Recently, there’s been a growing wave of startups and products appearing that are bringing 3-D virtual worlds to the browser. These include Vivaty, Google’s Lively project, and the Electric Sheep Co.’s WebFlock. And I’ve seen a few stealth companies working the same vein.
None of these are as fully featured or immersive as Second Life, which requires a separate desktop client download. But it may not matter because a good-enough experience available via standard browsers may eventually qwn Second Life. Linden Lab, which operates Second Life, is working with IBM and others to make virtual worlds interoperable with each other. Still, for the most part, they don’t play nicely with the Web.
Last week I caught Linden Lab founder Philip Rosedale on video at Fortune’s Brainstorm conference in Half Moon Bay, and asked him if Second Life is threatened by browser-based virtual worlds. In the video above, he argues that the browser is not yet ready to deliver the type of experience that you can get in Second Life. He does acknowledge that virtual worlds need to be opened up and standardized. But he doesn’t see the browser as a viable alternative to client-based virtual worlds any time soon.
Is he right, or is he in denial?
Web based virtual worlds are “Virtual Worlds with training wheels” … when the want the real deal people will navigate to Secondlife Opensim based worlds.
—
That probably was the PC thing to say, even if he thought otherwise. He is too bright to think that every browser based virtual world isn’t after SL!
In a recent interview to Craig Sherman, CEO of Gaia Online, he mentions that they are going to introduce a ‘casual’ MMO, all in flash and the users don’t even need to register. The business model consists of sponsorship and virtual goods, which according to him have been a huge success.
I think many will still want “the real deal” for a better user experience. But maybe if you’re traveling and just want a “light” experience, you could use a browser-based SL plug-in.
Either way, it’s a different approach than what Lively is going for. SL brings a whole world, Lively is just a bunch of individual chat rooms.
Not so much in denial as much as he is delivering a standard marketing message: no body can do what we do. Much ado about nothing.
Agreed.
Web-based worlds have an certain issue for the customers: people consider Web an ASYNCRONOUS environment. Immersiveness on the other side is achieved because of the REAL-TIME interactions.
Combinations of real-time and non-realtime communications rearly worked in the past. Consider me a sceptic. I can give you many scenarious from the past when it didn’t work. There is a clear boundary actually.
@ Eric, you are exactly right. That is marketing department reply protocol.
Given the incredibly poor state of SecondLife’s downloaded interface last time I used it? He’s wrong. The main perk for a non-browser based application is performance, quality and immersion.
If browser based virtual worlds can catch up to our surpass SL in these areas, then it’s hot water.
The interface and general visual elements of SL are pathetic in comparison with more “game” based virtual worlds. It’s biggest advantage is customizability, lack of a subscription fee, and it’s newness/market share. As that melts away, so too will SL’s dominance.
The amazing thing is the number of web based worlds that are building impressive metrics. I’ve been spending a lot of time at Meez Nation, which seems to ramping pretty well.
Web based virtual worlds are wide but shallow …. a bunch of them – cont do much in them.
You can’t really compare web based virtual worlds to platforms like the Second Life (SL) client. It’s obvious that SL provides an abundant opportunity for creativity. Content creators, scripters, platform developers and a sleuth of others love the fact that they can be challenged by a ‘beast’ that yet needs to be tamed.
Not everyone wants to create, script, develop or want part in taming any beast. For that market (which may actually be the majority), something like a web based vw is more appealing.
Bottom line, it’s the interactions that take place in these worlds. Conversation, dialogue. I’ve had many experiences where the environment I was in was totally not pleasant to the eye however, the conversations that I was engaged in drew me into the experience of the interaction and was independent of what my surroundings looked like.
Someone pointed out further down that SL is great for online education. Yes, I totally agree. Then again, not everyone likes school.
I think web based vw’s are great for mainstream. The majority of people don’t have time to BE IMMERSED. They just want in and out.
Have you guys heard of ExitReality? They’ll be coming out public beta soon and once they do, their FREE plug-in turns every website into a 3D virtual world. People can arrange their 3D sites with objects just like the other vw’s (content creation is currently restricted to the developers)
I see web based vw’s vs. clients like SL almost like an analogy to technical colleges compared to Universities. Tech colleges, you just get things done. Universities are spent having people do research. That is what SL is like for me. A platform to experiment with this new technology and web based vw’s as a platform to just do what you need to do. Network, socialize, communicate. You can do those things in SL too, but you can also do so much more.
Remember, not everyone wants to create, script, explore. When they do, they’ll probably venture into a more higher level VW but for now, the masses will be content with these web based vw’s. I wonder if ExitReality will change the way mainstream views virtual worlds? – seeing as the plug-in makes it so easy.
Augh, sorry for the long post but there’s just so much to say. I’m also just putting my two cents worth. I didn’t know where to post so I picked a ‘reply’ link.
Hmmm, are web based virtual worlds a threat to Second Life? At this point it’s really too early to tell, given the differences I mentioned. I will say this though – they can be. It all depends on what variables you compare each platform with.
If all you want is a conversation Twitter, IM, etc. will do the job just fine.
DigitalFemme: “Someone pointed out further down that SL is great for online education.”
SL isn’t not necessarily great for online education. Because of your point,
“Remember, not everyone wants to create, script, explore.”
It depends on what we want students to learn. In our jargon that’s called learning outcomes.
Let’s look at what the majority of ppl using SL for education are actually using it for. They meet. They talk in audio or text. I’m guessing that can be done much more easily, accessibly and perhaps effectively in a web VW.
Some do use SL to do more than that, however few have exploited the affordances of SL to any measurably valuable learning outcome. One measure I use is time on tasks that lead to learning something. Spending 80% of your time “with the technology” to learn about literature, leaves you 20% to expend on the the literature. I’m oversimplifying to make a point. What few reports we have of student experiences using SL in learning, all say the same thing. Technology was hard, I spend a gazillion hours with it.
We need more educational assessment and evaluation of vw’s for learning and to better articulate learning and the role of various technologies in learning. What are students actually doing? With what, how and why?
I’m not a naysayer, only observing with a critical eye with the desire to do it better.
Nothing relevant…Philip looks a ton like Michael J. Fox without playing the actual video.
The people who are in denial are those that think that large numbers of people are looking for this type of experience… How many millions of american’s have opened a Second Life account? And only what? 150k come back month after month? With all the press they have gotten? “The emperor isn’t wearing any clothes”…
Jack,
That’s no different than the people who condemned the early adopters using e-mail. The technology has to catch up, especially the processing power on machines.
Also, look at the graphics style of most of these sites. It’s meant to be “trendy” but really it only appeals to a small portion of the population. Frankly, I think most of the avatars look idiotic.
Sure, the virtual world should be unique and a bit different – somewhere to have fun with the visual style…but really? If i’m going to do shopping and other things online in a virtual world, i’m ok with having it normal looking. It just needs to look as realistic as possible and offer a quality interaction.
Hey Alex –
in my opinion, email put function above form in the early days. The internet in general did. I feel like this does the opposite, and not very well.
I hear what you are saying about the processing power, and I’m not saying that this tech won’t have uses… but I’m talking mass consumer adoption, and I don’t see it. I could just be missing it (lord knows its happened before), but I don’t see the real value or function that this provides the general person. It’s just the opposite, it makes things more cumbersome and complicated… it adds speed bumps on the way to other functionality/experiences…
this was said about the web in general back in 1994-1995
Alex, Jack Junky, great thread here.
Your statement Jack, “The people who are in denial are those that think that large numbers of people are looking for this type of experience…” I agree. I believe that NOT everyone needs and wants to create, script, be immersed.
Alex and Jack, definitely the technology needs to catch up, and as sure as I’m typing here, it will.
Technology in my opinion is growing exponentially. I’m not kidding.
In terms of graphics, of course it would be exceptional for a vw platform to offer stunning graphics (like most gaming engines) while at the same time providing a robust physics engine …hmmm…
Prof. JunkyTruck, I do remember this exact take back when the “Information Super Highway” (what the web was referred to back then) as happening when the www became available to the mainstream. Everyone put it down … many said they didn’t need email. 15 years later, everyone can’t live without the internet.
Off topic though … do any of you sometimes catch yourself. I mean, thinking about virtual worlds and their growing importance in the future? We still have a Real World .. we should be enjoying that
)
Would love to meet everyone for coffee and hash out our opinions!
Jack, it’s important to keep in mind that humans are not innately 2d creatures. We see and relate to the world spatially, which means that as we move towards progressively more powerful/native technology we will move towards 3d/spatial environments. Thus the power of Virtual Worlds.
Femme – great point. For me I’m a firm believer that the Virtual World stuff supplements and empowers our real world interactions. If you look at one of my recent blog posts (click my name) it addresses my views on several of the main objections and critiques of Virtual Worlds.
Virtual Worlds are one of my passions, and in my opinion an area that has largely been ignored. Most people still cannot move past visualizing it as a complicated game platform. It’s not. It’s core technology, and future business applications are astronomical. What needs to happen first is a shift in our perceptions.
Hey Alex – I definitely see powerful uses for the technology in several vertical markets. For example I would imagine it can have some very empowering uses for the handicap and the elderly, but I’m not seeing why the average “joe” would choose to use it. To be certain, I’m not saying that there won’t be people that will prefer it over “real world” interactions, I just don’t think it will be adopted in mass… like email. Thanks for talking with me, I’m def gonna check out your blog…
Jack,
Enjoying the discourse. Make sure to select the Virtual Worlds link on the right hand side when you review it. I write on a number of topics so it can make it slightly more difficult to find the relevant material.
On another side note, it’s a year old now, but I wrote my Honors Thesis on MMOGs and the relevance of virtual environments. It’s long, but what you might find the most interesting is some of the included respondent data: http://www.alex...0-%20Thesis.pdf
It’s far from scientific – but it gets into relational benefits etc.
When I visualize virtual worlds and mentally explore their value there are two ways that help me relate to it’s value.
The first is the Star Trek Holodeck. Virtual Worlds are the foundation for this type of technology and while not as immersive, a lot of the interactive technology is already their in MMOGs.
The second is ala Resident Evil and Star Wars – The holo-projector/conference room.
The browser is still stuck with Web 2.0-centric capabilities. Although the capability exists for all kinds of fancy stuff, a versatile and powerful supporting platform is still non-existent. My guess is it won’t be a reality till Web 4.0 becomes common. Philip doesn’t look like in denial. However, given the pace of developments in the industry, the day may come as soon as in 2010 or 2011.
“But come it will younglings”
-
@ Alex Berger – well said.
@ “Jack” – chip, shoulder, yours, maybe? How much is your business worth? Do you not imagine what the internet (and Second Life) could be when our machines and processing speeds are no longer restricting the heavy rendering required to experience 3d?
Fair explanation on Philip’s part.
Can anyone verify or elaborate on the limitations of browser based abilities to fully render 3d? No trolls please.
Id’s say it’s all about where the rendering takes place. There’s that company (forget the name) that’s exploring rendering the world on their mega servers, then offering interactive streaming video feed (browser based) to the users. Something like that makes the browser load virtually irrelevant.
Suraj – drink, kool-aid, you, maybe? Just because I have a different viewpoint, doesn’t mean I have a chip on my shoulder. And how is the value of my business a valid question for the conversation? Settle down. Is it an ego thing? Should we drop our pants to see who is bigger? What if I work for google? Is that big enough for you? Does that validate my opinion? (I don’t work for google). Seriously, lighten up, I’m just trying to have a conversation here.
As early adopters, I don’t think we are as connected with the viewpoint of the general consumer as we would like to think. Because we see value in something, doesn’t mean the average consumer will (hell, I’m still shocked that the concept behind webvan didn’t make it). All I’m saying, is sometimes we need to take our heads outta the kool aid and look around… truly look around and see how the average consumer utilizes these technologies and applications that we “love”. And on this one, I think the consumer’s have spoken. Mass adoption isn’t happening and won’t… doesn’t mean there aren’t amazing uses for the tech, but mass adoption (imo) won’t happen. When people tried e-mail, they were hooked, getting them to try it was a struggle but once they did they saw the value. Millions of people have tried this thanks to the awareness in the press… the majority of which have since abandoned it…
Don’t underestimate the problem of critical mass. E-mail was only addictive if other people you knew were already on it, or could be convinced to use it. Otherwise you needed a strong early adopter, evangelist group to push it towards that critical mass.
The other obstacle facing Virtual Worlds is the question of – “what now?” Virtual worlds are still approached and designed with a game concept in mind. For them to go mainstream this has to change – a shift which is occurring.
I don’t think that there should be too much threat on any virtual world system, browser and client based as well.
Time will tell us, but I think it isn’t now at least.
Perhaps browser-based virtual worlds will take off. But I don’t see Google’s Lively being the leader of that crowd. I tried it multiple times and it is just awful.
Browser-based virtual worlds are like browser-based IM, something you may find convenient to use at work, but probably not your preferred method of accessing.
Preface: I’m coming at this from a far different angle than the responses I’ve read so far, that of Second Life’s role in education. While most critics get caught up in whether or not Second Life is useful in daily life or whether there’s a business or marketing role for it, people seem to ignore the huge role it can play in online education.
There is nothing available that can compete with the freedom it allows educators to create simulations and recreate environments for online students. Lively and Web Flock may be simple, easy-to-use playgrounds for interaction and chat but they pale in comparison to what you can create in Second Life.
Perhaps these new browser-based virtual environments will catch up but Philip Rosedale has no need for concern until they allow for real-world financial transactions and feature in-world building tools, that’s where Linden Labs make their money, not chat sessions and games.
Bendi, I agree completely. I’m currently working on a platform to be pitched to the major game developers that I believe has the potential to revolutionize the way online classes and lectures are held and which I believe could give WebEx and GoToMeeting a major run for their money. Have the concept fleshed out, just at the stage where I need to sit down with the head of a major game development group, Cisco, or one of the other industry leaders and talk about making it happen.
Based on Alexa and Google Trends analysis, Lively is already waning in interest compared to Second Life:
http://nwn.blog...est-in-liv.html
The biggest challenge to Second Life isn’t web-based worlds, it’s Second Life itself– the user experience, the crashing, the poor UI– and increasingly, Open Sim, an open source spinoff of SL.
well said WJA. Well said! Ditto!
Check out this prototype for a “Lively™”-style viewer for OpenSim+SL. that Adam Frisby (OpenSim/Deep Think) whipped up!
And Second Life and OpenSim are now linked on LL’s Open Grid which both debut’s the new Second Life Architecture and interoperability between Second Life and OpenSim http://tinyurl.com/63lhte
Opensim will eventually eat Secondlife’s lunch ! It brilliant !
oops her’s the Link for the proto “Lively” style viewer for SL and OpenSim
http://gwala.net/blog/
I see many saying there is nothing to compete with Second Life on the brower based virtual world front, and there may not be right now. However, in the last week or two we have gfeatured news and articles on two products that very easily could do it right now.
Unity, a development tool that creates web based virtual worlds is as stunning as any mmo I have ever seen. And 3Dxplorers new version, coming out next week is a no download solution that allows for import from popular 3d modeling tools. No LL scripting learning curve.
So, it does exist, it is superior and it can work and intetrpolability is a huge non issue.
I was there at the Fortune conference when Rosedale claimed from the stage that SL was simpler to operate than moving a mouse and clicking on a web page. I may have misheard, but I didn’t mis-see when I watch Vint Cerf’s jaw drop in concert with my own.
Remember that Rosedale was on stage with Joi Ito and Larry Lessig which made the whole digression even odder and somewhat out of context. Perhaps Rosedale was on message from marketing as others including Eric are noticing.
Office is safe from Google Docs, err no. Neither is SL safe from a more agile competitor unless SL too becomes agile and in fact lighter on the client side. We still may be waiting on that competitor.
One wag in our office says “Second Life is the Gopher of virtual worlds; it looks so good because there is so little else to look at.” That will not remain true; there is no doubt a WWW out there.
Secondlife is Gopher – The Opensim work IS the web in that analogy.
Lively is irrelevant and “me too”. It’s not even a threat to other browser based / lightweight clients.
IMVU, Habbo Hotel, etc, have millions of users, are more relevant than lively, and are not a threat to SL.
“Browser based” .. it’s just a window glued into your browser. It’s really a complete red herring.
The only thing that will ever be a threat to SL will be a better SL, such as OpenSim. The point of SL is dynamic, immersive, custom content. A browser based implementation is none of these.
Unity is interesting, but not dynamic. I think there is already a lot of tools out there for building 3d games.
Dynamic is a completely different thing. The universe you exist in can be torn down, set up, and altered in a collaborative setting. This is a completely different paradigm.
There is a chinese version of SL which was somewhat competitive, and I think There is competivie, but I still believe OpenSIM is really the only serious challenger, and I think it might be possible that OpenSIM really is a part of SL’s over all strategy.
I think the browser plugin clients will win the war within 2-3 years.
What they can achieve in terms of graphical quality today is already impressive, and within a matter of months the first browser based MMOs will be launched.
Cyworld 3D just launched recently.
It’s why we switched our own platform from a traditional client download program over to browser based.
Let’s face it, people increasingly have short attention spans online and anything that takes more than 60 seconds to get up and running it going to loose all but the most persistent or hardcore people (the minority)
I dont get the whole (client/browser) debate to be honest … we have chat clients, email cients, twitter clients, desktop widgets. People will use a client when it is specific to what they need/want. And a 3D virtual world client is no different. I dont see any web based VW even getting close to what programmers can do when developing specifically for the 3D environment.
Flash virtual worlds need nothing additional to age old browser, and can easily become mainstream. I dont think plugins like lively is worth investing. With features like graphics detail level control for speed and caching of swf’s for bandwidth efficiency, the flash games can easily conquer the world, the virtual world
You could not be more wrong regarding Flash – Flash is great for alot of things, but there are ALOT of reasons it will never match the functionality of what a specific virtual world client/server architecture can do. There are some significant limitations to what flash can do architecturally – This video will help explain its limitations: http://www.vime...417228?pg=embed
While the looks and the feature set of a virtual world like Second Life might seem similar to what Lively, Vivaty and WebFlock offer, those are very different beasts.
If all you need (or think you need) is a 3D Chat and a way to create a kind of 3D Homepage (room), the web based worldlets are fine. And I am sure, they will have lots of (temporary) users in the coming months and years.
Unfortunately the level of involvement platforms like these enable is typically lower (and significantly so) then with a full featured virtual world. It is (currently) not possible, to combine the ease of use and ease of installation of web based 3D scenes with the level of immersion that is possible with a full 3D world like Second Life – contrary to what at least some of the providers of the web-based platforms say … This level of immersion is not necessary for some applications – but very important for others.
So .. I guess we will see a lot of rooms or scenes that will be built on these platforms. Some of them might even be commercially sucessfull (though I doubt that for most of them). But they are not exactly competition for Second Life. A user who is only interested in some chatting in a 3D context does not need Second Life today. IMVU is a nice alternative, already, as is Habbo for kids. Many adults are not exactly excited about the looks of these worlds and their avatars.
And if you want to create an advanced environment for collaboration or in an educational context, the web-based platforms just don’t cut the cake – while Second Life at least offers the necessary flexibility. Second Life is not alone on these markets: ProtoSphere, Qwaq, Multiverse or Project Wonderland are interesting alternatives depending on the application.
I believe that – in the (not too) long run – we will be able to embed a view to a (large and complete) virtual world into a website. Maybe that will even be doable with a standard plugin like (an enhanced version of) Flash. And this might look like a page with a Lively or Vivaty room at first. But the world behind this little window will be much larger and offer much more powerful and flexible tools for development and customization than the current generation of web based 3D platforms. Behind them all *might* be a future version of the a Second Life based server – or an OpenSim one, an Ogolio server, or a Project Wonderland setup.
Exactly – the analogy I would use is web based virtual worlds are no more a threat to Secondlife than Bicycles are to Cars.
Though there is some work being done with plugins for Secondlife/Opensim that would let you “punch a hole” in the browser and see the SL client through it…. Very different argument from the web vs. cleint debate though.
Markus – the trick is that this technology has already been developed (in a rudimentary way) and is sitting around in the gaming industry.
5 Years ago I remember tuning into 5 on 5 Counter-Strike matches with hundreds of other people. The exact details are a bit fuzzy right now, as is the name of the software but so many people are focused on re-inventing the wheel when all they have to do is look at the “gaming” technology through a different set of eyes. When people talk about the web they should be looking at the gaming industry as a mecca for early adopters and some of the best and brightest programming and design minds in the world. Instead most people can’t get past the miss-perception that it’s just a bunch of geeks playing 3d dungeons and dragons.
Look at Skype’s success and compare it to what Team Speak was doing for years. Look at flash intros and streaming music on websites, then compare that to the early versions on gaming guild sites in the late 90s.
BTW – the idea of webcams for the virtual world is a great one and I think would go a long way towards bringing in the general populace. Something for them to watch and explore without having to deal with learning a complex interface, etc.
The biggest obstacle to virtual worlds success and the associated technology is that the average user doesn’t have any clue what virtual worlds are or how advanced the technology already is.
I will go back and make two points, one a threat to Second Life’s current users? Probably not, but it is painfully obvious by comparing active users to registered accounts there is huge opportunity there for someone to simplify the experience. Moreso, it is clear there is enrtertainment value in Virtual Worlds and where entertainment goes so goes the masses which are a heck of alot larger pool than Second Life users represent. So, big picture is neede when taking Virtual Worlds to the next level.
Two, very few avarage people want the level of customization available from Second Life as a user. They like and want the engaging socialization offered by these worlds witha little bit of fun mixed in all packaged in an easy to learn and access solution. By allowing users to import from standard 3d creation tools like Google Sketchup and serving it up in a nice light package that can be run in a browser you keeping the power in the users hands and giving them access to a much much wider audiance called the entire internet.
I am currently putting the final touches on a report of this very subject. There is a void there. It is being and will be filled.
Check out 3dxplorer. It is the first product of this type out of the gate. There will be more to follow shortly I am sure.
I bet that VCs will soon fight to pour cash into start-ups building virtual shopping malls. It’s groundhog day for VRML. I found Google Lively appealing but extremely slow… Most Second Life users use the platform to meet up and chat and Lively delivers on that basis. It will kill Second Life but it will be a slow death.
Create browser plugin for SecondLife. Hey presto, a browser-based Second Life. Or at least, as much browser-based as any of these other things, all of which require a special plugin.
He’s choking out the party line…
We are at least 5 years away from the open, interoperable 3D world you envision for a number of reasons. And the way lively implements multiple skeleton types, maybe even more… IBM is going to set the standard for everyone to follow – yeah right… In the 3D space, there will be an aol before an open web.
Integration with the Web and with web and social networking and social media infrastructure is key. Second Life has no real presence outside of SL. It doesn’t exist on Facebook, MySpace or anywhere else on the Web where millions of users already congregate and seek engagement and communications.
On the other hand, browser based 3D worlds such as SceneCaster and Vivaty are fully integrated with Facebook and offer a way to connect and embed the 3D world experience anywhere on the Web, including blogs and social networks. According to Adonomics, SceneCaster has over 1.9 million users. Whoa! And, I think they only lauched six or eight months ago. I think it took SL about 2 years to get to 2 million users.
Bottom line: integrate with the web, embed online, connect to existing social networking infrastructure. My dollars are on apps like SceneCaster rather than SL.
An important thing to note here is that trying to predict what competitors will divvy up the virtual world space is a little premature. This space is young and has a long way to go before accurate predictions can really be made.
In some ways trying to predict this industry today is like trying to pick a winner in search in 1996. At the time, people were in a tizzy about who would win: Alta Vista? Yahoo? Web Crawler? Hotbot? The fact of the matter is no one knew then, as no one knows now. No one predicted Google in 1996 and had you mentioned it everyone would have shut you down in a clamor of jargon citing “first-mover advantage”, “network effects”, and “Yahoo’s insurmountable lead”. Oh how times of changed. Yet, none of that banter mattered, because Google came along and caused a disruptive shift. Which of us uses Excite or Lycos for search now?
I’m not saying that debating this isn’t worth our time. It is always valuable to have open dialog about competitive strengths and weaknesses. Personally, I love it. But we need to take all these comments with a BIG grain of salt because the industry hasn’t matured and won’t for several years. Virtual worlds don’t have to compete yet for customers because the customer sphere is still growing and their needs are constantly evolving. Many of your questions about mainstream uses of virtual worlds are valid because many of those cases haven’t been established yet or are still in fledgling phases. Once mainstream customer needs become more defined, THEN we’ll have a battle royale on our hands.
I, for one, am optimistic about this space because, as Alex mentioned, virtual worlds are a more native way for us to interpret information because we live in 3D! In a way, every human communication mechanism developed before virtual worlds is less compelling because it only gives us a slice of the perceptive capabilities we were all born with. Imagine if we started human history with virtual worlds, and I told you today about an invention I had that was made out of “paper” and had “words” written on it. I’d tell you that you could “imagine” things by reading these “words”, but you’d never really see these places, hear the sounds I described, or interact with the characters. You’d probably think I was insane because that would be so much more limited than the virtual world you’d been living with since ancient times. Maybe that’s why our kids today are reading less and spending more time in virtual spaces?
Sorry, that’s just a silly example, to underscore the point that we have yet to see how things shake out. Web-based browsers may be the killer technological edge virtual worlds need in the end – or ten years from now they may look an awful lot like Compuserve does today.
Browser based worlds are not a threat at this time. This is because browsing is based on multiple instances (tabs or windows with pages) but virtual worlds are based on a single instance – you can only be present and paying 100% attention to one place at a time. There’s only one “you” after all. Instancing yourself out to multiple locations makes you less present in each and diminishes all of the compelling reasons for using virtual worlds in the first place.
The use cases for browser based worlds at the moment are fairly narrow. Something like the SL client however has a wide number of uses. Typically i’ll have six or so windows open in SL when working (including perhaps the mozilla browser compiled into the client) but still be completely present and responsive to whoever i am talking to (as well as some trickle IM conversations. If someone is present with me in SL and can see me, they know I am paying attention to them, or if not them, they can infer from where i’m looking what I am paying attention to.
In a browser, once you tab out of one page into another – all other tabs do not have your attention. This is a huge problem for browser based worlds, and can be seen often in lively rooms, full of people but empty of interaction – everyone’s AFK (away from the keyboard, or window more likely.)
When the strongest use case for virtual worlds is collaboration and communication, it makes sense to bring the web into the world rather than the world into the web. I think many folk reading this post – if asked to remember exactly what was on all their tabs/windows in their browser – would be hard pressed to recall them all without peeking. If one of those windows contained someone you were talking to previously waving their arms about madly for your attention…. would you even know?
You can only share the web and true uninterupted communication in a monolithic client – the browser itself is bloated enough already with all the things we expect it to do, and should probably not be required to support rich virtual worlds just yet – for both technical reasons and more importantly, because the user interface of browsers is a poor environment for virtual presence.
It’s taken a decade for Microsoft to get something like a PNG to work correctly on IE. There is still no SVG or support in IE. I’m not expecting to see a working immersive browser-based virtual world for some time. Maybe in a plug-in, but that’s just an embedded client. Problem is the browser war never ended. There are so many versions and brands of browsers out there that its hell to even get a web page looking consistent.
I’m just going to brain-dump here so apologies if you lose track of what I’m saying.
I think there is a case to say that the mainstream audience just doesn’t have the patience to get fully ‘immersed’ into Second Life but the fun for me is the user created content and the fact I can buy/sell/share that content with others and pretty much randomly explore. Sure, I have a bunch of SL friends I keep in touch with but for me, the social side is just bonus, not the reason I keep returning to SL. It’s the virtual *world* bit about SL that’s so engrossing, its it’s holisticness and it’s ability to allow me to explore in so many ways.
If I was to socialise online then there’s already a whole heap of great 2D products available. I really can’t see why I would want to have a 2.5D virtual *apartment* just for chatting.
Call me a cynic but the whole 2.5D is not really about socialising or communication it’s about real world commerce and marketing.
2.5D has come about because marketers and big businesses haven’t got the skills to sell their real world products in a fully immersive world. They badly want to get in on the next technological advance but on their own terms. Sadly, I think this maybe what most people are tuned to accept and so I don’t see these 2.5D sites going away any time soon.
However, I don’t think any of the current batch of virtual worlds/apartments is any threat at all to the kind of people that regularly visit SL. It’s my belief that these people by and large want/have less involvement with the real world. I have a hectic work and social life in the real world and find SL a good place to hide and chill out from it all. I’m sure there are those in remote locations or with mobility issues that have the opposite problem and use SL to ‘get out and about’, if only virtually.
Even OpenSim is still a very long way off threatening SL. If it has any hope of taking over it will need rock solid micro-payments and intellectual property rights which I think will be much, much more difficult to deal with in an open environment. I also think OpenSim will be more like a 1.5 Life than a 2nd Life as the micro payments will more likely require much stricter evidence of identity and therefore eroding at another of SL’s drawing points, it’s relative anonymity.
Second Life is in a very unique position. None of the other systems can currently match feature for feature what Second Life has to offer. I have no doubt that other environments will be more suitable for other people and other tasks and maybe the mainstream will choose one of those but I think for the short and possibly medium term, for a total immersion style virtual world, like someone else mentioned earlier, the biggest threat to Second Life is Second Life itself.
Second Life is still years ahead of everythign else in the metaverse space, these browser enabled worlds are still downloadable plugins for the browser, which is effectively a client, only it is one that is severely limited by the browser.
Second Life won big when lively came out and flopped as just another IMVU ripoff.
Second Life is where I want to invest my money when the time comes too.
A Virtual World Site will only ever be a big hit when its platform reflects a Mirror Earth.
Businesses from all sectors will only truly invest in a more Earth-based Virtual World that can show proper locations and sim-type avatars.
Second Life is pure fantasy, it is either for 47 years old Star Wars who never grow up, or spotty nerds that can develop Final Fantasy avatars of themselves to attracts the ‘Ladies’.
Most of the businesses that are based in Second Life, are only in there to test the waters, incase SL becomes the mother of all Virtual Worlds.
At least Second Life has more life in it then the truly dreadful Lively. But it still lacks that little something extra to become the true ‘Daddy’.
Check out the Company Sentinel Ave – and watch their interesting video that mixes live media with 3D Models on an Earth based platform.
This mix of virtual and reality is where I believe the biggest winner in this Virtual World Battle will succeed.
to state the obvious, the winners will be the platforms with the most users. Right now SL has fewer than 500,000 engaged users and fewer than 350,000 people spending money online each month. So what have they won so far? Look at Wow, look at the Consoles…free SL isn’t taking over the world like Apache. SL may be leading a competitor-less void in the 3D web space atm, but they are certainly losing the marketing battle with their own mis-steps and service failures.
I am amazed at this video and most of the comments. My vote for Rosedale goes to denial. He is either not as informed as he should be or misleading people who don’t know better. Either way, the ignorance of the comment towards the end, that there is no browser based plug-in that supports sound,lighting,and shadows astounds me. There are a number of plug-ins that support real-time 3d rendered experiences with these properties and more. Do your homework people.
As for OpenSim- as I stated on another blog, “a step in the right direction, on broken feet.” Great for Second Life and drinkers of that Koolaid, but not scalable for the 3d web.
For DigitalFemme:
“I wonder if ExitReality will change the way mainstream views virtual worlds?”
Already I have witnessed this beginning to happen. Many of the students and enthusiasts of the 3d web give this a major “Wow” factor. The one button click to 3d a 2d webpage wins many (as I see on your website). Dean Jones and Danny Stefanic have done a great job with ExitReality.
Also as a builder for Vivaty/ExitReality, I am sure you know of the functionality that the tech they are built off of supports and why this puts them way ahead of SL.
For those SL “yes men” ignore this comment as you have the current standards for 3d on the web. Keep thinking that SL is doing something “revolutionary and new”, the open 3d web will continue to pass you by as you wait for this closed garden to set the foundation for the Metaverse. The captain of your ship is lost or lying, research for yourself.
Remember to support our Open Metaverse!
Browser-based worlds may come to be — but I can’t see it happening with what we think of as a browser today. What a “browser” is will need to evolve tremendously, and morph into being a “viewer” as well.
Our kids will look at us in pity because of what we called a “browser.”
As a “resident” of SL since April 2004 with what is now a thriving business representing several “outside” graphics companies I agree that currently you cannot compare Second Life to these shallow basic browser applications.
That said, Facebook and other social network communities generally are not ready for the the technology side of SL and these applications are stepping stones in the evolution of people dipping their toe into VWs, in time and practice it stands to reason people will want to evolve and become bored by the limitations but at the same time will of learned enough on a basic level to move onto bigger things.
I started off playing The Sims Online then moved to There.com and at that time learning the interface of There.com was complicated having just come from a simle “point and click” world of Second Life.
9 mths later and I found Second Life, again the interface was just so damb difficult to grasp and I swore I wouldnt stick around as I seemed limited to what I could do..I didnt understand how to do much of anything. Eventually after 3 mths of going back and forth I “settled” and things fell into place. ( I would like to add there are still countless many things I cannot do in SL but my specialist area is something I over time pinned down and became a success in )
HAD I moved from The Sims Online straight to SL I cannot imagine how I would of reacted. I believe I would of logged in and out again never to return.
I think this is happening now with SL., people sign up, people who have never even played online games much less in complex interface applications such as SL and they decide its all too “techy” and never return.
If they experience these smaller basic VWs for a year or 2 they will in theory quickly outgrow them and want to progress into more diverse environments.
In short I think the customers of these types of worlds are the future customers of SL type VWs.
Really interesting thread but I amazed that no one here has mentioned Croquet/Cobalt ?!
Cobalt leading to Croquet is the future IMHO and pretty much kills all the arguments I have read here. I will admit it is a paradigm shift but one that is long overdue.