Metaplace Central was in a state of shock and sadness after the announcement of the closing down of Metaplace.com
We Are the Network had quite some participants today, which was only normal with a subject such as the end of Metaplace.com, the lay-offs at Forterra Systems and what this means for virtual worlds.
It’s not easy to make general statements about these events. Metaplace.com is a user generated, browser-based 2.5 D world, Forterra Systems specializes in 3D simulation environments for the military, emergency services, medical training and other professional applications. While the end of Metaplace.com is official, there is no official information about what happens at Forterra Systems.
I think most participants agreed with the observation that building a user generated environment such as Second Life takes years. The numerous events, the wild variety of events and places is the result of years of building – not only of objects, landscapes and buildings, but also of communities, and all this by the residents of Second Life themselves.
It is only logical that those residents will not easily abandon “their” world. Metaplace tried to target another audience, I personally think, people who don’t care about full 3D effects, but who like to have easy access, and full integration in the web. On the other hand, Blue Mars, another fledgling virtual world, went into the opposite direction, going for even more impressive 3D graphics.
I think Metaplace did succeed to get some non-Second Life people, but not enough to continue the project. For Blue Mars it’s still very early day, but the people I meet there most often come straight from Second Life. What worries me is that there are really very few people in Blue Mars, but then again content creation does not happen in-world there, and it will take time to see a constant flow of events or gaming being organized in Blue Mars.
Now compare all this with Twitter, Facebook , YouTube etc. My own hypothesis, also after reading Dusan Writer’s take on the recent events, is that media which allow for usage during very short periods of time, do thrive. You can easily get in and out Facebook, Twitter or YouTube in minutes of time. Participating in events in a virtual world or exploring such worlds takes longer time spans (the experiences are also “deeper”, “immersive”).
In my experience, people who are introduced into virtual worlds often say they see the potential, but that they fear to become too immersed. A virtual world such as Second Life is not just a tool. It is a place where one meets other people, new people, often from far away places, where one participates in events, and all that takes time away from things we previously did with nearby friends and colleagues. Those advocating virtual worlds are fond of immersion, but they easily forget people can also fear immersion.
Summarizing my take: immersion may be worth it, but people realize there are choices to be made. Using Facebook on the contrary seems to reinforce existing ties with (often) nearby friends and colleagues, it allows for short breaks. People don’t feel like they have to make hard choices between working with people all over the world to make a virtual project succeed or meeting friends in a very physical nearby pub, club or whatever.
These are fundamental charectistics of the media involved, and in my opinion they explain why Second Life is a niche product and probably will stay such a product for quite some time. Those who feel virtual worlds are worth the experience are already there, in Second Life, and they are not ready to leave a world which they build themselves every day. Those who feel otherwise will not easily be lured into Second Life, but neither will they go to some other open-ended user generated virtual world.
Roland Legrand
