Google's version of Virtual Reality

This is the concept that many other VWs have been built on - that since most users don't want to create content, there's no point in making it easy for users to do so - and that is why they fail. Because enough users _will_ want to create content that it hugely adds to what is in your world if you let them. To branch out a little, YouTube, for instance, is not all about people watching videos, it is also about people uploading, even if the vast majority of people visiting are only there to view things and do not have the patience or talent to make a video that anyone would want to watch.

When user content is allowed it will be via Google Sketch-Up which isn't too shabby.

If YouTube had to remove all their copyrighted content they would probably have very few visitors left.

Also, unfortunately, it psychologically damages the world experience for others. I've seen people on these very forums complaining that they felt conned at having to pay for a small house when the person next door could just build their own mansion. That doesn't arise if the creation mechanisms are held outside the world.

Oh Christ, are you serious? I have no interest in this thing but I'd hate to have some maniac running around in it besmirching my good name.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. (Not your posting it, Yumi, but the idea itself) What kind of jealous, immature twit would be have such a sense of entitlement? Either learn to make it or buy it. Every creator started out at zero t some point and had to learn. That's just nonsense. Anyone imparting those feelings to me would be gently laughed at.

That really isn't too bad at all. And it seems like what you can create with it would fit with the way Lively is constructed. Serves the population in the middle between the pre-designed 3D chat rooms and the vast, complex virtual worlds like Second Life.

Google may have something big. If they can fix the lag Lively has right now.

Goodness, that is a new one to me. It _does_ arise if there are greater barriers, anyway, it is just that since so few people can ever create you just will never _meet_ people who can build what you can't (and everyone will have to pay more as well).

I agree that it's really unreasonable. It is, unfortunately, reality though.

I mean.. if you go to a party and everyone else except you is given US$5, chances are, you're going to feel bad or wonder why - even though, rationally, you have no entitlement to it. Worse yet.. if you go to a party and you THINK everyone else except you has been given US$5, your feelings will still be the same even if this isn't actually true.

(And, "Every creator started out at zero at some point", true, but that's a slightly bogus argument. Microsoft grew from a tiny company in the past too, but that doesn't make the OS market any kinder right now.)

Comparing someone wanting to compete with Microsoft to someone whining because they are too lazy to learn how to make a cartoon house in a computer game is a bogus argument, too.

Just Sayin.

I wouldn't assume laziness. Unfortunately, many people in modern generations have had it beaten into them for years at school and home that there's a thing called "talent", and they'd know if they had it, and if they don't, they'll never do anything creative no matter what.

This is probably the result of their school teachers not having thought of any other way to get them to concentrate in class - and to work around the attitude of "I don't need to do this stuff because (insert celebrity name here) didn't and they're far more successful than anyone who did."

Unfortunately, it still remains when people come into SL too .

I dunno, maybe it'sme but it seems you are overthinking SL way too much. If people are really feeling that disenfranchised over it, perhaps they should find some other way to occupy their spare time.

I agree with you that as far as RL goes,people need both encouragement and constructive criticism to grow, we all have different talents to nurture. And I don't think it's a case of people being told they have no talent nowadays. It's the opposite. We sheild kids from any form of negarivity to a fault. They are coddled, never criticized, in some places you can't even use the word "Fail" in school. It's ridiculous. I see it in my students. People just don't want to do the work, they want instant success and stardom. So maybe replace laziness with impatience.

Except that would confirm their disenfranchisement.



Well, again, the media has a lot to blame about that. When was the last time a media broadcast showing a celebrity, actually showed them engaged in working hard?

I don't think it's any SL, but I've been having fun chatting all day with people in a room I made for SL users.

http://www.lively.com/dr?rid=6162319369561850728

It's a lot like IMVU for sure. I made a few Youtube videos of it and posted to my blog if anyone wants to take a quick look without actually signing up.

http://www.your2ndplace.com/node/1251

The issue of fairness comes into question when people do not feel that they have the opportunity to start from the same place as others.

People understand that, in a just world, effort leads to reward, and more effort leads to more reward. The janitor living next door to the lawyer (theoretically) isn't going to be jealous of the lawyer merely because the lawyer has a higher income. The professions require different levels of education, have different types of stress, and require different kinds of skills. If being a lawyer is harder to accomplish, then maybe it deserves more money.

Now, where the janitor might feel slighted in comparison to the lawyer is if the janitor didn't have the same opportunities as the lawyer when it came to choosing between the career paths of janitor and lawyer. If the janitor's parents couldn't afford to send the janitor to law school; if the janitor was not named Kennedy; the janitor is the member of a minority class that has a historically tougher time being accepted into law school. Those are the situations in which the janitor, quite legitimately, becomes jealous of his lawyer neighbor's income.

The key is not in whether one gets what one wants. The key is whether one has as fair of a chance as everyone else to get what one wants, or whether artificial barriers exist to prevent everyone from having a fair chance.

There is some social justice appeal to, "Your world. Your imagination." You get to meaningfully impact your virtual world in a way that probably isn't available to you in your real world. Access to good content-creation tools is a vital part of delivering, "Your world. Your imagination."

Therefore, I think it is important that Second Life make available tools that make content creation easily accessible to everyone.

If Second Life does not provide those tools- whether LL just doesn't care about developing them, or makes them inaccessible on purpose to prevent easy entry into content creation- then people are going to feel slighted in the situation that you mentioned.

I happen to think that providing easy content-creation tools is something that Second Life actually did fairly well.

For one thing, it is compatible with with other graphics formats that are widely supported by freely available, easy-to-use, well-documented tools. One who is already familiar with graphics creation does not have to re-learn something new, which really favors the hobbyists (professionals can much more easily learn a new system that is similar to something used before). For those completely new to content creation, they SL has allowed those people to make use of easy, free resources that have already existed.

Secondly, the in-world building tools really did strike a good balance between complexity and ease of use. Sure, the tools are crude. But one can go pretty far with those crude tools. I spent maybe one or two hours at most learning how to use the in-world building tools. I'm no great builder, but I can build a fairly good house structure.

Third, the limitations in the SL content creation tools inhibit talented professionals from truly capitalizing on their skills. The content creation tools limit the difference between hobbyists and professionals by increasing the quality at the low end and capping the quality at the high end.

SL gets a lot of things wrong. But when it comes to enabling content creation, I think SL does a decent job.

You forget one important difference, though: namely, the fact that the existing content has begun to shape and define limits on what can be done in SL.

One of the problems that a new content creator faces is that they either create an entirely new "field" in SL, which will probably be unpopular because the content they create will be the ONLY content available in that field; or they join an existing one, where there will be competition.

Well then, that's just too Farging Bad. Boo hoo. We all have things in life we would like to do, but can't , for a myriad of reasons. I tried to play golf, but found it too difficult and time consuming to learn, go I gave it up. I didn't get emo and crawl into a fetal position, I tried something else, and nourished what talents and interests I do have. I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with your view on this. It's just the "Nothing is my fault" menatlity that has taken over our society.And to feel that way over something as trivial as a game is just laughable.

Yes, but golf isn't that bothered about recruiting new players - Second Life is.

As soon as someone has to deal with a negative emotion SL has failed, no matter how they deal with it.

But what is the intent of the creation? You started by saying someone would be all pissy because they couldn't make a house and had to buy one. (I have to buy everything in SL, maybe that explains a lot). If they are goi9ng to make something for their own use, then there is no "cpmpetition". If they are planning to go into business, well that's the breaks. same as RL. The tools are there. But you have to supply the effort.

Oh come on. now you're getting silly. I can substitute golf for painting, ballet, photography, cooking, or any game or hobby. Not taking to it just means it's not for you. it's not some sort of character flaw, or flaw in the activity. It is what it is.

My head just exploded, so I am done on the topic. I thank you.

"You have to supply the effort" ignores the effect of motivation and management on the amount of effort a person will put in. Although there's no business competition, a person obviously won't work as hard if they believe they'll eventually only end up with something that's awful.

There's another application that's rather similar, called Vivaty. You can find out about Vivaty at Vivity.com.

Vivaty at present works on PCs only, and only with Internet Explorer.

Vivaty's arrival was not well timed. Google's getting all the press, but Vivaty is worth looking at for those that like trying this sort of thing.

That depends on what formats the competitors use. Unless competitors use proprietary formats, some content would be transferable from SL.

Most textures should be portable.

Animations could be portable. Second Life chose to base its avatar structure on I think the Poser 3 base figure. It was a great choice of a ubiquitous, good, and free (the early versions of Poser are free, I think) figure. Even as the Poser figure geometries have updated, the figure structure remains backward-compatible. Using the same figure would be a great logical choice for any competitor that wants inter-compatibility.

Certain objects could be portable. For sculpted objects (and I've only tried a few), the hard work is creating the shape in one's 3D program. "Baking" the sculpted texture to something usable by SL is the work of a plug-in.

LSL script would not be portable. However, I have read that there is some thought to allowing, in addition to LSL, C++ type code to be used directly in SL. That could be a basis of portability.

Objects made solely with the in-world building tools would not be portable. Unless SL created a tool to export such objects out to something like an .obj format; then there is sudden portability.

Skin type textures probably would not be portable. On the other hand, I read somewhere that there is a program that will convert skin textures made for figures like DAZ's Victoria into something usable for an SL avatar. If that is possible, then skin textures are potentially portable.

Clothing probably isn't going to be portable, unless someone innovates something.

One of the reasons I give credit to SL for making content creation easy is because I can't think of better ways it could have been done.

Competitors to SL would be wise to follow the leader, and make new virtual world products as compatible as possible with content created for SL.

Now, if anyone were looking at SL content creation for serious, RL-level income, then maybe the would hesitate to invest in learning how to create in SL, no matter how low the entry level. But if you have the ability to make RL-level income from content creation, you probably don't want to fool with something like SL anyway; there are many other RL places for you to make money easier from your graphics skills.

Even if content is not directly transferrable, creation skills are. If one learns how to create in SL, one is going to have a much faster learning curve creating for any other virtual world.

Tough cookies! We can't all ride the horse. Accept your own limitations, don't whine about it. I'd love to be as good with sculpted prims as Chosen Few. He made some zomgbadass sculpty robots with Maya. I know it's decades before I ever get that good. I'm not going to whine that Chosen is so talented, it's not right that I have to buy zomgbadass robots instead of making them!! *stomps feet*

Ridiculous.

I'll be happy to buy Chosen's robots.

Then they are lazy. That's called "Improvement" You get better as you go. All that says is that people do want first class results the first time out. What do you propose, that a new resident is able to create say a Wig of ETD quality the first time they try. And how would we impart that magic, anyway?

Perhaps all these people should stay away from Sl and go to these other Virtual thingies where everything just comes off a shelf. I'd hate to think were creating a whole generation of serial killers who are psychologically damged because they could make a fake plywood box.

Ok. Now I'm done. Really. I mean it.

But that's exactly the problem - because they only _think_ they would end up with something awful, they don't know for sure if they have a limitation or not.

Also, again.. most virtual worlds, such as WoW, don't highlight people's limitations. This is probably because highlighting people's limitations makes them feel bad and not use your product.