Serious SL management roadmap

I post this here, for anybody knowing to read.

This is what I think would be a serious management of Second Life.


In the some weeks range:
-revert the openspace to the older pricing of 1/4 full sim, 1/4 capacity (see my balanced proposal for more details here /354/13/290886/1.html)
-check this story of VAT


In the some months range:
-hire a team of serious programmers (engineers, methods engineers, quality people, ergonomics...) to debug and eventualy rewrite the viewer and server softwares
-hire a true public relation team (for in world help, abuses, etc)
-work with the W3C to normalize the server-client transfer protocol, and make it interoperable and GNU licensed, to become the web standard for adressing virtual worlds, like the http did for the 2D web
-review prices
-introduce new super-cheap products like virtual servers for sims which are seldom used. (see discussion here /354/42/293183/1.html)
-set or choose a separate company for a mandatory identity check of all residents (to curb griefing and abuses)
-continue work on interwolrd teleports
-in all the new mainland sims, provide a true zoning per style of building and lifestyle, and not per activity. Allow for resident-run groups of sims with common rules.
-set a separate service or company for interworld avatars and inventory management
-set a true mesh prim import capacity, and more export capacity (with usual cautions regarding copyrighted material. These should be exported only toward a, interworld avatar and inventory management)
-introduce business products which can realistically compete with existing teleconferences and the like (documents exchange, secrecy, etc).
-introduce private grids and private servers
-curb abuses enough for allowing teens in the main PG grid (access to mature sims only if parents agree)
-forbid hopeless things like virtual prostitution
-add features like customisable skies
-better avatars customisation (non human shapes, small avatars...)
-better protection against griefer tools
-regulations on bots and better protection against unwanted bots
-forbidding camping




-in the some years range:
-gradualy eliminate setup fees, in order to eliminate any "land" speculation (this must be cautious and concertated, as today land owners should be indemnized in some way)
-gradualy move today mainland to the wew zoning per style.
-as competition with other platforms will increase, center Second Life on what made its success: its very simple use and easy access for people with few technical skill and few money, who will never be able to run things such as private servers or whole worlds
-gradually eliminate the linden dollar and allow for the use of real curencies and real bank accounts in world
-work to set a fast and reliable internet protocol with narrow band but guaranted ping, in order to prepare for activities like teleoperation, or exoskeletons for more immersion. The internal SL network communication is a good test environment for this.

Out of all those, I think this one is very important. It is one of SL's strong points, in my opinion.

well, I realize that a road map like this is just dry and not appealing.

What is interesting in virtual worlds like SL, is that we can realize our dreams in there. This is today, and will remain, the most popular use of virtual worlds. Whatever our tastes and interests, we all need a place where we are free to virtually live them. And to live OUR dream, not other's dreams, not predefined or predigested dreams, not reduced common place dreams.

So we need landscapes and builds, not ready made builds, but OUR builds. For this we need tools. Simple tools for everybody, or more efficient tools for artists (like meshes). Why worlds where we can't build, like There.com, are not expanding?

Most often we want to share our dreams and interests. From this, groups, meeting places, populous sims, need for interworld search, communication and teleport.

We want to be beautiful. This is a fundamental human right, that unfortunately nature denies to us. This is why we need complex and customized avatars, with more and more interactions and realism.

Second Life, and virtual worlds at large, may find new business or technical uses. But they SHALL primarily remain entertainment places, fun places, dream places. Any who forgot this was expelled. Any who is forgetting this shall be expelled soon.

Some nice ideas there and where would we be without a little day dreaming.
I just get a mental picture of three monkeys. The first has his hands over his ears.

Kornscope, thanks for your words. Be reassured, this is not day dream. I am an old monkey myself, and, as the saying goes on in french, we don't learn an old monkey do do grimaces. I understood the problem well before this openlands story, and this thread has another purpose than trying to convince three noob monkeys. Wait a bit, please, for things to unfold.

the failure of Google Lively, and its now (sad) closing, is a severe warning that nobody should ignore:


-even if one is as poweful as Google, not understanding what makes the interest of virtual world doesn't protect against a gross failure. Remember that Lively offered only poor building, no landscaping (only "rooms" no social networking, no search, no TP, ugly avatars, and all this into a narrow web browser window. Offering gadgets like Picasa images and Youtube videos did not compensated for the lack of essential features.

-virtual worlds are not immortal. Just like the french "deuxième monde" (precursor of Second Life, started 1997, and wantonly closed in 2001 by its editor canal plus, lefting hundreds of friends forever separated), Lively too is closing (although Google very correctly provided a warning, contrarily to what I wrote first). I hope that the today irrational management of SL is not an intent toward such an end. But it is certainly a step toward it. Curious as how the belief as what we must turn the steeringwheel right to go left, always sends us into the plane tree. Booo hoo hoo, facts are naughty.


At last I hoped that this weak product was a training, to prepare for a really interesting one. But no. They just did not understood.

Seems that the openspace "dialogue" is dying (by lack of a real replies).

So I no more follow this discussion. If anybody replies here, please drop an IM to me in worrld.