Survey results for virtual worlds collaborative use

Results from a virtual world collaborative use survey undertaken by the Virtual Worlds Consortium for Innovation and Learning, Special Interest Group on Virtual Worlds, the Serious Second Life Group in Boulder, and the MetaverseU Network of Stanford University, have been published under the title: Virtual Worlds and Collaborative Work: Survey Results.

Survey sections are titled: Participants Profile and Background; General Issues and Questions about Virtual Worlds and Collaborative Work; Collaborative Work in Second Life: Now and In the Future; Collaborative Works Using Virtual-World Platforms Other.

The participants were mostly virtual world users or advocates, mostly with a Second Life affinity. There seemed to be a lot of unfamiliarity with other vendors. But there's some interesting surprises I found, such as: the preponderance (read enthusiasm) of business responders vs those from academia; management being seen as a hurdle to virtual world adoption; overwhelmingly positive outlook for Second Life for educational use but uncertainty that it will do as well for business collaboration.

It's a fairly brief document overall so certainly work a look. Though not necessarily comprehensive, it was thought-provoking, especially where I tended to disagree with the majority. It certainly made me think twice about my own opinions.

I know the avatar I'm talking to isn't real. But is she real?

Presence can be costly. It's a lot of overhead to consider. And one has to figure that the virtual world never sleeps. Logging into Second Life at different times, it takes on a European, Australian, or Asian tone. Companies have to figure that a visitor might pop in at any time.

Which is why AI avatar "bots" are being developed that can take on that overhead instead of having a real person. They work quite cheap - free in fact beyond their build cost and they don't take breaks. The initial ones are likely going to be fairly simple responders but there are rumblings of some very savvy ones (see Artificial Intelligence Applications in 3d Virtual Worlds) that can do a credible job of mimicking the responses of a real person.

This of course undercuts one of the basic presumptions of virtual worlds, that an avatar represents a real person. One of the interesting aspects of virtual worlds and MMOs is that people tend to treat an avatar at face value, as if they were what they appeared to be. If that avatar appears to be a human man or woman, you, as a virtual world user, would probably respond accordingly. Imagine a virtual world where someone can seed avatars to make a space seem more popular as if other people really found it engaging, making you think twice about stopping to take a look around at the offers. This is already being done in MTV Virtual Worlds: when an event doesn't draw in enough people, bots are seeded to dispell the impression of unpopularity. Or that person chatting you up and that seems so interested in your latest real world shopping adventure could be a bot mining you for buying trends. Or your new "friend,", taking advantage of how viral marketing works, just swears by Eau'dee'doh perfume or MuskOxen deodorant.

"Cogito ergo sum" doesn't quite sum it up any more, does it?

We are who we're not

Second Skin is a new documentary that examines the lure and some of the dangers of virtual worlds, specifically the MMO games: World of Warcraft and Everquest.

Judging by the trailer, it appears to be in the same vein of other documentaries, like Trekkies and Darkon, movies that gave us an intimate glimpse into the lives of people who are so drawn into fantasy worlds, that their fantasy lives become dominant factors in their real lives. It is understood and shown that for many, these events are purely fun and casual. Not everyone has the same degree of fascination or hunger for an alternate existence. But the true focus and power of these films is when we meet people who's fantasy lives become so excessive, they supersede anything else. Trekkies highlights social groups and individual lifestyles that gravitate around the Star Trek universe, showing how the Trek franchise and fan numbers have increased with each decade, where Darkon explores a live-action roleplaying and wargaming group born out of the success and interest in Dungeons & Dragons and fantasy-embellished history enactment. Though both movies show associated individual pastimes, what is ultimately underscored is that these are both social phenomena. Even individual pursuits mostly take place within a larger context: individuals associate in groups that congregate in even larger groups which ultimately engage in large-scale annual or semi-annual events.

I think part of the fascination with these movies is that they are in part cultural anthropology and in part, geek-voyeurism. We get to peek into lives that for most of us are very different. For many viewers, I think there is a trap that they can somehow feel superior for being so non-geeky, or at least less a geek. And yet, say what you will, for Darkon especially but even for Trekkies, the emphasis seems to be highly social and to bring about friendships, bonds, and human interaction. And this counters a commented upon trend in modern culture that people are becoming more insular and less community oriented than preceding generations. So regardless of how you might approve or disapprove of the lifestyles of the people shown, they are meeting and interacting with others, often in the flesh, forming life bonds and exercising social will. Socially, they will have succeeded in functioning in ways that many people who might disparage or judge them have yet to achieve in their own lives.

That said, Second Skin seems to show a different short of community altogether. Though virtual association can precipitate a real world gathering for romance or group meetings, for the most part the interaction is befitting the medium and done solely through virtual selves. Missing is the "meat-space" physical engagement and association of Darkon or the showcase of club and convention gatherings that underscores much of Trekkies. Though participants in both these group phenomena embellish their social interaction through virtual mediums, for the most part virtual or Web interaction functions to support and enhance real-world engagement. For those shown in Second Skin, it seems to be more the opposite: rare as they are, real world engagements seem to underscore and reinforce the main activities, which are solely virtual. If true, the effect in some cases would be to push the person back into the virtual medium as the basis for generating more such social contact.

What happens when alternate reality becomes more important and more meaningful than just a casual activity? All three films examine this question of obsession. The core physical activity of Darkon shows the most real engagement of self. Alternate reality is compartmentalized and though it drives a lot of activity outside of the events and might be one of the most important things in a given life, there is clearer distinction between fantasy self and the real world. With Trekkies, though we are given to understand that there is a broad range of engagement, we meet several individuals for whom the alternate world of science fiction influences not only their pastimes, but crosses over to become part of their dress, work, lifestyle, life choices, even their sex lives. It's really hard to judge by a short trailer, but with Second Skin, it seems to show people for whom their real world selves are not necessarily subsumed physically by the alternate reality, but where the real world itself is largely irrelevant because it has no meaning to a virtual existence. I'm guessing the folks shown in Second Skin share much of the same needs for acceptance, social status, success, and wealth with those in Darkon and Trekkies, factors that might very well be missing from their real lives and which are certainly missing for some of those shown. Mentally then, the only way to achieve these is solely virtual for the most part. And so their alternate lives tend to, I suspect more so than in Darkon and Trekkies, become dominant to the exclusion and proper functioning in the real world, according to how much they feel they need the rewards provided solely in their lives as lived through alternate realities.

There is another, perhaps even darker aspect to be shown as well. Though commerce and merchandising are a big part of all such activities, one of the lives reviewed in Second Skin is said to be that of a "gold famer." This is usually, but not exclusively, a person from Asia who works long "sweat shop" hours in front of a computer to feed their own hunger by feeding the world hunger for virtual goods, or the virtual currency to buy virtual goods. Since for many people, virtual status equates to real status insofar as they're concerned, there is a real market for such goods. A New York Times article last year estimated that the money generated from such sales was then $1.8 billion. Given the growth of virtual worlds overall, and the large numbers of new children's virtual worlds funded by commercial and media giants, one can expect that number to be much higher and to only increase over time.

Second Skin is currently being shown at the South by Southwest (SXSW) Film Festival, where I believe Darkon made its debut. I have high hopes, that like the other documentaries mentioned, I'll soon be able to see it for myself on either the Independent Film Channel or via a video rental service like Netflix. Hopefully like those other fascinating perspectives into alternate reality and social groups, Second Skin provides an insightful, non-judgmental, and carefully balanced glimpse into real lives. I understand that most people who were featured in these documentaries felt the portrayal was fair and were mostly flattered by the attention. I hope that such is the same for those who are letting us get under their Second Skins.

Sims Online gets second life

Now the question is: will The Sims Online (TSO)'s, now dubbed EA-Land, bid to become the next big simolean come up "a day late and a (linden) dollar short?"

TSO arrived at the virtual gate just a bit before Second Life. Unlike the new runner, it came with an impressive pedigree, having been a No. 1 computer game with millions of sales and, presumably, users. A lot of good money was probably expecting that to translate well to the MMO field. The bets were on. But at first go, TSO's eyes weren't on that skinny new horse, Second Life, saddled with the rather odd notion of a non-gaming virtual world, but on the lead thoroughbred, the one with all the derby crowns and the prize money to boot: Blizzard's World of Warcraft (WoW). As it turned out, TSO failed to win, place, or even show. Second Life continued to run just happy to be in the race, and would eventually come to dominate the non-gaming track. TSO could still be seen on the field, but in time, it became obvious its running days were over. Those who wanted to remember it fondly from its game incarnations kindly said it was in semi-retirement. Others looked to TSO's lack of motion, the cloud of bad buzz hovering around it, and the stench of failure permeating from it's direction and concluded that it was, in fact, a dead horse.

As it turned out, TSO was running the wrong race. The strengths of the computer and console game: the ability to craft a personal environment, meddle in virtual lives with god-like powers, and hone one's stable of sims to better or worse ends, were best enjoyed as a solo venture. These sorts of activities did not translate well to a multi-player environment. The attempts to instill some sort of multiplayer gaming activity overlay were said to be non-productive and boring. And one of the core strengths of The Sims game, the ability to create objects, houses, neighbourhoods and share them with other players, was not allowed for in its online incarnation, essentially alienating this core and beneficial group of users who enjoyed creation more than "playing." By the time user-created content was somewhat allowed, TSO was already a non-entity, nearly abandoned by its owners, and populated only by small cadre of hard-core users. As an MMO game, it had failed.

Had the owners of TSO and The Sims seen the growing interest and potential in social virtual worlds and the Social Web, and had they not been so fixated on the gaming and monthly revenue model, they might have taken similar steps as Linden Lab. They might have fostered a game economy that tied to real currency, the concept of personal space in virtual land ownership, and the notion of the sim avatar not as a gaming construct but as a personal extension of self. Had they done those things, they might have shifted gears, providing more avenues for social venture as the main raison d'etre for TSO. They might have reopened the flood gates for uploading user-generated content. After all, having dedicated modelers (modders) who actually like to make content to share is like having a club where the patrons bring the booze, food, and music and are happy to pay for the privilege. Looking back, imagine the what-if had TSO done all these things and to boot offered a free downloadable client and access, realizing that their "game" was never going to be another WoW, but that it had the chance for a successful niche nonetheless for social users and modders. What if they had also made each install and supplement of the game function as well as an online client and as a bonus come with both game and online objects, homes, and neighbourhood access that could only be found by buying the supplements? On start-up, one could have had the option to log into personal space or into the communal grid. I mean, as virtual worlds of all sorts have shown, there's a passion for virtual kitsch hoarding. With the ability to use registered product keys for existing customers to get their online goodies retroactively, and the notion of fostering the communal online grid as a means of collecting even more objects and additions, even if the sole intention was just to use them in the installed version, owner, Electronic Arts (EA) would have seen existing players enticed to at least try out the online version and likely return. Online players would have been eager to buy the next install supplement, if only to get the proprietary additions that such offered. The installed versions could even have been marketed as good modder tools, a way to actually create and share new content. Online and install, each would aid the other.

Had this been done, the existing user-base and modder community already existing in The Sims could have provided both an overwhelming head-start in numbers, and a defined activity in the form of modding environments and objects, and an active core user base, who were willing to add content on their own time with no cost to EA. Second Life had the same thing I suppose but they were just getting started. The thousands upon thousands of existing Sim objects, landscapes, buildings, already in existence, most of them free, would create a tsunami-like inundation of rich content comparison that would swamp any challengers. Even the fact that Second Life was a fully realized three-dimensional space compared to TSO's 2d/3d rendering I think would have worked in TSO's favor since mainstream computers then lacked a lot of the graphical power to work well with something like Second Life, whereas they would function just fine, or certainly better, with a graphic rendering already tested and applied in the desktop version. And a focus on social activity but keeping and expanding on the gaming functions of the failed version, adding things like maybe How to Host a Murder sharded "dungeons" etc, would have given TSO as a social world something still today very lacking in Second Life, more fun activities to help embellish and support the social function. Increased sales of games and supplements by online players as well as increased use of the online version by installed players, finally add to that a modest surcharge for uploading user-generated content and EA would have seen a healthy revenue stream. I doubt Second Life would have survived such competition and I suspect that the virtual landscape would have seen TSO as the WoW equivalent to the non-gaming set.

But hindsight is 20/20. And the leap of faith taken by Linden Lab and Philip Rosedale in establishing Second Life in the face of conventional wisdom is to their credit and it is the reason why Second Life, not TSO, is synonymous with virtual worlds in the minds of the general public. EA was only dabbling in online gaming, though I suspect with high hopes. I imagine the focus of developer, Maxis, and parent company, EA, was always more on development for the next Sims incarnation, The Sims 2. And that was the smart move. Game sales were a proven success and The Sims 2 went on to foster a whole new set of users and aficionados (my niece for example) as well as keeping the franchise healthy and active. Success is proven by the never-ending, it seems, list of supplements that can be purchased. And there are rumours of a Sims 3 on the way. So there's nothing to really fault Maxis/EA for dropping TSO. I can conjecture the "what if" and they might be thinking the same. But, a censured world like TSO would have been, and that EA-Land will be, for modded material would not have satisfied those who sought more adult activities, like gambling, etc. Those activities underscored much of the initial growth of Second Life, just as they did on a much larger scale for the Internet in general. Even the Sims enjoyed a fair bit of risque modding judging by some downloads. It was not the issue for the Sims because each install was a "world" unto itself. Having the desire for more "exposure" in a communal setting and not having an outlet might lead to dissatisfaction if such users turn out to be significant in numbers. And as far as the dress code, if one were to judge by a lot of the stuff one sees in Second Life, perhaps social worlds have to at least allow for King Crap and Queen Skank strutting their stuff as there seems to be a significant number of users who seem to enjoy the expressive freedom for this kind of display. Freedom of expression, I propose, will ultimately be more attractive and lack of censorship is one of the reasons for Web growth and adoption in general among adults. And this equates also to scripting and construction. Second Life constructs have the potential to be much more powerful, having nearly limitless underlying functional properties, whereas those embedded in Sims objects seem to be purely for manipulating game parameters: useless in a broader social sense beyond their cosmetic features. To say that a TSO that undertook some of the popular conventions of Second Life, as EA-Land proposes to adopt now, would have made TSO the dominant social virtual world (or least a successful venture as opposed to an outright failure) is not the same as saying that TSO would be either the most successful non-gaming virtual world ultimately (not even Second Life can knowingly claim that) or by extension, some sort of 3d incarnation of the next Web.

So given these realities, how does this new old version of a virtual world shape up now that it's found itself, supposedly? Well, I won't be able to judge until I'm able to get in. But on the surface, I wonder if it wouldn't have been better to have created a version of the Sims 2 (or 3) that mimicked an online version of that incarnation, which as I understand it, is a fully realized 3d space. Since user content was essentially denied for most practical purposes, it would have been a lot easier to make this migration for existing TSO users (just translate the existing objects) before opening the floodgates to user mods. Once they happen, it will be much harder, akin to impossible, to make the migration to a new graphical look, ala Sims 2/3, without abandoning some user content. People apparently think that the 2d/3d graphical use, being as it is popular in worlds like Habbo, which has users in the millions, means that there is nothing to worry about in the lack of graphic panache - and they could very well be right. But an online Sims 2 would be more akin to existing virtual worlds that EA-Land will be compared to by users first trying it out. Again, just my gut feeling that a more realistic virtual space will have the legs for the final race to who ultimately succeeds as a virtual worlds vendor for adults.

But maybe trying to capture the adult virtual landscape isn't what EA is really after. If EA is just, like so many companies with a wealth of media titles to offer, trying to establish it's own virtual gateway for its products and test the virtual waters, then I think the reincarnation of TSO as EA-Land could be a great success and is a wise move given the cost to reinvigorate an existing property rather than create it anew. EA has a lot of titles and the course of advertising and trying to entice users of EA land to explore some of these could be a bridge to offering what a lot of social virtual worlds lack, fun activities beyond the scope of social, shopping, and roleplaying. Many EA titles are going to appeal more to a younger crowd. A Sims-like incarnation, sharing as it does, the 2d/3d aspect of worlds popular with young children, might find a good niche in that space in-between when children are older than the Habbo Hotel, Club Penguin set, but younger than MTV Virtual Worlds users, say ages 9 - 13 years old. I think that could be a recipe for success. EA-Land looks more like worlds they're coming from but more sophisticated. It's a safe environment; it's social; it has more options for them to contribute, and hopefully will have some fun activities to keep them engaged. Thing is, I think if EA-Land can capture this market demographic and offer activities that would appeal to them as they got older, they'd have the adult crowd of tomorrow and younger users today just might stick with something like EA-Land as they got older, rather than trekking over to another offering en masse. But to achieve this, there must be a realization that the same steps that might have made The Sims Online a raging success when there was hardly any competition years ago are not going to have the same impact today. Couple to that the likely reality that many fans of the original The Sims game have probably migrated and cannot be considered to still offer the overwhelming figure they might once have been, both as users and contributors. Considering that children's virtual worlds are the most successful to date, the retro appearance of EA-Land can play to its favor if it were to be rethought of in terms of whom it is intended to target.

This is all good conjecture. But I'm still a little confused though who EA-Land is actually intended to appeal to for the here-and-now. The Play-doh logo makes me think children. EA games tie-ins, if they even exist, would appeal to a broad range but shifting more to the younger demographics. But the demographic of the original game, and any TSO returnees, are going to be older. Also the notions of a real currency equation, virtual real estate market, and Facebook tie-ins make me think of adult users.

So can TSO make a successful go of it in this crowded list of virtual worlds? Again, I really need at some point to get into the sim to see for myself, and that will need some precious weekend time for that, but on the surface, my list of pros and cons to offer for consideration toward answering that question are as follows:

Pros

• Product recognition - people are generally aware of The Sims, even if they didn't play it
• Adopting conventions of virtual land "ownership," currency, user-generated content, and other Second Life conventions should help make EA-Land what TSO could/should have been
• Continued thriving user-base that can be tapped into (The Sims is still sold, supported, and used by fans of the game)
• EA has an impressive list of titles and could/should expand EA-Land to be a springboard for all of these - hopefully with free content that could not only further interest and sales but as well, help provide activity content.
• Online version could stimulate games sales and vice versa (they really need to think about how to bridge these products, if not my suggestions above, some way)
• Thousands of mods online, some better than the original content, potentially to make their way into the online version (rich content area ready to be tapped into)
• Millions of former users don't need to be sold on the concept and can get up and running if they find their way to EA-Land.
• Predominately female demographic of the original game represents a key market focus group as yet unavailable to most virtual worlds and MMOs, which could attract investors, corporate participation and use
• Some game functions existed in the older version, so there's a promise they still might exist (though poor from what I heard. Still, they could represent an activity function lacking in many social worlds, though they should be improved/expanded upon - especially if more EA titles are brought into the mix.)
• 2d/3d diametric graphic display works wonderfully for many popular children's virtual worlds and is a natural bridge to adoption
• Display requirements a lot less than other virtual worlds (I can really see EA-Land translating well for mobile use say and with mobile use projected to increase, this could be a key factor)
• Censorship - given user content oversight, a much "safer" environment potentially than other virtual worlds
• Facebook/Social Web tie-ins (Nice! Very good idea, IMHO and one of the best features).

Cons

• Product recognition - Can former users of TSO especially, but anyone, trust that EA can deliver the goods to be worthy of the time and emotional investment to get involved in personal space and avatars in EA-Land when they failed the first time?
• Is abandoning The Sims name in re-dubbing the offering going to make it harder for current and former The Sims aficionados to find or realize that it exists?
  
• In some ways, Maxis/EA are their own competitors. The Sims 2 has probably wooed many away from the original The Sims and adopters of Sims 2 aren't necessarily going to like the function and environment of EA-Land, which is essentially more like the original.
• If there's no tie-in between online and installed products, success of one will have less impact on the other. (As far as I know, there are no plans to say offer unique "goodies" for online use from purchasing installed expansions nor any mechanism to bring installed users gracefully into the online fold. If this continues, I see this as a lost opportunity).
• Just because there are thousands and thousands of mods online for The Sims doesn't mean the creators of that content will ever bother to have it offered for EA-Land. Many will likely have gotten bored with the Sims concept and moved onto other games, or will have adopted successors like Sims 2, or even Second Life, or some other virtual world, and enjoy more making objects for those spaces instead. This would lessen the resource potential for fast object growth from users to enrich the experience.
• Demographic target still seems to be adults. Realizing that the virtual world market has changed and focusing on young teens might see better results.
  
• Activity space still an unknown; original game did not translate well to multiplayer (Prior versions obviously failed to inspire people to stay with TSO. Will there even be any attempt at gaming functions within EA-Land?)
• Graphic display dated, lacking the panache of many competitors (but this could actually be a plus if EA intends to target a younger demographic used to a similar display format)
• Censorship (it imposes overhead on the part of the space owner and it could turn people away Eg. Branded objects are highly desirable to create a realistic living space since they populate real homes and lives: Coca-Cola, Apple, Mercedes). But when "officially" reviewed and approved, they present copyright problems. Censored worlds will probably decline to see these uploaded, which can lead to some dissatisfaction perceiving a lack user control I'm not saying it's right but it is reality. In fact, I read an article that suggested that such "pirated" virtual goods actually helped promote brand recognition and were still a positive force for the brand owner).
• Censorship will also turn away adult users unless some form of zoning or demarcation (combat zones, etc) is provided for, which doesn't sound like will be the case.

So can they make a go of it? Can a dead horse be flogged to life? (/shrug)

You tell me.

Mobile Second Life? Dial me in

Mobile game vendor, Vollee, says you can access your Second Life from your 3G-enabled mobile device. Of course, this kind of activity has long been anticipated and others are viewing this with anticipation of a different sort: the first hint of that bridge between mobile devices and the most popular virtual worlds: MMOs. Given that many children seem to be umbilically attached to their cell phones and gaming, the pairing seems both logical and explosive, ushering virtual world use into more mainstream adoption for that age set and beyond.

Mobile devices have already overtaken PCs in some areas of the world as the platform of preference, and in terms of gaming, are projected to overtake consoles. It seems quite likely that they will be the nearly universal working and communication platform of preference in the not too distant future, if use trends in Asia, as they often do, continue to project themselves around the world, and if more useful and entertaining applications continue to migrate or be developed for mobile sets.

If you are interested in partaking of a more mobile Second Life, sign up for the Vollee Second Life beta, which will commence in May. There are some qualifications for equipment (promise of a supported list forthcoming) and reminders to check your billing plan to make sure it can support this kind of heavy media use without breaking your purse/wallet.

Aside: it occurs to me that the phrase "dial me in" is both dated and dating; it is either destined for obsolescence, or its literal meaning will get lost in time (like the horrible "rule of thumb"). I bought a refurbished (same outside, newer insides) 1930's phone for the home office. It works with modern phone systems just fine. It is quite angular in parts, intentionally functional, and the hefty solid weight of its handset and the cloth covering on the cord mark it as something not quite right with this time. In fact, the tinny voice you hear and project make it seem as if you're talking to or from the past. Though not obvious at first glance, you also soon realize that this is something that has seen a lot of use. Its black surface is spotlessly clean but dull, a few tiny but tell-tale chips and scratches found here and there. I imagine all the lives and passions that have spoken through that same handset while I'm holding it. Many of those voices were long gone to dust before I was even born. And yet here is that same handset, that same dial, bridging the years between us. If there was ever to be found a "ghost in the machine," this would be the one. Speaking of that dial, it used to be when people asked to "use the phone," it was only obvious and most courteous that they be given an accessible and mostly private room to use: the office. But then there would be that dial. It is not like the dial even accustomed dial users once knew. Not easy nor gently gliding, this dial is only for the serious caller. It takes a firm hand and resolution to see the number all the way through on its journey to the finger stop. But in recent years, everyone has a cell phone and no one asks to use the phone. So though people still step into the office for some privacy, requests for help have fallen off. I still get called in on occasion. I'll step inside to find someone sitting down, finger pointed at my desk. "Is that a phone?"

Thinking inside the box

Not that I have time for this sort of thing right now, but when I saw a post on the NMC Campus Observer advertising the availability of Stephane Zugswang's Virtual Reality Room (VRR), free and copyable for educational or non-profit uses within Second Life, I felt I couldn't miss the opportunity to observe the Tuesday demonstration, which as it turned out, included a whole wealth of attendant information.

The VRR is basically a square room. The nuance is in the application of seamless tiling to create an expansive vista that is not square but which appears, for lack of a better word, global - hence depending on the subject chosen, endless, as if you were standing in a real environment stretching all around you. This is achieved by using Apple Computer's QTVR technology. It is not a true QTVR viewed through the Quicktime player, but done to export textures applied to a Second Life cube to achieve the same effect.

And this effect can be quite remarkable insofar as Second Life graphics, that is as long as you can manage to stand inside the circular boundaries of the floor marker. As you can see if you have occasion to visit the NMC Resource Center to secure your own copy, stepping outside that boundary can sometimes lead to distortion as if you're standing in the sky for instance. Since the location at the NMC is also a working VRR, you'll have an option to judge for yourself by clicking on the HUD to change the setting and see the change render around you. Based on your choice, you can set the HUD on your own copy to be only visible by you or available to be clicked on by anyone as it is at the NMC. Depending on the speed of your computer, you'll just need to wait a bit for the scene to render. Examples ranged from real world vistas such as cityscapes to effectively shrinking one down in size to stand inside of a now larger than life room. And the entire affair can be rez'd or collapsed with hardly any effort.

To create the raw material for his rooms, Stephane prefers a good SLR camera along with a steady tripod. The process of photographic QTVR creation requires rotating the camera to take a series of overlapping pictures which are stitched together within a QTVR application. The pictures can be retouched if necessary using an application such as Photoshop. Stephane uses two lenses, depending on the subject. His Nikon 10.5 mm fisheye lens lets him capture his scene in eight pictures while he uses a telephoto lens that lets him do same in 16.

After capture, the whole affair is assembled and converted into a QTVR image using any number of available QTVR applications. Stephane uses and recommended the RealViz Sticher, which comes in three price options. The unlimited version, which depending on the exchange rate, currently costs just under $600 U.S, has features and options that Stephane recommends will be very welcome and worthwhile for anyone who seeks to create a number of such room textures. There are number of other applications and utilities that can create QTVRs, even freeware like Panotools (see SourceForge link). Given that it's free and has a user and knowledge base to draw from, Panotools is certainly worth more than you paid for it, but Stephane suggests that if you can afford it, you'll find it much easier and far less frustrating to use something like Sticher. A good application and a practiced hand can produce a QTVR in 10 minutes, depending on the subject.

Another exciting option is to create your landscape, even fantastic or otherworldly ones, within 3d applications and export the render as QTVR. Some applications already support this option (Bryce, Lightwave, Terragen) or require a add-on/plug-in (Mojoworld, 3DS Max) or a helper application to post-process (Maya). Post-processing output is sometimes done as well in lieu of internal or add-on methods for better speed to render.

Either photographically or via 3d rendering, the final output is exported as flat images to be imported into Second Life as textures: six, one for each wall, floor and ceiling. The process is described in a tutorial within the VRR Documentation packet. Also, there is a VRR Picture Controller for sale at Stephane's store, the VRR Shop if one would rather opt for that method.

This project is a cooperative venture between Stephane, the NMC, infoisland.org and the Commonwealth Islands to help expand the tools available to educators and non-profits. The particular version in question will only work on a select list of sims, all of which relate to education or non-profit use. Currently there are over a hundred such sims. To be added to this list, the requirements are that the sim must be founded for educational or non-profit use and be tied to a real-world organization. Parties interested in adding their own sim to this list need contact Lorelei Junot in Second Life.

Eight sizes of the VRR are included within the kit, starting at 20 square meters and going up to 120 sqm, which constitutes a near quarter-sim. There is a larger size that is a full sim that is available only in the retail unrestricted version (as in can be placed anywhere). That and all other retail versions, along with more environment textures and an application to help bring your own custom textures into use are available for purchase at the VRR Shop. The NMC has stated that they also intend to make more room textures available at their location as they become available, I assume through the product of community efforts now that this free version of the VRR is available.

I had been thinking that one of the effective uses for virtual world education might be to negate scale and as well place the student inside of a setting for a new perspective. This tool is pretty much an application towards that end. I'm very much looking forward to the novel uses that I'll have wished I'd thought of yet to come.

Virtual world industry leaders forecast 2008

VWN is offering a report that details the response of 45 virtual world managers and leaders to a five-question questionnaire that asked:

1. What are your top 3 trend predictions for 2008?
2. What business goals have you set for 2008?
3. What challenges do you expect 2008 to bring for the virtual worlds industry?
4. A number of new platforms are launching in 2008. What are the biggest impacts this will have on the industry?
5. How will the above changes affect your specific segment of the industry in 2008?

To order the Virtual Worlds Management Industry Forecast 2008, simply send an e-mail to to address listed at the former link and you'll receive a PDF copy of the report in your e-mail.

I found this a fascinating read and I'll have to read it again to compare the disagreeing statements. A number of the respondents were at the recent Virtual World Conference in San Jose and I appreciate the chance to read what they had to say. As you might expect, some had very different opinions regarding the upcoming months. I also noted that education seemed to figure prominently in a number of forecasts as did the expected strong growth in virtual worlds for children.

My only druthers for this report would have been to have the company name repeated after the name in each response since I don't know all of the responders by name and I couldn't follow their association with the industry from question to question.

Newbie ponders what "there" is of IBM's and Cisco's Second Lives

Computerworld writer Gary Anthes was tasked to do a piece on Second Life, which, after spending nearly a week of his time within the simulation, he titled Second Life: Is There Any There There?

Within this piece, he is somewhat critical of the corporate presence within Second Life, having had a rather empty and underwhelming experience at the islands built by IBM and Cisco.

"Knowing my editor would ask me about practical IT applications, I sought out a virtual island owned by IBM. To get an idea of how exciting this place is, imagine a 1950s-era IBMer in a starched white shirt and tie with a "THINK" sign hanging on his wall."

Part of his frustration was his failure to find any company representatives to talk to about goods and services, or to just answer questions.

"I returned to IBM's main island determined to find an IBMer who could answer some questions. I didn't find such a person, but I had a long chat with a well-dressed wolf who said he was from FurNation. He said he was only there to use the public "sandbox," which is provided by IBM, to build things."

And failing that, finding any person was a welcome respite and at least a chance to ask some questions.

"I told him I was trying to find out if companies in SL made any money. Virtual companies make real money, he said, 'selling furry avatars, sexual bits, weapons and the like,' while real companies like IBM only advertise and recruit. The wolf was not applying for a job at IBM, it seemed, but he thanked IBM for providing the sandbox."

And of course, all of this begged the question of what function did all this corporate presence provide?

"Still fretting about bandwidth, I traveled next to the Cisco Virtual Campus and walked into the Cisco Training Center. A sign indicated that it was for use only by Cisco partners and employees, which raises the question of why it's on the public Internet and not on a Cisco intranet.

In any case, I found neither partners nor employees in any of the training rooms, and no books, computers or training materials of any kind. Never had it seemed so reasonable to ask if there really was a there there."

Though he did have a relatively better experience at Sears, the author I take it was not impressed with corporate presence within Second Life, or that much with Second Life itself for that matter. Some of his advice:

"Each major company location in SL should be staffed with a real person, at least during business hours. If some friendly and attractive avatar at the Cisco center had approached me and said, "Yes, sir, how may I help you?" and then had given me useful answers to my typed in questions about training, employment opportunities or products, I would have fallen out of my chair with amazement and delight."

So what do I make of this? I'm not sure where the subjective "attractive need play into this. Well-groomed would do for me. Otherwise, I think it's a good piece. And it's original. As far as negative criticism goes, it's not some regurgitated bit of anti-hype backlash. Nor is it a piece written to reclaim credibility damaged by over-reaching optimism by riding the pendulum swing going the other way. I wouldn't even argue that it's all that negative. I don't think this writer had any axes to grind. I think he came to the assignment with a fairly neutral standpoint. What Anthes is describing here is a very typical regrettable newbie experience. (And it probably didn't help his experience that some web links were broken).

If you read the full piece, you see that he spends at least two days of his assignment just trying to learn his way through the interface and figure out how to find places. Out of desperation, and having wasted time through misunderstanding and bad advice from another confused newbie, he buys a book. Now, if he had me to help him out, I could have handed him a Notecard with some landmarks to visit later, maybe even checking out a couple places with him. I could have taken him to New Dove and New Citizens Incorporated (NCI) to get him started on his own look and get him hooked up with help resources, even classes if he was interested.

But Anthes didn't have me there to help him, did he. He, like most newbies, was left stranded in an empty virtual landscape having to rely on people just as new, confused, and ultimately as bored and frustrated as he came to be. Experiences like his are one of the reasons that though Second Life can claim millions of registrations, they can only muster an active user population of 30,000 - 55,000 on most days. People try it, go "huh?" and leave, never to come back.

In fact, I was one of those. When I first went to a meeting showcasing Second Life for uses at work, I dutifully created an account; I logged in; I then had my "Huh?" moment. I forced myself go through orientation and get onto the mainland. But my experience only degraded the more time I was there. Totally underwhelmed by the perceived function , the lag and abysmal graphic quality, I thought, "Are people serious? Someone has got to be kidding me, right? This is lame. This is a total waste of time." And I left, never to come back, or so I thought. Had it not been for an overdue promise to visit a co-worker's build in Second Life, I would never have given it another look. And the virtual light bulb above my head would have never gone on.


Truths out of the mouths of newbies

Yes, having a real person staffed in Second Life is a big overhead for a company. Server space (aka "land") is not cheap, let's face it. Tack on some employee cost tasked against really no revenue for most Second Life corporate uses, and how does one justify that on the books?

Well, I would ask, how much is your company image worth? Do you want to build a presence, which I presume has some underlying marketing potential, and then leave it to a a visiting anthropomorphic wolf or rabbit with no company affiliation to explain your presence for you? Even if you have staff in simulation, not being able to find them is just as bad. In a large build, teleport signs can be your friend, and the friend to visitors.

I wouldn't expect my local GAP store, even if they could lock down the goods, to just leave their store abandoned, hoping that I'll come in to admire the goods but not having anyone to talk to, and expect me to still walk away with my questions answered, a good feeling about GAP, or likely to buy something. The GAP doesn't have a virtual store that I know of, but if they did, I would ask: why treat a virtual space any differently? Insofar as how a person (and the force driving that avatar, at least for now, is a real human being) is going to react to your company, a virtual space can have the same impact, good or bad, as a real building. That's why companies staff people to help greet and guide visitors in real world lobbies.

If you have goods or services to sell, jobs to offer, information to give out, have someone there to do it for you that speaks for you and has your interest in mind. If you have a virtual space that you are using for a corporate function, do what you would for a real building when not in use - lock the doors (or in Second Life parlance, just restrict access). In the former, you're going to improve experience and maybe actually drive some use and results; in the latter, the lock will probably give the impression the space is important and actually sees use. In most corporate builds, I suspect that the space probably isn't and doesn't but they don't have to know that. Perception is everything.

Doppelganger cleverly controls perception by use of space in vSide, making it appear larger then it really is. In fact, restricting the overall space has the positive benefit of channeling people into the same area, giving the perception of popularity and a crowd, even with a small number of users. Let's face it, we're social animals and many people feel more comfortable in a crowd, even a virtual one. People imply popularity, that you're in the "right" place, and that there's something engaging to do there. Effective virtual builds, like real world buildings, are probably going to need to adopt architectural solutions for crowd management, but at least for Second Life, factoring in the ability to fly.

Nothing is more lonely or gives a sense of a places unpopularity in Second Life like coming into it and seeing that there's only one green dot on your mini-map - and it's you. Now maybe you are visitor number 2,001 that day and you just happened to come at a time when no one else was there. But you don't know that. Unlike web pages, we can see who's visiting at the same time we are. And it doesn't matter how many people were already there or who will come back later. If you're a newbie, you probably got the impression that the space is unpopular, and that feeling maybe carries over to the brand behind it, like there's something wrong with it maybe?

When Electric Sheep opened the Virtual CSI:NY presence in Second Life, I first peeked in after the show just to see what's what and to try out the OnRez viewer to see how different it was. Well, it was crowded, with a bunch of lost newbies who were tripping over their own interfaces. There was a clever use of audio media and a HUD to explain the CSI game. But the game wasn't the problem. It was Second Life. Even more sad was a veteran SL user who popped in to see and who was valiently trying to explain the interface. She didn't realize that all these newbies were using a different world viewer, the OnRez viewer provided by Electric Sheep, where buttons and functions could be in different places than the Second Life viewer provided by Linden Lab. I could just see the thought bubbles going up all around me: "Huh?" <-- brought back memories; "I don't get it"; "I'm so confused"; "How do I get my clothes back on?"; "This is silly." I tried to do my part and both help guide the newbies by giving them links to helpful places like NCI and New Dove, as well as help flag the veteran Second Lifer that there was a new viewer, hence the mismatch between what she was trying to explain and the reality in place. Well, after such a fiasco, you'd expect to come back to Virtual CSI:NY and expect to see few or fewer dots. But such is not the case when I've peeked back in. Why? I can't be certain but one of the things that I noticed was that there was a staffer, I presume from Electric Sheep (maybe CBS) to greet, answer questions, and help new users get started in the entry zone. Wander farther into the simulation, what does one find but more helpers. And those little green dots on the mini-map? There seem to be quite a few of them, all congregated in various spots. Just in case this was an aberration, I checked back a couple more time and the dots at a glance, seemed about the same. I don't know how profitable Virtual CSI:NY is given all that manpower investment, but I'd have to say in Second Life terms, it's popular. Green dots it seems have a way of attracting more green dots.


I know the avatar I'm talking to isn't real. But is she real?

Presence can be costly. It's a lot of overhead to consider. And one has to figure that the virtual world never sleeps. Logging into Second Life at different times, it takes on a European, Australian, or Asian tone. Companies have to figure that a visitor might pop in at any time.

Which is why AI avatar "bots" are being developed that can take on that overhead instead of having a real person. They work quite cheap - free in fact beyond their build cost and they don't take breaks. The initial ones are likely going to be fairly simple responders but there are rumblings of some very savvy ones (see Artificial Intelligence Applications in 3d Virtual Worlds) that can do a credible job of mimicking the responses of a real person.

This of course undercuts one of the basic presumptions of virtual worlds, that an avatar represents a real person. One of the interesting aspects of virtual worlds and MMOs is that people tend to treat an avatar at face value, as if they were what they appeared to be. If that avatar appears to be a human man or woman, you, as a virtual world user, would probably respond accordingly. This probably belongs in its own post, but imagine a virtual world where someone can seed avatars to make a space seem more popular as if other people really found it engaging, making you think twice about stopping to take a look around at the offers. Or that person chatting you up and that seems so interested in your latest real world shopping adventure could be a bot mining you for buying trends. Or your new "friend,", taking advantage of how viral marketing works, just swears by Eau'dee'doh perfume or MuskOxen deodorant.

Let's forget about the ethics of AI bots for the moment. Until such bots are available to help "staff" virtual builds, companies who are going to spend a lot of money and time investing in virtual worlds need to consider the whole experience if they want to make it a success, imho. That means considering staffing such builds as if they were real locations, at least to the point of offering someone to help answer questions and take down contacts. I pity the poor person stuck in an empty Second Life island all day but hopefully such exposure will help that person suggest ways to bring traffic and make the spot a purposeful destination point with the intention of conducting business or inquiry of some sort.

Otherwise, just hope that the visiting furry using your sandbox is polite and friendly (I have to say, they often are) while she tries to answer people's questions. I'll conclude with the rest of Anthes' advice:

"Yes, I know that would cost serious bucks. One or more real people would have to be paid real dollars to do that. But if a company can't make its virtual experience substantially better -- and I mean really head-and-shoulders better -- than its existing Web capabilities, it might as well not bother.

Because my wolf friend isn't going to buy an IBM computer because he spotted it through the window while playing in the IBM sandbox. The IBM island must be a destination deliberately sought out by people with an interest in IBM, with the knowledge that they will have a really cool virtual experience there while being treated like a real human by a real human."

Enchanting Dryad

Stanford Virtual Worlds Group has a nice little package for us under the Yule tree this year. It's a free tree creation utility for 3d applications and worlds called Dryad. Dryad works on most Windows XP & Vista systems, as well as Mac OS X. There is a promise that a Linux version is being compiled, but will possibly be some time in coming.

Dryad did not function correctly on my XP work T60p (I could use it fine. I just couldn't see any effect in my black preview pane that only blinked now and then to show part of that area). I have had numerous problems with the T60p in regards to virtual world use so I won't fault Dryad too much just yet.

"We are aware of a small number of incompatibilities with existing systems which manifest themselves in the form of graphical corruption. We are currently working to resolve these problems. In the meantime, we suggest you run Dryad on another system."

So until I can get home and pop Dryad onto the Vista game rig and Mac workstation, I'll have to take some of the claims on faith. If you have any updates or comments, please do share.

Since I could see some of the interface, I could explore a bit. The right-hand pane, as you can see in this borrowed screen capture, is a contextual options selection. It changes view according to the editing mode. In this initial view, one chooses the basic tree form. Since I could see the occasional glimpse of the interface, I knew where to click to access options. In one case, I accessed numerous slider bars that would change my tree's form and appearance. Finally, clicking the center checkbox allowed me to save my work in the generic and widely supported OBJ format. Since I don't have any 3d applications on my work machine, I was not able to open my edited file to view any of my work.

Trees are very complex objects to render and have them look any good. I remember I was all excited when Bryce first added tree models and very disappointed in how some of them looked upon render in that older version. WorldBuilder was one of the better approachable applications in terms of getting off the ground quickly but look at the price. Let's not even talk about Lightwave or Maya. Looking at some of the gallery images, Dryad appears to do a mighty fine job for current virtual world use; it's intuitive to use; it's free.

Whats more, there is a collaborative aspect that VWN reported on in their coverage, albeit one that I was unable to witness. If as reported, there's a great potential for growth, communication and building upon the work of others as the Dryad application is stated to improve and grow the more it is utilized by the community - sort of a shared object database I'm guessing. I also took advantage of Dryad's prompt to join the Stanford Virtual Worlds Group mailing list, the form conveniently found on the first page of the Dryad site.

Other than for some bugs which I have faith will be worked out, my only objections regarding Dryad is that is is free, easy to use, encourages creativity and collaboration, and outputs in a generic file format understood by most 3d applications (ah, if only most virtual worlds allowed for direct utilization of OBJ). I mean, where's the elitist factor in that? Give people powerful tools for free or modest cost and soon everyone will be creating these wonderful scenes and objects to use and share. Creativity will become the focus instead of tool use and access.

What is the virtual world coming to? Bah humbug! ;-)

Eyes inside virtual worlds

There's been some good buzz here and there recently about the iWear VR920 virtual reality goggles from Vuzix. Given the mostly positive vibes I'd been reading, I had been expecting a lot more coverage by now in my fav blogs. Haven't seen a word dropped therein. So I'm going to kick this out there. Hopefully someone with some more spare cash than I've got can give them a look-see and get back with some more feedback for the rest of us. I'm especially keen to read about their use in Second Life.

Just like you read it, these are virtual reality goggles. They simulate a projected 62 inch (157 cm) screen via two small LCDs parked in front of your eye-balls. Now, I'm not in favor of strapping another source of EMF radiation directly onto our heads, but I can't say I haven't been dying to give these a spin nevertheless. And though the current drivers are mostly for games, as you would expect, I think there is a huge potential for use in virtual worlds.

The difference is perspective. One of the strengths of virtual worlds, and why they are so attractive in their varied forms, is the projection of a formed self, aka avatar, interacting with other counterparts. But you, as a user, are still mostly removed from the setting, peering at your avatar from above, or even in mouselook, through a window that is your computer screen. In other words, there's still a bit of distance between you and the medium and between you and other users. What these goggles do is to put you into the setting, removing the boundaries. They react to your movements by changing the perspective and reaction of your view as if you were really there. It's a not so subtle distinction and I think the experience could be a great driver for interest and use of virtual worlds as it makes them a bit more natural, at least to our eyes. They are also a step, I think in the right direction, of removing some of the construct of the interface for virtual world use, and let us function more directly in the medium. In this case, it's merely a visual perspective but that's a lot and the difference I imagine (until I find a spare $400 that's all I can do) is profound and if popular, could lead to other inputs such as hand and facial gestures recognition. And though not really enabled as yet (these work, but only with older graphic cards - sometimes), there is a potential for stereoscopic 3d and the creation of depth perception as well.

Getting back to the here-and-now, the linked review and a commentary I read about a user finally getting to use these in Blizzard's World of Warcraft underscores the wow!-factor. Unlike some predecessors, the price-point for these goggles is not unapproachable for the masses, though still far too high for mainstream use. And they are said to be finicky to calibrate and set up and require learning a slower head-turning response. But, this is a point that was underscored in the reviews, they actually deliver as promised. In fact, I'm hearing there is a bit of a backlog in getting one of these so perhaps they are catching on after all.

These goggles currently work with Second Life and a select list of games. But there's no reason that drivers for more virtual worlds and games can't be created given interest and time. Like virtual worlds in general, game use can provide the adoption bridge that brings these into more common use and the non-game virtual world spill-over I think could really help bring new users into that medium. I can imagine these goggles would make Forterra's already excellent training simulations all the more engaging and, after Second Life, I would just love to strap these on and visit an ultra-high DX10 session of LOTRO or Entropia Universe's promised DX10 makeover.

Just want to make a final note that despite what the reviewer erroneously states for supported systems, my understanding is that these work as well on Apple's OS X, not just Windows. So we Mac'sters are apparently covered.

Virtual Worlds Conf. - San Jose, 2007: Content Portability

Day 1, Session 4 - Technical Perspective: Designing for Cross-Platform Delivery and Long-Term Content Portability

Panelist: Aaron Delwiche (Metaversatility)

Given the ever-changing scope of virtual worlds, with new offers appearing every month, almost weekly at times, one is never certain which might ultimately come to the fore. And with the risk imposed by the current lack of standards to build by, if your project or product is too intertwined with a given world, and that world ultimately does not prove to be successful, how do you prevent all your hard work and your clientele from being left stranded in a marginalized virtual environment?

The best solution is to have a - suitcase mentality, - ready to pack it up and move elsewhere when required. But that's easier said than done. What are the practical considerations when envisioning such a virtual gypsy existence?

The panelist for this session is a professor on academic sabbatical, due to return soon to his work at Trinity University, Austin. Delwiche proved a good speaker and I found myself engaged and entertained throughout this session. Nonetheless, given how new virtual worlds are, and like many other panels I attended, there wasn't a lot of concrete example or proven methods attached to the topic discussion. The content was mostly supposed and common sense and despite being a very full session, can be summarized in just a few points:

Plan for portability from the onset.

Preserve copies of your asset files in multiple formats. Use generic, aka the most mutable formats, when possible (eg. OBJ, COLLADA, etc).

Preserve layers, when applicable.

When working with a 3rd-party vendor or sub-contractor, always try to secure the highest quality source files in addition to whatever use files you receive. Note: Most vendors will offer such but often at a much higher cost than just getting either "flattened" or down-sampled use files. After all, they can make more money if you have to come back to them later. Just be sure to account for any such in both your negotiations and budget if using outside talent.

Focus on accessibility. If you do so, portability is likely to follow.

I have to say this is great advice and the most ethical tactic. Too often, disabled users are considered only as an afterthought as to how to service their needs. And accessible solutions too often address the minimum adherence to laws governing requirements rather than effective use and enablement. I've personally found that if you plan and try to future-proof for the effective use of both accessibility and internationalization using a modular solution that can adapt, such will realize long term benefits. Modularity means that you can adapt specific components, realizing faster solutions and not being stuck reinventing everything from scratch, or being caught in a legal bind. And in this case, modularity means a greater likelihood you will be able to pack up at least parts of your kit and take it with you, ala the previous mentioned suitcase analogy.

Regrettably, virtual worlds seem to have taken the somewhat typical approach of not addressing accessibility from the onset. But Devlin, from IBM Ireland's contingent at the IBM booth, was able to offer a great example of virtual world accessibility. He and his team have worked on scripting proximity detection via sound within Activeworlds, in order to help enable virtual world navigation for the visually impaired. It is encouraging to note that some companies are working on accessibility even at this early stage, rather than as an afterthought.

Design your presence around core principals of virtual community. Since technology changes, standards shift, it is sometimes impossible to preserve the functional technology of a space.

So if nothing else, understand that community is the most important thing to preserve when migrating.

That last sentence is particularly key. It was suggested that in order to preserve community in a new space, worlds vendors and managers really need to be already involved, in tune, and understand the core concerns of users/consumers/clients engaged in the original space. "Be kind, be interested, pay attention."

Some panelists in other sessions I attended discounted any value in the interaction of virtual space with the Social Web experience of blogs, forums, wikis, etc. Here though, it was suggested that such spaces are very useful when preserving "community memory" since they are independent of the technology used for the virtual space itself. Certainly it provides a compelling argument to at least consider interlinking functions of the Social Web within or adjunct to virtual offerings.

It was suggested for further study on the topic to understand that value of preservation of The Virtual Community, to read the works of Howard Rheingold, the man who is credited with having invented that phrase through his seminal works.

During the Q&A session, there was some discussion about how to preserve files from Second Life by possibly taking them out of that setting. There was mention of applications, some that would allow for the export and theoretical preservation of native Second Life constructs into XML (LIB SL was mentioned & OpenSim was possibly inferred), or re-importation into other forms via other applications, but which violate Linden Lab's terms of service.

CopyBot, for example, probably built with the best of intentions to help develop Second Life, has been used for outright theft of intellectual property within that simulation. So for the time being, there is no way to legally store for safeguarding or migration anything built or purchased in Second Life outside of that setting. But, with the opening up of the source code, it is possible on a limited basis to import some sculpted prims created in other applications, preserving some aspect of those constructs outside of Second Life. And hopefully more opening up of that simulation will occur, as has been promised.

Virtual Worlds Conf. - San Jose, 2007: Stickier Virtual World Builds

Day 1, Session 3 - Technical Perspective: Designing Stickier Virtual World Builds

Panelist: Christian Lassonde (Millions of Us).

Lassonde introduced himself, mentioning his impressive list of gaming and virtual world credentials, including working on Millions' Second Life build for Pontiac, the massive Motorati group of sims, stated by Lassonde to be the second most visited area in Second Life. I will ignore the lobster pot analogy as I seemed to have lost its thread early on, but he seemed a nice very pleasant fellow.

In addition to Motorati, Lassonde went into a history of some Millions' past efforts that dealt with interactive participation. One very successful effort was Microsoft's "What's in the Blimp" campaign. This campaign detailed a challenge to solve the puzzle involved, in some cases, offering hurdles such as answering questions nearly identical to Microsoft's interview questions. Mention of this campaign seems to again, highlight those themes of events, brands, and community found in other conference sessions.

The example brought up for stickiness was the forthcoming initiative to reinvigorate the Second Life space for Toyota's Scion. Lassonde went on to detail some issues they had had for a build for Toyota Scion. After launch, the build lost much of its initial attraction so they started inviting people to take up residences and businesses in the build, hoping to get stickiness by creating a community. What they found was that the community soon took on a life of its own and this suggested that the next incarnation would be a launch where the Scion community could help shape the story itself and not just be recipients to the next phase. And this apparently has been well received and like the CSI effort by Electric Sheep, a good proof in what many at the convention were saying about brands driving community and events. Then we watched some Machinima that was to kick off the event (and which was reshown in the Day 2 keynote intro). This animation sequence, titled "Sand" if I recall, follows three explorers in a sandy desert finding a buried vehicle which inadvertently leads to their receiving a broadcast from the future.

He went on to show another example where virtual storytelling, started and monitored by the vendors and Millions of Us, but largely driven by the community which took off in ways unexpected and unplanned for. This event was the WWE Summerslam for Gaia Online and I think the experience was so positive that it seemed to suggest something grander perhaps for Scion, or that is what I was sort of sensing.

The thing is that the notion of virtual storytelling, which I've no doubt it is very attractive, exciting, buzz generating and worthwhile - and frankly one I'd not considered before so I was glad to hear of it - it is only one aspect of a sticky solution - and a possible sticky solution at that since it remains little tested at this point.

I had been hoping to hear about some existing web and other industry techniques that could be adapted to virtual worlds or discoveries that have come up to date. I pointed out, in one of my questions, that real estate agencies from the U.S. and Australia had gotten good space traction and continued brand exposure by offering subsidized houses conjoined to views of simulations of real houses. That community aspect was perhaps more natural for them but it still was a good sticky point. Could he offer anything else like that?

Well, no. He just kind of shrugged, seeming a bit lost for what I was asking. So, I pointed something that I'd noted before about the Pontiac build, which, though like all of Millions' products - top notch in terms of looks and design - still seemed to be a lost opportunity in terms of branding and "stickiness" when I was there. Since he'd helped build that, it would hopefully put this into a better context for him.

I stated that there is a weekly race in Second Life by residents on My Control Speedway where people come with their latest builds along with friends, have some fun and compete for a small prize purse put up by a German company. The company gets some recognition and thanks but the event is run by Second Life volunteers and overall costs the sponsor very little. I asked Mr. Lassonde, why isn't Pontiac, who spent a fortune building this huge beautiful facility, doing that? (Maybe I was just unlucky but in the several times I'd been there to take screen caps for a report, Pontiac sims were nearly empty). So not my exact words, but something like they could be offering weekly Sunday formula 1 races, stock car races on Thursday nights. They could have monthly car shows where Second Life builders can come show off their goods just like in a real car show - maybe with a charity race afterwards. They could rent out small vendor spaces to set up booths just for the event, not to generate any real money, but to make it more like a village faire - giving people a sense of anticipation and something to look forward to on Motorati each week, month, year - etc. That kind of thing is natural to the space and there would be volunteers to help run it and the cost to Pontiac would be quite small but the branding potential and success story would be golden.* Anyway, he just shrugged and said that was all up to Pontiac.

*My picking on Pontiac is absolutely undeserved and better stated to be a generic example of some possible community activities for any automotive dealer. I now understand that Pontiac has been doing a huge amount of community activity around car culture, including offering space to devotees, and doesn't need my advice to find more sticky points than I can ever think of. The point was just to suggest some sticky options that took a different track than interactive storytelling.

So the next question tracked back to interactive stories and I was just trying to bust my brain to come up with something that could show that stickiness was a nuanced theme, one that could benefit from more than one example. Since no one else was asking any more questions, I asked another about the interlinking of the Social Web. If the Social Web was as sticky as everyone seemed to be saying, as in the panel before and the keynote intro, were there any ways to tap into that to bridge the two environments and keep people engaged in both spaces?

Well, he turned to one of his co-workers in the crowd, the fellow giving the next day's keynote intro I believe (you know him well I suspect), and they just sort of nodded that they'd discussed this and I'm not sure of the exact words of the answer but it seemed that they didn't see any interconnectedness between Web 2.0 and virtual worlds and had pretty much dismissed such, each being different animals I suppose, though that's not exactly what he said.

I gave up. I have to say that I did not find this a particularly useful session. It would have really been better served by people from product marketing, even better, people who had applied existing marketing strategies to discover what worked, what didn't work, and what was unique to virtual space. Instead I felt what we had was more of an enthusiastic sharing, though very valuable in the concept of virtual storytelling, of just one aspect that has really yet to be proven on the scale intended. (And one that will require a lot more over sight and it seems must be somewhat limited in duration unless the ROI justifies keeping it going).

Had I not parked myself dead center in front of the panelist, I'd have gotten up and hightailed it over to another session (I always wish I could be at two or three places at a conference). However, not wishing to be rude, I decided to just stick it out and hope it ended early (which it did thankfully as questions dried up). I had a full fifteen minutes left and a booked it over to catch the end of the Multiverse session, which as it went into overtime, gave me a good peek into that session as well.


Multiverse

Well, I really wish I'd been in this session instead. I caught the tail-end of the Q&A and I was really impressed with the answers and the product. It seemed they were really trying to cover all contingencies and I think the product is probably better poised than I'd indicated from my notes in my platform session.

But since I missed it, next best thing is to find a cover post with all the details and more than I would have noted, courtesy of VWN.