And, not being a techy myself, I only understand the limitations in the fuzziest terms. Whether applied to Second Life or virtual worlds in general, my posting on narrative sums up my general feelings about the ’space’ but doesn’t necessarily give any tips on how to turn that into a mass market, or even niche market opportunity (although I have my own thoughts on the side)…just that it’s an exciting area to be involved in. And that I love stories.

http://dusanwriter.wordpress.com/2008/03/22/the-story-box-second-life-magic/

I’ve had a few people tell me “stop blaming the platform”. I am just trying to explain to the public why *we* are moving away from ESC for the immediate future. Reuben got up at VWC and said stop fretting about technology limitations, and focus on narrative and why we love virtual worlds.

I still love virtual worlds, but I’m too much of a pragmatist to be able to stop thinking about the technical issues. It doesn’t matter how much we love virtual worlds, it is the user experience that matters. Now I understand working with the tools you have, rather than whining about what is wrong with them, and we’ve done that with SL for some time, but we have decided to change toolsets.

The folks who are focusing on enterprise/corporate collaboration, like IBM, Cisco, Rivers Run Red and others, are continuing to use the SL toolset and I think that’s great. Methinks I should bring some of these thoughts to out to pasture to clear up some stuff.

Thanks for the clarification, and by the way, I wanted to say hi at the conference but was too gobsmacked by all the luminaries, just sort of sat and soaked it all up, was mesmerized by Sibley and his passion (and body language) and now want to open a clarification back, having reached deep in my soul (well, as deep as my soul goes I suppose) to think through what I mean when I say what isn’t necessarily what was intended. Um. yeah.

So first – the main thrust of this post is that there were a lot of people talking about technology hurdles, and then pitching their platforms as addressing little gaps on the IT map, and then the big “culture gap” was being addressed in the kid’s worlds, but still, my take on Sibley’s talk was that Second Life was building a platform, and a technology, and then it sort of stalled, and it may be that the CSI project and others did the best they could, and excelled at that, but that it is too difficult on the current platform to ramp it all up to the next level – a million users, say, accessing a CSI “world” within Second Life.

As Sibley pointed out, there’s reasons for this (in general, I mean), and specific hurdles, and no one seemed to be blaming anyone, it’s just the way it is right now – a few tech holes need to be filled, and the solutions might be within the closed domains of kid’s worlds, and we’ll be climbing the slope to the metaverse again soon.

(Oh…I checked last night…Sibley’s blog isn’t up yet? I thought it was promised for Monday? Dying to post on it!)

I suppose however that what I have difficulty with isn’t the fact that there were 400 sims and what that might have implied about the number of users, I just use that as shorthand for a sense that the expectation and delivery weren’t quite in synch.

I point to the following comments made by Anthony Zuiker to UgoTrade, for example:

“But for CSI: New York we are definitely continuing narrative not only on Oct 24th into world but on February 6th paying it off on the air. And continuing the story line in Second Life beyond February 6th and the sky’s the limit. I believe that at some point it will go so deep that I will start creating original programming inside Second Life – literally like a South Park in Second Life that is original with characters that I create that continues the storyline also.”

and….

“I was very clear to the Electric Sheep I have no interest in dazzling the Second Life veteran. That is not what I am doing. I am trying to get mass here and really create a community that is a lot deeper than 38 to 40, ooo [concurrency] and 9 million membership.”

So, here’s the thing. And I’m not trying to be nit-picky.

There was an expectation that there was a tipping point in the offing. I was still a relative newcomer to virtual worlds at the time. I was excited, because it really did feel like some of Anthony’s promises might come true.

You’ve been saying that the initiative achieved a return on investment. But what I’m saying is that the 400 sims, plus the press, plus the presentation at the previous VW conference…this was interpreted by a community of observers as an expression of optimism and hope that Second Life would attract the “non 38-40/9 million member” others….not sure, the 20 year olds? The millions of them? Not sure, it was a feeling not a specific target, or number, or dollar figure…a feeling that there might be a cultural shift, and an engagement of a wider audience.

So why wasn’t this achieved? Was it and we don’t know it? I’m not sure. Sibley was clearly saying “OK, bigger picture, the metaverse needs more work, and Second Life was great and we’ll be back when it improves, but we’re done there for now with those big build tipping point projects”.

I don’t think I said that you were claiming SL is doomed or not for others, by the way. If that was implied, apologies, not sure how it could have been.

But how do we reconcile the hopes and aspirations of the community of metaverse types that there was a chance to have a tipping point, it didn’t come, and now in response what we sort of hear is “we’re moving to widgets and mini games and we’re sort of waiting for the IT people to catch up”. It’s not that the strategy is wrong, but we all want to help!

ESC is a beacon to virtual world enthusiasts everywhere. You’ve managed to push the envelope, learn, advocate, sell, evangelize, entertain, attract, and build out your assets and learnings. But as a beacon, you have to understand that there was also disappointment that the “400 sim promise” (again, it’s not the 400 sims, it’s what they implied and what was communicated through the media) didn’t quite materialize (sure, you may have achieved ROI, but it was the implication of a larger cultural shift), and that the latest perspective is less “beacon-y”.

Sibley talked about technology, and it feels as if we’re moving into a phase in which “we’d better sort of ride the Web 2.0 slipstream for the time being while the coders get their acts together”.

And by the way. I’m engaged by these things. I’m engaged by the process and lessons and insights you guys share. Because there are a lot of people who wonder how they can make small contributions to advocating for the metaverse, whether on their little corner of the Mainland, building a Metaplace application, or just writing about it to continue stimulating thinking and innovation on “what next”.

One are where Sibley and I tend to disagree is the time to a “metaverse” (I think it will take longer). But yes, the virtual worlds industry is alive and kicking, with lots of exploration. I think it is healthy that we’re out of hype mode and into productive creation mode.

Yes the ‘metaverse’ is still being developed, no its not ready for mainstream, yes a lot of empty promises are being made, no it won’t be ready tomorrow, yes it will take time to find application to create a valuable contribution to everyday life by individual projects, no there is nothing wrong with the commerce taking place – just don’t conclude a failure of the platform because they fail to address their audiences, yes its time to look further then just Second Life, no you won’t create critical mass just because you tell ‘the masses’ to rush in.