Tag Archives: O3D

Will Google Buzz support social games?

Posted on by
2

I’m catching a lot of flack for being a believer in Google Buzz. Interestingly enough most of the flack is coming in through Google Buzz itself. One theme I keep hearing is “Where’s the social games?” The launch of Google Buzz brings up an interesting debate – are social games are the killer app of social networks.

With Google’s launch of its social networking feature for Gmail and mobile devices, Google Buzz, Tuesday, some are already speculating what’s next for new service. A killer app for Buzz? Social games.

If social games are the killer app, the question then becomes – is Google Buzz going to support social games? Off of the top of my head I can think of a few reason for and against it.

Reasons not to support social games

Reasons to support social games

  • Certainly promotes usage – Facebook has a good idea of how important social games and apps are to its daily usage numbers
  • It can promote mobile use of Buzz – People have to get the game fix on wherever they are
  • Promote location-based features through augmented reality games – Also lends nicely to Google’s geek cred

Reasons for supporting social games beyond Buzz

  • Can push Android and Chrome OS for netbooks – If they’re also working on a tablet version of Chrome OS, the games piece might be critical to its adoption
  • Drives transactions – Anyone remember Google Wallet, maybe they can dust it off
  • Push open data standards which will loosen the grip Facebook and Twitter have on users
  • Push Google’s campaign for HTML5 and 3D in the browser – Google Chrome OS doesn’t support Flash; they spend their own money building out O3D while at the same time supporting it’s open competitor WebGL

Google hasn’t always been consistent in their message but overall they seem to support open web standards over proprietary formats. My guess is that open standards are in their blood and they think they can out compete anyone no holds barred. If the world was using HTML5 and WebGL at the expense of other game engines and Flash they couldn’t be happier. Some have already speculated that Google could change gaming and that’s a whole new market for them to cash in on.

Problem is Gmail is a tool, not a service

Of course Gmail, the home of Buzz is a tool and not a true social network. I use Gmail for personal and business where as I use Facebook more for fun – wasting time. Google search is also a tool, and we’ve seen how much they’ve cluttered their search homepage with ads or anything else that might be of interest. Google knowingly leaves hundreds of millions of dollars on the table not putting ads on their homepage.

I’m betting that Google won’t be able to resist the chance to dive into the social game market, the question is if they do it in Gmail or outside of it? They could easily launch Buzz as a stand-alone site – get people use to it in Gmail but let it all hang out on the stand-alone site. Then again maybe they have a few tricks up their sleeve to strike a natural balance between virality and spam? It might be odd to play a game inside of Gmail, but they could also let you jump off site for the playing experience. In this scenario Buzz is just the communication piece. If that’s the route they go I would also expect them to require O3D or WebGL as they’ve already stated that they restricted Chrome OS to only web apps for security reasons.

What do you think – will Buzz support social games?

Google Buzz will nullify Facebook

Posted on by
5

The echo chamber is abuzz with, we’ll Google Buzz. While some are negative:

But like many Google services, it lacks any imagination or compelling reasons to use it. (Starting with the name, a rip-off from Yahoo.) As a result, it’s probably not a threat to any of the services it’s trying to disrupt.

I’m a little more positive. Google Buzz relies on Google’s strengths – email and algorithms to surface your connections automatically based on who you correspond with. This is your own social network without the setup.

Won’t kill Facebook but will nullify it

The Silicon Alley Insider article asks who would make the switch to Google Buzz.

Why would they switch to this Google service when there are no compelling reasons to do so?

And if Google isn’t going to actually kill Facebook with this thing, what’s the point?

I disagree that the point is to kill Facebook. Users have been notoriously transient with their Internet use. First it was Friendster, then MySpace, then Facebook. Some say many have already moved from Facebook to Twitter. However one thing that has proven rock solid is email. Google Buzz is an instant social network, better than that it self-adjusting. People I haven’t talked with in a year will fade to the background, rather than hang around on Facebook prompting me to ponder when and why I added them.

Even today I hear, “don’t Facebook me, just send it to my email.” Email is where users return to time after time. It’s what goes at the top of their resumé. It’s the most sure-fire way to get in contact with someone besides their phone number. When users return to Gmail they’ll slowly begin to use Google Buzz and over time nullify Facebook. It won’t kill Facebook but it will take a chunk out of it.

What does it mean for social games and Flash?

I wonder what Google Buzz will mean for social games? With Facebook trying to strike a balance between virality and spam, how will Google tackle the issue?

There is also the issue of Falsh. Flash is to work on Google’s mobile OS Android, however not on Chrome OS for netbooks (and possibly tablets). Google is also a big proponent of HTML5 and pushes O3D as a direct competitor for Flash.

The end of Virtual Worlds 1.0, now onto 2.0

Posted on by
6

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.

Google’s O3D and WebGL the next wave for virtual worlds?

Posted on by
8

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.

3D isn’t good for communication

Posted on by
Reply

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.