Second Life gets a well-deserved drubbing in Time(valleywag.com)
valleywag.com
Second Life gets a well-deserved drubbing in Time
http://valleywag.com/tech/media-relations/second-life-gets-a-well+deserved-drubbing-in-time-288879.php
5 comments
Second Life's user base has an average age of 32 IIRC.
And yet the maturity level is higher on Facebook. Or does SL just get bad press in this area?
And yet the maturity level is higher on Facebook. Or does SL just get bad press in this area?
It's not maturity, it's caution. People are more careful when their real names are attached.
It's also not a good comparison because the set of options is completely different; it's like arguing whether a trout makes fewer programming mistakes than a human. There are no interactive 3D zoophile sex dungeons in Facebook to use your "free will" to avoid. (Facebook app, anyone?)
It's also not a good comparison because the set of options is completely different; it's like arguing whether a trout makes fewer programming mistakes than a human. There are no interactive 3D zoophile sex dungeons in Facebook to use your "free will" to avoid. (Facebook app, anyone?)
I agree that John Gabriel's theory is in play. But I'm not suggesting that the people themselves are less mature, just that the net result is that SL is quite apparently more adolescent than FB.
And I think it's a great comparison. Both of these social/entertainment systems were designed to be the way they are. What are the results?
Certainly many people who have tried both and opted to spend many more hours on one than the other. What difference is there in the communities on each, the interests represented on each, and the individuals who use each? Which is better social therapy for the painfully shy? Why hasn't SL had the FB-like mainstream breakthrough they've been expecting?
And I think it's a great comparison. Both of these social/entertainment systems were designed to be the way they are. What are the results?
Certainly many people who have tried both and opted to spend many more hours on one than the other. What difference is there in the communities on each, the interests represented on each, and the individuals who use each? Which is better social therapy for the painfully shy? Why hasn't SL had the FB-like mainstream breakthrough they've been expecting?
So the value of a service on the internet is solely to be derived from it's suitability to deliver advertisements to it's users? I think not...
As for the casinos, it was obvious from the start that they would be shut down eventually.
As for the casinos, it was obvious from the start that they would be shut down eventually.
The 'SL idea' is ok (virtual 3D worlds) but for it to really work you need an 'open SL' where you can create your own land with your own hardware.
Where's the money to be made in that?
Where's the money to be made in that?
I wonder if you could wire up a MUD engine to a simulation environment like breve (http://www.spiderland.org/) with 1000 lines of code in any popular scripting language and have something interesting enough to demo to people.
See what I just did there? I described developing a massively multiplayer interactive 3d environment as trivial! What chutzpah!
See what I just did there? I described developing a massively multiplayer interactive 3d environment as trivial! What chutzpah!
It seems to work well enough for 2d worlds, a ka the world wide web.
Stop with the spin in the headlines, please. There's no "drubbing" here at all, and adding "well-deserved" is as bad as something you'd expect from the Bush administration.
No discussion of Second Life is complete without an obligatory mention of giant flying dongs out of nowhere.
Says Gartner research chief Steve Prentice: "Second Life is moving into a phase of disillusionment."
Gartner talking about MMOGs is like John McCain talking about Nine Inch Nails.
The article isn't a drubbing, it's merely pointing out issues that virtual communities have to deal with as a result of real-world situations.