3

Concerns about allowing customers to change materials

Galen

December 08, 2017 18:56

None

Follow

During this morning's product meetup, there was some discussion of a forthcoming feature allowing users to edit the materials on items they've purchased in the Store. This will be limited to items placed in a scene and not include avatar attachments. Moreover, creators still can't take items they have modified in a scene back into their inventory for reuse. So it's limited.

Nevertheless, several people were concerned about the idea of their products being altered without their permission.

I honestly don't see a problem, but I wanted to bring the debate up here in hopes that those who have misgivings about this new feature would explain their concerns.

53 comments

• 3
  
  Galen December 08, 2017 19:00

  I guess my first thought is that it's not illegal to add stickers to a new laptop or paint your dining table some other color. So why not expect customers to modify things they've bought in Sansar? Is that somehow different from the basic fair-use concept that we're used to with most products we buy?

  I think the most obvious objection is one of representation. Someone does a shabby job modifying something they bought from you and now that shabby version of your product represents your brand and could reflect badly. I think this is a weak argument, but I'd like to hear some others expand on it further.

  Edited by Galen December 08, 2017 19:01
• -1
  
  Lex December 08, 2017 19:43

  There many contradicting wishes for permissions and they are all be set by the creator not the buyer imo. taking away that creators right by force is not an option imo. like you say "most" are not "all" objects. that has not to do with concern but what the creator wants with it.

  Edited by Lex December 08, 2017 19:43
• 2
  
  Whystler December 08, 2017 19:43

  I'm all for retexturing.  But I think giving creators the option of setting an object to be retexturable is probably the best route.
  
  Pro's of not being able to retexture:
  -selling creator holds control over exactly how the item should look..
  -selling creator wants to retexture the item and gain from multiple sales  (ie. you love this cushion?  If you want two coordinating colours on your couch, you have to buy it twice.).
  
  Pro's of retexturing:
  -selling creator only has to make one item to satisfy the needs of customers.
  - the catalogue isn't  junked up with 100,000 versions in different patterns and colours and slight modifications (ie. pink sneakers with white laces, pink sneakers with purple laces, pink sneakers with black laces... black sneakers with pink laces ... etc)
  -buyer can customize item to fit his or her wished look.
  -modular building is limitlessly enhanced when simpler shapes can be repurposed with a different texture.  A cylinder becomes a pillar, a candy stick, a utility pipe, a lamp post, a fence post, atable leg...  
  -a new class of selling creator can emerge focusing on textures folks can purchase to upgrade or repurpose meshes available.
  
  No retexturing favours the selling creator.
  
  Rexturing favours the end user/world builder.
  
  A good business person, however, seeks to cater to their customer's needs.
  
  
  

  Edited by Whystler December 08, 2017 20:26
• 3
  
  Galen December 08, 2017 19:44

  @Lex: Okay, so that's a statement of principle. I get it. But can you tell me a specific harm that could happen if you sold a product and somebody modified it for their own personal use?

  Edited by Galen December 08, 2017 19:44
• 2
  
  Galen December 08, 2017 19:49

  Jasmine and/or someone else in this morning's meeting made a good point. With a complex mesh you would need to download or perhaps reverse engineer the UV map for any one of its materials. Reverse-engineering could be a very tedious process, given all the uploads you'd have to do to preview changes. As a result, simply not giving customers your UV map/template will effectively block customers from modifying materials in many cases. Call it a de facto permission for creators.

• 3
  
  Whystler December 08, 2017 19:55

  Retexturing is quite successfully done in IMVU by provding a UV map, right in the product listing.
  
  Items have been proven quite popular there when they have easy, versatile, or particularly interesting UV maps.  So it adds another level to the quality of a product.

  Edited by Whystler December 08, 2017 19:55
• 0
  
  Lex December 08, 2017 20:10

  i give up ;)

  Edited by Lex December 08, 2017 20:31
• 1
  
  Galen December 08, 2017 20:32

  I think what will happen is that many designers will see value in giving away UV templates free with their products to increase their value to customers.

• 2
  
  Chris Jackson December 08, 2017 20:57

  From what I have heard, people seem to not want their "brand" hurt by folks changing the texture. They say their products will not look as good and therefor make them as a creator look bad and drive away business.

  Where is any evidence that would be the case?

  Also, if you have the power to allow the change or not, what difference does that make? The items you allow can still be turned into something that will "hurt your brand", or is it a case of those items that allow it are crap so the creator doesn't care?

  I can't help but admit some this argument sounds a bit...shady.

• 1
  
  Bluebell - Helper December 08, 2017 20:58

  Re-texturing... I used to do that sometimes. But that did not involve anything complex. Like smashing another wallpaper on a wall, stuff like that. As mentioned, without UV's it won't work anyway on a lot of items. So the power is still with the creator. Maybe for some objects I will provide them. If I think it could be useful for the customer and I think it can't harm my brand. 

  I do hope this means we, as creators, will be able to switch textures in edit mode and take back in inv before this all might go down.

• 0
  
  Bluebell - Helper December 08, 2017 21:04

  By harming, I would mean... my product looking bad or distasteful. You can see by looking at my textures I worked long and hard on those maps. I would not like ppl to think otherwise.

• 0
  
  Galen December 08, 2017 21:17

  So one example of how this could go awry would be if you could buy a product and add a new logo to replace the old one. That could harm a brand, in principle.

• 2
  
  Bluebell - Helper December 08, 2017 21:18

  And there's that.

  Most ppl that want to change a product will likely just change the color or make it a bit darker/lighter. There would only be a very small group that would want to go all the way and re-texture using a UV map. If you can, you might as well start creating yourself. An even smaller group will want to start cheating. I doubt that will be a lot and there is still no way for them to sell my product with another texture on it.

  Another thing to consider is that, for most my products anyway, you would have to change normal and all other maps to make it look right. Also, I try to fit a lot into just 1 texture if I can get away with it, so there is another thing that will make this pretty hard to do. 

  Edited by Bluebell - Helper December 08, 2017 21:27
• 3
  
  Galen December 08, 2017 21:27

  I think one thing we need to be able to count on is that LL will help us deal with obvious copyright violations. I would think that replacing a logo with the intent to defame a brand or steal its credibility would be punished in the same way that outright copying a model and uploading it as though you made it would.

• -1
  
  Debi Baskerville December 08, 2017 21:34

  First, this should be a right controlled by the creator and not given away by Linden Lab to whoever buys an item. 

  Second, if a creator wants to grant that permission then a UV map should be provided to the purchaser for which a higher price could and rightfully be charged by the creator for the UV map.

  I hear arguments against allowing for personal volume controls .. not allowing people to fly and so forth because it takes away the rights of the creator of an experience. How is this different? The creator of any mesh model should have the right to set the permissions of the items they sell. Period! And until that mechanism is in place doing this is much too premature. We don't need the cart before the horse!

• 0
  
  Debi Baskerville December 08, 2017 21:46

  From a customer viewpoint, I know I regularly tint objects I buy in SL; however, I nearly never retexture anything mesh because there's much too much work involved. The only reason tinting works in SL is because you can select faces and tint those face independently of other faces on the object. That won't work in Sansar. So tinting in Sansar is rather useless. 

  I see no value in being able to retexture or retint any objects in Sansar unless the objects are made specifically with that in mind, such as the building sets that have basic shapes and sizes for component building. 

  Edited by Debi Baskerville December 08, 2017 21:48
• 1
  
  Bluebell - Helper December 08, 2017 21:51

  The selecting faces, or materials, will probably be arriving tho, as otherwise the whole re-texturing thing will not work anyway... or am I overlooking something?

  I agree for simple modular builds it would be very useful, and that was what I had in mind when it comes to products I would include UV maps for. I would rather have the option tho, between that and texture change scripts. Maybe even 1 that might have a way to include a texture uploaded by the customers themselves. Yea... big dreams, but who knows?

  Edited by Bluebell - Helper December 08, 2017 21:58
• 0
  
  Andrew Lawrence December 08, 2017 22:25

  It's not like in SL, where a visitor can edit any object and see the creator.  So there's no way to know for sure who originally created the thing that had a texture or color changed.  If the mesh itself is so distinctive to be recognizable inside an experience, people would surely know what the original version looks like.  However, it would still be good to allow sellers to make the textures and colors "no modify" if they want, as long as the buyer is made aware.  It would be best if texture modify permission is separate from color modify permission.

• 1
  
  Bluebell - Helper December 08, 2017 22:32

  Sansar is still young and I am almost sure the option to see who made what will be available. Maybe optional to both creator and observer but it has been discussed and requested and kind of a logical next thing in the "to do list" for LL.

  I for sure would like it coz I have a very specific taste and like to stick to that. It helps me shop and create a certain look of my scene or avatar. At least I used to do it that way in SL, way back when I used to buy more then I created. For some stuff, that I am very sure I will leave the creation up to some1 that does a better job then me (for now ;)  ) that will still be the same.

  A lot of opinions are based on how Sansar works today, what it allows, but you should look ahead, Sansar will change faster then you think and so will opinions on subjects like this. Even my own probably. 

  Edited by Bluebell - Helper December 08, 2017 22:39
• 1
  
  Galen December 09, 2017 01:47

  @Debi: Actually, tinting could be useful in some contexts. So imagine if you bought a wall kit piece that had two materials: bricks for details and white stucco for the rest. You could rez one in your scene and then tint the white stucco to maybe have a dusty peach color without screwing up the bricks' color.

  (Which I guess was your later point. So ... agreed.)

  Edited by Galen December 09, 2017 01:48
• 0
  
  Galen December 09, 2017 01:50

  @Andrew: It was nice to hear both the product team and Ebbe say (in this afternoon's product meeting) that LL very much wants to make it so we can get metadata about assets in a scene, eventually.

  Edited by Galen December 09, 2017 01:50
• -1
  
  Debi Baskerville December 09, 2017 02:44

  I still firming back my stance that creators should have the right to set permission on how their products will be used or modified. 

  In today’s product meeting, Ebbe Linden stated that the goal is not only for people to be able to inspect objects and be able to see who made the item but also to have the option of purchasing the item while there in the experience.

  It’s unfortunate that this has to be an issue at all. Simply waiting until the mechanism is in place to set permissions would have prevented this. Perhaps creating for Second Life is what I should be doing. I can at least make the decision on how I want to set permissions there.

• 1
  
  Gindipple December 09, 2017 05:49

  Thanks Debi, I think this reaffirms what I've been hearing lately. Either the real goal or a new goal is to create SL 2.0 only with the real possibility that they may exclude adult content. Graphics are better in some ways, not all. Same physics engine, so limited hopes there. C# is a glorious upgrade from LSL, but so far majorly lacking in API. I suppose most of the blame for my disdain is my own lavish expectations and dreams.

  Leaving the adult content out of the picture, I do not see this place growing very fast to where a market even matters, mod or no mod.

   

• 0
  
  Debi Baskerville December 09, 2017 11:51

  I have unlisted all my products until there is a permission system in place. I have also unlisted all my wearables because even though LL has said they aren't going to make those items mod, I don't feel as though I can trust them to not change their mind and ,without my consent, make those items mod as well.

  Quite frankly, after Ebbe's remarks in the product meeting yesterday about the lack of sliders to change the body size/shape because of wanting to keep the system simple so that clothing fits easily, unlike Second Life, I have lost most of my enthusiasm for this project.

  Edited by Debi Baskerville December 09, 2017 11:52
• 0
  
  Peter Gloor December 09, 2017 13:45

  In a virtual world, the visual impression plays one of the most important roles. It's mostly achieved through painting and materials. Some creators, like me, are better in creating mesh models or scripting while others are much better in painting and the use of materials. This is not only true for fashion, this is also true for most other objects that are not just simple prims. So give the creators the right to decide how their models may be used by others.

• 0
  
  Galen December 09, 2017 16:47

  @Debi: I think you misinterpreted Ebbe. He was not saying there shouldn't be more sliders. He said the opposite, actually. But he was also trying to say that it will take great care for LL to go forward in a way that strikes a good balance between an unlimited but chaotic complexity and an overly simplistic but easy system. He was trying to address the difficulty of making the platform properly and not hastily.

• 1
  
  Whystler December 09, 2017 19:24

  I've been around this block a few times.  What I know, is this...
  
  The ability to change textures is a bonus for selling.
  
  Trust me, I've made the 8 different shades of elf ears.  I've made the 12 differently textured earings.  What happens?  six people buy earing colour black, one person buys earing colour red, and one person buys earing colour green .  End of sales.
  
  I've also made the necklace in one classic colour only, with an available texture map and the ability to change it.  What happens?  I won't tell you how many more than 1000 sales I have had from that necklace.
  
  You will get a minority of people who will find benefit in not changing textures of something they sell.  And don't get me wrong **They Have a Valid Point** for ... themselves ... It's a valid point for a culture that is rapidly changing and fading, mind you, but it is still a point to consider because at the very least they are going to be the most vocal, and the most apt to make loud and grand gestures of leaving.
  
  So truly, the end game is to allow the creator to decide whether or not a customer can change textures.
  
  But in the meantime...
  
  If the simple route is to release a system with texture changing *now*
  
  ...then you will please the quieter majority of creators, and the vast majority of consumers *now*.
  
  (and then later, you can add permissions)
  
  
  

  Edited by Whystler December 09, 2017 19:25
• 1
  
  Debi Baskerville December 09, 2017 21:29

  @ Galen I did not misinterpret Ebbe's response to Medhue when he specifically asked the question about sliders for the female chest (avoiding the filter here) and it breaking content if clothing is made now when sliders are not available during the creation process. I specifically recounted to Ebbe what I was hearing in his response and if in fact that is what he was saying. He specifically mentioned that changing height and adding muscle volume would add to the complexity and that same complexity which is available currently in SL is why there is such a fitting problem. Perhaps you were not listening carefully enough while he was responding.

  Furthermore, I do not want to debate this issue with you. 

  Edited by Debi Baskerville December 09, 2017 22:21
• 0
  
  Galen December 09, 2017 23:43

  You were right on that point. He emphasized it again today during Atlas Hopping.

• 0
  
  Gindipple December 11, 2017 02:06

  All very similar to adding a new feature in any product and then making it "opt in" by default. Companies often think of their short term bottom line instead of the long term customer effects.

  Items on the store have an implied no mod setting. To just undo that on a whim is nothing short of poor planning. And was quite evident when the initial feature was dropped and then the surprise of the backlash.

  I'm curious to see if it actually goes live even after the raised concerns. Trust damaging if it does.