To me, Second Life is simply a virtual place, which has been steadily growing for 5 or 6 years. The various ways people have tried to make it work for them ( residents and companies ) are all good, some are more successful than others, some promise more and are higher profile. I’m not sure I think about it being the 3d internet at all, and to be honest I don’t think that has ever really been its intent. I think its something else, which we don’t understand yet, but is evolving at its own pace, slowly and steadily, and of course its really just an very good extension of numerous other virtual world projects going back to the 70s.

At the moment I have to say that it seems far more logical, that the mainstream adoption of a concept like the metaverse or a globally pervasive location based web overlay, is far more likely to come though augmented reality / mobile applications. I say this because that approach requires no process of avatarisation - you don’t immerse to go to the data or the people, the data or the people come to you. I think successful and lasting avatarisation requires a certain type of self analytical ability or expression, which may be limited to an early adopter, or early adopter+ demographic.

However as Justin says, a mixture of fully immersive places, 2 dimensional web and location based augmented reality applications seems to be a perfectly logical way forward on all fronts.

I think its a shame to think of the 06/07 period as a regret. That was a period of people trying to do something very hard - make a virtual place pay for itself in real world terms. Those projects deserve respect for trying this and indeed finding out many things that dont work, as well as many that do.

Applying the Gartner hype cycle to just the adoption of Second Life is an incorrect reflection on the larger development of virtual worlds. When considered along that 30 year time-frame, the peak of inflated expectations and trough of disillusionment are just a little blip, similar to many before.

The future of the internet / enterprise / education etc etc may well go its own way, and VWs will probably play a part in all that. Frankly though, I’m more interested in the unique and new things which these new media afford, not trying to shoehorn them into extending or slightly augmenting old models.

Which is from what the older websites have said, was the end of the first web3d hype in the early 2000s.

It just goes to show that “tools” sold to developers to use any way they want commercially ALWAYS trumps “single company owned service media platforms” for any real commercial industries growth.

I dont remember any of these “big 3″ running there businesses/or client projects this way.

Bailouts from the government were meant to help “industries” not “companies”.

Best to let these 3 join the ranks of being just another freelance flash/web house.

Join the rest of us flash artists and action script dudes since 1999.

cdz

Dusan, I thought you stated this quite well “However, if it can continue to allow users to create their OWN value then the attraction of SL isn’t that it’s a mass media platform, it’s that it has a “work force” that’s in the 10s of thousands”

I agree with you. It’s funny how many people I run into out there that think SL is dead, but I try to tell them otherwise.

An interesting trend we see is kids brands wanting to shift their websites to a 3D or 3D-like interface. They are not necessarily creating a full MMO. Time will tell to see how this really plays out. While you said that most virtual worlds fail, these are websites which already have high traffic built around a real world brand, and where kids are already spending a fair amount of time playing flash games. I do not think that these websites will take over the world and become monsters of market share, but I believe that it is much easier to monetize a virtual world-like website than a normal one via virtual goods.

OK, all I have time to dash off, but interesting conversation.

One of the things I find most compelling about SL is, in fact, the opportunity to meet avatars from all over the world who brin all those different viewpoints and worldviews to the table.

From an education POV, what I see is rapidly increasing interest and awareness. The majority of educators missed the 2006 hype period entirely and are just now hearing about SL and the really interesting applications.

Time will tell. I for one am still really excited about the possibilities of such a rich environment for higher ed applications in particular.

The real break throughs this year for SL will I believe be HTML on a prim and HTTP-In (and maybe mesh imports - but if they mishandle that they could just as easily sink themselves). With those in hand, you could see all kinds of cross-platform applications and mash-ups, and you could hack together what Qwak does, only with far better looking avatars.

Add Quest 3D and Unity 3D to the mix (now cross-platform woot!) and you have a decent range of scripting abilities, games, and mash-ups.

You’re right about Second Life - I suppose it’s why I said “chugging along” - it’s not ready for the millions that ESC is after. However, if it can continue to allow users to create their OWN value then the attraction of SL isn’t that it’s a mass media platform, it’s that it has a “work force” that’s in the 10s of thousands, with 100s of schools (as Justin points out), independent content creators, technologists and others.

Jonathan really is missing the point. But then, someone who posts anonymously usually is. (Gif, I’ll exempt you, there’s only one Gif after all). But what was telling about his comment was the phrase ‘2D and verbal tools’. This belies either an ignorance of where 3D tools can take you, or a lack of recognition of the different communication and learning styles. Besides which, anyone who’d propose that one form of interaction is a replacement for all others probably believes that books are dead or, conversely, that the Web will never achieve the power of the printed word. Two complementary media, each part of the mix, each with its strengths.

I suppose it’s no secret whether I’m an optimist or a pessimist about virtual worlds. My bet is they all win: Web-based worlds, virtual worlds, enterprise uses and branded entertainments. I also bet that the breakthroughs to come are in mixed/augmented reality and mirror worlds, in particular cross-media controllers and appliances and sensors that talk to virtual platforms; and geo-specific virtual worlds that allow location-specific tagging and data visualization.

Sure, no one thing will last forever. Eventually ‘creative destruction’ lets us all start all over again, picking up from past successes and failures and forging on anew. But that’s OK. I lost interest in the limits of my Commodore 64 a few years ago.