More virtual worlds and virtual world projects are shutting down. Some may remember Google Lively died a year ago. More recently it’s been vSide, Metaplace, and now Project Wonderland. It really does seem to be the end of Virtual Worlds 1.0. I and a few others have even begun to ponder what will be part of Virtual Worlds 2.0 – rise from the ashes of 1.0? But it’s also a good time to review lessons learned.

Community is a chicken and egg thing

As the old saying goes, there is no shortcut to success. The strategy for most Virtual Worlds 1.0 revolved around a thriving community to interact with and supply content (User Generated Content – UGC). All you needed was an instant community, and apparently you get those by developing some cool technology like 3D scenes, avatars, etc. However at the same time user studies were showing that all that technology still wasn’t enough for typical users. It was essential that they capture a community – it was a chicken and egg problem.

How do you solve the chicken and egg problem, well virtual worlds tried to tackle this in various ways:

Google Lively
Google Lively launched hoping the Google name would bring so many users that enough would stick. But not that many stuck as this Google Trends graph shows.

It also didn’t help that the odd collection of avatars left users utterly confused as to the context of the world.

IMVU
One of the first movers in the 3D chat space, IMVU relied heavily on AdWords to drive early traffic. Being a first mover, IMVU also wasn’t paying much for those AdWords. Eventually they were able to tweak their product enough to find market fit and amass  a community. A community heavily based on flirting but a community none the less.

Metaplace
Founded by game design legend Raph Koster, Metaplace’s approach was to appeal to game designers. They built some powerful scripting tools, however that presented its own problem as Simon Newstead’s , CEO & Co-Founder of Frenzoo, pointed out:

3/ Built for the builders, but not for the mainstream users

This one is a bit clearer, there was a great amount of feature support and tools added for world builders, but less tools or attractions for your average every day user.  It seemed like a classic chicken and egg situation – not enough users for attracting game devs, and not enough games/content to attract users?  The existing games on the site were ok but not up to the same level as many great flash games now, and the social elements and avatar stickiness perhaps wasn’t up to many average users expect.  Perhaps MP should have jumpstarted some high quality gaming with internal development and showcase, and in parallel giving users something to get hooked on…

Of course IMVU’s strategy was the most successful, but it’s a little difficult to duplicate as the first mover advantage is gone.

Build community the old-fashioned way – around a product

Just as Google came out of Web 1.0, some virtual worlds will rise from the ashes and drive into Virtual Worlds 2.o. I think Frenzoo is one such world.

It started out as a fashion site, heavily sided toward user generated content. They made it easy to design your own 3D clothing and model it on an avatar. But that was about it when it started in 2008 – no virtual world or personal scenes. However I could create my own fashionable outfit. From day one it filled a need – how many girls dream of becoming fashion designers. It didn’t need the instant community to be useful, yet the more community it had the better an experience for the user.

Having already built a community Frenzoo then transferred them into a virtual world, complete with 3D scenes. It wasn’t a cake walk, but they applied age-old techniques of product and community management to make it a success.

That woke us all up! So the first couple days after the launch we we dropped everything to concentrate on fine-tuning the camera, angle and lighting settings and get our avatars looking better again.

They know their audience, they’ve cultivated their community long before transferring them into a virtual world. It’s the same strategy Japanese CyberAgent took launching the incredibly successful Ameba Pigg.

It can’t be just about the technology

Compare Frenzoo to Google Lively, IMVU, and Metaplace. The product they launched day one was mostly cool technology and they expected the community to magically form around it. When I first jumped into Google Lively I could customize my avatar and set up my own scene. I guess the “product” was self expression through 3D maybe? Everything else involved interacting with other people – the community. It’s the chicken and egg problem again. Trying to form an instant community around technology turns out to be pretty difficult and leaves you with some interesting issues as Simon Newstead points out in analyzing Metaplace.

4/ Who was the audience?

This is an interesting one.  When I spent some time on the site I was struck how there seemed to be two distinct groups of users.  Those older, technically proficient game dev types who loved being able to tinker and create world.  And then a very young tween/young teen female set with “HoT ChiCs” clubs and looking for 14yo boyfriends.  It almost seemed to confirm the 2d avatars suited the young female crowd and the game APIs suited the game devs.

Related posts:

1. Reminder that virtual worlds start with community not technology
2. The end of Virtual Worlds 1.0, now onto 2.0
3. Virtual worlds between a rock and a hard spot

Another Virtual World 1.0 is shutting down. This time Raph Koster’s Metaplace.com. This after vSide shut down earlier in the year and Google Lively last year. Playing off of Web2.0 I would group these and current worlds under virtual worlds 1.0. They’re similar to Infoseek, Excite, AOL, and Yahoo! – Web 1.0.

A few things defined Virtual Worlds 1.0:

1. All about the technology – Classic problem of building a solution in search of a problem.
2. Myth of self-expression – In search of a problem, many virtual worlds settled on self-expression as the problem they were trying to solve. Too bad no one was seriously hurting for tools to express themselves.
3. Installs – Metaplace just used Flash but most had their own proprietary installs. No one like installs, especially the core audience most of these services were going after.
4. Just 3D chat rooms – When self-expression fell flat and they found it difficult to compete with true casual games sites, these worlds were left with little more than 3D chat.

There are however Virtual Worlds 1.0 success stories. IMVU is incredibly succesful embracing it’s core functionality as just a 3D chat. Ameba has been a big hit in Japan by transitioning a community pre-built around blogs into a virtual world. And then there is always Second Life, probably the winner by default.

Virtual Worlds 2.0

As Web 2.0 rose out of the ashes of Web 1.0, virtual worlds will do the same.

Two things I believe will define Virtual Worlds 2.0:

1. Built around 3D in the browser – Say hello to O3D and WebGL.
2. 3D is for entertainment – Unlike what many believe, 3D isn’t exactly good for communication. What 3D is good for is entertainment.

Related posts:

1. How do virtual worlds build community?
2. Reminder that virtual worlds start with community not technology
3. Google’s O3D and WebGL the next wave for virtual worlds?

Virtual worlds seem to be waning. They rarely pop up in the news or in discussion. The last Engage! Expo! only a few hundred people in attendance and most of them were speakers. It’s the end of Virtual Worlds 1.0, Second Life won by default. That of course lets us dream of what’s to come with Virtual Worlds 2.0. It’s my guess that Virtual Worlds 2.0 will be built on the back of 3D in the browser - Google’s O3D and WebGL.

The more I learn about O3D and WebGL the more I’m impressed. But there are some constraints with these technologies – issues with latency, limited bandwidth, and performance limitations of running inside the browser. Stefano Buliani points out, the limitations will make intense video games a challenge.

This is all well and good when the interaction is limited to a few chat messages or coordinates of the mouse pointer on the screen, but multiplayer videogames have to shift a massive amount of data every second. When you play Gran Turismo online the position, speed and state of each player’s car must e synched across all the participants as often as possible. Add chat/voice data to that and you’ll soon realise that 30 players for one game calling your server at the same time to get and post data is just not manageable. Furthermore to ensure the timely delivery of the data to each client you are much better off pushing the data to the client rather than relying on it to call your server.

When I was playing a Infinite Journey you can’t help but notice the periodic lag that you see all the time browsing the Web, but this was in the middle of a jump. However virtual worlds have very different requirements than intense video games. Wagner James Au already commented on the potential for Google’s O3D and WebGL to support virtual worlds and highlighted that exact point.

Virtual worlds are hardly just about graphics, however; at least as important are communication channels between avatars and their groups, both asynchronously and in real time.

The Web started in a similar manner and look where it is today. From constraints comes creativity. It would seem that the video game industry is following a similar path toward creativity, moving away from the age old drive for better graphics. Just look at what the Wii has done with an old processor. O3D and WebGL might make intense video games a challenge but these technologies should be a boom for virtual worlds 2.0.

Related posts:

1. Why am I excited for O3D and WebGL
2. The end of Virtual Worlds 1.0, now onto 2.0
3. 3D isn’t good for communication

With 3D sneaking into the browser via Google’s O3D and WebGL many pose the question – is the web going to be 2D or 3D? Some are so confused they ask if social networks will evolve into virtual worlds like Second Life?

This reminds me of a time when communicating with a computer was a hot topic. The geniuses over at Microsoft and of course Bill Gates himself thought the best way this would be accomplished was to talk to your computer.

The PC five years from now — you won’t recognize it, because speech will have come into the interface, the screen will be a flat screen, the performance will be 20 times what it is today.

- Bill Gates

Today it’s obvious they were blinded by the technology as the fastest way to input data has always been the keyboard. I feel like many people today are blinded by 3D.  It’s often said that one of the benefits of virtual worlds is improved communication, but exactly how is that? Sure there are some users who find having an avatar is helpful but the majority see it as a burden, a novelty at best. Just ask some co-workers to have a meeting in Second Life, they’ll ask if they could just give you a call.

The Internet is about communication – email, Twitter, message boards, Skype, instant messaging, etc. Comparitevely 3D offers nothing. 3D isn’t good for communication, at least not the kind that is taking the world by storm these days – asynchronous communication via Twitter, collaboration via Google Wave and Mozilla Raindrop.

3D is for entertainment

What 3D is good at is entertainment - games, interactive story, MMOs, etc. Read my lips, “3D is for entertainment”. I’ve heard the stories of how 3D models helped scientists visualize data in a new way and lead to some breakthrough, but that doesn’t mean it will help me with my email.

Related posts:

1. Google’s O3D and WebGL the next wave for virtual worlds?
2. The end of Virtual Worlds 1.0, now onto 2.0
3. Apple tablet for web, books, movies, and interactive story?

An example of Google's O3D

I’m excited to see 3D in the browser though I may be in the minority. Google’s O3D and WebGLfrom Mozilla and the Khronos Group are exciting technologies but mention that to anyone in the game industry and they’ll laugh. Visual Purple is in the serious game business so you could say we’re in the game industry and if there was ever and industry built on escalating graphics it’s games. Just flip through the industry magazines and all you see are ads for game engines. But I think the tides are a changing, even if most can’t believe or see it yet.

Open Standards

All you need to do is look at the Internet to make a case for open standards. It isn’t a cure-all but open standards certainly have their strong suits. We’re constantly investigating virtual world and MMO platforms as well as graphic engines and would love if there was some sort of standard. I know most people in the game industry are more excited about new technology that pushes the graphics or game play further, but as the Wii has demonstrated – you can do a lot with an old processor if you get creative. In fact that seems to be where the industry is going.

Device independent

It was once a big deal to have the same browser work on Mac, Windows, and Linux. Now it’s what device they work on – mobile phone, set-top box, tablet, etc?

Easy integration with the rest of the Internet (social gaming)

Most video games are worlds on to themselves, even if they’re available online. You can play your friend from a distant city but you’re doing little other than talking trash while you play. We have yet to see games take advantage of what’s out there the way mashups have. Social gaming is getting us closer but we still have a long way to go. Being in the browser and using the same or similar protocols will likely change that. Plus, when you don’t have to worry about improving the graphics or creating some new game play you’re forced to be a bit more creative.

What will 3D in a browser do for games and virtual worlds?

Look at what putting a real browser on the iPhone did for mobile devices. Think of what 3D in the browser will do for games and virtual worlds. And I see a lot of potential for interactive story.

Related posts:

1. Google’s O3D and WebGL the next wave for virtual worlds?
2. Will Google Buzz support social games?
3. Will social games push users to open data standards?

Apparently Apple is asking Australian media companies if they want to put their content on its upcoming tablet computer. The Sydney Morning Herald goes as far as to say:

It will have a touch screen and be targeted at users who mainly want to surf the web, read books and newspapers or watch movies.

Seeing what the iPhone did for the mobile web and applications I can’t wait to see what it does for books. But more than that I’d like to see it be a catalyst for new forms of media; like webcomics or dare I say interactive story.

The Apple tablet will truly put the viewing experience in your lap and well within reach of your fingers. Think of doing more than hitting pause and play? It seems the perfect place to experiment with interactive story. Now if only Genkii would launch their One Coin comics platform.

And who knows, maybe it’ll stir up some excitement in virtual worlds again.

Related posts:

1. Entertainment at your fingertips
2. Sneaky suspicion Apple is about to release a virtual world
3. Story isn’t a science, so why does interactive story need AI researchers?