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

Reader Comments (15)

Posted: Dec 30th 2009 6:19PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So I'm curious, in that the coverage of Second Life on this site normally has an annoyingly positive slant, was this article intentionally cast in a negative light, or did Second Life really have such a bad year?

If you read through the article it sounds very much like a company teetering on the brink of ruin, trying every ham-fisted method it can think of to squeeze more profit out of it's operations.

Just sayin' :b

Posted: Dec 30th 2009 10:49PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
We get as many emails complaining that our coverage is 'too negative' as we do telling us that it is 'too positive', and about the same articles. As long as that keeps happening, we assume that we're somewhere in the middle :)

"it sounds very much like a company teetering on the brink of ruin, trying every ham-fisted method it can think of to squeeze more profit out of it's operations."

Really? That's not the impression that I got myself.
Reply

Posted: Dec 30th 2009 6:22PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wow, slow year.

Last year's review you wrote if I remember correctly was like 6-pages.

It also just kind of feels like the grid is slowing down, the concurrency thing you spoke on last seems like a report on an exodus of some sort. There is no doubt SL is nowhere near what it was when I first came in-world in early 2006.

Huge paradigm shifts in the wind and a lot more behind those on the way as well.

Posted: Dec 30th 2009 10:54PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'd apply the term 'attrition' rather than 'exodus'. The decline exists, but doesn't indicate that people are packing up and leaving in droves, or stampeding towards the exits.

Overall, I'd call the year one of flat growth. That there is a decline in concurrency can also indicate that people have shortened their login sessions on the grid, rather than having gone anywhere.
Reply

Posted: Dec 30th 2009 7:10PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sounds like most of the interesting things didn't get covered. Nothing about IBM's work in SL, Nebraska -> SL Enterprise, the first ever SL Developer conference, SLCC 2009, Obama's livecast, Stroker and Munchflower's lawsuit against Linden Lab, or one of countless things universities are doing in SL. Still, Massively's covered Second Life more than any other blog or media outlet. *shrugs*

Posted: Dec 30th 2009 10:42PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm sure there's at least a dozen things that *should* be on that list that we missed. We did get that lawsuit, though, and Nebraska/Enterprise.
Reply

Posted: Dec 31st 2009 12:25AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
it would be interesting to read a comparison between this year and previous years

Posted: Dec 31st 2009 12:26AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'd certainly agree with the concurrency idea. I still use SL a lot, for example, but my sessions are often much shorter than they used to be - after all, I've explored much of the bits of the grid that interest me. Even though there's a lot of new stuff, a lot of it (naturally) won't be to my taste.

Posted: Dec 31st 2009 2:41AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The one great thing about SL is that it actually releases its numbers. Except for games like EVE, most companies covered on Massive treat their subscriber data as TOP SECRET. IMO, federal law should require that they release that data at least twice a year.

Posted: Dec 31st 2009 3:51AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't know if I'd agree with a law to require such transparency, but your point regarding LL's comparably candid communication is one we probably should all keep in mind.

The Lab can be very deceptive and masterful (or cumbersome, depending on your view) spin doctors, but at the end of the day they seem to make more of an effort at communication than most service providers do.

Room for improvement exists, absolutely, but they could be a lot worse!
Reply

Posted: Dec 31st 2009 12:00PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
One correction. The Blue Mars domain changed in December, it is now
http://www.bluemars.com/

My guess is a major SL story for 2010 will be the development of Blue Mars as another virtual world. It is still a long way from finished, especially on the user interface side, but a couple hundred independent developers are creating content for it, and at least one very famous SL estate owner has got a developer account:

http://picasaweb.google.com/danielravennest/BlueMarsTechnical#5420829946963767474

Posted: Jan 2nd 2010 1:56AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I hope Blue Mars provides the first real competition to SecondLife. Maybe it will give the Lindens the kick to the behind they need to finish or fix all the incomplete and broken parts of SL.

Like the appearance editor, the SL camera placement, profiles, land information, Windlight, texture uploader has been broken since at least 2005 and only offers partial functionality, replacing the clearly placeholder assets such as default animations and skin/makeup art assets, not to mention including something in the viewer to replace the default animations. You know, mostly stuff that should be available before SL goes into beta so the bugs can be worked out before SL goes out of beta.

Posted: Jan 3rd 2010 8:27PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I didn't feel Tats' article to be "too negative"... just listing facts :) Some are good, some are bad, most are just... part of the reality of virtual worlds :)

Curiously enough, I'll be frowning at the 2D Web in 2010, and not at virtual worlds. My little finger tells me that somehow people will start to look at their statistics and see that pushing URLs on Twitter and Facebook has less effect than... launching a conference to present a product in, say, Second Life.

Blue Mars is on this year's focus. After relative failures (in the sense that they never outpaced SL) of Kaneva, Twinity, VastPark, Multiverse, and most recently Metaplace, not to mention Lively of course, all of which were labeled as "SL-killers" at some point, we'll see how clever the Blue Mars executives will play the corporate game to create a better SL than SL itself. I can say I'm not impressed so far; in fact, the only virtual world out there that continues to show promise (even though it's way too limited for my own taste — not so for its 20 million users though!) is... IMVU! :) (but, alas, it's not good enough for, say, business or academic research)

We'll see.

Posted: Jan 4th 2010 3:29AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Gwyn wrote:

>Curiously enough, I'll be frowning at the 2D Web in 2010, and not at virtual
>worlds. My little finger tells me that somehow people will start to look at their
>statistics and see that pushing URLs on Twitter and Facebook has less effect
>than... launching a conference to present a product in, say, Second Life.

Ah, pseudo-Linden fan(girl) Gwyn at it again!

Twitter etc is more economical, simple and straightforward. Second Life requires *heavy* investment, continued maintenance and very high data/bandwidth requirements.

So, why is Gwyn pushing hard for this inconvenient, time-wasting primitive platform? 'She is one of the few people worldwide who relies on being one of Linden Research's best friends to put bread and milk on the table. Turning a blind eye to all the destructive, unwanted policies and programs that Linden Research has implemented in the last 18 months, with assistance from the marketing-orientated CEO Mark Kingdon.

Tthe frail, primitive platform: Too expensive to maintain for businesses, too much time consuming and bandwidth-intensive for everyone else. Waste of time too, because of Linden Research's destructive, unwanted policy changes and implementations (Zindra, biased 'partnership programs', abrupt rental pricing increases, 30% linden feed for GSPs,paying to list freebies on XStreet, biased fashion 'lookbook'... List goes on).

People who rely on Linden Research to put bread on the table aren't helping Second Life grow. They're effectively encouraging the destruction of SL by turning a blind eye towards all the destructive changes that Linden Research have made in the last 18 months (since Mark Kingdon took the CEO helm).

Simple Web services (like Twitter) and YouTube ad videos work wonders with Marketing.


Posted: Jan 4th 2010 7:48PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Thanks for the article.
Like aliasisudonomo, my sessions are also much shorter. Not because there is nothing left for me to explore, but the experience isnt the same.

Im anxious to see what type of script limitations are imposed in 2010.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW