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

Reader Comments (11)

Posted: Dec 22nd 2009 12:03PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It would be nice if they open sourced the whole pile. I doubt it'll happen though.

Posted: Dec 22nd 2009 3:14PM Jhaer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
They won't open source it because even without Metaplace the underlying tools will allow them to rapidly develop small world-like games for others.
Reply

Posted: Dec 22nd 2009 3:15PM Jhaer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
They won't open source it because even without Metaplace the underlying tools will allow them to rapidly develop small world-like games for others.
Reply

Posted: Dec 22nd 2009 12:17PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Read: "We couldn't find addition source of venture capital in order to continue with any viability".

Posted: Dec 22nd 2009 12:29PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I would love to know what numbers they projected to generate their big $6+ Million investment round last year. I don't know if this is the case for Metaplace, but if their projections were way off for the year, it could easily have initiated some sort of Plan B. Time (may) tell. I posted on this topic this morning here: http://botgirl.blogspot.com/2009/12/are-forterra-and-metaplace-just-first.html

Posted: Dec 22nd 2009 12:34PM thud said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If they wanted to turn a profit quicker, then they really missed the boat on encouraging user development. I always felt like I never had enough space to test build things, a key factor in getting users to fork over cash. In Second Life, sandbox regions allow limitless content creation for non-paying residents. In Blue Mars, the Dev Tools do the same. It's the sandbox aspect of content creation in virtual worlds that ultimately leads to profits for the host company. The more a user is allowed to create, the more inclined that user is to pay for some space to share their creations.

In metaplace, you only had one "world" with two "places" at your disposal. Using it as a sandbox meant not being able to have a world to share. using it to share meant stagnant content growth because you no longer had a sandbox to experiment with.

That sandbox wall is what made me leave metaplace soon after joining.

Posted: Dec 27th 2009 10:23PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I have to really disagree with this one. For starters, you yourself mentioned you got 2 places. Do what I did; have your primary place the community-facing 'world' to share, and the secondary place as your sandbox. I used to develop that way all the time, and had plenty of space to make neat little things even if I HAD only one world. Content creation was absolutely fantastic in Metaplace, and it really blows that they are shutting down so early.
Reply

Posted: Dec 22nd 2009 1:31PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Poor Ralph,

He's had a rough decade.

Posted: Dec 22nd 2009 2:39PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
When I got the e-mail about this my first response was "huh, it's still in beta, why are they complaining?!"

Here's a clue for whoever made the decision to shut it down -- when you're still in beta and not really marketing your product (I haven't seen any metaplace ads, have you?) why on earth would you expect to be getting any significant market share? It's bad enough they've been charging people for a product still in beta, but to then complain it's not making enough profit is assinine.

Also, as another poster said, the clunkiness of trying to develop any content makes it hard to, you know, actually develop content.

Posted: Dec 22nd 2009 5:21PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I tried the platform multiple times and it simply wasn't good enough. It kinda reminded me of Lively from Google which was clear from the start that it wouldn't survive either. Of course with Google you never know since they don't mind loosing money on certain projects. I am having serious doubts about Blue Mars as well simply due to the fact that their platform requirements are way to steep. Unless they are able to live of investment capitial over the next 3 years so technology has a chance to catch up, they'll have a very hard time surviving. I hope not because Second Life really needs some healthy competition and there simply isn't a match at this point.

Posted: Dec 22nd 2009 6:23PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I would not be surprised to see this coming from the consoles in the back end of 2010 or the earlier part of 2011. Look at XBOX Live as an early indicator: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_(Xbox_360)

Featured Stories

Betawatch: April 12 - 18, 2014

Posted on Apr 18th 2014 8:00PM

Hands-on with Windborne's early access

Posted on Apr 18th 2014 5:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW