Second Life has gotten a lot of celebrity exposure lately, and it's not just Internet gurus and rappers lip-syncing while someone else pilots the avatar. Reuters, for instance, has been doing a series of in-world interviews with folks at the World Economic Forum. According to Reuters' SL office, even Prince Charles is going virtual.
Reuters also linked an article by The Independent tying in to the events, and lo and behold, it looks like I soon may be able to check off prediction #8 from my 2007 predictions list.
My prediction:
8. Avatar will become the big tech buzzword of 2007, thanks in part to WoW's established popularity, Second Life's growing popularity with businesses, and the Nintendo Wii's "Mii" system.
The Independent:
"Get a Second Life: the age of the avatar has arrived"
Bam.
Oh, and update on prediction 1:
"1. Second Life will surpass World of Warcraft for total users. At least, on paper."
If WoW plateaus, and SL continues its 20% growth rate, we're looking at starting July with a SL with more residents than WoW subscribers. If WoW continues to grow, it will take SL an additional month. :)
1/29/2007
Prediction 8: "Year of the avatar" Looking Good
1/26/2007
What to Call a Virtual World?
"Virtual World" has come to mean a few criteria:
- Online
- 3-D Space
- Interactive with other users
The Google VW rumor mill is at it again. This got linked around in a bunch of blogs. What's interesting:
- Source is anonymous, but a "PHD", so it *must* be credible, right? *chuckles*
- The blogger said, "Google is working on turning Google Earth into a virtual world a la SecondLife". Google Earth has some severe limitations ... like ... it's Earth, which is pretty limiting. Unless the real news is "Google is using the Google Earth interface, completely scrapping the backend, and doing a virtual world from the ground up.", then I'd say either the blogger misunderstood his source, or the source is wrong.
- A commenter on the blog touted his ESP about how he predicted it four months ago. Four months, eh? *chuckles* Four months. As another commenter pointed out, didn't the entire professional VW community read into Google's intentions as moving into virtual worlds when Google Earth was first announced?
Metaverse Keystone
But back on topic. #2 is the important thing because it illustrates a difference in understanding about how we define virtual worlds. This blogger clearly equates Virtual World = Metaverse.
Not true.
Metaverse virtual world criteria, off the top of my head:
- Is a virtual world
- User created content
- Customizable user-built avatars
- Land ownership
- Supports both business and social use (effectively, supports almost any use)
- Connects to the rest of the Internet
But, really, Metaverse isn't merely a single virtual world either. Second Life isn't a metaverse; it's a part of one, that includes chat software, the flat Internet, Web 2.0, cell phone communication, etc. I've come to understand that the Metaverse is a thing that transcends any one particular platform.
That's not to say that Second Life isn't a keystone in the emerging Metaverse. It is.
That's not to say Google couldn't do it, as I've previously discussed.
BBC
When BBC announced that it was making a virtual world for kids, lots of bloggers jumped on the news.
As Mark Wallace commented, "Sorry, kids", it's single-player only.
Now, indeed, what the BBC has planned is a world, and it's virtual, it's just not a "virtual world" by the definition we've come to accept, that I noted at the beginning of this blog post. Yes, it's online, yes it's a virtual space, but no, you can't interact with others.
This raises the question: "Have we messed up our definition of a virtual world?"
I mean, when someone plays a video game based in a rich, 3-d world setting, be it Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, or Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, isn't that technically a world that's virtual? Or even, as the unmalleable MUD-inventor Richard Bartle would argue, aren't all games, even without graphics, still virtual worlds?
I think back to SLCC 1, 2005. Linden Lab CEO Philip Rosedale, during his keynote, talked about the concept of a "memory palace". It's basically a way of storing data by associating specific pieces of information in locations of this imagined palace. The palace isn't real; it only exists in the minds of the people who share it. However, the people agree upon where certain things are, and different people can hold different pieces of data in their minds. This is the most primitive, and yet effective, form of an virtual world. In fact, it's an interactive virtual world.
We Need A New Word
It is not "Metaverse". The word, "Metaverse", by its etymology, implies an encompassing nature - again, back to my point that Second Life is a keystone, not the Metaverse itself.
We do have a definition, albeit wordy:
"An interactive, online, 3-D virtual world that allows user-created content and freedom of use."
It should also imply that it is part of the Metaverse, a fully immersive experience that is truly at least Web 3.D. Maybe a play off the Metaverse name? Allow me to think out loud, but please: please post your suggestions in comments! :)
Singleverse?
Instanceverse?
Metaverse World?
hmm ... back to Latin, I guess would be appropriate, but Latin lacks any sort of idea of "digital" or "virtual".
I mean, how do you describe something that's both virtual and yet is able to bring people together to inhabit a space?
Maybe we need to go back to an older language to get more spiritual concepts, and less literal, as Latin tends to be.
When Stephenson wrote Snow Crash and coined "Metaverse", he referenced ancient Sumer a lot ...
I'm stuck. Throw some suggestions at me. Let's see if one sticks!
EDIT:
Metaworld - indicates the existence in the Metaverse, one world in the verse. I'm liking this one a bit better ... could use more suggestions from the readers, though. Keep them coming!
1/19/2007
Anshe Chung Griefing: Lessons Learned?
Preface
Those who know me well know that I talk to a lot of people privately on a lot of matters in Second Life. As a developer and someone with a vested interest in seeing the Metaverse evolve, I need to have a network of people to provide and disseminate information. In the case of the recent Anshe Chung griefings and subsequent reactions from ACS, I have remained quiet on the subject while gathering some data, and I think it's time I shed a few viewpoints out to the world.
Now, I generally don't comment on drama going on in SL, but this has gone national, so perhaps I can put this in the perspective of business and technology in Second Life.
Lesson 1: CNet's Second Life Presence has sub-par security
Or, maybe they didn't expect griefers to come and do this. But, I suppose that's saying the same thing - ignorance of a threat is still insufficient security. For the record, this is not how my company handles security at events, and I'm fairly certain that it's not how most other Metaverse Development Companies handle security.
Lesson 2: Anshe is a Leader in Taking Flak
As a long-time SL resident, I recall many, many forum threads both on the SL forums and other websites lambasting Anshe for a laundry list of offenses, including extortion, forcing people to sell land through devaluing neighboring land, and the ridiculous, "using bad English to claim she wasn't doing anything wrong". I jest not.
The accusations range from debatable to ludicrous. But assuming there's some merit of some of her critics' statements, I'd like to point out two things:
1. Because ACS is, and has been, the biggest SL land baron / renter, that naturally puts her in a target position above all other land barons / renters.
I've seen land barons doing a whole lot worse, and not get a tiny fraction of the backlash of negative press, simply because she's a bigger target. That's really a shame, because there were definitely businesses who deserved negative attention, when it was focused squarely on Anshe.
2. There was no book on land reselling or renting until Anshe and others came along.
No one knew what was right or wrong, ethical or unethical, profitable or unprofitable with land reselling in virtual worlds before early 2004. Then came the changes in SL patch 1.2. While some people would argue that certain behaviors were intuitively unethical, there certainly was little widespread agreement. The only such agreement on bad practices of land selling that I ever saw was against the "Impeach Bush" guy, and the objections were basically that he was extorting neighbors to buy overpriced land in order to get rid of his enormous annoying signs.
Naturally, the expectations of the SL peanut gallery was that Anshe had to be perfect. (And again, not paying attention to less successful land resellers.)
Lesson 3: The Only Winners Are The Griefers
As the SL Herald put it:
"After an editorial meeting, the Herald decided not to run the story merely because yet another penised presser was getting to be Old Hat -- not to mention W-Hat -- and it seem relevant to stop fueling the cycle of griefing-press coverage-more griefing.
'We do not have to publish EVERY penis,' ruled the Editrix Pixeleen Mistral, and many will readily agree."
And naturally one of the perpetrators was on hand to comment. I'd like to note that the same group that perpetrated this attack also spawned other griefers responsible for grid crashes and CopyBot's dissemination (and subsequent embarrassment and management-change of libSecondLife).I noted, "I find it ironic that [these perpetrators] complain when Anshe Chung interferes with their activities on the Internet in reaction to them interfering with her activities on the Internet. What did you honestly expect?"
And the griefer responded, "Who said I was complaining?"
That about sums up the whole issue from their perspective; they get international news about their hijinx at the expense of their target of grief. Thanks, media.
Lesson 4: Legal Precedents Need To Be Set
Anshe withdrew the DMCA complaint about the YouTube video, but it's apparently still banned because, well, flying penises violate YouTube's Term's of Service. That's why there was the flak, anyway - because of a debate about whether Anshe even had rights to the copyright of her avatar's image, and/or a right to privacy.
Personally, I'm glad Anshe tested those waters. This is all new territory we're into, and establishing some legal precedents is a good thing. It'd give the Terra Nova folks something to talk about other than World of Warcraft's new expansion.
Lesson 5: We're All Exposing Ourselves
Let's remember, first of all, Anshe didn't specifically choose to be filmed being assaulted by flying penises in Second Life. On the other hand, she did choose to become a millionaire and pursue fame through the press, right? American laws allow parody and satire of public figures based on the same sort of rationale, right?
I realize the griefing was not parody or satire, because they intruded on someone else's event. However, the thought behind it is that celebrities cause envy and curiosity, and often attract unwanted attention in a variety of ways. Celebrities and such expect this kind of thing; maybe Anshe has become a celebrity? I realize that doesn't make it right or good, but isn't that part of the price of fame?
And truly, look at the world we're living in:
- People are blogging their lives away on YouTube and MySpace.
- Cameras are literally everywhere people are, with cheap camera-phones and webcams and security cameras everywhere.
- The US Government can spy on our communications without a warrant on the thought that we're at war. (and a "war on terror" isn't going to end anytime soon)
- Courts have upheld that employers can spy on everything you do on a work computer.
- You can go to Google Earth and get a satellite or aerial photograph of almost anywhere in the world to a level of detail where you can spot people.
And won't it be a rude awakening to the ultra-Puritans to discover that, among videos and data about how people really act, indeed, we're all sexual human beings? That we can structure our actions, but ultimately we're driven by nature of our bodies that contain us? (At least, unless we figure out a way to upload consciousness.)
Will we have to legislate our way into developing nanotech to find and disrupt other recording nanotech in private spaces? Can we ever expect to beat out technology and our willingness to be both exhibitionists and voyeurs or both exciting and banal details? Will we have to fight back employers for privacy of genome or even possible future actions?
Maybe the loss of privacy means the final acceptance of our human nature, and all of its flaws and idiosyncrasies. Maybe no one will care enough to watch the video that some griefer made proving that he managed to float phantom penises in a virtual world across a land magnate's avatar.
It's like the old "tree falling in woods" adage, revised: "If someone posts a video to YouTube and no one cares, does a griefer get his jollies?"
Perhaps in this near-future, privacy-lost world, everyone look at each other in the barest form, all data and privacy exposed, and we will all let out a collective, exhaustive sigh:
"So what?"
Lesson 6: Warning! Real life may contain sexual content!
I really ought to be watching zefrank more often.
*pauses, adds zefrank to his RSS feed* There, initiative taken.
*ahem*
As I was saying, I should be watching zefrank more often, because he's a very wise examiner of Internet culture. I often quote his original commentary about the importance of ugly myspace pages. I'd love to link to it, but it appears to have been swallowed up by teh internets and not even searching zefrank's site managed to help me find it. Instead, here's a link to last year's ugly myspace page contest, which eats up every hit in Google, effectively blocking my attempts to find the original.
As I was saying ...
Zefrank has a vlog posted a couple days ago on the whole Anshe / CNet / flying penis debacle, which also cites some alleged past where Anshe was a virtual-escort. Zefrank elegantly starts the episode by reading some freaky stuff from Leonardo Da'Vinci's notebooks. The conclusion? Same kind of Renaissance. The implication, again:
"So, what?"
1/08/2007
Linden Lab Open Sources Second Life Client!
Linden Lab Open Sources the Second Life Client
Wowee!
This is going to open up huge swaths of topics for this blog in coming months, but for the moment, let me address the immediate news.
What This Means
By open sourcing the client, Linden Lab has provided the source code to the "browser" aspect of Second Life. None of the server code has been open sourced. It is the server code which is "90% of SL's code" according to Linden Lab CTO Cory Ondreyka, so we're seeing a fraction of the code released to us.
What is open-sourced:
- User interface
- Creation of primitives
- Playing of media
- Menus
- Your interface to your own inventory
- Windows, or as Linden Lab calls them, "Floaters"
- Object storage
- Any simulator code
- Physics
- Linden scripting language
- Permissions on objects, etc
The work by libSecondLife had a big part to do with forwarding the open sourcing of the client. They reverse-engineered it, secretly at first, then with Linden Lab's blessings later on. At the same time, developers and builders in Second Life have been asking for a variety of features for a very long time, which open sourcing the client makes available. Most immediately that comes to mind are:
- access to customizing the user interface
- better building tools and, dare I suggest, the possibility of an off-line building tool
- the possibility of data backup (Hoorah!)
Why I didn't predict it
A few entries ago I had a list of predictions of what will happen relating to Second Life, in 2007. Open sourcing the client wasn't one of them.
I was under Non-Disclosure Agreement.
So were a bunch of other Second Lifers, who took part in last December's SLViews 3. This is an ongoing program where Linden Lab has round-table discussions with random and hand-selected Second Life residents on specific topics. One of the main topics for December was open sourcing the client, and the pitfalls and opportunities that go along with it.
Criticism
The knee-jerk response is, "Well, doesn't that mean hackers can go exploit the code and make even more grief a la CopyBot, etc?"
The short answer: Yes.
Realize that CopyBot and other exploits were found without any open sourcing, and would have continued anyway.
The long answer: Now we have a whole world of people who can look for exploits in the code, report them to Linden Lab and have them fixed.
What to Expect
The first thing you'll see are customized user-interfaces, most likely. There's enormous potential in this and it's one of the very much commonly requested features from clients of companies like mine.
I think you'll also see "SL-Lite" which will have a much reduced menu-set and lighter graphics and CPU requirements. Second Life will become available to far more people who don't have whoopee computers that can run it at high framerate.
I'm also hoping we see people improve SL's interface. Off the top of my head:
- Better inventory navigation
- Simpler ways to apply textures, scripts, etc
- Better prim manipulation
- Macro-building that allows people to record and play back a series of prim-manipulation instructions
In general, features should arrive in such a fashion:
- Some group announces a new feature they've created.
- If the feature is not shared, then another group will replicate the feature. If not, skip to 3.
- The feature will become available to examine, though still risky from a 3rd party.
- Linden Lab will approve the feature set, and add it to their official open-source website.
EDIT: Linden Lab has released their own F.A.Q. of the open-sourcing.
1/02/2007
Meta-Hype of the Metaverse: Part 2
So, I had a rather frothy rant in this morning's entry.
I had a discussion with a buddy of mine, Ciemaar Flintoff (SL) who was able to shine some more light on this whole subject, and one key fact:
The Gartner Hype Cycle deals with technology, not products.
Knowing that, I can think of my commentary, and it probably means a few things:
1. That the commentators of SL Hype and Gartner Hype Cycle treated Second Life as "technology".
2. Second Life is not, in fact, technology. It is a product. Ciemaar wisely pointed out that SL is the latest iteration of Metaverse technology. Ergo, he pointed out, to sound erudite, we could easily use the Gartner Hype Cycle chart, and place SL easily in the "enlightenment" section of the chart, with other virtual worlds back to the left.
3. Strategic Public Relations started on the wrong foot by claiming SL has taken "a ride on the Hype Cycle" - indicating it had gone through the process as a technology, rather than being a product far to the right of a larger virtual world technology.
4. That most of my comments about the Gartner Hype Cycle were misunderstood on the basis of SPR's misrepresentation, and indeed it's much more probable of a theory when it comes to technology. (Indeed, my main exceptions to this were based on counter-examples that were *products*, not technologies.)
5. That other commentators, including Tony and others, also made the same error that I did.
It's still not canon.
What was funny was a response from a person rebutting my claim that the Hype Cycle was "fairly new". He pointedg out that Gartner had been doing studies on this for 11 years. This is where I remind everyone that a decade does not make something "not new" and that the whole of Internet studies is basically just over a decade old, as well. We're all inventing this here, and nothing should be taken as canon law.
BONUS:
Gwyn's got a terrific anti-hype-hyped article up on her blog countering another knee-jerk naysayer.
Meta-Hype of the Metaverse
NEW!
I just added this pretty pretty picture to prove everything I'm saying:
Yes, we know there's hype in SL. It's been pointed out plenty of times, so I won't bother adding hyperlinks (Pun intended!) to reactionary pieces.
Now a new form of hype seems to be arising: meta-hype.
This is the hype that the anti-hype people are hyping. Case in point:
"Strategic Public Relations" blog has posted a couple thoughts on the hype in SL. Well, it's not really thoughts, per se, it's an arbitrary "look at my picture, ma!" based on a fairly new theory called, "Gartner's Hype Cycle".
Guessing != Statistics
Strategic Public Relations would have us believe that posting a pretty chart with curvy lines equates to some summary of a scientific study of some sort. Let's check out the statistics of SPR's statistics:
- Surveys quoted: 0
- Statistics cited: 0
- Numbers on the X axis of the chart: 0
- Numbers on the Y axis of the chart: 0
- Any sort of reasonable explanation of why that particular spot on the chart was chosen for Second Life: 0
- Any sort of reasonable defense of Gartner's Hype Cycle as a legitimate scientifically accepted canon in marketing: 0
Sorry, I'm not buying into the counter-hype that SPR's feeding.
Tony Walsh did, and I've chastised him in the comments. Then he claims he didn't, yet he treats the Gartner Hype Cycle like canon law. Sorry, Tony, enjoy your Kool-Aid.
The fact is that this chart is based on 0 hard evidence, and quotes Gartner's Hype Cycle as if it were canon. In fact, the Hype Cycle is a product of a PR agency, so we can assume that it, by default, is mostly hype anyway. Does the Hype Cycle get taught in universities? Do we hear Warren Buffet and Alan Greenspan talk about the Hype cycle? Such suggestions are clearly irrational exuberance.
Here's a fact for you: The Garner Hype Cycle fails to describe any successful product that lives up to its hype. It's a cyclical-proving theory based on the assumption that a product is not as good as its hype.
Case in point: The Gartner Hype Cycle fails to explain things like:
- any truly innovative product, like the iPod, whose simple interface and fun ad campaigns won over non-techies
- any technology that meets a booming demand, like new graphics cards for computers, which always sell well because there's always a demand for better graphics for games
- any sort of item that's entertainment based that's just plain fun, like the Wii
- other forms of entertainment that live up to the hype, like any movie that does well after a long promotional period.
Some Real Numbers
While I don't believe looking at 2 million users is necessarily the best statistic to look at to judge Second Life's success, nor do I believe quite everything Linden Lab is telling us, there are three clear examples of steadily rising numbers who are fairly indisputable:
- Number of concurrent users. This shows real time invested in SL.
- L$ sold for US$. (Lindex and others) This shows real money invested in SL.
- Land owned. This also shows real money invested in SL.
Posts
