Content creators & residents: you ARE Second Life

I often see the attitude expressed here that LL doesn't care about the residents, and particularly about those who generate content. Privately, I've always felt that they care very deeply, but have demonstrated some stunning incompetence in handling the community. Some indirect evidence for that view is in this interview in Forbes a couple of days ago: http://www.forbes.com/technology/2008/04/06/second-life-rosedale-tech-ebiz-cx_ag_0407second.html

The text below is Rosedale's entire answer to the competition question. (He may have given more to the interviewer, but the print copy is small, so this was obviously what he led with). Note that this answer is not the best one to give comfort to Forbes' demographic, which says to me that it probably is not spin just for Forbes.

FORBES: How will Second Life ensure that it's not overtaken by competitors as the virtual world market grows?

I would say that quote demonstrates an unprecedented level of cluelessness on so many fronts, it would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.

Problem is, it isn't unprecedented.

In general I think LL have done a great job and SL is a wonderful experience, give or take the occasional glitch. However, the latest Release Candidate needs a bit of a rethink, I reckon, unfortunately. I have always found LL support to be helpful.

The biggest problems in SL are caused by us, the residents, or at least thoughtless or disruptive elements among us.

I have a Standalone island from OpenLife, and so I sometimes go on their forums.
Since their grid and downloadable standalone sims are in early stages, they too have problems to be discussed. But it's mostly done in a spirit of freindly co-operation, rather than angry confrontation.

yet WoW is stable with 3xs the customer base.....

I think you're more likely to find that in a place where dreams are still very much alive and well, plus less people means less trouble. The people there at the moment are more likely to be determined for success and success depends upon co-operation.

As for Philip's comments, Philip is still living the dream and it shows. I love his enthusiasm. I think someone should have clued him on the land buying business though, that metaphor has been shattered this week.

The comparison with WoW, WoW is more one dimensional, I still think it's a whole lot of fun but the potential here should be far more multi-faceted.

Four years ago, you would have said the exact same thing about SL. A great many of us who arrived at that time were simply stunned by how friendly and cooperative the community was, and that's why we stuck around.

As any population grows, cultural change is inevitable. In most cases, the majority of the changes could be described as progress, a good thing. But unfortunately, some things always end up regressing instead of progressing, and for whatever reason, one of those things in SL's case was the spirit of the forums.

The most significant change happened about three years ago, if memory serves. There was a mass exodus from another virtual world, in reaction to an announcement by its developers that was perceived to mean they would no longer be fixing bugs. Whether that's what they actually meant, or whether it was just a case of residents panicking over a miscommunication, I don't know. What I do know is that SL's population grew exponentially practically over night, as a huge percentage of that world's residents came here. SL's pre-existing culture suddenly became diluted by the vast sea of newcomers. Not all aspects of SL's culture changed for the worse right then, obviously, but the forums absolutely did, almost instantly.

Don't get me wrong; there's still a lot of good here on the forums. It's just that it used to be pretty much all positive, and now there's an awful lot of negative mixed in. Often you need to sort through the bad to find the good, and that can be frustrating.

I'm guessing that the Open Life forums are probably still in that pre-population-explosion stage, small enough that most regulars know each other, or at least know OF each other, well enough to get along. Once it grows, that will change. Whether it will go up hill or down, no one can say, obviously. But one way or the other, change it will. There's never any stopping that.

WoW isn't streaming live, constantly changing content. Big difference.

ok that makes sense.

SecondLife would have ZERO issues if it was something like WoW.

The stuff going on in the background, in SL and WoW are COMPLETELY different.

SL is more a networked 3D modeling and physics applications, where WoW is just a standard massive multi-player game. Huge difference between what is needed.

I'm sure that there are way more gamers than on-line socialites. Gaming offers instant gratification with shallow rewards. That is generally desirable to the masses. Second Life offers... well... a second life... complete with the freedoms (or lack of) that come with living that life.

I'm sure that many people are turned off by the fact the things require more than button mashing to accomplish goals here. Those are the people that flock to WOW. (^_^)

But when comparing one metaverse to the next... Second Life wins on scale and variety. The other grids I see are either way too incomplete, or simply not crowded enough yet. You don't get the huge library of created items to look at or buy. You can't find the mobs of people doing anything or nothing at all in the numbers found in the SL grid.

So what he said in the quote is very fitting. I kinda have the same opinion on M$. They're not the ONLY operating system around. There ARE others. Those others can be better or worse. But, there aren't as many people using or creating content for those others. So M$Window$ is successful simply because it has been successful for a long time and has become the industry default. (^_^)y

ok, im not a technical type person, but isnt there a way LL can get that same stability without sacrificing the user content(i think thats the term, not sure)?

Re: what Phil said:



This isn't invalidated by competition.

I see two main points here.

1) Popular areas have momentum and attract still more (yeah we all get that)

2) He's a believer in the Metaverse idea - at least to some degree; maybe not consciously. The idea that one (or a very few) virtual spaces could dominate the future.

Could be wrong - he may not think that - but look at where his idea takes you.

Market dominance.

It takes you to Google/Yahoo!/MSN pwning the search market.

It takes you to eBay as a market leader, it takes you to Amazon, it takes you to iTunes.

So how do you become eBay or Google. Get out there early as you can and be waaay ahead of everyone else and provide excellence in your product. Pricing? Being cheap is good, but not a critical factor - excellence is better.


* * * * *

Just one metaverse? Or only a few? I gotta be kidding, right?

Common wisdom is a funny thing - everything's impossible until it isn't. My personal guess is that yes, there will be a shakeout - that yes, traffic and population will dictate the 'winner' of cyberspace or at least a top 2 or 3.

Just as there is Pepsi to Coke and a Yahoo to Google, there will be a competitor or two to the 'main' multiverse. But not ten. If you told the early automakers that in 2008 (or even 1968!) that there would only be a handful of significant US car manufacturers left, they would have thought you were nuts.

The question is: is the Second Life grid the "AOL" of the burgeoning metaverse, or is it the Google.

It's far too early to say but right now, undisputably it's waaaay out front. My guess is that it's the AOL of the new industry, to be honest.

I'm hedging my bets on a third way and someone else buying them out. When all the donkey work has been done someone with more clout will seize the day.

Hmn... I think it's a mix of issues. Mind you, my feelings are also a bit colored, after having just gone to the big 1.19 meeting in Pooley.

On one hand yes, we rant and rave, we fly off the handle over things, often assuming that some issue we're having with our computer is all the fault of the Lindens. This was somethign I noticed when I got a new computer, and learned just how many of the issues with Second Life I was having were local issues. Nevertheless, many people take even the slightest issue and blow it out of porportion -- like the people at today's meeting, blaming 1.19 for the crashes they were having then, at a sim border filled with somewhere over 100 avatars all told. You will crash under those conditions.

At the same time, I think LL has caused a lot of this, too. When the forums became heated, they abandoned them, killed some of the popular boards, and tried to push people to a somewhat controlled blog. They vanished from sight in-world, many turning off the ability to see them in world at most opportunities. In essence, they retreated far away from all the things they viewed as antagonistic.

This, however, fueled the antagonism. If you weren't being heard when you yelled, the solution is to yell louder it seems. So you end up with an increasingly shrill userbase, and an increasingly reclusive staff.

Add to this the shear numbers of new members, the beginning of the maturing of the platform, a few realy boneheaded decisions by LL over time, etc. What a mess.

Now then... today.

Some of the Linden staff have attempted to reach out, through the office hours and in other ways. New staff members, like those in the Havok 4 and Windlight teams have been very public, actively getting feedbck from those users who opt to offer it, and actively are trying to help the userbase. Some Lindens want to be a part of community projects, like the LDPW and the SL Day of Remembrance. Sadly, many of the members, soured on a lengthy period of linden indifference, are at best suspisious. Many continue to yell and scream, an acvcues the Lindens of all sorts of things. Others have given up on yelling, and simply speak ill of the Lindens in their own homes, assuming the worst of all Linden efforts.

All I know is that the scene I jes saw in Pooley was a sad one, with Pastrami Linden and company trying, sometimes in vain, to help members with basic browser issues, while being shouted down by an angry userbase with, at times, their own agendas.

A shame, really.

I have been saying this exact thing to everyone I know for as long as I have been in SL.
With RL friends that don't understand why I am in SL at all.. I try to explain this .. And of course I get the blind confused look back at me...lol

Blake Dwi

/me shrugs. When LL does one boneheaded thing after another to alienate their customers -- as in, "couldn't do a better job at alienating people if they purposefully set out to do just that" -- my sympathies for LL as a company, and a great many Lindens, can be summed up by this equation:

Sqrt(-1)

In other words... imaginary. It doesn't exist.

There are isolated exceptions to that. But as a company, as a group, they lost my faith, trust, and so on quite a while back. And I haven't even been here two years yet.

Jack's office hour yesterday was very well mannered, sure there were pitchforks and torches out but it all stayed relatively calm. Sometimes a bigger venue lends itself to more people shouting and trying to get heard, did they use voice?

No, they did not use voice, just typed chat. Which, yes, some people complained about.

Actually, it was clear to me that a sizable number of people there would have complained if you gave 'em the world. It wasn't so much about an issue as much as it was about just wanting to be heard.

Draw yer own conclusions on dat.

Mari

When we had the VAT meeting there they used voice and although some people were still shouting, it did seem to assist the management of the meeting.

The point is not whether Second Life is the biggest or first.

The point is whether the customers who use it enjoy it enough to continuing spending their time and money on it.

Second Life is built on lots of great ideas, and shoddy execution, probably because Linden Labs attempts to do that which is far too ambitious for it to handle.

A lot of people are loyal to Second Life despite on the problems, because they like the ideas behind Second Life and would like to see it succeed. I would like to see Second Life succeed and be all that it can be.

However, Linden Labs is far too cavalier when it comes to customer satisfaction. Right now it can milk its unique place in cyberspace for all that it's worth, counting on customers to stay because they can't find an alternative quite like Second Life.

That's the whole problem. Linden Labs is taking its headstart in the user-created virtual world market for granted.

But as soon as a company with real business expertise and a little bit of capital takes a look at what Second Life is, how it's competing in something of an empty market, and how there are just dollars waiting to be grabbed, that company is going to dump a huge initial investment to make a quick technological catchup to what Second Life does.

Once a real alternative comes into play, that's when the sky will really fall around Second Life. Current Second Life residents will give a newcomer a chance, if Second Life hasn't been respectful to them. In the context of competition, all the problems with Second Life will suddenly actually matter.

Personally, I'd love to see Linden Labs suddenly turn things around and truly make Second Life live up to its potential. All other things being equal, I'd rather stick with the place I know, rather than try something new.

But given Linden Labs's current treatment of Second Life, I can't wait to see a good alternative come into play.

All-in-all, I like Second Life. But Linden Labs has earned absolutely zero customer loyalty from me. As it stands, I would have no problem switching brands.

Customer loyalty because they are the "only game in town" isn't loyalty, it's customers making the best of what they have. If something compareable to SL showed up, I would jump ship in a minute. Unfortunately, nothing has come along yet, so I'm still here.


Shopping at the only grocery store in town doesn't mean it's your favorite, just means there's nowhere else to shop.

I mentioned this on another thread. Phil is right in many ways, but there's a risk he's taking, which is that the very fact that Second Life has a large community and established content can make it unattractive as well as attractive. In real life, for example, we have companies producing some fantastic products - but we also, as a result, have "chainstore makeovers", which many people absolutely hate. Most people in reality will accept the tradeoff of one for the other but will they do the same in a virtual world?

As I mentioned elsethread there's at least one occasion when a virtual world actually sold a super-premium service, which was access to a SMALLER world with LESS content than their main world - because that created a closer-knit community, and made it easier for individuals to get their contributions recognised, and for some people that was more important.

So often LL will say they cannot be compared to WoW due to the obvious differences in content handling. Yet when it works for them they will create a comparison?

WoW is an mmorpg. There is nothing experimental about it.

Edit: Oh I see the word was experiential. Ok I guess WoW is experiential. WTF.

I have great loyalty to Second Life and admiration for Philip and his vision of a virtual world. Linden Lab has created the world and given users the freedom to do things that have made running Second Life very difficult for it.

At every turn users come up with unexpected ways of using the various capacities. LL has taken the difficult path - it doesn't nerf things to make life easy for itself, but keeps on attempting to incorporate the widest range of abilities into the platform.

Other worlds are popping up, many using LL's code. The treasure - the vision of Philip's that we users must create the world rather than be passive consumers - spreads out from Second Life. I see the freedom generously provided by LL for users as more important than gold - and difficult, even for a company with an altruistic vision behind it, to provide

It will, I hope, set the bar for virtual worlds and be a lasting legacy that will influence all virtual world development.

OK, I think it is only fair to quantify my first post with why I feel that way, so I will frame it in a response to what he said, more or less point-by-point.



Alright, true enough. Most people who bother to get together in one place probably want to socialize. Buying land is hardly their first consideration, though. I know it wasn't mine for a LONG time.



WRONG! I didn't come to SL because it had "the most" of anything. It was to satisfy a curiosity because a then roommate at the time was showing it to me. He could have been showing me Active Worlds, and I would have ended up there. Or There, and I would have ended up .. erm .. There. But, he showed me SL, and I found kindred spirits, so I am here. It wasn't that it had "the most users", or "the most content". Hell, in a fully user-content-generated world, more than half the fun is making, well, CONTENT, ya know? Having lots of existing content may be nice, but it isn't necessarily a primary concern when anyone can just sit down and make stuff day one.

OK, so many folks just wanna be consumers. Well, SL is just one place for them to go right now. I have a feeling if another, different, better Virtual World shows up, the content creators will be more than willing to port their works to it. Not like it would be too tough to do, most likely. Textures are textures, sounds are sounds. Prims, well, we already can convert prims to meshes to real CSG, so no huge hurdles there.



No, I will go to the place where live music THAT I WANT TO HEAR is playing, be it podunk virtual world, or SL, or any place else, INCLUDING the REAL world. Yeah. Concerts in RL are the shiznit, too, ya know.



Maybe. Getting into an established market requires a lot of effort and perseverance. I know, as I am about to do it on several fronts. You pretty much have to be awesome out of the gate, or you will be marginalized quickly. In a newer, smaller, different virtual world (ie, the "Frontier", you have more opportunity for success getting off the ground. *shrug* just the nature of economies.



Probably the most clueless comparison I have ever heard. Let's break it down:

1) 100 terabytes of WHAT, exactly? Of the stuff which isn't just intermediate revisions or works-in-progress, Sturgeon's Law suggests that 90% of the rest is CRAP. Looking at my inventory (and, yes, that includes my own works), I think I agree with Coletti's corollary to Sturgeon's Law: simply that it is recursive. In contrast, that 10 gigabytes of WoW is highly polished, refined work which is the direct result of TERABYTES of their own work saved/discarded in the process of its creation. The two datasets just CANNOT be compared like that. Period.

2) So, more is better, right? In that case, why does WoW have MILLIONs of people who play REGULARLY. SL has 12 million accounts, of which around 10% are premium/paying ones, and some 10% that have "logged on in the past SIXTY days". WoW has 10 million PAYING / PREMIUM accounts. BIG difference there, Phil. More is better, so WoW kicks SL's arse up, down, and sideways.

3) SL has more "virtual goods" than any other world. Well, ya, that may be. For the moment. However, given the fact that anyone can just sit down and make anything at any time, given enough time and talent, it's kind of an empty claim when other virtual worlds will follow suit. "SL has more!" "Virtual World X has new/better!" "Less filling!" "Tastes great!".

I should point out that I detest WoW more than any other online world, but I have a political agenda with Blizzard/Vivendi. Still, no one, not even me, can deny the facts of their existence.