I was going to live blog the 3DTLC conference and take lots of detailed notes on the case studies and panel discussions but then got distracted by the Twitter feed of the show which was kind of exciting – I felt like I was at Metanomics casting out pithy comments in the back chat and feeling witty (which isn’t the same as BEING witty, of course) except that I wished the panelists could WATCH the back chat – nothing like rattling them with a few comments to throw them off message right?
In any case, it wasn’t like my first virtual world conference which covered kid’s worlds, and openSim, and platforms and collaboration and….well, and anything that could be thrown into the giant basket that could be called virtual worlds. The organizers at Show Initiative (publishers of Virtual World News) decided to split things off and so we had the Engage Expo which I didn’t attend, and which I take it was more of a consumer thing, which meant of course mostly a kids thing, and there was 3DTLC, which was positioned for the adults.
So there was a cast of – well, a hundred or two attendees and a few dozen panelists, with “wow, I know that brand” names on their business cards, among them many of the usual suspects like Intel and IBM and Sun, but others that I maybe didn’t expect, like Chevron and BP and KPMG and then the one guy who totally didn’t fit in but who generated the most discussion: he trains volunteer police forces for virtual worlds, and he talked too long and I couldn’t follow him, but his bottom line seemed to be that virtual worlds are filled with users with criminal intent and it’s time to raise a militia, man.
One of the first themes of the conference was wording. Or I call it spin, but this being Washington they probably just call it par for the course: war on terror one week becomes overseas protective actions the next or whatever they’re calling it these days.
So 3DTLC wasn’t called the “virtual world training, learning, and collaboration conference”, it was called 3D….but I didn’t see anyone presenting on PaperVision or Google Earth or PhotoSynth – what I saw were avatars, and they were all in 3D spaces, and in my books those are all virtual worlds.
Erica Driver kicked things off by reminding us that she’s calling all this stuff the “Immersive Internet” which is odd – because I’ve felt immersed in the Internet forever, there’s nothing non-immersive about it, although maybe the idea is that 3D makes it even more so.
But I won’t use the term “Immersive Internet” with clients because it has this faint ring of escapism: “hey, bring your staff into this new 3D technology stuff, they’ll be immersed!” – at which point the VP of Marketing or whatever raises an eyebrow and pictures his staff running off to Warcraft and being so immersed that the phones don’t get answered and the e-mail gets piled up and he’s running interventions.
So there was this sort of low-grade struggle to come up with the right name. The reasoning seems to be that if you call it virtual worlds it has too many negative associations. And so you have people calling it “3D Internet Technology” but hardly anyone calling it the “Metaverse” which is too geeky anyways, and who can spend the time explaining the four quadrants all the time?
But my problem with what you call it is that the term virtual worlds isn’t encompassing enough, even when it’s clearly a world that you’re talking about – like Second Life, say, or the many mini worlds of Metaplace, or the ‘simulations’ behind the firewall or whatever. Because the richness of virtual worlds is increasingly an ecosystem of connections and content that bleeds from Web to world – whether it’s tracking your friends in Plurk, or posting your in-world photos to KoinUp, or booking virtual meeting with your colleagues through Lotus Sametime.
For now, I just call it an application, or a virtual world, or maybe Web 3D.0 – like Web 2.0 only better and with an extra letter in it. Because virtual worlds are places, with people, and it’s 3D, and it’s social, and everyone’s looking for the next venture capital gold mine, right? And while Web 3.0 is taken, no one understands the semantic Web anyways, and besides I tucked in that extra letter.
But the reality is that the exciting stuff to do with 3D isn’t necessarily happening in virtual worlds anyways: frankly, I’m not sure it is. Which is fine, because it’s all starting to bleed together, and into the browser, and into Flash.
There’s more intriguing work being done right now with 3D desktops (like the sparkly and intriguing Bump Top, for example. Or Photosynth, which I mentioned above, which turns photos into a David Hockney painting.
PhotoSynth Sample
David Hockney
Now, before we leave naming conventions, the other name that I discovered has evil connotations was the word “game” – so much so that after it was first mentioned, panelists kept referring to it as the “G word”. Now, this is intriguing to me, because I thought all the money these days was in games, and that companies were delivering little game widgets to their staff to keep them motivated and trained, and I follow the Serious Games discussions, especially the health related ones, and they don’t seem to be struggling to come up with another name – so maybe it’s just the virtual worldy types have other things in mind, or there’s a cultural thing there somewhere, I’m not sure.
But all of which had me thinking: I’m not sure who these people are pitching to, but maybe they need to find the folks in the corporate chain with a little more imagination than someone who convulses and twitches if you use the words ‘game’ or ‘virtual worlds’.
What is Yesterday but How is Tomorrow
Regardless of what it’s all called, 3DTLC clearly marked a break between the what and the why. It’s kind of like the days when I was pitching the Internet and you’d have to spend an hour explaining WHAT a browser is WHAT a link leads to. Same with virtual worlds – yesterday it was all “What” stuff:
- What is a virtual world
- What is an avatar
- What is the technology underneath it all
- What’s my business model.
And so the kind of rotating, geeky, acronym and jargon-laded chat of last year (with an even greater number of people using that word “space” that drives me so crazy, as in “I’m in the training SPACE” instead of just saying “I work in training”) has been replaced by “Why’s”:
- Why should I use virtual worlds
- Why should my boss care
- Why will this be a success.
So the hunt was on for metrics and studies and returns on investment and PROOF: give me some specific “use cases” (did I just use the term use case? Shoot me!), show me why this has a lower tolerance for failure than it did a year ago, and remind me why I’m doing it so we can measure it and prove it works.
And this is where the 3DTLC conference succeeded: it was all about proofs. Examples. And I think the audience was thrilled that Sun was retaining MBA students by using virtual worlds, and that Chevron was training people on how not explode a refinery, and that we could all go home to our bosses and say “yeah, but BP is using this to bring global teams together, and they’re not some little prim shoe maker in Second Life, this stuff is REAL!”
The problem is I’m always sort of thinking of the ‘how’s’ – the questions that come AFTER the “let’s do a virtual meeting” phase of things, like:
- How do I embed this technology in my current enterprise systems
- How do I make virtual worlds part of my brand planning process
- How do I embed and collaborate on 3D models of my plant, (or mock up store designs, or import meshes)
- How do I take advantage of the fact that there are incredibly talented people out in the world who are working in virtual worlds and tap into that creativity to bring my school, or my enterprise, or my career more value?
In the hunt for proof, we risk forgetting that in addition to trying to water down what we call this stuff, and selling the simple, “easy-wins” to our bosses or colleagues – this “space” is also about the big stuff, the game-changing and transformative potential of a technology that brings people together in an engaging, collaborative and, yes, immersive way and produces more than a cost-savings or an improved retention rate.
It matters because it contains whimsy, and connection, and stories. Problem is, you can’t fit that in a conference title. So in the meantime, when I hear the terminology watered down I’ll ask the question: are you doing that to make it more palatable, or because you’re trying to capture that the metaverse is as big as your imagination.
Additional 3DTLC Coverage:
Live Twitter stream from conference
Ian Hughes (E-Predator) Gives a Comprehensive Review
Maybe RT3D media is like God.
It has many names and it only exists on faith.
Less time naming/writing/conferencing…more time doing/learning/exploring for more than just a few. That would really mean more to a better tommorrow for the medium.:)
Interestingly enough, last night we had about a dozen “web3d.oh;)” virgins show up from all differnt platforms/in many different browsers, and chat about and watch some video clips from a late night TV show. The shows Host/creator joined us for the test. All were tv/ website media savy creators of film/print/media etc. All had never done any “second lives” though some had played video games in youth or on consoles in the last years..etc…
Through the typical “bugs” and “limitations” that dont make it in the press releases or conference canned demos, we managed to “communicate” using realtime 3d media to augment the text chat and video viewing. Plus a few misplaced “dance” gestures got a laugh from those not part of the metablog hype and yet unaware of the looming crackdowns on adult virtual gyrations to come.:)
BTW- this audience was not a target market for the technology/service used. But they all expressed interest in MORE.:)
So tommorrow comes anyway, no matter what a transitory conference speaker calls it:)
So Millions of US, is now back to Hundreds, at the conferences?
But what of the millions to come to the worlds. not to the conferences? So much more there to DO.
c3
Nice. Thanks for that c3.
The words we use to describe Virtual Worlds have a tremendous impact on how people perceive their potential value. If we say, “its really not a game,” the person we are speaking to will focus on the word “game” and be suspicious that it’s really nothing more than just that, a game. But if we say Virtual Worlds are “game-changing and transformative technology,” the person starts thinking “how can we use this to be more competitive and win!?”
As you pointed out, the word “immersive” works the same way. This is one word I just don’t use, unless I’m talking about a training scenario where complete focus on the VW environment is desirable.
The phrase most business people seem to respond positively to is “3D Web Collaboration.” They “get” this. People know what the web is and better collaboration, be it internal, with suppliers or customers, is something every business needs/wants. All that’s left is to show them the advantages of “3D” and the features, functions & benefits it provides.
Getting people through this “virtual door” is the key. They can then be guided towards 3D content and applications that engage their own creative imagination. Once this “spark” ignites, people will actively seek out solutions and partners to help them maximize their Metaverse Potential.
“I’m not sure who these people are pitching to, but maybe they need to find the folks in the corporate chain with a little more imagination than someone who convulses and twitches if you use the words ‘game’ or ‘virtual worlds’.”
Loved that quote Good read as usual. Still think it will be a while before the ‘why’ takes of. The paradox of these big brand companies is even though they bring weight to the discussion for the evangelists, they don’t work as well in the the offices of real world clients. These companies are everywhere, have huge R&D budgets and often push innovation themselves (IBM & SUN) so they don’t really make the case for the >F500 companies. That’s our experience at least
“Because the richness of virtual worlds is increasingly an ecosystem of connections and content that bleeds from Web to world”
One of my favorite passages from the above-
It is persistent, it is rich and it engages the adult mind in ways that makes the mind want to do more. Even to justify the tiem we spend in SL, we begin to live up to best practices as human beings.
If thsis can bleed from web to world, aye, so much the better for all of us.
I think you’re safe if you call it just blandly “online”. “Online” is one of those words that people accept, and it sounds modern and “focused”. So you can then say “online meeting”. Or “online space”, and then it all goes down more easily.
[...] Where Virtual Worlds are Going: Why is the New What, How is for Tomorrow (Report on 3DTLC) [...]
Dont know who came up with it first but the name, Grid, works for me. We have the Web (2D) and the Grid (3D). They the same thing really in what theyre for. Is games on the Web but we dont refer to the Web as a game. Same with the Grid. Is games on the Grid, virtual worlds even, but they only one aspect of it really even if at the moment they pretty much all of it. Be lots of other ordinary everyday uses on the Grid soon I think just like there is on the Web.
Also I think the Grid in a Web browser is not really the way to go. Is to much difference in how the Grid and the Web work. Is possible to do of course but what has been done to marry the two has been pretty clunky to use even if is a technical kool in some cases. Probably be best I think to make a Grid Browser from new. The Web and Grid have about as much in common as say a word processor and a video-editing program.
[...] something which I wrote about following the 3DTLC conference in February. At the time, I called this the shift from “why” to “what”, and the hot button topics weren’t [...]
[...] some reason David Hockney is the number two search term after “dusan writer” based on a piece I wrote some time ago that wasn’t really about David Hockney at all but rather a longer post about [...]