Earlier this week we talked about how to define virtual worlds. It's no easy task. Your idea of what a virtual world is, is correct. So is mine, and our opinions, whilst equally valid, are sometimes literally worlds apart. One thing that cropped up time and time again was the term "social virtual world", used to distinguish between game worlds like WoW, and non-game, like Second Life. I think this works, it's not perfect, but it's better.
So with all of that fantastic debate in mind, and you really should read the whole thread, I've revised the definition originally put forward by Joel and Giff to this:
A Social Virtual World has game-like immersion and social media functionality without narrative driven goals. At its core is a sense of presence with others at the same time and place.
And the revised list of Social Virtual Worlds now numbers just 8.
- Second Life
- ActiveWorlds
- Kaneva
- vSide
- Entropia
- Ogoglio City
- There.com
- MTV's Worlds
Worlds not yet available to the general public have been omitted, as have childrens worlds, it seems wrong to include them, they are a thing apart from this type of world. Also those worlds identified as development platforms on the previous list of 19 have been excluded.
This rather short list suggests three things to me:
- The virtual worlds space is not as large as many people think.
- There are many platforms and applications that use virtual world-like technologies, but are not themselves actual worlds
- We're over-hyping the "metaverse"
Admittedly if we included kids worlds, like Habbo, announcing 80M created avatars this week, the list would look a lot sexier, indeed kids worlds appear to be where the big boom is, but that's for another post.
A few people asked me to put this list in context. I can do that to an extent: I'm trying to define what I consider the Metaverse to be, ie, excluding kids, what "social virtual worlds" are of interest to Metaversed, and Metaversed clients -- the corporations currently in Second Life, those looking at the MTV models, or investment in up and coming worlds like Kaneva. I hope that helps clarify.
So, tell me what you think. Can we revise this any more? Is it right, or wrong?
Well, this list looks good...
But may be HiPiHi should be in ?!?
By the way, it will make a 10 Items list which sounds better :-)
I'm pretty sure HiPiHi is still in closed beta right Pierre?
Which is why i've not included them, novoking, twinity or metaplace
http://www.vles.com/
is in Alpha
It's notable that there's only one web based system on the list. If we throw away the age restriction of the definition then the great majority of users access their SVWs via the browser. Where will they turn when they graduate from Habbo?
Yep, it's not gone unnoticed Trevor. We may have to rethink that when induality comes along, but i've not seen the demo so can't vouch for the experience so far..
Joi is vLES closed then? Sounds like it would be. I was under the impression it was open...
vLES saya
"Currently the vLES is open from 6 PM-1 AM EST while we work out the initial kinks. It's what computer geeks call an "alpha test." If you'd like to participate, you'll need an invite. And if you don't have one yet, sign up and we'll get in touch soon."
I 'm also working on my own pre-cognitive semi alpha virtual world provisionally named "Vapour Land - the ephemeral mix"
- sorry about the cynicism but all this 'invite only', alpha- beta crap is tiresome.
vLES is in alphe (at least that is what they are saying themselves). It is a very active community already, though, and there is no problem at all getting in. So, I would not call it "closed".
If the idea is to compare and contrast virtual worlds, so as to answer questions such as 'do virtual worlds with open economies do better than those with closed economies?', or 'is the advantage of easy-to-launch browser-based worlds offset by the lack of immersion?', then you should list them all, and group them based upon those very features you're having trouble with.
As a virtual world builder I'm looking for data to help me design a successful world. We're in the Cambrian explosion phase at the moment. It's not completely clear yet which models will prevail.
I think you should include MMO games too, but that depends on how much analysis you're prepared to do.
Why discount kids' worlds?
You mentioned that's for another post, but the refined definition is a good umbrella for all virtual worlds out there in my opinion. I think including these worlds would help people understand why there's so much activity in this space.
Other comments:
Hope that helps!
_______
Darniaq
Ogoglio is not a world! It's a living room. Unless I'm missing something.
I think your definition and resulting list is spot on.
As for virtual worlds, are they overhyped? Perhaps, yes...but then corporations tend to over-hype themselves when undertaking new ventures in the regular-verse. As to size, virtual world space may not be as large as portrayed, but their influence cannot be discounted. And I'm not sure they can be considered in isolation from other socially-based web tools, as there is so much interaction (and hopefully convergence soon) among them.
Theres still much more reality in "virtuals worlds" that were or still on the web and that have real users than some still on that list which A. are not close to real products yet. B. arent truly open or used by many. C. havent show the ability of being substained for shall we say 1 year as a "user" service or "world".
that said. CBS last night got a a much more accurate "training" in Virtual worlds design and realities. And they repeated experiences that other large media companies had in 1997-9 online. In fact, numbers of actual users of "virtual world--media iP" were higher a decade ago looking at the numbers presented last night on the LL servers.---- so much for "bandwidth" as the 3d magic bullet-)
i agree its a better list than it was... but its till shows alot of hope and less reality to "actual" definitions and executions that must be shown "together" as to be considered a "real" thing.
INVESTMENTS......
OUTBACK anyone?...oh last weeks list-)
best
larryr
cube3
starbasec3.com -- STILL a larger more visited VR world than some on the list;).
Chris Landau wrote: "Ogoglio is not a world! It's a living room. Unless I'm missing something."
If you mean that the network of Ogoglio spaces is small, that's definitely true, but if you mean that it's only good for small spaces then you're definitely missing something.
Larry, why don't you add to the list here then? You appear to have pretty strong views on what should be included, so please share..
Nick, OK:) i plan to show a similar list at a seminar at ucla on immersive media next week. ill make that slide available here. maybe just url in the whole presentation...
I do think a trap in the definition to list shown here is the non seperation of "media" from "activities" occuring in the "shared world". One cant ignore non 3d rt or even networked- non single location "concepts" of shared expereince or ideas structured for social response when talking "virtual worlds".
recommended critera for a list based on what i think youre looking for:
1. duration of the worlds availaibity to offer "users full expeince" -( 1 year plus)active
2. economic " viability" of the service or world based on its own generation of dollars from within or out as advertising.- (some sort of profit pattern)
3. use of immerssive RT3d as the "wrapper" for "worlds narrative and interactive experiences.
4. A "world" that offers more than "simple game advancement mechanics" as ways to expereince satisfaction as a user in a world of interest to those over 18 in nature.".
I think the concept of 3drt "metaverse" cant be discussed enough since i believe its the natural media /tech progression that will/ because only in can, swallow all previous media types into its presentation form.
Hype of the metaverse? well i do believe that what we are now into is the 3rd networked3drt bubble and that very little of the experiences of the millions of them;), who were there in 1996, and 2001s bubbles - "thinking writing doing"- just as this blogger ring does now :)- is getting through today.
This in mind, i suggest rss to all Len Bullards "3d on the cheap" weblog. http://3donthewebcheap.blogspot.com/ some food for thought,
The Hype is around old business amd media models trying to control a media that is fundementally interactive and provides illusions of great freedom and power. So lots of talk is good since this is a powerful media, and one that when it comes to real power and control may be the most "key" tech in our lives since the A-bomb. im not joking-)
As to actual virtual worlds on the list. well im only using 1 maybe 2 to do "actual creative/design/development ip business" as a professional creator of products and services. This excludes all "talk/consulting/etc" about the medium of vr worlds;) and 3d media, but "real hands on producing and economic professional gains" based on a "gathering of beings" in a "world". I look forward and hope to see open starndard based "vrworld" based systems/services deployed soon that offer much better business control and server based actions that allow the metaverse to grow as the html www or flash ( defacto) based 2d media web had.
We have a metaverse- a mediaverse, its just not wrapped yet to simulate the real world of 3dimensions we live in.
As to the 3d metaverse as wide as today web, so far most of these systems are all faith based promises of blogs or ignored languishing systems and businesses from the other 3d vr bubbles.
VIrtual world today-- mostly being used by the under 21 set in mass. But thats totally expected, theve grown up accepting the look and feel of rt3d (machinima anyone:) and the limitations of its "cartooning" of reality and its affect on realife around them. The virtual worlds they choose (hopefully freely) in a decade will grow to offer what they "need" at 21-41. Those needs are not new, and very real to each of them:)
those virtual worlds i think are the important ones for investors and everyone.:)
maybe some "in development IMO" on that list will be them.
I Hope so.
larryr
c3
www.cube3.com
www.starbasec3.com
www.mediaverse.net
Thanks Larry, that would be great. Your first two points don't really come into it for me. I don't need them to have been around a year, or be economically viable, just to be open to the public and fit the criteria laid out in the first post.
If they fall off the list in 6mts, that's ok. I'll make for interesting data to see the average life-span of startup worlds...
Checked out ActiveWorlds, and not impressed. The interface is actually worse than SL, and I can't even find a simple map function. Didn't find anyone else there in the 20 minutes of flying around I did.
On the plus side, I did like that it was a very light download, and I was able to login to check it out simply with a temporary name and my email address. I can't say the graphics were all that good either.
I previously had tried Entropia Universe, but found its interface system lacking. It definitely had more people around like SL, but it was a HUGE download. The avatar graphics were not very good there, either.
I am gradually putting myself into a position where I want the avatar to be much more detailed, no matter what the surrounding environment is like. One problem I have been trying to address over the last year in Second Life is the avatar face. I have recently released a working version of a speech animator that is triggered by SLvoice, when you speak. It goes a *long* way towards making the avatars more realistic.
I like to hearken back to Snow Crash, where Juanita Marquez went a long way towards creating lifelike faces for the Metaverse avatars. I think that is a very important facet of of virtual communities which is largely being overlooked now.
ok
latests list at 8....a less shaky list.:). using your definitions though i think its missing a few ongoing concerns.
What the metaverse is-to be?
Some thoughts on the 8:
Im not sure Trevors project is prime time to be called a world- or a city-- but on info i have -wrong it may be- it opens the list to many others developing platforms or concepts for vr world projects---i believe even ManyOnes VR world projects still exists and certainly burn as much /more coal.. ... either its to be there or why would it be missing ? Ogoglio is a nice dream, and IMO may outlive the rest of the list, but so far Bitmangemnt, Media machines, Octaga etc all have alot more to show as platform tech, and more examples of worlds built with them by outside users/customers/ and developers.
MTV worlds? when where--- open? even working? ok , maybe ill bite...but i know viacom too well..:)
vside is i guess the most recent form of the lounge/tyra world /etc or whatever doppleganger is biz plan morphing too? correct?. ok. its a viable.usable system so far from my pov - but not much of a industry to form around it though--- no more than any did around any specific 3d shockwave social kids game- not much of a "metaverse platform" so far:)... its a 3d chat thing/social world thing not unlike the missing vrml/x3d based worlds of JOI , 3DPlanets, Cybertown, Starbase C3(partially) and one or two more most likely still in usage online by there long term inhabitants....Is the list a "if its invensted in by VC issue only"? cause that certainly that isnt any measure of success or usage or media type.:)And im not sure why then IMVU or MEEZ or some others arent listed.? their long betas are no differnt then vside/lounge is it-plus they burn vc money as well-correct?
kaneva and there.. ok..:)...but so far, not much in either for developers or growth beyond just the two companies internal offereings...6 months? ok.. im not sure the flash based/videod 2d AOL Asylum or MSN2 lastest much longer in 97:) Metaverse contenders? hopefully not unless TNT Truck stop movies and MTV Laguna Beach is the complete social universe one lives in:)
activeworlds- 10 years and going-- but where?;) sorry rick:)
entropia- love it---- best stand alone 3d world other than SL...:) but then i loved it in 99 ----lucky euro dudes- i should have moved out of the US then - lol:) cybertown got bought by euro blaxxun as well---- sci fi as wrapper for vr life and things beyond reality as success- who woulda thunk it;)?
and of course SL... the AOL (of 96) of VR worlds, all the fame, all the hub bub, all the quick money and new biz opportunities that vr worlds may offer.... since 2004 and IP rights and wild west lindens, it cartoons and open up dreams of the 80s novels metaverse..... there is some life in there.:).. but here comes the web and lots of server 3d folks from games and web services....:) mmm 4k for a 1 gb server?... alot like AOL 96..lol phone lines are busy......:)
so, the current 8 does really take the air out of the bubble- or they should.:)
they really makes 3d vr worlds today seem as i suggested before... in reality KIDS and GAMES/ entertianement worlds/...with some OLD game engines trying to cartoon the metaverse 3d web to come, and trying to convince many that their current tech /bix plan offerings are the key to the social 3d interfaces of networks to come....
Are "social virtual worlds" then only the HOMEs and XHOMEs and WIIHOMEs to chat up /sell to players on consoles between worlds of elves, hoods and aliens:)?. if so thats not the metaverse were talking about correct?
It seems then that vertical markets again all a flutter from Medical to military to manufacturing are still driving the real 3d boat to FILL the metaverse past entertainment and fun....
hmm , other than a "euro p2p surprise" im hoping for, this is making X3D, collada and the 3d tools market the Real players in the vr worlds market......when ever they decide to join in--)
Maybe thats the ultimate outcome of the lists question...
the 3d web- metaverse will/ are not driven to mass usage by "platforms" "standards" or "ad based services"..... but by simple to use, inexpensive tools and servers for new creatives who will make the media that wants to wrap up the others that proceeded it. Thats how the web killed AOL as a communications media, and how flash/video changed the web toward media broadcast production .
sorry for twisted long post..;) actually i think i just figured out my presentation for LA next week...
The 3d metaverse will be immerssive-- but it will not be predominately social or worlds.:)
my list for LA
.id open it up to the games and kids worlds.... since they are the true "prototypes" for the virtual worlds users of the metaverse . Im just not sure most of the businesses or models followed by those on the list will allow any of them to still be there when the 3d metaverse is dominant.
Cheap mac/pc/linux flashlike 3d app/ server combo where art thou?--- in 2001-3 we were so close.....oh well...it seems that web2.0 actually screwed up web3.0: by trying to monetize the "curser of the metaverse" in 3d---the avatar--- and fooled us into believing the metaverse was made mainly of social virtual worlds
hmm ok nick.. next list:)
best larryr
www.cube3.com
www.starbasec3.com
www.mediaverse.net
That's why the head of IBM's 3DI team prefers it to SL. AW will run on anything, and there's a lot to be said to plug and play participation over say.... an orientation island?
I'm not saying AW's is fantastic, but it has some huge plus points when you think about it from a non-creative/entreprenurial-content-creator point of view...
>>next list
It's on it's way :)
Im prepared to rethink but segregate kids worlds, but not to include game worlds. Not that I dont find them worthy, far from it, but for this purpose they're a thing apart...
i ran a starbasec3 world in activeworlds years ago. the site has used just about every web3d tech for its presentation its virtual world since 96.... Activeworlds can be good, and was for its time as well..the many many VIRTUAL WORLDS 98-2003 events ran in Activeworlds as produced by contact consortium....but as i mentioned after a decade its not a metaverse platform, just another walled garden. just one way older than SL or There and most likely shows there future as well:) Shrinking not taking over as the "metaverse" platform of hype and fiction.
also as a nod to them, OZ world traveler i believe is open sourced by CC and would fit your definition. probably has/had as much users as Ogoglio
not picking on Ogoglio-;)--city or website or codebase----- but wheres the citys inhabitants? same to MTV worlds- or are these ment to be all the 2d flash based "community sites" like nictropolis.-but arent those for KIDS entertainment primarily?. im still not sure what MTV worlds are and how deployed they are.
also i assume not to be on the list are warners stuff ,pepsiworld, nikeworlds, nabiscoworlds, etc. social marketed worlds:) most built in shockwave and flash
redlight district as well? arent there a few other 3drt adult avatar based worlds....seem social to me:) and you know who really owns the porn
BTW-arent ther also a few 3d rt casinos on the net worldwide?
so it seems for "virtual worlds" to grow as a segment there needs to be differentian of expereinces and a whole bunch of new open tools, not more "companies" offering only client services or lone economies for themselves.
so back to the some of the core of your question and maybe some realizations to the hype and bubbletalk...
Will virtual worlds/avatars define the metaverse? by this defintion and its examples, i think not., I think itll be "3d rt interactive immersive media" that defines the metaverse as "different and more" than the 2d html www or internet as its been known.
If Radio ansd TV created the first "verse" than VIrtual Worlds as defined here may only be the "talk shows" ( just one type:) of programing that fills this new verse.:)
larry
www.cube3.com
www.starbasec3.com
www.mediaverse.net
We had a little round table here (I'm sorry I missed the last Metaversed meeting, but RL intervened) and discussed what distinguishes a virtual world from other Internet experiences. Here is what we came up with: Persistence, Immersion, Socialization and User Self Direction.
Persistance
Persistance of World
The world should exist 24/7 as a virtual space and allow the user to create a "mental map" over time that allows them to orient themselves in the virtual space (even if navigation of that space is unconventional).
Under the category of Persistance of World, the following were deemed "helpful, but not required":
Evolution over Time
The world feels "alive" because events occur that cause persistent changes (new buildings, new locations, changes to old locations, etc)
Persistence of Impact
Users of the world can create change that persists over time (user created builds, user "conquest" of regions).
Immersion
Feeling of "Place"
The virtual world provides a sense of "place" in which the user becomes immersed in the idea of moving through a "world". Usually this is created via an avatar that interacts strongly with the environment and other avatars.
Focus of Attention
The world has the ability to draw the user in to a state know as "flow", where the user ignores other inputs and interacts in a seamless way with the environment. This is opposed to a system that is consumed in small nibbles and idles in the background most of the time (such as a chat program).
Under the category of Immersion, the following were deemed "helpful, but not required":
Unity of Presentation
The user is not jolted out of the immersion by the use of external technologies. (For example, the user is not expected to constantly toggle between a web browser and a 3D viewer to have full use of the world). Loading screens likewise should be minimized.
Unity of Theme
A world that has a unified theme is easier to immerse in than a world with disconnects between areas, avatars or other aspects of presentation style.
Socialization
Concurrent Experience
People are able to experience the world in a shared way despite geographic distance of the users themselves. The more interactions that can be shared (and perhaps more important, as long as avatars are in proximity, the experiences don't diverge significantly) the more "world" like the system becomes.
Visual Communications
The ability to customize the avatar via objects, apparel or other means allows a visual communications channel that helps establish the virtual world, but also allows for expression of identity or mood.
Communication
Communication is *not* unique to Virtual Worlds. From the Unix "talk" command to modern chat systems with conferences, voice, blackboard sharing, etc, the act of communicating is not a defining aspect of virtual worlds. Strong communications in a *requirement*, but it doesn't *define* a virtual world. Thus, a lack of strong communications facilities *reduces* the sense of presence in a world.
User Self Direction
Freedom From Imposed Goals
The system should *not* force users to perform feats of endurance (grinding) or skill (platform jumping or complex puzzle's for example) to be able to participate in the majority of the content in world. Users should be able to pursue goals (or not pursue goals) at the user's discretion without inhibiting the bulk of social interaction or in world travel.
Fulfillment of Personal Goals
Users should be able to establish their own personal goals and have the freedom to pursue them without having system limitations or imposition of social norms be the primary barrier to achievement. The more diverse the achievable personal goals are, the more "world" like the system is. (There is no requirement that these goals be tracked in world via any interface, just the freedom from restrictions on diverse paths of fulfillment)
Under the category of User Self Direction, the following were deemed "helpful, but not required":
In World Economies
The trade in property in world should not be restricted in ways that prohibits economic innovation by the users. Systems that claim ownership of all in world property may actually have fairly strong economies nonetheless and likewise purported "free" economies may have limitations (such as non-transferability of goods) that are actually more restrictive.
Currency Convertibility
A virtual world should allow in world earnings to be extracted and real world value to be used to obtain in world objects. Limitations on this indicate that the system is attempting to prevent the destabilization of "game balance" via external forces, which in turn indicates a primary focus on restrictive game play.
Conclusion
As far as how this qualifies or disqualifies various world, it was felt that "kiddie" worlds would fail the "self direction" test insomuch as such worlds heavily limit the actions of the users in world. Game's will fail this test as well. Put into a short form, this was expressed as "A virtual world is a persistence virtual space where users can interact in shared, immersive experiences and had the freedom to pursue their own goals instead of preset goals."
One aspect of virtual worlds that is usually missed in our shared discussions is that of the infosphere that is steadily being built and woven around us. The infosphere, as I define it, is the ubiquitous layering of internet connectivity everywhere within human space, combined with the layering of related "meta information" around all objects in human space. This scales from objects as small as each grain of sand on all the beaches of the world to our largest buildings. While it may seem incomprehensible why or even how we can store and use that amount of data, simply look at the growth curves of Moore's Law.
As history has shown, human beings have always found a use for more data and for more storage capacity.
While beyond the current technology cycle, we can preliminarily imagine "knowing" meta information about something you look at as instantly as you perceive its shape and color. Other subjects such as virtual reality overlays on the real world are very early versions of this kind of integration.
Where does the current concept of the metaverse fit into the infosphere? Our current concept of the metaverse is in itself a silo that is separated from the rest of the Internet as well as the real world. We are just beginning to think of integrated virtual worlds. The eventual destination of the all-virtual metaverse may be as the upper edge of the infosphere that is all data, while the foundations of it will be mixed deeply into the overlay of data that describes everything in human space.
John that's a great post. Most of which I either agree outright with, or at least understand and find useful in my own defining process. The part about immersion I disagree with though. I don't think you have to be immersed to the level of not being able to open a browser window. In fact, I think the augmentation over VW experience with browsers and other apps we use on the web is a big part of what will drive VW's into the mainstream at some point.
Wish I'd been at your meeting! We should setup a virtual roundtable this week and work over some of those definitions...
http://www.secondlifeupdate.com/2007/10/18/top-9-online-virtual-3d-world...
www.cube3.com
www.starbasec3.com
www.mediaverse.net
It probably wasn't helpfully presented due to the way headers were used, but I don't think there is as much disagreement between your definition and the one the group ended on as it would appear do to presentation. The immersion piece regarding "Unity" was under the "helpful, but not required"; anything in those categories (prefixed with that comment and with the weaker headers) were considered to be "enhancing" to the experience, but not something that would be "held against" a world if it was lacking that feature. (The "Feeling of Place" and ability to cause "Flow" were both considered defining. Interestingly, Second Life did well as far as the "Feeling of Place", but poorly in terms of "Flow" because of the incessant small technical issues that keep snapping you out of the "virtual" and to looking at a screen with a glitch. )
I would agree that being able to integrate with extra-world content via browsers is *more* important than leaving that out, but being able to interact seamlessly is enjoyable and helps with the sense of "world". As an example; the in-world audio and video streams were pointed to as something that gives Second Life more of a sense of "place". If external software was noticeably launched with every media change (or worse, obscured the window while in use) it would break the connection the user has with the world. All that is bonus though; a system lacking such integration would not be discounted.
I find some amusement in the fact that the feature list came from a meeting held in the real world. This was done to avoid having the first version be a rubber stamping of Second LIfe's feature set. I think it would be valuable to get people together in-world to expand and refine the ideas here; they are by no means a full (or even substantial) investigation of the options. The Metaversed.com in-world group seems like a good prospect for some interesting input. Unfortunately, the shorter lead times for the informal meetings means I miss some of those. Send me a message (Goedeke Messmer in SL, or via e-mail) and let's see what we can get together.
You're definitively wrong. There are a lot more social virtual worlds than those listed... If you take in account, for instance, that Talkers are Social Virtual Worlds, this post goes down...
Great job, John. This comes very near to the definition I am using for some time in presentations and my publishing work. I have to admit that I usually have problems with one-line (or one-paragraph) definitions, which usually have to be a bit imprecise. Please compare your suggestion with the one I was using:
There are four characteristics which are necessary and sufficient to create the feeling of immersion in a virtual world: Space, Avatars, Consensus and Persistence.
1. Space. A virtual world has to present the context in which users are interacting as a kind of ’space’ where each object has a location, where there is distance and proximity.
2. Identity - the Avatar. Each user is represented by a persona or character, which is usually called an ‘avatar’ that is controlled by the user (not by software). The avatar is unique and has a certain set of attributes (at least a name, usually a lot more). It has a location inside the virtual worlds space and can be seen by the user and by other avatars which are located in the proximity of this location.
3. Consensus. All users at or near a certain location can see the same objects and avatars - from different perspectives probably. Any change in the world is reflected in the world view of all users present.
4. Persistence. When a user (avatar) changes something in a virtual world, this change is permanent. If the user leaves the world (logs off) and comes back later, the change is still in place (if someone else hasn’t reversed it.
This definition is a broad one - intentionally so. It encompasses text MUDs, World of Warcraft and Habbo Hotel. How to seperate the game worlds from the open-ended ones? Just take away predefined goals and add Freedom (and your phrasing is much better than the one I was using in the past):
5. Freedom. A Social (open-ended) Virtual World is a virtual world, in which their are no predefined goals, which the user has to achieve, no artificial barriers the user has to overcome to be able to enjoy his or her ‘virtual life’ in this world. In an open-ended virtual world users have the freedom to define and pursue their own goals.
That’s it. Space, Avatar, Consensus and Persistence are the ingredients of a virtual world. Add Freedom and you get a social, open-ended virtual world.
Additionals thoughts here: http://otherland.blogs.com/group/2007/10/what-makes-an-o.html
And, actually -- applying your or my definition -- I think "childrens worlds" like would have to be included here. They target a different audience. They use 2.5D usually. But still thy share all of the most important characteristics. ...
Markus, there are a lot of parallels these definitions. I had bundled the avatar and space together as the sense of "Immersion", and like you I neglect to specify a 2D or 3D definition because text MUDs *are* virtual worlds according to most people who participated in them. However, I suspect that only the old school users will forgive the lack of a graphical displays. We seem doomed to toss out decades of experiences in virtual spaces. I would actually like to see "3D" specified by those who wish to differentiate between modern clients and older worlds. It is doubtful that such a use of terminology will happen though due to the cumbersome nature of the prefix and the assumptions of those who never experienced "the old ways".
One of the bigger points of contention during our discussion was over the role of the avatar in the world. Under Socialization I had placed a small note on the ability to visually communicate identity and mood and in Immersion it was noted that the avatar is the point of interaction with the world.
Personally, I find the avatar a much stronger aspect of such worlds, but here were those who felt that avatars were throw-away "points of view/interaction" into the world. I think this dichotomy is noticeable in the worlds themselves: some people have a single avatar that is recognizable at a distance, other people I only recognize by user name because they switch form so often and so randomly. While this latter community is smaller, there were vocally present during our discussion.
Overall, there is a very strong correspondence between the definitions we are using (even with the categories being slightly different in structure), which I hope indicates that these are at least usable starting points for the discussions of virtual worlds.
Names are interesting; they are liberating in the way they allow concise communication when definitions are agreed upon. However, they are also constraining because they can exclude useful concepts or variations upon a theme if applied to strictly or drag too many preconceived notions with them. To be precise, I would call the worlds most are addressing as "virtual worlds" as "3D social worlds". The "virtual" aspect is less important than constraining the social and graphical aspects. After all, the virtual aspect is assumable from the context... the social and graphical parts are *not*, and seem to be where most of the confusion comes from.
Hi John, thanks for your feedback and your interesting remarks.
I am all for the 'modern' 3D worlds and I guess those will be the only ones people will recognize as 'real' virtual worlds in a few years - if we haven't reached this point already. Text MUDs are only interesting from a historical point of view. It is a lot easier for most people out there to experience an immersive feeling if they get visual clues. But please let us not forget that some VERY huge platforms currently use the 2.5D presentation model. And they will stay for a quite a while. But you can probably subsume them under 3D.
What I find most interesting is the casual neglecting of 'The Avatar' (capitals intentional) by many people in the field. It might not be fair but I presume that many of the people who think avatars "were throw-away 'points of view/interaction' into the world" were 'business guys' who are mostly interested in 'serious applications' for virtual worlds. I have similar suspicions with many of those who think the ultimate goal for all virtual worlds is a perfect replication of the physical reality populated by avatars which look like 'me' (weighting 10 pounds less).
This is NOT what the majority of 'consumer' users desires. Their avatar is an alternate identity and the world in which they choose to live in is an alternate reality. For them the avatar is very important, especially their own avatar. And even business users will usually realize after a while, that the avatar is extremely important for the immersive feeling; theier own avatar and those of other users. It is of secondary importance, if this avatar is a 'constant' or if you switch avatars once in a while (which 'feels' awkward to me). Just try using Second Life in FPS mode (press M) and see what happens. It is an experience totally different from the normal camera viewpoint where you can see your own avatar.
Regarding names ... I am not sure if we will be able to coin new terms. ‘3D Social World’ is a great suggestion, but often the market tends to stick to misleading terms. What I would really like to avoid is using the term ‘Virtual World’, which is a very generic one, to describe a special subset. This would be like calling all websites ‘shops’ ...
What I usually try to avoid, too, is using terms like ‘real world’ at all. I prefer ‘physical reality’, because what we call ‘virtual worlds' is very real, where we can have real relationships, do real business and own posessions of real value. These are just ‘synthetic’ worlds, as Castronova once phrased it. But I am afraid, it is much too late to introduce such a non-mainstream term. :)
Hack'n'Slash type of MUDs are Virtual Worlds, as social MUDs (yes, the term social predates this discussion) are also Virtual Worlds. Commonly, to differenciate these from 2D, 2.5D or 3D Virtual Worlds, they are commonly refered as "text-based virtual worlds".
So, if we want to distinguish text-based VW's from the others, or social VW's from the others, why not just use the terms "virtual world" "text-based virtual world" "social virtual world" or "text-based social virtual world"?
"This is NOT what the majority of 'consumer' users desires. Their avatar is an alternate identity and the world in which they choose to live in is an alternate reality. For them the avatar is very important, especially their own avatar."
I think you will be surprised that the person who was *most* opposed to my emphasis of the avatar as a key component to virtual worlds was my wife. She has become very active in Second Life with me. She is a veteran of the "text based social worlds" in that she not only played MUD/MOOs but she was an "Immortal" (aka administrator) on two of them.
As a human avatar, her own appearance in world is fairly stable with a core shape and "skin" with a few dozen "outfits" She also will appear as a dragon, a horse, various tiny animals and so on. It appears that her avatar is more an expression of *mood* rather than an expression of *self*.
You would be correct that the remainder of those rejecting the avatar as identity were business focused and see an avatar as nothing more than a camera mount.
(Personally I have become fixed as a Victorian-era mad scientist and find it less and less compelling to use other forms, although I do have some fun ones.)
*smiles* at John
... I tried to dampen the seriousness of my suspicion with "it might not be fair but I presume ..." That was a lame excuse, though. ;)
I am still quite certain that many (unfairly so called) 'business guys' fail to understand the importance of certain aspects of virtual worlds that seem too profane or playful to them. Maybe they are afraid that when you are having fun it can't be serious anymore. Who knows. But fun is certainly a very important aspect for the success of virtual worlds.
The identification of a human with its avatar is very important for the immersive effect - with astonishing results, which most people who never seriously tried out virtual worlds, can rarely understand or believe. Take myself for example. I have two main avatars with different functionalities, a male and a female one. Though I certainly do not confuse myself with a female human, I feel uneasy when I run around with my female avatar in wintertime without appropriate clothing. So I bought her an outfit with a warm sweater last weekend. Feels much better now. ;)
Virtual worlds sure do funny things with our brain ...