The Problem with Virtual Worlds

id say EVE Online is a game world - it does have game like goals.. however many of those worlds also contain social aspects / economies .. in which case they should all be included perhaps - WoW, Everquest .. etc etc. not sure...

I must admit to never having played/lived in Eve Dizzy. I should amend that.

The impression I have is that it's similar to Entropia, in that it's a game, but you dont have to follow "the rules" to enjoy it or take part in the economic and social aspects. That's why WoW is not in there. It has an economy, but it's very much a game, you really have to "play" wow right?

Depends on whether or not you should use the term virtual world. The industry has gotten to big to have a catch-all term.

What we're talking here is the industry of NVE's (Networked Virtual Environments - as coined by Gartner and also used by Christian in his keynote), which fall apart in Online Gaming en Social Network Worlds. The gamelike part of the definition doesn't hold up entirely. These social worlds are usually, but not exclusively 3D. So 3D isn't a criterion either.

What we are referring to is the sub sub sub segment: Metaverse.

[ NVE > Social network > 3D > Metaverse. ]

On the same level we may have Google Earth and Microsoft Visual Earth as being a Paraverse, IBM's Intraverse and Extraverse.

However, to just throw that Metaverse description into a catching definition may need some more thought.

Cheers,

VeeJay

In addition to my previous statement I would say that under the definion of NVE the Sims Online as well as WoW could be included. But when looking at the social networked subsegment of the Metaverse gamelike worlds should be excluded. So perhaps Eve, WoW and the Sims don't belong there.

>>The gamelike part of the definition doesn't hold up entirely.

None of it does entirely, that's the whole problem, and cause of confusion :)

>>NVE - I agree it's a useful term, but it wont stick. Nobody liked the term 'blog' 5yrs ago, but that's not going anywhere anytime soon, and I can't see 'virtual world' going anywhere either. It may be wrong, it may be misleading, but it's what we've got, and I think it confuses the issue further, rather than clarifying it for anyone outside of this very small community.

Im open to argument, but i've not been given any sound reason why NVE will stick so far...

thanks Veejay.

My 2 bits,

I'd take out Eve and Sims. I think that if the purpose of the environment is to achieve some pre-determined explicit reward-driven or narrative-driven event, then it's primarily recreational and therefore not serious.

Admittedly, there are people who use recreational environments (WoW) for purely social reasons and downplay the narrative portion of the game, however I think these are people doing what they can in the absence of a serious virtual world that also holds their established social network. This is an area to be investigated in networked virtual environments, virtual worlds, virtual workspaces, whatever you'd like to call them....as originally it is the gameplay (killing a dragon, perhaps) that forges the social network, which you then sustain by being in and interacting. This has to emerge gradually (if at all) in non-game worlds, unless you already know the people due to an explicit work relationship.

2D/3D is a red herring in my opinion, as there will be a web-based 'light' viewer for Second Life eventually that is 2D, rendering SL a hybrid 2D/3D (at some point, the number of 2D users will potentially eclipse the number of 3D users, as the number of casual gamers eclipses hard-core gamers). Also, when you begin to integrate mobile phones/SMS and other modalities, the whole 2D vs 3D conversation becomes pretty unimportant.

See, this is what happens when I comment at 5am. Must get tea.

Christian

I would not have thought that neither Ogoglio nor Croquet should be on the list as they are development tools. However, if you think they should be on the list then maybe you should also add: Blink 3D, Multiverse and Forterra's OLIVE SDK.
Here is a pretty good list of what's out there but there are still some omissions: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=ppnM8o4SM2ttEabKCnRxcag

Christian thanks for the clarification on Eve and Sims. That makes perfect sense to me. I had originally segmented by 2 and 3D but then tossed that aside as the red herring you rightly point it out to be.

Clive, I did debate if Ogoglio was a development platform, and indeed have a separate list for those. Im not certain though: Ogoglio has 'spaces' right? but then, so does multiverse, and they're on my dev-kit list... hmmm i think you could be right :)

Croquet I think you're definately right on, but if croquet comes off, so does project wonderland right? Both are dev-kits no?

To address Clive's comment, "Ogoglio City" is a (fetal, but global) network of interconnected 3D spaces with social tools, so it does meet Nick's definition of a virtual world.

"The Ogoglio platform" is a piece of technology, and while it may underpin a virtual world it may also be used for other things which Nick would not call VWs.

"The Ogoglio project" is made of people.

Actually, here's an interesting question. My company is building a web browser based application, Tomorrow Space, which will provide online 3D event hall rentals at daily rates. They come ready for use but are also very customizable (e.g. change out all signage, modify colors, move furniture...) and those changes persist between events. And it's all underpinned by a common customizable avatar system so you maintain your representation between events.

On your account page you can see the events you're hosting as well as events to which you have been invited.

Is this a virtual world?

Here's a short development screencast in case my description wasn't clear.

Yeh, I think many of the "game" worlds could be used in very similar ways to what we think of as social virtual worlds. I heard someone talking at a conference once about a clan in WoW which are all about level 3, but have been playing for years - they just use it as a place to hang out.

Perhaps they should all be included.. however - as soon as you do this .. it opens a real can of worms.. and could even open the path to things like Counterstrike, Team Fortress 2 etc etc - they could theoretically be seen as a multiple shared instances of "worlds" ( maps sometimes hosting 40 + people - not incomparable to regions in SL ) .. with avatars ( steam IDs ) moving between them.. especially with the new valve / steam "community" IDs..

Personally id say its a quite different field.. so it may be worth listing purely "platforms that enable social and business oriented 3d environments"..

very tricky stuff to define though..

To me it seems more like WOW and EVE and Entropia would be considered virtual worlds because they are relatively persistent (unlike Team Fortress/Counterstrike type games).

This doesn't fit with the definition described earlier, but that is because I group all of these software items in the Virtual World category. Then I place them in subcategories. For instance - Gaming would be a large sub category of virtual worlds where the main focus of the software is the gaming aspect.

Another subcategory already mentioned by several is the development platform category.

More categories could be: kids, social networking, world development (kits), 3D, 2D, and plenty of others. So Facebook could be a virtual world, but narrowly categorized as 2D and social networking.

By subcategorizing like this, you can include more virtual worlds, but give them more definition then just saying Yes or No to "Is this a virtual world?" Some software items could also fit into more then 1 category showing overlaps and such, but all would still fit in the definition of virtual world.

I think that's where the issue lies. Not that there are things calling themselves virtual worlds that aren't, but that there isn't enough organization or common categorization after that.

@Trevor, it' doesn't feel like it should count. Would you argue that it should?

I'd agree Anthony, except the steam community is effectively like face book.. and links your ID through all your game nicks .. and that 2d side of it is persistent .. it depends if "world persistance" is the key .. or "ID persistance"..

however personally i wouldn't count any of these game oriented systems as virtual worlds

"Virtual Worlds" has had a definition for decades, and it's much broader than you're admitting here. It has to include not only 2D but also text. The level of graphics is irrelevant, because the "virtual" part describes what's going on in a participant's mind, not on your computer screen. If we create a mental model of the computer-generated world and imagine more than we see/read, it's a virtual world. I know it's broad, but that's what it boils down to. It's about a mode of communication, not a style of play.

I think the term you're actually looking for, Nick, is "Social Virtual World," which is more specifically aimed at having people interact socially (or perhaps professionally, as in the case with Qwak) vs. competitively, e.g., with weapons, which we typically call "games."

Croquet just SDK currently - it can be used to create a virtual world, but in its current form it is just an SDK. Julian Lombari goes into it more in his post The SDK is Not an App!

It may be a bit easier to decide what _isn't_ a virtual world and then remove possible virtual worlds from a list.

Some of the tougher questions I can see are.

* Do you remove virtual shopping sites? Even if they show other users? Even if users can interact?

* Why would worlds with a target audience below a certain age be excluded? And what age should the line be drawn at, if at all? What if there is a sizable numbers of users above the targeted age?

* Should a world allow user modification to be defined as a virtual world? Many parts of the real world can't be altered by users yet are accepted parts of society. (think tourism, in most cases the goal is simply to see something)

* What exactly is user modification anyhow? Building a virtual home or writing a product review on a 3D shopping site? Or somewhere in between?

* Does time need to be simulated for inclusion as a true virtual world?

* How is the term 'goal less" defined? Do you consider the framework of the world or the social culture that develops within it? Avatar development often becomes highly valued even if isn't a stated goal.

My opinions? I think the term 'Virtual World' is a broad defination covering anything that creates the impression of a virtual space in the users mind. The category can then be subdivided into 2d/3d, gaming, non-gaming, etc.

So,

West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.

Virtual world? This was the limit of the hardware at the time.

How about Habbo Hotel?

The problem here is trying to draw a bright line through a continuum of products that mix various qualities in differing amounts. Can I hold a business meeting in WoW? Sure, although the threat of attack from the hoard might make me pause before doing so.

Can I hold a business meeting in Second LIfe? Sure, although the threat of griefer attack might make me pause before doing so. Wait, I'm losing track of my point here.

Seriously, there are multiple axis I would map the various worlds on, perhaps trying to give them a 0..10 rating on each axis:

* Game Like Goals: Not a bad axis to consider: if the core system has game like requirements that I must achieve success in before I can travel to some areas, it is probably more game like than a virtual world. Second Life's new user tutorial is the only *required* game like goal set, making it it very low on this axis, WoW meetings in high level areas are impossible without high level characters, making it very high on this axis.

* Social Space Tools: This wouldn't be the opposite of game like goals if you consider this to be the *tools* given to deal with socialization. Groups, chat, announcements, land access tools, in world media, in world desktop sharing... these are social space tools that support a virtual space being a *social* space instead of a monster butchery factory. WoW probably ranks a medium-low here (only because it has decent communication tools); Second Life is high (not bad, but I would love *more* tools for the business side of the social tool box).

* Economic Systems: I notice that several of the choices many would put firmly in the game category are the ones with economic systems, and perhaps this is simply another Social Space Tool. Nevertheless, I think the openness and flexibility of the economic system is an interesting factor to look at independently. Second Life is a very high (they are really the prototypical example) and WoW is a low (yes, I can shop, but only black market).

I think if you were to plot out the various worlds on these axis, the worlds you have selected score low on the game like goals (mostly) and high on social tool support (mostly) and all over medium to high on the economic systems axis. This cluster gives us a feeling for where your definition of virtual worlds is. The problem remains that there will always be worlds that are on the fuzzy edge of any such definitions and up for debate.

Unless there is a context for the question I think it is impossible to answer or even reach consensus. Its like asking what is a website? Sure we all know what a website is but do we exclude flash based sites just because they are difficult to index? Obviously we don't include technologies like Apache or Dreamweaver but what about services, is google.com a website? What about tinyurl.com or slurl.com - websites?

Has anyone looked at gogofrog.com its got 3dspace, avatars, I can communicate with other avatars. Virtual World?

I have a few rooms on IMVU, one in particular I bought from ASC is a city scene with walking animations, I sometimes meet others there, it provides an immersive experience equal to Second Life. Its a virtual world to me.

If I phone you and say I'm moving my Queen to D6 taking your Rook is this not a shared Virtual World?

I know this is probably not much help but I really think it depends on the context, what are you trying to explain, measure or sell? And why?

I agree it's almost impossible to do. Im not really expecting to achieve consensus, just get some informed debate that will help me form Metaversed's definition. Other people of course can form their own definitions, and they'll be equally as valid, but I do want to create a list of what i "think of* as real virtual worlds..

I'll most likely leave the academic debate to the academics, but for the purpose of this thread, the list seems pretty good as it is, with a few adjustments. I'll post a revised list later today or early tomrrow.

Thanks so much for all the feedback guys. Please keep it coming, it's a discussion well worth having I think.

I'm starting to make a distinction between TYPES of virtual worlds, and I see this with contrasts between both Kaneva and SL-- one focuses more on the social, one more on the building. We also have to consider that tools/platforms might draw crowds, for example, if we're all rezzing things in Virtual Earth or Google Earths and we can have shared experiences in those, what does that make them? We bring the virtual world to a tool? Odd, but a possibility.

I'd also through out the notion of social-modes and sandbox-modes (terms I'm using to describe at least 2 of these virtual world 'types') being added to video games.

Does all content have to be made by the user? Can *some* content be customized?

Lately, I've been using Halo 3 as a social tool, and am even able to have a context-relevant classroom environment exist in a game, using limited tools, and bringing in the social. This is where definitions can really get weird.

And what happens with things like worlds-within-worlds. Saijo City was built first in SL, but its story and experience contstruct is something I'm working on spreading throughout any world, on both my Active Worlds server, my Kaneva spots, et al.

One last thought, I get more disturbed about the pure hands-off approach some worlds take over others. The fact that Kaneva GIVES you a home first thing, solves a tremendous social stress that is present in SL, which is up to the inmates only (of which some go on to create games, heh go fig).

Multiverse ????

Going strictly by your proposed definition, I'm with others that recommend removing Sims Online and Eve. Those are games with virtual world components. In *that* particular category could also go worlds like Star Wars Galaxies, Ultima Online, Everquest 2 (some parts) and A Tale in the Desert. While designed as progressive advancement experiences, they integrate very deeply the open spaces and social media components.

EQ2 just barely makes the cut here because of the ability for anyone to customize their space a great deal. I offer it up as a counterpoint to vSide, which I found to be as far from Second Life in terms of player-generated content and experiences as I consider EQ2 to be from truly game-directed goals driving towards a competitive endgame (the pinnacle of which in my opinion is Guild Wars).

This stems from a table I wrote long ago which attempted to map the span between player-gen open virtual world (SL) and the afforementioned game-directed competitive experience (GW). It's way out of date now, and in fact I'm looking to add a second dimension to it to incorporate business model, but it sorta explains where my head is at.

Also, let's keep in mind that the lateral links you're trying to draw with this article and your most recent Podcasts are being attempted from different vectors. You focus on "virtual worlds" while others have started from the position of "MMORPGs" or "MMOGs". They all converge on the same point in my opinion. Just as WoW can be traced back through EQ1, Doom and D&D, so do virtual worlds have their lineage.

They all end up with us jacked in :)
_______
Darniaq

Nick wrote: @Trevor, it' doesn't feel like it should count. Would you argue that it should?

It's tricky to decide whether Tomorrow Space events fits even the constricted definition of VW you propose. The event spaces are persistent, non-game spaces with social tools like IM and invites, and so they can be customized and then used much in the same way that you use metaversed island. But, I agree that it doesn't *feel* like a virtual world, in part because they're not inter-connected.

Yet.

exact definitions to be argued all day.... but first critea SHOULD BE "real " vs "virtual"
how about simply....:)

"MORE than 1 year of actual service providing to paying customers and or providing for sponsors activities."

all else is truly "virtual".......but as experts on virtual items you should all know that ;)

http://www.starbasec3.com has used both 2d/ and mainly 3d tech to create a virtual world that many many have lived in for a decade.

the current site has been restructured for a simple idea sell, and its depth is harder to find now.... but starbasec3 has been a virtual world dominantly using 3d media as the items of commerce and the media of mu experience environments since 1996-7.

Blaxxun was used to run numerous worlds in israel, germany, in the usa and the often forgot cybertown for the same decade.some still run today and actually serve users. not "potential" beta users;)

there were about 4-5 others i can name off hand that were "almost" REAL --they lasted a year at times or more in usage
;) 5-8 years ago that would look so similar to many on youre list today. if only one "really" wanted to look.

c3

Nick,

My 2 cents here. On a plane so have the luxury to write a long comment ;-)

* As you probably know you are unlikely to get much convergence on this topic. It could really help if you articulate what you are you trying to achieve in composing this list.
- A catalog of player to determine industry progression?
- A list to help determine user-adoption and individual world-population for advertisers ?
- something else.
A particular target in mind really changes the mindset as to what should or should-not qualify to a list.
I assume you're list is trying to capture all prominent instances of worlds: places you can connect to, build an avatar and populate. Mainly to gauge user-adoption as per the above.

* Since the industry is really having challenges with nomenclature, I think you are "asking for trouble" by calling what you are trying to define a "Virtual World" and thereby exclude games from the definition. Many, MANY people take objection to that (you got a sample in the comments thus far)... And they have a point because MMOG are virtual-worlds (even if they do have a "plot").... Here's a suggestion: Use a less generic term ( "Social Virtual Worlds" ? ) and hopefully everyone can agree that the beast does exist and can talk about it's character (and next year we'll be discussing when will theboundaries between MMOG and SVW will collapse ;-)

* I'd try to complement the definition that you're using with the notion of a "space" that users navigate and explore. It can be 2D or 3D but a VW has to have the concept of wandering from place to place and exploring. Consider adding "spatial exploration" in addition to presence to your definition. This, along with the fact that it's essentially a 1:1 experience, will filter out IMVU (which is a fun and visually stimulating chat program, but not a world in that sense).

With my assumption from the top of the comment on what sort of worlds your looking to capture. Here are some specific comments on your list:

- Missing a whole bunch of 2D/Web VW (Habbo, Zwinktopia, Penguin, Gaia,) as well as some regional efforts (like the Japanese MeetMe)
- Not sure why you put Qwaq and Wonderland in there. They are essentially enterprise collaboration platforms (that use VW technology). There is no such thing as "the Qwaq/Wonderland world"
- In my view both Areae, VastPark (and to some extent ActiveWorlds) are not a virtual-world in-of-themselves. They are a platform (that happens to be fully hosted and offered as a service) to allow for the creation of (user generated) worlds. So as such a successful world (if one ever gets) built on top of those platforms could qualify to this sort of list, but the platforms themselves probably shouldn't. VastPark, at least right now, I believe is not a multi-user avatar-based system so not sure it should pass the criteria at all (and if it does, SceneCaster should probably too, because they are very similar).
- Commenting on Trevor Smith, Transmutable's TommorowSpace would fall into the above category too. The Ogoglio platform is a software platform so not suitable, Ogoglio-city would (but in fairness it might be a bit premature for a list of this sorts)
- In theory there are a bunch of branded worlds (e.g. WellsFargo StageCoach) that would also qualify...

Hope this helps,

>>Hope this helps,

Hugely!

Thanks. I'll elaborate and redefine in my next post on this topic. thanks so much everyone!

following this link you will find a try to put some categories on a map.Things are missing but it could help to structure.
http://www.fredcavazza.net/2007/10/04/virtual-universes-landscape/

Before there was Multi-User Dungeons (1975) , Habitat (1986), Palace (1994) and Meridian 59 as MMORPG, Ultima Online (1997).
In 1997 "le deuxieme monde" is fairly a second life-like.
http://gromike.wordpress.com/2006/11/17/second-life-une-nouveaute/, sorry it's in french.

I keep an eye on asiatic markets which has politics limitation (china) but could grow fastly (HiPiHi (english release may be come in novomber) Novoking ...)
and wait for some things coming from india where there is a lots of developers.

Hi Nick,

IMHO, game worlds and social worlds are two different flavors of virtual worlds. Whether one is discussing Second Life, World of Warcraft, or the earliest text-based MUDs there are certain elements in common across those platforms. These include: persistence, interactivity, a sense of physical embodiment, and immersion.

Personally, the dimension of a persistent environment is the aspect that excites me most. I love knowing that my actions can actually affect the terrain of a virtual world. If I build a structure in an appropriate, publicly accessible location of SL or Hipihi, others can wander by and see my creation. If I tear down that structure or alter it in some way, it affects the terrain of the world. When I'm forced to log off suddenly in the middle of an evening SL music performance, I return the next morning to find my avatar sitting alone in an empty nightclub. This aspect of virtual existence is often overlooked, and most of the platforms claiming to be "virtual worlds" lack this dimension.

You mentioned your desire to avoid academic hair splitting. Perhaps, instead of developing one fixed definition of what constitutes a virtual world, it would be useful to come up with a list of criteria that can be used to classify different types of virtual worlds. In this way, you can stretch to accommodate changing technologies while avoiding sectarian turf wars about definitions.

This is a great site, BTW.

Aaron

Thanks Aaron, do you have any suggestions as to critera?

I am at the Virtual Worlds Forum in London currently and you would not be surprised, probably, to hear that every second panel discussion has a sub-discussion about "what is a virtual world" :)

As "Virtual World" seems to be a rather generic term to me I am tempted to say, that any definition should include a wide selection of platforms. The three criteria which make a virtual world are, IMHO:
1 the "world metaphor": i.e. the presentation of a space, in which objects have a location and where there is distance and proximity
2 the avatar, i.e. representation of the user as a persona/character at a certain location in this world
3 a social, consensual experience, i.e. every user at a certain location is aware of other users (their avatars) near her or his location

Maybe that is the same as Christians definition of an NVE. I am not sure about that.

This definition includes a lot. It is not limited to 3D or a graphical presentation at all and it includes MMOGs, of course. All these platforms "feel" like a world and can facilitate an immersive experience. (Purely text-based, so called "MUDs" certainly did that.)

A subset of these virtual worlds would be the open-ended, social oriented virtual worlds like Second Life, There, HiPiHi etc.

It might NOT be easy to create a set of hard criteria that determine, which platforms to include in this category or not. One could try to use the absence of game-like goals as such a criterium. On the other hand: even Second Life had a "leader list" for a long time, which ranked residents by the money in their accounts, their popularity, the area of land they owned etc. So, one could say, that economic success or popularity certainly was presented as a kind of official goal. :)

I'm not sure why the definition has to exclude games. What people decide to do in the virtual world is up to them. Even the word "game" or "fun" can mean different things to different people. For example, serious games are not meant to be fun. And there are type-A traders and Trump-types that consider high-stakes finance to be "fun".

If you're trying to delineate the serious, scholarly, business-like aspect of VWs, I'd just be explicit about it and say "serious virtual worlds" or "non-entertainment virtual worlds". It would take less explanation to an audience.

I tend to keep the definition of VWs simple and bare bones, with no agenda in there. Ed Castronova defines them well (as synthetic worlds): "an expansive, world-like, large-group environment made by humans, for humans, and which is maintained, recorded, and rendered by a computer". (from his book "Synthetic Worlds").