1  ...  4  5  6  7  8  |   Order by default

Jan 2, 2002, 5:24pm

Does it mean new citizenships will cost 114$ per year?
http://www.activeworlds.com/letter.html
icey

Jan 8, 2002, 7:22pm

Hi xelag:)
It's not my intention to start any argumentation, or to discuss the
things you have just reported, at all indeed. Probably I am not even
answering to you, I am even pleased when I meet you, I am only thinking.
And so I do not want to question wheather or not the new pricing can be
affordable or not. But I was thinking about the 9.95 dollars, this is
the price, we can't actually discuss it's value, well 9.95 is a few, I
men generally, I am not questioning if that is a lot for you or for
anybody else, just considering it's value. Well having said that, well
maybe people that loves chats think differently. Other people didn't
come here with the first intention of chatting, so you didn't nor did I,
....I am not sure, you've been here for so many years so have I, well
software we use are far beyond that 9.95... I am only thinking. So you
mean AW isn't worthing even that, you have been here for so many years
in a place you wouldn't even consider for 9.95, you spent here all that
time so did I, and many did, in a place that isn't worthing 9.95? When
things come for free, you don't ask their value you enjoy them, but when
you're asked to give your opinion about the value...so AW isn't worthing
9.95, this is it. All that technology and work spent over it, isn't
worthing not even that. It's not true, tell me I am dreaming, please.
icey
[View Quote] >Casay,
>
>at last some one who points to the BIG mistake of a few years ago:
>dropping the plans to embed the AW technology into web pages. In my
>opinion , one of the biggest causes of AW's failure in implementing
>advertising and 3D-commerce and getting revenue from it is the
>isolation of a standalone browser. In spite of the slow down of the
>last 2 years in this internet area, this is the way to go. Companies
>as Macromedia, Viewpoint and Adobe have jumped on the wagon. Adapting
>their technology to web pages (and keeping both developments
>synchronised, AW browser and web plugin) would have been excellent. A
>simplified AW browser, with no building but with more interacive
>features in web pages; keeping their eyes open, being sensitive to
>demand and not to their own dreamy thoughts would have helped them a
>lot. Now that the axe is falling, I think that they might want to
>reconsider this; instead, they chose the worst path they could chose:
>(i) they ban tourists, their future citizens, and potential custommers
>of world owners and of AWCOM
>(ii) they make citizenship so expensive that many of their current
>citizens (artists, creators, botmakers, world owners, businesses who
>rely on people comming in and coming back in, and just
>users/custommers) will be forced to leave. Not to mention the panic,
>disappointment and revolt this is causing...
>
>I wish AWCOM would listen and use their brains.
>
>XelaG
>an AW citizen who has spent most of his 3 years in AW creating bots
>and other ammenities for AW and its citizens and tourists, for free,
>with a lot of dedication and love, paying for his citizenship and
>world to be able to test his products. And for whom doomsday seems
>near: I can't afford the new prices... and my contribution to AW will
>suffer from it, I'm afraid.
>
[View Quote]

Jan 8, 2002, 8:03pm

...and then it was 9.50 dollars

[View Quote] > Hi xelag:)
> It's not my intention to start any argumentation, or to discuss the
> things you have just reported, at all indeed. Probably I am not even
> answering to you, I am even pleased when I meet you, I am only
> thinking. And so I do not want to question wheather or not the new
> pricing can be affordable or not. But I was thinking about the 9.95
> dollars, this is the price, we can't actually discuss it's value, well
> 9.95 is a few, I men generally, I am not questioning if that is a lot
> for you or for anybody else, just considering it's value. Well having
> said that, well maybe people that loves chats think differently. Other
> people didn't come here with the first intention of chatting, so you
> didn't nor did I, ...I am not sure, you've been here for so many years
> so have I, well software we use are far beyond that 9.95... I am only
> thinking. So you mean AW isn't worthing even that, you have been here
> for so many years in a place you wouldn't even consider for 9.95, you
> spent here all that time so did I, and many did, in a place that isn't
> worthing 9.95? When things come for free, you don't ask their value
> you enjoy them, but when you're asked to give your opinion about the
> value...so AW isn't worthing 9.95, this is it. All that technology and
> work spent over it, isn't worthing not even that. It's not true, tell
> me I am dreaming, please.
> icey
[View Quote]

Jan 2, 2002, 5:28pm

What about pricing of worlds and citizenships that are coming with them?
http://www.activeworlds.com/letter.html
icey

Jan 2, 2002, 10:18pm

--------------030601010502000904020607
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Why are you beign so negative?

[View Quote] >This is all true, Tony. Unfortunately, the poorly organized petition that's
>floating around now is not going to get the job done. What executive would
>listen to people who make posts like "F AWCOM over this!" I certainly
>wouldn't.
>
>What someone needs to do is write up a nice letter in a pleasant tone and
>mail it via snail mail to Activeworlds with his or her opinion. If many
>people wrote such letters, or even nicely written E-Mails, then AW would
>listen. But as it is, people aren't organized enough to get anything done.
>
>What's needed is someone with enough sense to lead the community to write
>reasonable letters. The person could act as recipient of all the letters,
>and then ship a large box filled with opinions to AW. But right now, that's
>not happening, and these petitions are only making things worse....
>
[View Quote]
--------------030601010502000904020607
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
Why are you beign so negative?<br>
<br>
[View Quote] --------------030601010502000904020607--

Jan 2, 2002, 10:52pm

This is beign negative to me...

>brant wrote

But right now, that's
not happening, and these petitions are only making things worse....

Jan 2, 2002, 9:29pm

http://www.activeworlds.com/tech/faq.asp

Is this meaning AW will be world building oriented, and the price
increase will only concern the chat users?
Hopefully prices will be stable for worlds and related citizenships
Will it be possible to switch a citizenship which isn't related to a
world with the one that comes with a world?
Some users have old citizenships and care for it, but new pricing
probably won't allow to keep both of them
icey

Jan 2, 2002, 10:07pm

They will know it within a year for old citizenships, and yes...hopefully
icey

[View Quote] >My opinion is to trust in AWCOM in this matter becuase they have the figures
>and we don't. If in a few months they discover they are wrong they might
>lower the prices instead of shutting down due to lack of user growth(and
>more income.) I am no expert in financial matters and I am only in the 9th
>grade. Sure AW will probably lose alot of it's valuable citizens over this,
>but thats thier problem right? If they WANT to keep thier current citizens
>AND get new ones, they WILL lower thier prices if this dosent work out. IF
>they don't it could be the end of it anyways. So I believe it is best to
>leave this up to the people at AWCOM who know what they are talking about,
>who have all the facts, and are trying to save thier own jobs, all the while
>trying to keep us happy. I think we're just making it worse by bickering of
>this, i would think it would be a tough thing to balance for them... If they
>run out of money...there is no more AW for us, If we all leave due to
>excessive prices, then they run outof money anyways. Let them make thier own
>mistakes and learn from them, after all it's also thier future they are
>dealing with not just ours. Grow up people, you can't have everything.
>
>LilAlpha Phalpha
>
>
>
>
>

Jan 2, 2002, 10:02pm

Not all things come to implement

[View Quote]

Jan 3, 2002, 2:05pm

Yes Agent1 is far right, it all depends on AW orientation, and AW future
plans, it depends. If increasing pricing is equal to implement features,
give more opportunities and becoming part of the real 3D worldwide
environment, well that will be another issue. If increasing pricing is
to become the 'adult chat toy' new trend, well of course that would be
really different. The credit card registration system will give more
credibility to this environment trying to finally stop the anonymity
which is of course diminishing all environments that are willing to
adopt it. As far as I can suggest about pricing, the increase of worlds
pricing would probably put this technology out of the market. Another
issue is about young people, I wouldn't exclude all youngsters for
pricing wouldn't be afforded by them, I would help, and they still are
the main input here, not because they are many but because they do
understand the meaning of the 3D. So probably the question is will AW
still be 3D oriented or just make a business out of a chat?
icey

[View Quote] >Let's say that enough people stayed with AW to save it from extinction. What would the money be put towards? Would it be only enough to sustain the current level of content and features, or would it let AWC make more frequent updates? If it will only let them keep running at their current "speed", then I don't know that I want to renew my citizenship once it's $9.50/month. I pay USD$10/month for an MMORPG that updates content and storyline once a month. They make changes (even if small) to the client, as well. They have a server farm that is load balanced to carry all of the players they have to host data for. All of the bandwidth is also paid for with that fee.
>
>I do like Activeworlds a lot, but if the increase in price isn't reflected in an increase in quality of the product, then I don't think I'll be paying. It's too much for me to be able to shrug it off and say, "Hey! It'll save AW, and I get some cool upgrades!". I have no idea what is planned for the browser past 3.3. I also have no idea what will happen in May when I have to decide whether or not to renew.
>
>
>
>-Agent1
>
>

Jan 3, 2002, 3:41pm

1. Tourist mode would be eliminated.
2. New users, who log in, would have to input a credit card number
and would be able to enjoy Active Worlds for free as a citizen for
2 weeks.
3. After the 2-week period, they would be charged $9.50 per month
until they cancel their subscription.

[View Quote] [View Quote]

Jan 3, 2002, 1:41pm

We do not need to worry for petitions that are not discussed in the NG,
do we? If there is anything to be suggested, it should be done here or
eventually in private sending an email to activeworlds
icey

[View Quote] >I've been looking around at these online petitions and surveying the GZs to
>see what public opinion seems to be, and I came across something
>interesting.
>
>Go to http://www.petitiononline.com/, where that AW petition is hosted.
>They have a list of the top 10 petitions for each day. Out of thousands of
>petitions about topics ranging from the abolishment of nuclear weapons to
>bringing Final Fantasy X to the Gamecube, take a look at the #1 most active
>petition right now.
>
>I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with the petition; in fact, I'm
>waiting for the citizen price plan to make judgement. I'm just pointing out
>something interesting.
>
[View Quote]

Jan 3, 2002, 3:38pm

We were planning our future here in AW, I guess, nothing more...probably
we like to know were we are going in advance
icey

[View Quote] > ... that the new payment plan is only for *NEW* citizenships? You can
> still renew you existing citizenship at the same $20/year fee. I just
> renewed my citizenship and tacked on another year to it for $20! Now I
> don't have to renew again until April 2003! :) And those of you who
> don't have to renew until Sept or later will wind up getting almost 2
> years out of the deal!
>
> So act fast, before February rolls around and AWC changes everything
> completely! No need to panic and head for the hills yet!
>

Jan 4, 2002, 9:30pm

Computers are just like that, who loves them knows how it is demanding
to upgrade regularly and keep updated, this isn't a problem of
activeworlds , this is a problem of the whole computer based
technologies. I am sorry to hear that and I hope that you will soon come
back, otherwise even the net itself will be soon a place that won't let
you in, not for charging but for your machine is getting old.
take care
icey

[View Quote] >Hi all,
>
>I just discovered that there is yet another consequence to be
>considered. But I'll start at the beginning, and without getting (too)
>angry because frankly I am beyond anger. My citizenship expired about
>a week ago and I hadn't renewed yet. The day before yesterday I just
>happened to log in (as a tourist) and heard the news. I considered
>myself lucky and renewed right away. Today I wanted to log in again
>but it seems they pulled another fast one because now I am confronted
>with a forced upgrade to 3.2. The problem is that 3.2 won't run on my
>old(ish) PC, all it does is freeze up and crash. And since it's right
>after the Xmas holidays, I'm flat broke and even if I wasn't the
>required hardware investment would still be considerable. So, now it
>seems that not only the tourists are banned but the users of low-end
>computers as well. For now I don't see any other alternative than ask
>my money back and leave. It's sad that it has to end this way. Like so
>many others, I have been a member of the community almost since day 1
>and I have been a paying customer since the day they started charging.
>I can still remember the day I was in the hall of the main hub of the
>space station (Worlds Chat) looking out the window, and asking someone
>about the blue planet. I was told it's called Alpha World, an entirely
>new world powered by next generation technology. So I tried it, cits
>were free so what the hell. At first I wasn't too impressed, it was
>kinda slow, wasn't much too look at and there was only one avatar. But
>in the end I decided I never wanted to leave. And now I have to.
>
>ReneS
>

Jan 4, 2002, 10:10pm

It depends when you bought your computer, and it depends what you what
from the net...it depends...

[View Quote] >
>The net requires nothing more then a web-browser (even text based ones still
>exist! like lynx!!) and some form of connection to view. Some of the oldest
>PC's can still view the web. Now if you're talking applications.. yes you
>will need to update every so often to keep up fairly well.
>
>--Bowen--
>
>
>

Jan 4, 2002, 10:11pm

This is why I like computers, it is a challange

[View Quote] >Yep, unfortunately, it's almost impossible (but definately impractable) to
>get something compatible with all hardware. There's just so many that
>there's going to be problems along the way. I don't know why that would
>happen since that update just made tourists disabled... I'm guessing your
>computer is pretty fragile. It might be time to reformat. ;)
>
[View Quote]

Jan 4, 2002, 10:14pm

It depends when you bought your computer, and it depends what you want
from the net...it depends... sorry


[View Quote] > It depends when you bought your computer, and it depends what you what
> from the net...it depends...
>
[View Quote]

Jan 6, 2002, 9:19am

I am not English

[View Quote] >"icey" <icey at altavista.net> a écrit dans le message news: 3C364293.5090602 at altavista.net...
>
>
>As is english spelling.
>
>Fox Mc Cloud
>
>

Jan 7, 2002, 1:15pm

Hiya Wendel,
As far as I know, the know-how and the technology is distributed and
comes from the Activeworlds, so no matter about hosting or mother ships,
they will all die sooner or later, otherwise other events might take place.
icey

[View Quote] >If the mother ship is not there to answer the call from a uniserver that is
>hosted elsewhere, will the uniserver still run? If AW goes belly-up and for
>some reason the power to their servers/hosting computers is turned off, will
>all uniservers then die because of the inability to connect to the mother AW
>ship?
>
>W
[View Quote]

Jan 10, 2002, 11:51am

Click and crash in one second on the Internet!:)
:)
[View Quote] >Ohhh I forgot to mention something ... AOL HELL understands marketing.
>It is a pity that AW does not follow some of AOL's ideas. Sending out
>coasters (err CD's) is not a bad move :-) Having free AW CD's with 1
>month free (or 1000 hours as AOL advertises) is not a bad idea... just
>ask Steve Case how much of a salary raise he has received because of
>AOL's tremendous growth?!
>
>AW has never marketed their product correctly. Granted AOLHell appeals to
>the newbies to computers but AW should follow the same action plan and
>appeal to newbies to chat. When Aw made the deal with Juno I hoped they
>were on the right track, apparently NOT :((
>
>Wings
>

Feb 9, 2002, 7:14pm

test

Jul 18, 2002, 2:14pm

Did they ever do anything special to attract people? Did they try to involve
different areas and opinions? Never seen this in more than 5 years. I have only
noticed a close technical area trying to promote something which is far behyond
the average usability
icey

[View Quote] > My .02 on Blaxxun. In short, it was terrible. It just went the way of other
> VRML based 3D and should have died years ago. I never thought it was very
> cool since the downloads were huge and there was no real time building that
> I ever knew of. In other words, comparing AW and Balxxun are comparing
> apples and oranges. Very different techonologies. Blaxxun did have the right
> idea in keeping it free and trying to generate revenues in another way. I
> imagine that's why it lasted as long as it did. Unfortunately the technology
> they were using didn't attract enough people. I remember a few years back
> reading that the developer of VRML said it should die off or something to
> that effect.
>
> We've tried for years to initiate discussions with AW management and give
> what we feel are viable alternatives to their business model. Eep and
> followers want RPG type games. I think they are missing the boat on more
> Bingo (game)type worlds and need to look at the buisiness model of Pogo.com
> as they have 10's of thousands of users on at any time. For any of this to
> work though they need users in the worlds so they can sell advertising. Not
> many companies are going to purchase advertising within a paid environment
> that only have a few hundred people in it at any given time and with those
> people spread out all over the place. I realize that Internet advertising
> revenue isn't what it used to be. That doesn't mean companies still don't
> advertise. They just spend their money more wisely. It seems years ago that
> many large corporations were advertising in AW and also using the technology
> themselves. What ever happened to them all? All gone not long after the
> current management took over.
>
> AW needs to be free or nearly free. ( I never thought the $19.95 a year was
> too bad) Worlds need to be inexpensive as that's what keeps people coming
> back and is the basis of their community. Bottom line, you have to have the
> user base before any of the numerous suggestions that others have made in
> the past will work. Unfortunately the actions that the management of AW keep
> taking are ruining the community and forcing people to leave for various
> reasons. No users = no revenue on several fronts. Trying to make all their
> money from the users had obviously failed. They need to look at their users
> as an assett, not all their revenue and market this place like it should be.
> "To restate- Blaxxun did have the right idea in keeping it free and trying
> to generate revenues in another way. I imagine that's why it lasted as long
> as it did." AW needs to look at that....
>
> Casay
>
[View Quote]

Nov 9, 2002, 8:01pm

As far as I am concerned you can also say that from now to the eternity,
I am not sure that would affect my life or the life of the NG
icey
[View Quote] > Or they only moderate posts that occur *after* moderation has begun.
> How many times do I have to say this?! Deleting posts and threads
> willy-nilly is *not* moderating, it's called "not knowing what the
> hell you're doing" :P
>
[View Quote]

Nov 9, 2002, 5:56pm

Hello? What do yuo mean? X rated Cy Awards? Hello ..hello? anybody into
the house?
icey
[View Quote] >just a question if this is true >>>>The results are 98% want the CY
>completely "G" rated. 2% want it "G" thru
>"X". then the browser change makes ppl think AW is now an adult site??
>
>asking this cause i have friends leaving right and left over this CY mess
>
[View Quote]

Nov 9, 2002, 6:24pm

I would do the Porno Awards, if your world is X rated do not find
excuses for it call it with its name : porno
have a nice day
[View Quote] >Clarification on the first option of limiting the nominations: X and
>possibly R rated worlds would not be able to receive or be nominated for an
>award.
>
>SW Chris
>
[View Quote]

Nov 9, 2002, 1:28pm

I was invited to have a look at the newsgroup to upadate with last
arguments, flamings and real time poking into eyes...surely this is one
of the best places over the Internet for Wrestling...oh well, I am
pretty lost with the subject, not sure what it is about...AW, Cy Awards,
PKs...mmmh communities...Goreans, deleting posts, swearing, pricings. In
my opinion who wants to win a Cy Award? I mean are the best works
winning Cy Awards? It's a game! AW is a company that set pricings, not
sure you can buy the games of the Playstation for free...PK can be of
some help with major hasseling, Goreans ....., if this is a moderated NG
well some posts might be deleted...else? I do not enjoy swearing I think
it only underlines a lack of knowledge...well I hope you will enjoy the
NG !!!!!!
Best
icey

Nov 9, 2002, 1:43pm

Hey, that was fast! Did I already make you speechless?

[View Quote] >Ermmm....?
>
>- Mark
[View Quote]

Nov 29, 2002, 8:40pm

Do you still watch the television? Interesting...
hello:-) icey

[View Quote] >I have myself ejected ppl for a profane misuse of the English language. I am
>sure none of us, and not the least, our visitors, neither need to use or
>"hear" it. What i am objecting to is the simple slang and NOT the swear
>words.
>
>We hear words like "shit" "damn" and "hell" on prime time TV, for petes
>sake! They are not swear words but simple slang. If the censors of
>television do not consider it worth censoring, then why is it an ejectable
>offence?
>
>The fact that not everyone considers it slang is moot. While some may
>consider the use of such language uncouth it is hardly going to offend some
>one so strongly that their eyes shrivel up and drop out. A lot accept it as
>every day language and are put off AW as a result of being ejected , without
>warning, for such a trivial transgression. It is even possible that some
>newbies would not even realise WHAT they said wrong!
>This is the point i am making :o)
>
>AND.... lets face it......sticks and stones may break your bones, but shit
>only sticks to ya boots.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Nov 29, 2002, 8:49pm

I was attacked by humans mostly, gee(se) yes I am not very welcome in
the humanland
icey

[View Quote] > Do you think that he might be insinuating that ducks aren't
> intelligent or that ducks are violent and like to pick fights? Maybe a
> goose would have been more appropriate. Geese are diabolical creatures
> of evilness and villainy (ever been attacked by a goose?).
>
[View Quote]

Nov 29, 2002, 8:50pm

He might like rocoons better, who knows...
icey

[View Quote] >You don't like ducks?
>
>
[View Quote]

1  ...  4  5  6  7  8  |   Order by default