| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (19)

Posted: Nov 6th 2007 1:46PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
There is no opposition because voluntarily creating a virtual world full of the ability to re-enact your favorite scene of fan-fiction where Churchill is molested vigorously by his cabinet - not his political associates but rather his actual cabinet full of his double vested suits - has investors-jumping-from-their-skyscraper-windows written all over it.

Posted: Nov 6th 2007 4:42PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Investors are particularly keen on avoiding user-generated-content in an open setting.
Reply

Posted: Nov 6th 2007 4:47PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I can't help it - I'm still laughing about the cabinet. :)
Reply

Posted: Nov 19th 2007 5:36AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
#2: Tateru, looking back at your comment about user generated content, I wonder how different SL is in this from Flickr, LiveJournal, MySpace, or any other site that allows people to upload content like text or pictures?
Reply

Posted: Nov 6th 2007 2:17PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If the answer is so bloody obvious, why isn't it in the body of the 'article'?

Posted: Nov 6th 2007 2:34PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Just spent a year in it.
Thought about it.
Still not sure what it's all about.
That's okay.
I've been in RL longer.
Not sure what that's about, either.
Ask me again in a year.
But I'm not sure I'll be changing my answer.

Posted: Nov 6th 2007 3:21PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I want to kill Second life, but not to replace it with anything ... just to kill it really. Waste of the worlds bandwidth you ask me.

Fact is that companies are not trying to make a Second life killer they are making something unique to their company and having different selling points rather than a one-up clone of SL. Kind of like how people compare Lotro to WoW all the time with the less than passing resemblance to allot of ideas that have come out already.

The press credit SL with way too much, and SL's Pr manager must be congratulated for hyping up what is at best a 10 minute affair.

Posted: Nov 6th 2007 2:38PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Tateru, that's exactly the point! You're so right on this. Worse than that, a lot of "industry experts" tend to use the old, flawed argument of "I don't need to eat s**t to know I don't like it". Well, that can be used to explain everything really; and it's an obvious fallacy. If you never used SL long enough — and that means, as you said, spending a few months in-world — you'll always miss the point of what it is really like. I mean, after half a year, I wasn't sure yet of what SL was good for (the answer "for everything" wasn't obvious yet).

Perhaps the issue is the big learning curve. It's like moving to a foreign country. As a tourist you might have an impression, and talk about that impression. But live it as a resident for half a year at least, and you'll have a good grasping of what it means living as a resident... and the same applies exactly to Second Life as well.

Alas, "industry experts" have too many "platforms" to evaluate and no time to do it thoroughly: they will have to employ their "expertise" to try to evaluate things like Second Life quickly (ie. in a couple of hours at most) and hope they got it right.

But it's the same thing as trying to describe "Canada" by spending 2 hours in an airport on Toronto.

Posted: Nov 6th 2007 2:53PM Ghen said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I still don't get it. All I get is that people who play Second Life obviously think down on everyone else :P

Posted: Nov 6th 2007 4:47PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
People tend to be a bit insular. Most MMOs/virtual worlds have communities of people who think that every other one is populated by "geeks and freaks, and teenage perverts".

The insularity doesn't make sense - but then, I don't think it has to.
Reply

Posted: Nov 6th 2007 3:17PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"as well as their traditional web sites like e-mail...

A swing and a miss. Myspace and Facebook aren't anything like Second Life, and Second Life isn't anything like Web2.0."


lol, and since when is someone's email is a website? that guy is probably one of those people who think there are internetS Xp

Posted: Nov 6th 2007 4:00PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The Sims Multiverse is going to be the WoW of virtual worlds. Second Life is more like a UO or Everquest.

Posted: Nov 6th 2007 4:42PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@VonKaiser: I think you may have happened upon the one thing that SL does _not_ contain at the moment. Churchill/gin bottle, I'm sure exists already, but cabinet... I would patent the idea if I were you.

Posted: Nov 6th 2007 6:02PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The biggest reason is money. Second Life has finally started to make money after how many years being around? It's hard to find investors that are willing to invest if they aren't going to see a turnaround for several years. If the new company positions themselves to make money there won't be any interest. It will be like a There or Sony Home clone. There is a lot more lucrative things to invest in for the effort.

Posted: Nov 6th 2007 6:11PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
In my experience having worked with a lot of startups and venture capitalists, the one big thing an investor really wants when they buy in to a company is at least double their money back in 4-5 years. Ideally 3-4 times. They don't buy in unless they think (rightly or wrongly) that that's more likely than not.

The funky thing, as I've discovered, is that the *next* round of investors wants... exactly the same thing.

I've watched the cycle in more mature businesses and wondered just how far that little bubble of demand-of-return can really go. It only takes 2-3 cycles before the return people are expecting for their share in the business far exceeds the valuation.

Of course, the valuation doesn't matter worth a damn if you can convince someone to pay what you're asking.

Under a basic free-market system, something is worth what you can *get* for it - intrinsic value is only a very loose guideline.

Of course, as we reported earlier, someone just bought a tiny piece of Linden Lab from an existing investor for (we are told) 500+ million US dollars. Considering the original investors (combined) paid about 33 million altogether, I suppose someone got their money back.

http://www.massively.com/2007/11/06/the-value-of-second-life/

Either the new buyer is misled about the possibilities of the platform - or overconfident - or they know something we don't. Maybe all three.
Reply

Posted: Nov 6th 2007 6:11PM Zantom said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Good article. I am not well informed at all the upcoming SL'esk projects in the works, but unless the project includes completely user generated (and copyrightable) content and convertible currency then the mark to compete is surely missed. That is not to say that there wouldn't be a market for such a project lacking these things, but it wouldn't drive current SL'ians away from their current cyber homes.

Further, to create an engine equal to the capability of Second Life would be insurmountable. The developers of Second Life have been doing this for so long without a direct competitor that the entry to market point is way too high for investors to risk at this point. If something were to truly compete now it would have to start out small like SL did and grow to reach and/or beat SL after many years of operation.

For those wondering what the heart of SL is and why the articles afore mentioned competing projects are not in the same soup line is because Second Life is not a social platform (though nothing restricts it for that use), nor is it a virtual doll house. If you wanted an analogy that best described what the heart of SL is, it would be best compared to a 3D world wide web.

Posted: Nov 6th 2007 7:55PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If I might engage in a bit of meta-commentary:

This is a good example of what happens when SL news meets MMORPG news. Opinion pieces like this are read very differently by people who are already invested in the SL platform than by those who haven't drunk the kool aid.

I think it's in the long run for the better since it encourages the writers of this blog to back up their claims a bit more diligently than they might if they were writing for an audience of SL fanboys and girls.

Good stuff, Tateru.

Posted: Nov 6th 2007 8:21PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm finding the feedback very educational. It's fascinating to see how different people with different backgrounds respond.
Reply

Posted: Nov 15th 2007 10:23AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report

It could be that Second Life now has severe competition in a field where the price point is US$10/month -- to succeed a new enterprise now needs to discover some form of electronic interaction that currently resides only in academia, fiction or a controlled substance. Incremental improvements will run into bandwidth or computer limitations that most non-elite users suffer. A fix for the assorted annoyances of Second Life might not offer enough improvement (especially if LL took the hint after the first 1,000 people left). Building the world would require either a massive investment of design talent costing millions of euros upfront, or many months spent by users. It would also be certain that, with the increased coverage of MMORPGs in the traditional media, a new MMORPG would not enjoy the comparatively tame and gradual growth of Second Life: instead of four years to 40,000 simultaneous users, the new developer would get 24 hours.

Featured Stories

Coming soon
Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW