1  |   Order by index

Feb 6, 2002, 5:40pm

Hi Everyone,

Below is the link to Mr. Noll's letter to the community regarding new
pricing.

http://www.activeworlds.com/letter.html

As always feel free to contact us if you have any questions.
Tom at activeworlds.com


Tom Fournier
Customer Service / Sales Manager
Activeworlds.com Inc.
95 Parker St.
Newburyport, MA 01950

www.activeworlds.com

Feb 6, 2002, 5:42pm

mr.noll? lol do all aw staff have to call him that? lol, sucks to be u i
guess :P
[View Quote]

Feb 6, 2002, 7:05pm

Looks like everyone CAN comprimise. Kudos. Although, I'm still left to
wonder why the new plan in the first place, maybe I forgot it if it was
stated in the first letter. I'll just assume they're changing with the
economic times. :)) 6.95 a month is something I myself can work with, and
it's pretty much a standard price for anything charged monthly online, more
standard than 9.95 at least. Well, back to virtual life.

Too bad for the people that thought the universe is ending
Nornny

[View Quote]

Feb 6, 2002, 7:52pm

actually all online games are $10-$15 a month with the exception of EQ's new
$40 a month server where your supposed to get more quests or whatever, which
is usually standard in any game bu i guess they are trying to see how much
people are willing to pay.

But, i think this price is definitly more resonable then before. I kind of
question there "pay to have tourists enter your world". The only reason they
did that is becuase the worldowners thought tourists should be allowed, so
they foudn the oppurtunity to get soem extra money out of them, but whos
gonna pay anyways? So basicly only tourists in AWGate unless anyone is
insane enough to pay that much just to let tourists in, but you never know.

-Cozmo

[View Quote]

Feb 6, 2002, 7:56pm

The point is that the worldowners now have the ability to accept tourists
into their world as an additional service. If they want tourists in their
world, which seemed to be a major sticking point for some (*boggle*) then
its now in their hands instead of an across the board ban.

Shrewd move if you ask me.

Grims

[View Quote]

Feb 6, 2002, 8:09pm

In part, E N Z O said:

Tourists are allowed limited access into the Active Worlds Universe. They
are allowed only into AWGate and worlds where world owners choose to enable
Tourist Access.

World owners can pay an additional $59.95 annually on their worlds if they
want to have Tourist Access enabled in their worlds.
-----------------------snip---------------------------

I like the idea of world owners being able to choose whether they want
tourists in their world or not. Overall, there's more hope in this versus
the current policy.

[View Quote]

Feb 6, 2002, 8:12pm

60 a year is a bit much just for tourist enter rights. Thats the price of
20+ coords (i think). It just sounds to me like becuase all the worldowners
wanted tourists to stay that they will sneak in a price anywhere they can.

[View Quote]

Feb 6, 2002, 8:24pm

Leave it out Cozmo ... They've just knocked a similar amount off the cost of
the citizenships - of which there are far more.

Grims

[View Quote]

Feb 6, 2002, 8:25pm

It can be considered dedication, loyalty and a season of community to pay
the extra 60 bucks a year AND open your world to Non-AW ppl. How much you
want to bet, in time, some world owners will go the extra mile and make a
world just for the purpose of encouraging tourists to become citizens.

[View Quote]

Feb 6, 2002, 10:14pm

Yes games,,but activeworlds is not a game,but a chat,,compare to ICQ,Yahoo
etc.

Newbie
cozmo <b.nolan2 at verizon.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:3c61a5b8$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> actually all online games are $10-$15 a month with the exception of EQ's
new
> $40 a month server where your supposed to get more quests or whatever,
which
> is usually standard in any game bu i guess they are trying to see how much
> people are willing to pay.
>
> But, i think this price is definitly more resonable then before. I kind of
> question there "pay to have tourists enter your world". The only reason
they
> did that is becuase the worldowners thought tourists should be allowed, so
> they foudn the oppurtunity to get soem extra money out of them, but whos
> gonna pay anyways? So basicly only tourists in AWGate unless anyone is
> insane enough to pay that much just to let tourists in, but you never
know.
>
> -Cozmo
>
[View Quote]

Feb 7, 2002, 12:49am

nor did i ever say it was or ever deserved the price of a game :)

[View Quote]

Feb 7, 2002, 12:54am

I'm happy to see they made a compromise. The changes are much more
reasonable with the exception of the additional cost to world owners for
allowing tourist access. Feel I already paid that when I purchased a 25
user world 6 months ago. Pro-rated discount should be in order for reducing
a feature I already had. Now that we do have to pay though, shouldn't we
get some type of color coding on the world list to indicate we are " tourist
friendly"?

--
~Syli~


[View Quote]

Feb 7, 2002, 1:51am

Couple of interesting points there ...

Grims


[View Quote]

Feb 7, 2002, 1:57am

If you want to compare AW to basic chat/IM Applications, maybe you should
ask yourself why you paid all that money for all those worlds.

Grims

[View Quote]

Feb 7, 2002, 2:12am

How do you tell whether a world is open to tourists? I went to Alphaworld,
Mars, and Meta just now, and their World Rights says they are "open to
everybody". (Of course I could always try re-entering as a Tourist.)

[View Quote]

Feb 7, 2002, 2:33am

Maybe the truth is that AW is somewhere between a chat room and an online
game. The chat networks cost next to nothing, and the online role-playing
games cost $9-$10 a month (and the first month is usually free--which gets
new users involved). AW allows user-made towns or worlds, which the older
generation of online games don't do (the new ones like Neverwinter Nights,
Dungeon Siege, Atriarch, and Star Wars Galaxies promise to do so as they go
public over the next year).

What AW sadly lacks, and even the oldest online games have, is thousands of
fully-scripted bots (non-player characters), with hundreds of distinct
player and bot avatars. AW has some beautiful cities, but it completely
lacks people (cits, bots) to make those cities come alive. Raising the
monthly fee to 2/3 of the online game fees means AW ought to provide us at
least hundreds of fully-scripted bots, and not just objects and sounds.

I think I can guess why AW is charging worldowners extra to let tourists
in--this will send the tourists to the business worlds (they can afford the
extra amount), because most all the other world owners will have to refuse
them.

[View Quote]

Feb 7, 2002, 5:30am

Hi everyone:

[View Quote] They also lack may other things as well for 3D Homepages and charge more for
hosting and the servers than most AVERAGE people can afford too.... :-( If
they TRULY want to cater to people who don't have $$$ to burn, they should
STOP PRICING THEMSELVES OUT OF BUSINESS!!!!!

> I think I can guess why AW is charging worldowners extra to let tourists
> in--this will send the tourists to the business worlds (they can afford
the
> extra amount), because most all the other world owners will have to refuse
> them.

Well....IF I decide to keep my 3D Homepage, I will (most regrettably!) have
to refuse tourists because unless they make it whereas I can pay ANNUALLY,
that $2.00 is just one more bill I'd be forced to contend with each month
and I just don't wanna have to be bothered with that.

Not only that, but SOME of us are TRYING to bring AW some NEW USERS!!!! How
are we supposed to convince TOTAL STRANGERS to come to our 3D Homepages if
WE have to be stuck paying a MONTHLY $2.00 fee JUST SO THEY CAN GET ON?????

It's not that I don't mind paying a little extra to allow tourists, but I
don't wanna submit my $24 to allow tourists onto my 3D Homepage only to be
told they can't accept it that way. That's MY main beef....

Call me picky and paranoid if you wish, but I just think the way they rolled
this out was nothing more than typical of AW (which is WITHOUT ensuring all
the bases were covered BEFOREHAND).

Just my opinion....

Patrick Cook
Owner - Pub 102X
pchamster at msn.com
Denver, Colorado

Feb 7, 2002, 5:38am

Hi everyone:

[View Quote] How much do you wanna bet that people do NOT build a world to encourage
tourists to become citizens??? I'd be willing to bet the group on Yahoo!
Groups won't....

Patrick Cook
Owner - Pub 102X (FOR NOW)
pchamster at msn.com
Denver, Colorado

Feb 7, 2002, 10:23am

I see it as a chat with features,just trying to indicate that maybe AW
should be add supported for tourists.Problem with AW has been and I still
belive it will be in the future;people do not know about it.My grandmother
who has never touched a PC has heard of ICQ,people who has surfed the web
for years have never heard of activeworlds:When I tell about AW they ask
"what is that?".I would have choosen a different tactic to "sell" it,not
trying to keep it a secret and have those who accidentaly finds it,pay too
much for it.
I have wondered myself why I keep paying for the worlds,but I guess I have
become addicted to building (yes I know one cannot build in ICQ) ,and
building makes it stand out from regular chats.I am prepared to pay for it
yes,but I had rather choosen a way with more users who pay less than a few
users who pay more.

Newbie
grimble <grimble2000 at btinternet.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:3c61fb16$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> If you want to compare AW to basic chat/IM Applications, maybe you should
> ask yourself why you paid all that money for all those worlds.
>
> Grims
>
[View Quote]

Feb 7, 2002, 12:43pm

Marketing of AW is a topic that comes up in these threads quite a lot, and
for good reason. Since we are subjected to unsolicited e-mails and popup
adverts anyway, AW may as well get in there and raise the awareness of the
product.

You know by now I'm not going to bite on the pricing side of things ;o), but
at the end of the day AW can't provide ANY service if they don't have
sufficient income. That's why I have no problem with the prices they choose
to charge - they have to be decided on the basis of many facters. All those
other pay services on the internet that I DON'T subscribe to are too
expensive for me because I don't personally value them at the same rate that
the vendors do.

Going back to the original point (marketing), it has always seemed strange
that I never see advertisements for AW ... it seems to be the best kept
secret on the internet, which is a shame.

Grims


[View Quote]

Feb 7, 2002, 12:55pm

The tourist issues do seem to fly in the face of the concept behind the 3D
Homepages ... "Within just a few minutes, you will not only have created
your own personal 3D Homepage but you will find yourself standing right in
the middle of it, showing it off to all your friends" doesn't quite ring
true anymore.

"World owners can pay an additional $59.95 annually on their worlds if they
want to have Tourist Access enabled in their worlds." is what it states in
the announcement (http://www.activeworlds.com/letter.html). Is this
different for the 3D Homepages? They quote an annual cost here and its not
$24.

I am a bit confused on this (can you tell?). Do you pay annually for the
homepage (for the 6% discount)? I can see why they would not accept the
tourist charge en-bloc if you pay monthly for the homepage, otherwise you'd
have two payment plans on the go

Grims

[View Quote]

Feb 8, 2002, 12:44am

Glad to see someone else besides me thinks more publicity about AW would
generate more business. I wonder perhaps if it would benefit AWC to possibly
do some kind of interview for a puter zine, or maybe write an actual article
and submit it to a widely recognized mag such as USA today, or Wall Street
Journal??? That in turn would rouse some curiosity and interest in potential
customers who very well might consider also investing in AWC. Would be a
whole lot cheaper than just placing advertisements in mags and tabloids.
Just my pennies worth. ;-"D


[View Quote]

Feb 8, 2002, 6:32pm

Yes, well AW doesn't have multi-million dollar companies backing them as
they develop their product. All those games do, and so can afford to put
more features into them.

SW Chris

[View Quote]

Feb 8, 2002, 6:33pm

again.. please... don't shout. :(

SW Chris

[View Quote]

Feb 10, 2002, 3:15am

Unfortunately, even advertising won't work as well as it could at attracting
new people to AW all the time some of those that are already citizens are
bitching about the AW pricing policy and slagging off the company in totally
unrelated public forums!

That's just plain dumb!

Grims

[View Quote]

Feb 10, 2002, 5:19am

[View Quote] > Unfortunately, even advertising won't work as well as it could at attracting
> new people to AW all the time some of those that are already citizens are
> bitching about the AW pricing policy and slagging off the company in totally
> unrelated public forums!
>
> That's just plain dumb!
>
> Grims
>

As one of the slaggers... I do a good bit of it in non-AW public forums.

I'll try not to make this so much a slag as a short history lesson.
I'll look up "slag" later... I'm inferring its meaning from the context
of your post.

It used to be that such stuff (slag) was deleted here, and I never cared
for playing footsie with the censors. Sometimes I just can't let it go
though when the posts here have no bearing on reality.

There is advertising, and then there is EFFECTIVE advertising. People
who make their living in the advertising business are supposed to be
able to tell the difference.

I first heard of AW from an article in Computerworld... I forget the
year, but my user number is under 2000. There was practically nothing
at GZ when I first visited it. I would guess that there were only a few
hundred, maybe not that many, people in the (real) world who were using it.

The next year or so was the best time in AW, because it was obvious that
the user base was growing! We felt that we were on the ground floor of
something REALLY important. I couldn't get enough of it... learning to
build, working with others doing the same, devoting my personal home
page to AW, telling all my friends about it. I even became a GK for a
while. The politics of that turned my stomach though.

As far as I could tell, there was nothing (other than server imitations)
that was keeping AW from becoming the most popular thing on the
internet. I didn't see the Web as disappearing or anything, but it
seemed perfectly reasonable to me that at some point everyone would at
least know that they could "browse" content in AW more effectively than
with a 2D interface. I don't think I was the only one thinking along
those lines either. Of course this assumed a steady improvement to both
the browser and the server end of things. But there were several smart
people at the company and I KNOW they had good ideas along those lines.

Then things changed. I'll be politically correct here and not say what
I think caused them to change. And then there was a series of .. lets
call them obsessions in AW:

Community Obsession: There had to be lots of community groups. With
someone APPOINTED to lead each group. There had to be control of what
was said in AW, and then at the Gate and there had to be groups of
people invented to exercise that control. (GKs originally had no eject
authority, and some of us really didn't think it was necessary). I
don't think the true AW community ever recovered from this. There are
people to this day who think they are quite special because AW has put
their name on a wall somewhere. In some cases in closed worlds. One
has to laugh. The community obsession destroyed the community,

Server Obsession: Clearly one server could not handle the whole
internet. If there were going to be 10 million users the load would
have to be spread somehow. I think there were several solutions to this
floating around, but the one that predominated was the one involving (in
theory) the most income to AWLD. I think that was short sighted. I
think that the user base started to erode rather than grow at that
point, but that's just a gut feel... the numbers are closely held. I
know that there are no other universes with substantial user
populations. If there were one, I would have moved long ago. The
server obsession destroyed the user base that was the need for servers
in the first place.

Bot Obsession: I think a lot of technical time was wasted with the
concept that all of AW's shortcomings could be solved with bots. There
are certainly some useful bots out there, but during this period of time
the user interface hardly improved at all, and simple improvements to
the scripting language for objects were deemed unnecessary because a bot
could do it. Why put the animation for a flying bird on the object
when you can have a bot doing it (other than ease of use, efficiency,
bandwidth, server load, hehe). I think a lot of users stopped being
interested in building, which seemed to be something only a C programmer
could do effectively and entered some strange vegetative state after
playing 2D board games in AW for too long. I'd rather have seen them
in AWSchool. The Bot Obsession has given people something to do other
than create, and hence eliminated the original use for bots.

Mall Obsession: Nine Million man hours of AWLD time must have gone into
convincing people that they should be shopping in AW. Only problem is,
there were no shops convinced of this. And really... without a LOT more
users than AW ever had, who could blame them? It's a great concept...
just the time hadn't come for it to be practical. And now it probably
never will. The Mall obsession proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that
pleasing its USERS, and not some big merchandiser was the key to AW's
future. It also demonstrated how ineffective AW was for some things.
At least given the current technology.

Stock Obsession: When AW went public I think everyone had high hopes
that so much money would be raised that there would be no limit to what
could be done. But as far as I can tell, nothing really changed as a
result of the stock offering. It could be that AWLD was really close
to being out of money and the stock offering kept it going longer. Does
anybody know for sure (who can speak)? It's not a good time to be
depending on the stock market to run your business, unless of course
your business is doing pretty well on its own. I think I contradicted
myself in there somewhere. The Stock Obsession raised money, and made
AW more dependent on continuing to raise money... lots of it, to survive.

The current Obsession? I guess its survival. No more tech-talks.
No more Q&A with ENZO. I've only seen JP speak publicly once in AW.
Until the next Edgar report we really won't know what's going on I guess.

Plain dumb? People complaining isn't dumb. What's dumb is ignoring
complaints of your user base. What's dumb is fragmenting your user
base into little cliques based more on who you know than what you know.
What's dumb is bragging about how you don't read tgrams, newsgroups,
and various other forms of input from users. What's dumb is following
business plans long after they have proven themselves not to work.
What's dumb is doing anything to reduce your users base when what you
need most is MORE users. There were once enough resources to try lots
of experiments, I know even people within AWLD were frustrated that
their ideas didn't get much of a hearing. Now, their resources are
depleted I would guess. There are no options any more. Nothing we can
say or do will change it now.

How can something like AW have come to the point where it's survival is
in question? I think the users deserve an answer to that. AWLD hired
staff to build the new AWGate. I just read this the other day. I was
shocked! They were PROUD of it. I can remember a time when AW users
would have done just as good a job for free, just because they loved AW.
Now we all have to pay.

That's just plain dumb!!

Feb 10, 2002, 7:25am

Maybe its English coloquialism coming out, sorry. "Slagging off" (although I
think you got it) meaning maliciously knocking.

It seems totally absurd to me that I should be reading through a support
forum for a totally unrelated product and see the same bitching I see (and
expect nowadays) in these newsgroups about AW. Totally unprompted ... just
volunteered into an existing thread. Its just a pointless exercise to me.

I was introduced to AW rather than reading about it or discovering it. I
have seen precious little about since (or beforehand for that matter - and
it would have caught my eye). I wasted a few pennies on a VIP membership to
Worlds.com because, as far as I knew, that was the top-of-the-line in 3D
internet packages. The reason I joined them was because they were being
shoved down my throat by my ISP and through a number of other routes. I
didn't even know AW existed, and probably still wouldn't.

Anyway, thanks for the info ... as usual, some of it I can understand and
agree with, other parts, maybe not. All I can say is that I don't believe
being upset with where AW is now compared to where it could have been
achieves anything - what's done is done and we have no choice but to work
with what we have (if you want to). "Slagging it off" outside the confines
of the group of people that it currently effects - i.e. within AW and the
related discussion groups - won't encourage new people to come and try it
out.

Grims

[View Quote]

1  |   Order by index