing where to apply the mark.

    Not that I would rate the ability to construct virtual real estate anywhere close as valuable, but value is in the eye of the beholder.

    1. Re:Did you ever buy jewellery? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Don't forget about the taxes you now owe on this windfall. Uncle Sam (or whichever government) worked very hard to earn his share of your luck. I figure you owe him at least half.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  20. PR fluff piece? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was covered a lot in technology media years ago and looks like a PR fluff piece to hype up the company.

  21. Leasing their art. by flimflammer · · Score: 1

    There's nothing particularly earth shattering here. They create art in the form of private islands and then rent said art for profit. This isn't exactly a new phenomenon. They just make a decent chunk of money doing it.

    1. Re:Leasing their art. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's nothing particularly earth shattering here. They create art in the form of private islands and then rent said art for profit. This isn't exactly a new phenomenon. They just make a decent chunk of money doing it.

      You're still get a bit sensational here.

      She designs 3D models, and gets paid for it. She also gets paid to put those models on a hosted site. Wow, what a concept!
      But that's not sensational, so they come up with the bullshit about "Virtual Property" because it's a catchy buzzword and makes it sound like she's getting paid for nothing.

      Look folks, all Second Life really is, is a shared hosting space with a 3D GUI for the front-end instead of a web browser. Big Fucking Woop-dee-doo. The only interesting thing is how they rent a limited resource amongst a group of people, and allow those people to directly swap server resources with each other.

    2. Re:Leasing their art. by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      if you have even used the SL modeler you would know a few things

      its so fucking simple a person with zero 3d experience can make a decent house their first try, second your stupid to pay someone to host your 3d bullshit who doesnt actually own the servers. linden labs is more than happy to sell you land. I have never figured this out, its like if my landlord has a landlord, and it gets fucked up all the time, pay for a quarter island for a year? better fucking hope your land lord did.

  22. Too old for this shit by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    I don't understand any of this, can anybody explain it to me in terms that are easy to understand please? I literally do not understand what any of this is. Like in a few sentences: what the hell?

    I mean I commend them for making money and building businesses with this stuff, I just don't understand why anybody pays real money for this, what does it do for them and how does this translate into real life (except for the customers becoming poorer of-course)?

    Basically I now find myself at this point in life when I can legitimately say about something that I am looking at: I am too old for this shit.

    1. Re:Too old for this shit by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      They derive enjoyment from the product. I think that's the beating heart of the Western economy TBH.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:Too old for this shit by Vernes · · Score: 1

      You have a digital platform on which people initiate a vast array of activities. To initiate your own activity to the fullest extend possible, it is advised to purchase an allotment of this digital platform to utilize as you wish.

      Comparison:
      The internet is a digital platform on which people initiate many activities.
      Through websites people engage in virtual sex, purchase of products, games in many shapes and form and purely for informational purposes. Should you ever want to initiate any of these activities for yourself instead of just consuming, it is advised to purchase web-space for yourself. Although the hard-drive on which your web-space resides is quite real, your website is virtual. Depending on your activities, many aspects of it will be regarded as virtual.

      Back to Second Life:
      There are consumers there with demands, most demands revolve around their avatar, their representation within the social environment of a virtual platform.
      If you are able to design clothes and/or accessories that are of interest, you can sell it for a competitive price. If you sell enough, you can run a profit while also renting land. Just like if you can rent a web-server and make a profit from advertisements.

      However, thanks to badly informed media reports, virtual is now compared to fake. And even though the story describes about ACTUAL wealth being generated, instead of accepting it as proof virtual does not mean fake, the story is instead ridiculed and claims about scams and fraud are made.

      I own no land in Second Life but I have made scripts that aid product seller in offering products to their customers, and in exchange receive a percentage of the income. My expenses are only the time I've spend programming the scripts, which ended a while ago. I've started making a profit years ago.

      TL;DR
      Virtual Land = Webspace
      Virtual Demands = Real Demands
      Virtual Profit = Real Profit
      270 virtual dollars = 1 real dollar

    3. Re:Too old for this shit by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      For somebody to pay for a product (especially for a not IRL product), it has to be scarce. People don't even like paying for music, movies, games, they copy them. So what makes people want to spend actual IRL money inside a computer game to buy clothing for avatar?

      I don't fully comprehend something: different people have different avatars and they can meet in the game and people see the avatars interacting? They can see the clothing on the other avatar but they can't have a copy?

      Basically Is the value of the game in generating envy?

    4. Re:Too old for this shit by gregor-e · · Score: 1

      Your cognitive dissonance is implicit in your question - "...how does this translate into real life...?". For an increasing number of people, the virtual worlds they spend time in ARE real life. What you think of as real life is for them just a means for supporting their existence in the worlds they prefer to spend their time in. How many Wal-Mart stockers only work to support their WoW addiction? If given a chance to ditch their real world job and become gainfully employed within the virtual world of their choosing, how many would happily do so?

      Here, think of it this way: once virtual reality achieves a certain level of believability, some people are able to suspend disbelief in it. As technology improves, virtual worlds will become increasingly believable to the point where perhaps no one with ordinary human senses can tell the difference. At some point, perhaps when you are old and bedridden, you too may welcome the possibility of inhabiting a world in which you are not constrained by your real-world body, and can appear godlike.

    5. Re:Too old for this shit by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Above in this very thread there was somebody else answering the question, but I asked the follow right back at them - why would anybody buy things for money they have to work for (after all, we are not spirits just yet, we need food and shelter and medications and clothing and vacations and other things), after all, many people are not even willing to buy books or music or video games or movies, they just want to copy. But in this case they are renting "properties" in virtual world and paying actual money for that? What does that mean?

      Why can't one building be copied infinite number of times? Why can't an island be copied infinite number of times? Why can't a piece of avatar clothing be copied infinite number of times?

      My question was - if these things are somehow successfully copy protected to the point that a player can interact with his avatar and with other people through their avatars, so he can see the things like clothing of other avatars, but he can't copy those things.... then is the value of the game in generating envy? In a virtual environment, where cost of copying is near 0?

      Interesting concept.

      Now, when we have something that you can download your thoughts into and run around in a computer space, I can absolutely see how you would have to pay 'rent', because your mind would occupy actual computer memory and take up CPU cycles.

      If rent is paid for actual things - memory, energy, work, depreciation of equipment, back ups, administration, all that jazz, I can definitely see the value.

      Paying real money that you have to work for to buy a virtual piece of clothing so you would look different so you could show off this piece to somebody in a virtual world.... Hmmm. You know, drugs also cost money, so does booze and going out and to vacations. That's all I am saying.

    6. Re:Too old for this shit by Vernes · · Score: 1

      Why are you surprised at how any market works?
      There are always people willing to spend alot of time creating an alterego.
      Games with highly detailed character creation functionality draw specificity these people.
      In old times people raised their phone bills through the roof just to chat with their 'friends' on chatboxes.
      Free to play games using micro-payments have based their business model about the very concept that people are prepared to spend money to enhance their entertainment experience.

      This principal is almost ancient.
      What about this is not to comprehend?

      Create a great looking product in a platform that does not allow you to simply copy it, and you have a product you can sell.
      Like renting land, its a very boring way to tell someone you get to call THIS your home. You're not just renting land, you're also renting an atmosphere, a scenery, a social network.
      When you make a scene like that, you are allowed to ask money for it, just like any piece of art.

  23. I see no problems here. by Nox3173 · · Score: 1

    People pay anywhere from $5 to $50 for 1s and 0s all the time. Every time a video game is purchased you pay for 1s and 0s. How is this any different? You pay membership dues to various organizations, and once you stop paying you don't take anything with you except the memories. If you have ever paid $100 to go to a Broadway musical, you paid for something you can't touch or own. This is not any different than any other thing you pay money for that you don't get to keep. It's not really that difficult to understand is it? People pay money for things they find valuable. If someone wants to buy virtual property then great. That means somebody got paid and the economy continues. They aren't being extorted or coerced they bought it of their own free will. Silly humans.

  24. This is NOT news by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

    Anshe Chung was big back when it looked like Second Life might take off. It is not news that he/she has made a lot of money on Second Life. There was even an article here on slashdot two or three years ago. Anshe Chung made a lot of money by recognizing the possibilities early, just before the buzz hit about Second Life. Since Second Life has passed its apogee, Anshe Chung has managed to continue making money by being one of the dominant players in Second Life business (as a result of having gotten there first).
    For those who don't understand Second Life, there are a lot of people who believe that there is a business use for virtual worlds. Second Life became big because it was the first virtual world that looked like it had put all of the peices together. Unfortunately (for Linden Labs and those who think virtual worlds are the future), no one has figured out how to do real world business in a virtual world. Fortunately for Second Life content developers (like Anshe Chung), there are a lot of people who are willing to spend a fair amount of money on their entertainment. Today, Second Life is a visual chat room.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    1. Re:This is NOT news by Vernes · · Score: 1

      no one has figured out how to do real world business in a virtual world
      700 US Dollars tell me otherwise. But that is selling what people WANT inside a virtual platform.
      A friend works with a company that sells real-estate and has virtual versions of the houses people can walk through inside Second Life to get an impression of it.

      Today, Second Life is a visual chat room
      And a FPS, Roleplay Platform (granted, alot of chatting going on), an Educational Tool, Prototyping Tool, a Marketing Tool, an Art Medium
      And I have yet to see anything better that offers thesame freedom to work AND play in.

      Meanwhile, the sourcecode for SecondLife is available and alternatives have been created using this framework.

      But I must agree, the image that has been sustained by the media that Second Life is a scam/fake/dead does have its impact. Like any economy, you need people. Preferable alot. Without people the sales drop and profit drops with it.
      Second Life users come and go and the influx has become smaller. Hardly any advertises exist for Second Life and the smaller businesses have had to quit because sales no longer sustain the costs of rent/fees.
      Only the most prominent businesses are able to keep afloat.

      The real reason lies with the company Linden Lab. It seems it sees itself as purely a facilitator and doesn't feel it needs to advertise its virtual platform. And granted, if it was a platform which you would NEED, but its not. There are cheaper alternatives, established alternatives.
      None of which offer what Second Life offers

    2. Re:This is NOT news by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      The real reason lies with the company Linden Lab.

      I would definitely agree with you there, although I do not think it is just because it does not see the need to advertise its virtual platform. I have a friend who is a content developer on SL and makes a pretty decent amount out of it (before the economy went south, he was making more out of his SL business than I make at my RL job), but all of his income from that business came from people buying things inside SL for use inside SL.
      The real estate idea is interesting, but do they really get a competitive advantage that pays a profit on the cost of setting those virtual houses up? I will repeat, that sounds like a good idea and the sort of idea that a virtual world like SL is perfect for. I just wonder if they really sell any more houses because they have it than they would if they didn't.
      I do think that, sooner or later, someone will figure out how to use a virtual world to make an impact on real world business (and perhaps the real estate company you mentioned has done so). Once that happens SL (or one of its clones, as you said the sourcecode is Open Source) will start growing again, in SL's case that of course depends on Linden Labs not sabotaging that growth.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  25. 2007 called... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2007 called and they want their story back.

    That's the year Anshe made it big in Second Life. SL hasn't exactly prospered since then, and unless she's been very successful elsewhere, either has Anshe. I don't think her SL empire is doing great, and its theoretical value has shrunk as land values have gone to near zero. She can no longer say she owns a lot of value in land. She's now just a landlord. She makes her money on rent, and unless Linden Lab (they run Second Life) has cut her a special deal, the margins are very low. It's a lot of work and a lot of risk (unless LL has made it risk-free for her) for not a lot of money.

    She moved from Germany to China to make the cost-of-doing-business work. Hopefully her "employees" do better than most Second Life "employees". An SL "job" pays pennies per hour. I hope hers are paid in real-life currency, even if it's at Chinese rates.

    1. Re:2007 called... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2007 called and they want their story back.

      That's the year Anshe made it big in Second Life.

      2007? The following was posted in 2006, and it says she was a millionaire then:

      http://www.somethingawful.com/d/second-life-safari/room-101-vs.php

    2. Re:2007 called... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      An SL "job" pays pennies per hour.

      or as the Chinese call it, a "living wage."

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:2007 called... by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      yea thats a problem on SL, when she did it so did any fuckbrain with an internet connection, now the place is infested with zombies gaming the system all day. and not all from china there are many stupid people who will let their 500 watt computer burn for 2 real dollars worth of tokens "for free" its pathetic

    4. Re:2007 called... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      In all fairness, I got pretty bad on MMO's too for a while. WoW had to actually ban chat for new users because they were getting so many Chinese bots wanting to tell everyone on their server about a "Great deal I've heard about!" I think if I were starting a MMO or online world today, I would be very tempted to just ban all Asian IP addresses en masse (though they would probably just find a way to spoof U.S. ones).

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  26. What an old story by TraumaFox · · Score: 2

    Really, this article is years behind. Anshe Chung hasn't been relevant in the pantheon of virtual land barons for ages.

  27. Toys... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Basically, this person makes toys and rents or sells them to people who are willing to pay for those toys. Nothing to see here. Move along.

  28. They must be cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Supporting 80 employees on $1,000,000 of revenue? Now I know where the Oompa Loompas went after the chocolate factory bankruptcy.

    1. Re:They must be cheap by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      they are Chinese, so just a shade cheaper than Oompa Loompas, but yet they have the ability to even make candy total shit

  29. Virtual Prostitute? by Pennidren · · Score: 1

    I thought this was old news, and that the millions she made were revealed to mostly be through "virtual prostitution" of sorts?
    And that when some folks found out about her having an interview within Second Life, they hilariously griefed her.

    1. Re:Virtual Prostitute? by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      No, Anshe didn't make the big bugs in virtual prostitution, that only provided the seed money as far as I know....her big bucks came from her HUGE private island estate business that she build up Dreamland or whatever she calls it. As far as I know she's still the biggest single "Land Baron" in SL.

  30. So *this* is a scam... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But a guy who looks like he lives in Middle Earth selling an expensive rickety box to make crappy plastic rings is a genius. Got it.

  31. So the fuck what by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    This was news like 6 years ago, the real news is that second life has not caved in on itself in a cestpool of land sharks like the one mentioned in the article getting you to "rent" space on a plot and then bans you from it a week later, furries sex slave, and fucking retard noobies trying to cyber fuck every square inch of the place while advertising a "bank" scheme.

    1. Re:So the fuck what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was news like 6 years ago, the real news is that second life has not caved in on itself in a cestpool of land sharks like the one mentioned in the article getting you to "rent" space on a plot and then bans you from it a week later, furries sex slave, and fucking retard noobies trying to cyber fuck every square inch of the place while advertising a "bank" scheme.

      I'm not sure exactly how to parse that insanely long run on sentence, but my an ex-girlfriend told me that the people on Second Life were mostly there for virtual sex. She was. She said Second Life tired to fight it for a while, but finally gave in. I never tried it myself. I was more interested in real sex. She liked it, because she could do things she'd never do in real life.

  32. Nothing new... by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

    Is this really any different than people throwing hundreds of dollars at the latest device from Apple? Look at the people who replace a perfectly good device with one that's newer but offers little additional functionality.

    I'd argue that the motivation driving people to buy the latest gadget is identical to the motivation behind someone buying a piece of virtual property. It's pure emotion; the happiness of unwrapping and enjoying something new.

    There are a lot of people in the real world making a ton of money on stuff people don't actually need. And I'm not just talking about electronics. Alcohol, drugs, fancy clothing, luxury cars, junk food... We can get into debates about paying for something intangible, but the motivation is the same: pleasure.

  33. proper link for youtube non-members by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  34. Why did Anshe make the millions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not because of actual business acumen so beyond everyone else, but actually favorism played by Linden Lab.

    Infact, Anshe got a lot of *FREE* land, so it's easy to make a profit when your product costs 0 and you charge a lot for it. Infact, she kept quite high prices always.

    Later on, she simply got huge discounts, paying way below what rest of the market plays. Some even rumour she doesn't have to pay the on-going land tax (tier, sim fees).

    High prices + very low price to acquire product (lower than competition) = Profit. Doesn't need a genius, to make profit in those conditions.

    LL has always supported Anshe and played favors towards her.

    I used to be one really big player in that market, but LL killed our business pretty much with ever decreasing land value with ever increasing bigger market floods with new ones, with users disappearing from the system to new rules which would hinder business to increased priced, to lower profit margins due to decrease of value to taxes exceeding the property values on monthly basis. No one can survive in conditions where you loose by flick of button over night 25+ of your property value. In my case that translated to almost monthly tens of thousands of USD lost to artificial devaluation by LL.

    I knew all the big players except Anshe personally. I was one of the last to leave the business, but that was more to do with RL situation than anything else. Every major player i knew has quit by now, or has downsized to a mere fraction of their former business.

    Last time i checked land values has been the same or below the monthly tax tier. Demand for private sims has been extremely minimal as well. Every place is so empty.

  35. Distributed Game Company by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

    The way to think of Second Life is a distributed game company. Most games, the code, the game servers, and the game content are all done by one company. In Second Life the servers are run by the host company (Linden Research Inc.) The code is open source for the "Viewer" (the program you download and run to play Second Life). A majority of users actually run alternate versions of the Viewer made third parties, that have better features than the official one. And lastly, 99% of the content is made by a subset of the users themselves. As a form of entertainment, it has staying power among the creative "do it yourself" crowd. If you want your game handed to you all pre-made and not have to do anything but play, it's not for you.

    The subject of the story, Ailin Graef, made her major start by providing nicer virtual land than was being offered by the owners of Second Life. People liked it, and were willing to pay for it. Like any other entertainment, such as Netflix, or reading Science Fiction novels, it needs no justification. If you find it entertaining, great, if not, find something else to do. I have not made as much as Ailin, but I have made a good amount providing 3D entertainment - enough to buy two new computers...ten times over, and that's doing it as a hobby from home, mostly in Second Life. I'm grateful people found what I did enjoyable, and I had fun creating it. Making stuff is another form of entertainment, for some people.

    There is no scam or ripoff here. You can play Second Life entirely free, forever. But about half the users spend some real money each month to get something made by someone else. Just like buying the latest first person shooter game, or a movie ticket, it's an entertainment expense.

  36. Real estate scam.... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    I would so laugh if a real estate scam happened to happen on someone that used a scammed visa card to pay with....both would negate the other, no?