In his post Client versus Browser Part II, Rick van der Wal pretty much lays out the benefits and compromises between client and browser based virtual worlds. Sibley Verbeck has weighted in on the topic.
Fundamentally, I think it will be a long time before the majority of Web users will think of themselves as belonging to a virtual world, or having a consistent virtual identity that they trot across the Web. Maybe 15 years. And the only way we’ll get there is by sneaking them into it unawares, one application at a time. Users of all types ARE ready today for very easy to use virtual environments, but the value they are ready to receive is embedded within a community, site, or application on the Web.
And then there’s Dusan Writer who thinks browser based virtual worlds (small worlds) might have sold out the dream. My question is simple – why do we have to choose between client and browser based virtual worlds?
- Tribal One Integrates OpenSim and Facebook
- Croquet is working on a plugin for Firefox
- Croquet has also launched a browser for the metaverse – Cobalt
Virtual worlds can be and let me worry about how I connect to them. Let me worry about what I give up by connecting through a browser plugin. It’s like the mobile web – I want access if I’m on a friend’s 5 year old Nokia or my iPhone. Sure the experience can be a bit different, but it’s still the web. The same should be true for virtual worlds. Vivaty Scenes isn’t a virtual world but a small world where I can customize a scene in Facebook or AIM. Facebook and AIM are different platforms but I want the same scene I originally customized in Facebook.
Why do I have to choose, give me a virtual world and let me decide how I connect. Of course that is a much different issue if you’re a developer working for a virtual world company.
Related posts:
A Senior Product Manager at 