Ebbe's Keynote Critiques

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Deltango Vale wrote:

 

Same goes for virtual worlds. Most people don't have the mental framework or experience to see how virtual worlds will become the dominant political-economic structure of the 21st century. Okay, maybe I'm being a bit dramatic here, but I'm trying hard to make a point.

Just because Second Life is the Model-T of virtual worlds doesn't mean one should dismiss it as a fad or something too complicated for the masses

. Grandpa may have struggled with a mobile phone, buy your kids manage it in their sleep.

 

 

All this adds up to a massive commercial opportunity that will make Facebook seem like 'Show & Tell'. Virtual worlds -

and SL if it were managed right

- will be FB x 1000. It's blindingly obvious to anyone who understands history and human nature.

---

There is a fundamental flaw in your argument. The Model T actually was a world-changing technology because of how it was designed and built. It largely created the idea of an automobile that could be afforded by the masses and inspired the necessary infrastructure to make the idea practical.

Philip Rosedale's initial "vision" of Second Life was "a contiguous world created on a series of networked servers." This very vision is a major reason why Second Life never took off - it's fundamentally inefficient and can't be made efficient enough to be a true mass market application without being completely re-engineered, which would mean that "Second Life" would no longer exist as it now stands.

I feel a much better metaphor for Second Life is the Apple Newton. The basic idea of a portable information appliance was a good one, as we see from the much later success of the iPhone from the same company, but the Newton itself Just. Wasn't. Good. Enough. And never could have been, or the iPhone would have been built directly on the Newton platform.

 

[Deltango Vale]

You are right that the technical infrastructure of SL is not up to the task, but the concept and functionality of SL is revolutionary (just like the Model-T). The key point I want to make is that the focus must shift from 'engineering' to 'economics'. Form follows function. The Model-T was created to serve a social purpose. It was not created as a gadget in the hope that people might like to play with it.

Second Life began as a gadget, which Philip soon realized also served a social purpose. He knew he'd stumbled ass-backwards into something big, but he was an engineer by training and couldn't marshal his realization into a commercial strategy. He lacked the experience and intellectual power to convince the Board and VCs of SL's true potential.

Now Linden Lab wants to build a new virtual world. Great, but the company still hasn't learned the lessons of SL. Virtual worlds are not gadgets or games. They are full-blown political economies sitting atop a new social geography. The mechanics - the technical infrastructure - the form - needs to follow that function. BUT to understand that function requires knowledge of human nature and great wisdom - both in short supply at Linden Lab.

[Pamela Galli]

---

Deltango Vale wrote:

You are right that the technical infrastructure of SL is not up to the task, but the concept and functionality of SL is revolutionary (just like the Model-T). The key point I want to make is that the focus must shift from 'engineering' to 'economics'. Form follows function. The Model-T was created to serve a social purpose. It was

not

created as a gadget in the hope that people might like to play with it.

Second Life began as a gadget, which Philip soon realized also served a social purpose. He knew he'd stumbled ass-backwards into something big, but he was an engineer by training and couldn't marshal his realization into a commercial strategy. He lacked the experience and intellectual power to convince the Board and VCs of SL's true potential.

Now Linden Lab wants to build a new virtual world. Great, but the company still hasn't learned the lessons of SL. Virtual worlds are not gadgets or games. They are full-blown political economies sitting atop a new social geography. The mechanics - the technical infrastructure - the form - needs to follow that function. BUT to understand that function requires knowledge of human nature and great wisdom - both in short supply at Linden Lab.

---

This is one of the most insightful and thought provoking posts about SL I have read. I only see my one corner of the economy, so I like to hear from people with a wider perspective. It seems to me that virtual worlds in the style of SL are so unique and so compelling, especially for creative thinkers, it seems reasonable to assume it can find a much larger audience than it has.

It is another way of expressing what we keep saying about SL, which is that it is not a game, but a world or platform. And IMO LL needs treat it as what it is and step up the level of governance/service.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Pamela Galli wrote:

---

Deltango Vale wrote:

You are right that the technical infrastructure of SL is not up to the task, but the concept and functionality of SL is revolutionary (just like the Model-T). The key point I want to make is that the focus must shift from 'engineering' to 'economics'. Form follows function. The Model-T was created to serve a social purpose. It was

not

created as a gadget in the hope that people might like to play with it.

Second Life began as a gadget, which Philip soon realized also served a social purpose. He knew he'd stumbled ass-backwards into something big, but he was an engineer by training and couldn't marshal his realization into a commercial strategy. He lacked the experience and intellectual power to convince the Board and VCs of SL's true potential.

Now Linden Lab wants to build a new virtual world. Great, but the company still hasn't learned the lessons of SL. Virtual worlds are not gadgets or games. They are full-blown political economies sitting atop a new social geography. The mechanics - the technical infrastructure - the form - needs to follow that function. BUT to understand that function requires knowledge of human nature and great wisdom - both in short supply at Linden Lab.

---

This is one of the most insightful and thought provoking posts about SL I have read. I only see my one corner of the economy, so I like to hear from people with a wider perspective. It seems to me that virtual worlds in the style of SL are so unique and so compelling, especially for creative thinkers, it seems reasonable to assume it can find a much larger audience than it has.

It is another way of expressing what we keep saying about SL, which is that it is not a game, but a world or platform. And IMO LL needs treat it as what it is and step up the level of governance/service.

---

1) What if the majority of the population don't find virtual worlds compelling? You find them compelling; as do I. Therefore, we're in Second Life. This doesn't mean that they're compelling to large swathes of the population. There are people who find golf extremely compelling; I don't, especially considering the amount of time and work I'd need to put in to get to a level where I wouldn't embarass myself at it.

2) If Second Life is a "world" instead of a "gadget", why should Linden Lab be the one to govern it, rather than the users themselves? However, if the users do govern it, how many of them will be willing to take on the level of accountability necessary to do the governing?

One of the basic problems of thinking of virtual worlds being separate from the real world is that they become optional, as opposed to the real world, which isn't. If the virtual world is considered as a part or augmentation of the real world that changes the dynamic; however, much of the chattering class of Second Life is adamantly opposed to mixing the real and virtual worlds. So it's very possible that a "successful" virtual world would be exactly what they don't want.

[Deltango Vale]

Hot off the press:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/12/how-virtual-world-edge-of-apocalypse-and-back-again

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Pamela Galli wrote:

---

Deltango Vale wrote:

You are right that the technical infrastructure of SL is not up to the task, but the concept and functionality of SL is revolutionary (just like the Model-T). The key point I want to make is that the focus must shift from 'engineering' to 'economics'. Form follows function. The Model-T was created to serve a social purpose. It was

not

created as a gadget in the hope that people might like to play with it.

Second Life began as a gadget, which Philip soon realized also served a social purpose. He knew he'd stumbled ass-backwards into something big, but he was an engineer by training and couldn't marshal his realization into a commercial strategy. He lacked the experience and intellectual power to convince the Board and VCs of SL's true potential.

Now Linden Lab wants to build a new virtual world. Great, but the company still hasn't learned the lessons of SL. Virtual worlds are not gadgets or games. They are full-blown political economies sitting atop a new social geography. The mechanics - the technical infrastructure - the form - needs to follow that function. BUT to understand that function requires knowledge of human nature and great wisdom - both in short supply at Linden Lab.

---

This is one of the most insightful and thought provoking posts about SL I have read. I only see my one corner of the economy, so I like to hear from people with a wider perspective. It seems to me that virtual worlds in the style of SL are so unique and so compelling, especially for creative thinkers, it seems reasonable to assume it can find a much larger audience than it has.

It is another way of expressing what we keep saying about SL, which is that it is not a game, but a world or platform. And IMO LL needs treat it as what it is and step up the level of governance/service.

---

2) If Second Life is a "world" instead of a "gadget", why should

Linden Lab

be the one to govern it, rather than the users themselves? However, if the users

do

govern it, how many of them will be willing to take on the level of accountability necessary to do the governing?

One of the basic problems of thinking of virtual worlds being separate from the real world is that they become

optional

, as opposed to the real world, which isn't. If the virtual world is considered as a

part

or

augmentation

of the real world that changes the dynamic; however, much of the chattering class of Second Life is adamantly opposed to mixing the real and virtual worlds. So it's very possible that a "successful" virtual world would be exactly what they

don't

want.

---

First, I love this conversation.  Good points from all!

 

Theresa brings up something important in her #2.

 

"2)  If Second Life is a "world" instead of a "gadget", why should Linden Lab be the one to govern it, rather than the users themselves? However, if the users do govern it, how many of them will be willing to take on the level of accountability necessary to do the governing?"

 

LL uses SL as a money generating machine.  They don't care that SL is a world or an economy, other than the money they can give their investors.  Which is fine, they provided the venture capital, and they want a return. 

 

But, how can those of us in SL break free of the LL run system, and still have the virtual world we want, still have the economy, etc?   How can we run it ourselves, with the same benefits, and without the LL mismanagement and bleed-off?  That's the crux.

 

I've been out in open sim for a while, and there are some grids out there that could, with the coding expertise, rival SL.   The problem then becomes the economic factor.   How, and who, would oversee an economic exchange that would allow the virtual world economy to thrive?   We'd need an independent system that could be trusted.  I propose Bitcoin as an option.  This would allow for an economic exchange system, outside of the virtual world management team.  

 

I'm part of a user run grid in OS, and will mention this option in our next monthly meeting.   As we don't have a currency, and as the grid is user run, it would not be practical to invest that level of trust in a core of volunteers, regardless of how well intentioned they may be.   But, an outside virtual monetary exchange system could allow for an economy. 

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

Deltango Vale wrote:

Hot off the press:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/12/how-virtual-world-edge-of-apocalypse-and-back-again

---

Good read.

 

Trivia:  Nasa’s Charles White is also in SL.  ; )

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

---

Deltango Vale wrote:

Hot off the press:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/12/how-virtual-world-edge-of-apocalypse-and-back-again

---

Good read.

 

Trivia:  Nasa’s Charles White is also in SL.  ; )

---

I wonder how much of Eve's success results from the creation and nurturing of canon. There is no backbone storyline for SL. You walk in the door and you don't know what the hell to do. Two years in you still don't. Some of us love that, I certainly do. But do most people? I think this is why Ebbe is shifting focus towards the creation of experiences. SL needs canon.

Philip Rosedale missed the mark when he imagined a LEGO set for virtual creators. SL provides nothing but the basic blocks. If you go to the actual LEGO website and click "Products", what you'll actually see are storylines, many of them  cross licensed from other franchises...

http://www.lego.com/en-us/products

The LEGO movie generated nearly $500 Million in revenue last year. The entire LEGO Goup generated $4.4 Billion (some of that from the movie).

It's not about creation, it's about narrative and our place in it.

[ZoeTick]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

It's not about creation, it's about narrative and our place in it.

---

"Your world, our imagination" ?

[Madelaine McMasters]

Del, you know I do not share your vision of the future of VR. I think VR will remain limited to niche applications. Augmented Reality is the big market.

If you believe that "sitting is the new smoking", VR has a problem. The moment people decide to get up and walk, drive or even just look around, VR is toast. Think of all those Apple Watch owners who'll get li'l taps on their wrists every half hour, reminding them to log-out and stretch their legs.

RL ain't going away. AR doesn't need it to.

[Deltango Vale]

Having puzzled over the issue of governance for some time, I believe that democracy would be fatal. Corporate governance is best AS LONG AS THE CORPORATION ISN'T STUPID. I don't believe that Linden Lab is greedy. If they were truly greedy, they would take a long-term perspective. I believe that Linden Lab is stupid - no conspiracy, just plain stupid.

This is not a new problem. If one had a good king (say Henry V of England), the country prospered. If one had an idiot (say George III of England or Louis XVI of France), things went south. In the corporate world, we have the example of Kodak, a once mighty company that was destroyed by idiots.

As the experience with CCP Games demonstrates, even clever companies can misjudge their userbase. Their solution was the CSM, similar in many ways to the earliest forms of democracy - an elite, elected council with a vested interest in the society (otherwise known as a property requirement). Perhaps something similar could be done with SL.

One suggestion would be to sell shares in Linden Lab to the residents. This could be done incrementally when an existing shareholder (VC, executive or member of staff) wishes to sell his shares. An alternative would be to restructure LL as a resident-owned partnership. A superb example is John Lewis Partnership in the UK. I believe that the current owners might see this as an opportunity to exit the business (considering they have no understanding of SL or faith in its future).

[Deltango Vale]

Creativity (creation) and narrative can't be separated, but I take your point about the background story arc of EVE. Far more important, in my opinion, was the crisis both worlds faced in 2005 (EVE) and 2006 (SL). CCP made the right call; Linden Lab made the wrong one. CCP chose individual responsibility; LL chose paternalism.

Which, interestingly, brings up back to the story arc. "Your World, Your Imagination" WAS the story arc. It was an open invitation for anyone, worldwide, to explore, unrestrained, his or her fantasies, enterprises and communities. I, for example, had some personal issues to sort out, which couldn't be done in RL. I also had commercial ambitions. I spent most of my leisure time on the dancefloor of Sanctuary Rock (now sadly gone). Almost everyone I met back then had a purpose. They saw SL as a vehicle for realizing long-held ambitions that could not be fulfilled in RL.

I know this may stun new residents, but back in 2006, Linden Lab posted almost daily about their vision for SL as an open and creative world. It was an incredibly exciting time, filled with enthusiasm. Then came the paternalism, which sucked the wind out of SL's sails. The story arc was broken. For those who remained, the financial incentives vanished in a whirlpool of mismanagement. The ship ran aground. It's been stuck on a reef ever since.

[Deltango Vale]

"640K ought to be enough for anyone." - Bill Gates

[ZoeTick]

---

Deltango Vale wrote:

"

640K ought to be enough for anyone." - Bill Gates

---

I actually heard him say that in his Kermit the Frog voice at a Microsoft seminar in the early 80s in London.

I still have my notes where I documented his ridiculous statement verbatim. maybe I should put them on eBay and see what they would go for, or if a mystery bidder might move in at the last minute to suppress their publication .  .

My notes also confirm that I was much further along the PC software development arc than he was, and that my sense of humour was fully developed even then.

[Deltango Vale]

I find that the world divides between those who 'get' VR and those who don't. It's a bit like one of those gestalt pictures where the image is fragmented, disguised by noise. One looks at the image, perplexed, until suddenly one 'sees' the object. Those who can't see the object think it's a bogus test. They think that those who claim to see the object are mentally deranged. My BF and I have a good friend who's incredibly smart and quite artistic, but no matter how hard we try to explain VR to him, he just can't get it.

AR and VR are separate creatures. Both will define the future. Let me attempt an analogy to explain VR.

Think summer cottage. From a raw, financial and technical perspective, a summer cottage makes no sense. An engineer will suggest instead building a rec room in the basement. No need to purchase additional land. No need to pay and administer separate utility bills and taxes. No extra maintenance and security costs. No transportation costs. No duplication of refrigerator, TV, beds and cleaning products. A rec room in the basement is sensible and efficient.

Why, then, are human beings so irrational to want to have a summer cottage? Because it's NOT home. Because it is an escape from home. Because it is a place to be free from the routines and constraints of home.

Virtual reality is like a summer cottage. Yes, currently, VR is a bit crude, but one need not have a wild imagination to connect the dots to the future. Moreover, VR is an inexpensive and low-maintenance summer cottage. No need to humph a 500 lb piano up a flight of stairs; just buy a virtual one and rez it wherever one wants. Sooooo, with VR it DOES make sense to have a rec room in the basement because one can instantly travel to one's virtual summer cottage - even in wintertime - without all the problems mentioned earlier.

In the not too distant future, VR will offer 90% physical reality at 1 percent the price. That's why it's poised to become the fourth economic structure (virtual services) after the current three (realworld services, manufacturing, agriculture).

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Deltango Vale wrote:

 

In the not too distant future, VR will offer 90% physical reality at 1 percent the price. That's why it's poised to become the fourth economic structure (virtual services) after the current three (realworld services, manufacturing, agriculture).

---

You unwittingly reveal the great flaw in your theory - virtual worlds have no natural needs, and no natural scarcity, which creates a built-in limit to how much they can serve to be the economic engine to support people who do have natural needs and do live in a world of scarcity.

In the real world, hair grows. The least you're going to pay to get it cut is about $8. There's a practical limit to the number of haircuts one person can do in a day, so multiple people are required to satisfy the need/want of haircutting. And the haircut itself will only last a few weeks or months, meaning people will need to keep getting their hair cut.

In Second Life, you can get a hairstyle from the finest hairstylist in Second Life for about a dollar. This hairstyle will last forever, and everyone in Second Life - nay, everyone in the world - can get a hairstyle from this one person at any time.

If this person decided to raise their prices significantly there are plenty of others just about as good who can provide basically the same service for their original price (or even less), so they would be cutting their own throat.

If you try to get around this by creating a virtual world that does have artificial needs and artificial scarcity - indeed, the Second Life land economy has always been built on artificial scarcity - there's no reason someone else couldn't provide an equivalent world without it - i.e. OpenSim.

[mikka Luik]

Real world analogy not so easy..pair of scissors or a pack of dirt cheap razors = 'hairstyle' all taken care of.

Plus razors usefull for more than hair. Plus learn to knit or hand weave =^^= Even cheaper than virtual

 

Plus there is a built in virtual scarcity that SL does well. Its called whimsy

[Deltango Vale]

Hot off the press:

http://observer.com/2015/06/if-you-werent-there-you-missed-it-journalism-inside-video-games/

When I think how much history has been lost in SL, I think of all the wealth that LL let slip down the drain.

The relative price of tier (relative to a basket of RL infotainment goods and services) has been prohibitively expensive for many years. It is now roughly 3-4x what it was in 2006 (relative to a 2015 basket of RL infotainment goods and services). Large numbers of historic sims with amazing builds have been lost. Total land continues to shrink. Virtual worlds are grabbing the world's headlines and Linden Lab is a million miles behind the curve. SL2? No news. No promotion. No media exposure. No excitement. No enthusiasm - what one has come to expect from the folks who couldn't get anywhere with SL1.

[Derek Torvalar]

---

Deltango Vale wrote:

Hot off the press:

http://observer.com/2015/06/if-you-werent-there-you-missed-it-journalism-inside-video-games/

When I think how much history has been lost in SL, I think of all the wealth that LL let slip down the drain.

The

relative

price of tier (relative to a basket of RL infotainment goods and services) has been prohibitively expensive for many years. It is now roughly 3-4x what it was in 2006

(relative to a 2015 basket of RL infotainment goods and services)

. Large numbers of historic sims with amazing builds have been lost. Total land continues to shrink. Virtual worlds are grabbing the world's headlines and Linden Lab is a million miles behind the curve. SL2? No news. No promotion. No media exposure. No excitement. No enthusiasm - what one has come to expect from the folks who couldn't get anywhere with SL1.

---

I remember a number of years ago seeing that someone had sold their Eve Online character on EBay for 6K US.

Any chance of me getting near half that for ol' Derek? 

lol

[KarenMichelle Lane]

---

Derek Torvalar wrote:

---

Deltango Vale wrote:

Hot off the press:

http://observer.com/2015/06/if-you-werent-there-you-missed-it-journalism-inside-video-games/

When I think how much history has been lost in SL, I think of all the wealth that LL let slip down the drain.

The

relative

price of tier (relative to a basket of RL infotainment goods and services) has been prohibitively expensive for many years. It is now roughly 3-4x what it was in 2006

(relative to a 2015 basket of RL infotainment goods and services)

. Large numbers of historic sims with amazing builds have been lost. Total land continues to shrink. Virtual worlds are grabbing the world's headlines and Linden Lab is a million miles behind the curve. SL2? No news. No promotion. No media exposure. No excitement. No enthusiasm - what one has come to expect from the folks who couldn't get anywhere with SL1.

---

I remember a number of years ago seeing that someone had sold their Eve Online character on EBay for 6K US.

Any chance of me getting near half that for ol' Derek? 

lol

---

Well if you want to pay me 3K Id be happy to take your avatar off your hands, reputation and all. 

[MissTeriMahn]

---

KarenMichelle Lane wrote: Well if you want to pay me 3K Id be happy to take your avatar off your hands, reputation and all. 

---

Couldn't you just cut and paste a copy of Derek?

Teri

((Like Greta Garbo, don't you want to be a clone?))

[Dresden]

---

MissTeriMahn wrote:

---

KarenMichelle Lane wrote: Well if you want to pay me 3K Id be happy to take your avatar off your hands, reputation and all. 

---

Couldn't you just cut and paste a copy of Derek?

Teri

((Like Greta Garbo,

don't you want to be a clone?

))

---

Doesn't everyone? Being a clone is fun.

...Dres