Controversy Over Anshe’s IMVU Virtual Goods
Virtual worlds entrepreneur Anshe Chung seems to have inadvertently caused quite a stir on the 3D avatarized chat platform IMVU, where she (she is really two people, a husband and wife) makes 3D objects that IMVU members can buy for their virtual environments. Anshe apparently lowered prices on some assets that other people had incorporated into their own products — a move that, given the vagaries of IMVU development, seems to have affected the derivative products by allowing competitors to introduce lower-priced virtual goods. Judging from forum traffic and comments on a recent 3pointD post, a lot of people over in IMVU are mightily pissed off. Anshe has apologized, but as usual, people seem to believe what they want to believe. Anshe has been a polarizing figure in the virtual world of Second Life over the years, so it’s hardly surprising she’d attract similar controversy in IMVU. It’s an interesting question, though, of whether she’s attracting more controversy being a user who has accumulated developer-like weight over the years, or whether a similar cock-up on the part of the developer would attract more ire. Hopefully, we’ll get a chance to discuss these kinds of things at the Virtual Goods Summit this Friday, where I’ll be moderating a panel.
Feeds
Interesting. A few people from the IMVU community have also found their way to RCE Universe where this discussion was started http://rceuniverse.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5990
I look forward to hearing about the Virtual Goods Summit.
Understand, the way IMVU works with derivative products is such.
Person A makes a texture and sells it for 5 credits.
Person B makes a chair, using texture from Person A, sells the chair for 15 credits, 5 of whom go to Person A.
Person C makes a living room, using the chair from Person B, sells the room for 100 credits, 10 go to B, 5 go to A.
Person D makes a house, including Person C’s living room. The house sells for 500 credits. 85 credits go to C, 10 go to B, 5 go to A.
So if Anshe is say, a chair-maker, and she lowers her cost, the average person would say, “Shouldn’t that make all derivatives cheaper?” Oh no. IMVU screwed up, and now the old versions still charge the old price, while new room makes could come by and make cheaper rooms with the same chair.
Anshe doesn’t deserve the bad press for this; this is clearly on par with Linden Lab messing up permissions. The blame should be squarely on IMVU and frankly, it’s crap that they are asking Anshe to fix their mistake.
‘It’s your fault that I didn’t capitalize upon the price change!’
Ooookay…
Well, I wouldn’t say that the blame was necessarily on IMVU’s side at all. The question would seem to be, was it believable that AnsheCorp would not have known that prices for derivatives were meant to be fixed after the first sale? Apparently this is and always has been a stated rule; I saw posts on the IMVU forum saying that it is in a big box next to the panel every time you set a price for a derivable item. That means neither up nor down.
It’s not a fault on IMVU’s part that derivatives didn’t then become cheaper, because they’re not supposed to change price at all! Granted, it is their fault that the system allowed the change - the issue becomes whether this was used rather than bug reported as an exploit or as an honest mistake.
Personally I couldn’t say, as I don’t have any experience with AnsheCorp in IMVU, the IMVU dev system or in fact IMVU at all. A lot of people there do seem to think the “honest mistake” explanation is not believable however.
I don’t think I needed to use the phrase “at all” there that many times at all.
There are two things people need to be aware of when they read about this without being familiar with developing at IMVU.
1) When you submit a product, there is a box you can check to make a product derivable. Next to the box it says “Once someone derives from this product you will not be able to set it back to underivable and the price will be locked.” The understanding is implicit - prices of DERIVABLE products are not meant to be changed. To even attempt to change them, then, is going against the spirit of the (IMVU Terms of Service) law, if not the letter of the law.
2) When ACS began lowering prices, warning bells were sounded, and she was TOLD BY OTHER DEVELOPERS not to do it - that it must be a bug that she was able to. How do I know this? Because she admitted this in her formal letter of apology. And knowing that it was a bug, she continued to do what she wanted to do. She exploited the bug.
So if you want to put blame somewhere, put it squarely on the lap of the company that managed to submit THOUSANDS of products without ever wondering what it meant by “the price will be locked”.
As a member of both SL and IMVU, I can assure you that the way this was handled by ACS was more than likely based on the business strategy of “cannibilization of a business.” One lowers the prices on their own items to try and drive out the competitors by reducing the amount of money the competitors can realistically charge or receive for similar items.
ACS/Anshe has been been active in the IMVU catalog to the tune of 1200 items.
The ability to change the price, while indeed IMVU’s sole fault, was a bug. However, it clearly states when a product is loaded into the catalog that the price is locked & unchangable.
“Derivable: Check to allow derivation from this product. Once someone derives from this product you will not be able to set it back to underivable and the price will be locked.”
The aforementioned phrase is on EVERY product.
Yes, it is IMVU’s fault that she COULD change it, however the responsibility for not doing so rests solely in her hands and her business ethics and responsibilities.
There is also the timing of the ACS changes which coincide with a few user posts in the forums stating that the ability to change them at all was clearly a ‘bug’ that needed to be fixed. Her changes took place after that post while it is reported that the bug existed for sometime prior to those posts. The timing is a bit suspect.
Having seen this article posted here has brought me to post a comment on this matter. It is amazing that one person can cause so much caos in such a close community. The “Queen” herself feels she is above the rules! WHat is sad about this whole situation is the fact that everyone but IMVU is seeing this and yet they continue to let her basically go unpunished! I….being only a princess in their community have yet to dethrown the queen but miracles do happen and I am holding out for justice to be served. What she did was a well thought out plan to destroy anyone and everyone who produces items for the communities enjoyment. To simply say….. “I didn’t know” is not believeable due to her success. Every dog has his or her day! So lets just hope that the queens nasty actions don’t go unpunished!
It’s important that people understand where the IMVU developer community is on this. This was the last straw in a legacy of imvu’s erratic and inconsistent enforcement of its own rules. It will no longer be tolerated, and the precedent of that will be set in this case where it speaks the loudest. The small developer has stood and demanded Equality. The small developer has stood up and demanded the transparency to ensure it.
I am a small developer on IMVU and I know that you can’t change the prices. Anshe could only change her prices from a bug that she explotid. She said she never knew that they couldn’t be changed, which is stupid because everything you submit tells you the price is locked once someone devirves from it. Anshe apoligy wasn’t really to say sorry, but was an excuse of why she did what she did. Also, I remember her saying she had 16 developers submitting stuff for her. SHE had said it.
“but as usual, people seem to believe what they want to believe.”
Before you start judging others, you should get all the facts. Seems to me that *you* are the one that is believing what you want to believe, rather than researching what happened. That’s all I have to say on the matter.
Lets make something clear. It was a violation to change the price of an object once. When you submit something it clearly says “Once you submit this product, and someone derives from it, derivation price cannot be changed.” So therefore IMVU never intended it be changed, and if you could there was obviously a glitch in the system. But we can even put that asde for a second. Let’s say ACS didn’t “see” that on the “many” products they did change. When this event occured many developers told them it was a violation of Terms of Service but STILL they continued what they were doing an tried to justify that.
This is about equality, where I a small developer to do something similar and claim “I didn’t know” even though it was plastered right there on every page, appropriate actions would be taken against me, however in this case they seemed to have failed for whatever reason they have given. THAT is what needs to change. Punishment and Reward should be equal across the board. This is about having clear set rules and abiding by them. ACS/Anshe was wrong they know they were, now this brings us to where we are.
Virtual worlds entrepreneur Anshe Chung seems to have inadvertently caused quite a stir on the 3D avatarized chat platform IMVU, where she (she is really two people, a husband and wife)
This is NOT the first controversy she has caused at IMVU. Her pro status has been suspended and the enitre community is tired fo tactics like this. She knws exactly what she is doing. She is trying to crash the economy at IMVU so she can implement the global multiverse economy that she wants to be queen of. The users at iMVU have spoken. They don’t want her there anymore. They do JUST FINE WITHOUT HER and her underhanded business tactics.She exploi\ted the bug AFTER it was brought up in the forums about the price not locking. The pages CLEARLY STATE that you cannot change theprice once it has been set. SHE HAS SAID HERSELF that she didn’t think you could RAISE the price, but that you could certainly LOWER it.
________________________________________________________________
“http://tinyurl.com/36cmhe is against rules to raise the price after some product has been derived. This is very necessary to prevent abuse.
There is nothing wrong with lowering the price, as long as it remains lowered. IMVU has done this, people do it all the time. Imagine, I would have lowered all other products, but leave the derived products at old price and the people who derived them stuck at higher price level?
I think what IMVU should do is two thing:
1. Make it impossible to raise price after product has been derived from
2. Make it possible to lower price and make it so that the system automatically lowers prices of all derived products
Please don’t let the haters confuse you. Everybody who derived from my catalog benefit big time from this!
—————————————————————————————–
SO FAR, NO ONE HAS BENEFITED AT ALL, THEY HAVE ALL TAKE A MASSIVE LOSS!
Here are some gems from her team
——————————————————————————————
“http://tinyurl.com/2neyoa
J4SM1N3 wrote:
malohroquii wrote:
Anshe, If you pay for all my submission fees, I’ll resubmit my products at the lower price. Exclamation
agreed…
but still.. the TOS says you can’t submit the same object more than once.. so this whole thing will probably not work.
(ANSHE REPLY)We will hide the old version, so there will only be one copy in the catalog.”
—————————————————————————————
For someone who taught english, how does she NOT UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CANNOT UPLOAD THE SAME MESH AGAIN? CLearly stated, yet done anyway.
——————————————————————————————-
LMAO I’m Sorry HELLO! When A Developper Choose A Mesh (3D Objects) Of His Choice He Derive From It. It Cost 500credits For All Imvu Or Any 3D Project And Cost Up Than 235cr To Complete The Derivation That Goes To The Developper That DID The Mesh. Anshe Made A ‘’X'’ Mesh The Cost OF The Derivability Is 500cr+350cr. And Now She Lower It To 550cr+250cr. Now You Think Whats Wrong With That? It’s Plain Great! NO! IT’S NOT! The Developper That Already Derived From The Mesh Pay 350 Already. They Lost 100cr. She Said After ‘’I Will Resubmit Under Less Priced And Hide The OTher. IMVU DONT WANT COPYCAT PRODUCT. It’s Why She Will Hide Them BUT The One That Derived From The Old Mesh Will LOOSE Sell. Why? What Would You Do If You See A Green Dress Of 400cr And Another OF 600cr? Which One Will You Choose? The 400cr or The 600cr? I Bet The 400cr! It’s WHY Anshe Chung DID A BIG MISTAKE!!!
As a developer on IMVU I previously derived from numerous ACS products, with 70 violations to TOS that she has committed and still counting, I have several months ago pulled any and all of her products from my catalog. I will no longer derive, purchase, nor gift any of her products. The word Matt used was EXPLOITED, oh yes she exploited the price change bug to her advantage. It doesnt matter if it was a bug on IMVU’s part, what does matter is her being a PRO developer should know the terms of service. Pro devs are held to a higher level and should act accordingly. Her blatant disregard for the rules implies she is monopolizing the market, as she has done in SL. The business tactics of ACS are deplorable, she brought this on herself, after the first boycott of her products by the developing community caused her some financial woes,then her reducing prices against TOS, hiding meshes against TOS, copying other developers meshes against TOS, the list goes on and on and on. She has been linked with other new developers who have the ability to submit 50-75 new meshes a DAY, then denies it, because according to her she is honorable. LOLLL yeah right and Im the queen of England..Give me a break..ACS has had her pro status suspended and hopefully IMVU will listen to the developers and remove her as they have done others for much less BLATANT violations. She is a thorn in the side of IMVU and if they dont stand up and take action since the majority has spoken, there will be major problems, we will NOT leave IMVU as ACS would like us to do, however, we will reserve our right as developers, customers, consumers to refuse any and all of ACS products. We number many and we WILL be heard. EQUAL JUSTICE EQUALITY FOR ALL DEVELOPERS!!!
I like her! She sells damn cheap credits and I only buy from her, if they get rid of her, I stop buying credits…so :P It’s bullshit, I see NOTHING wrong with what she’s doing, it’s jealousy on the part of the people that can’t sell like her–she does good shit and has good rates. :P
i love it
Im a small developer on IMVU and I dont get it.
Sony/Philips/Apple Whatever releases products at high prices and “early adapters” buy it at high rate. They have the bennefit of being “the first”. So do the early derivers, they are first. So what what if they pay more then later adapters? Better marketing should give them a bennefit, okay copyright should work, and thats a bit hard in a derivable world. “green dress for 400 or 600″ somebody states.. dude! get out in the realworld! Its same dresses for 400 and 600 all over the place. a mac is $1000 and same mac is 1000 euro… lol… But we all know the excange rate. Then a imvu credit is not a dollar cent now is it? so your 600 cr could be $0.30 and the 400 could be $0.40…
I didnt derive yet, (duh, the stickers are now suddenly deriviations) so I have no idea what im talking about, nor what the fuzz is about.