Next-Gen: Web Integration in Virtual Worlds
The presentation I gave in Berlin on Thursday was ostensibly on “virtual worlds, media and identity,” but as I’ve been going over it I’m finding it’s extending itself into a small picture of what the next generation of virtual worlds might look like and how we might get there. A lot of it was stuff that’s probably pretty basic to 3pointD readers, but it might be worth going over anyway. And since it marked my first PowerPoint presentation (and hopefully my last), I can even paste in some slides below. (If you want the full set, send me an email.)
I started out by comparing what can be conveyed via traditional communications media, or rather, what tools are at our disposal when we work in various media. In SMS text messaging, of course, we’re very limited in how we communicate (despite the fact that a lot can be communicated via SMS). In instant messaging, we have a little more leeway, and in email yet more. Voice adds a great deal of breadth to the channel, video conferencing expands it further, and of course the broadest channel through we communicate is face to face, since we have access to facial expressions, gestures, proximity and other “messages” at a higher “resolution” than in any of the other media in the chart. I actually thought this would be pretty unremarkable to most people, but more than a few audience members were quite excited to see things arranged like this — which means I’m going to stick with my habit of pointing out the presumably obvious; sorry, guys.
Where does that leave virtual worlds, then? To illustrate, I used the example of the 3pointD Think Tank we held last October, and asked the audience to imagine (with the help of some other slides) what it would have been like if I’d had my avatar turn his back on the meeting and walk away — something that’s not possible in instant messaging, email or voice. Through that example, I asked the audience to consider the element of “presence” that’s at work in virtual worlds, and the added power that it lends to VWs as a communications medium, placing virtual worlds nearly at the level of face-to-face interaction in terms of the breadth of the channel.
After that we had a small digression into Web 2.0, and the fact that one of the most important things being communicated at places like Flickr and MySpace, and on blogs and through any number of other channels, is identity. It might be an honest representation of someone’s offline life, or it might be an identity the user is trying on or experimenting with. Either way, marketers would be interested, I’d assume, since what they’re really selling is not products, but tools to help the consumer shape their identity, right? A pair of shoes is an article of footwear, but it also makes a statement about who I am. I also used this point to answer the question of whether 3D online worlds are only a fad (they are not), by arguing that as young people do more and more of this kind of identity-exploration online (as they have been doing in recent years), they will naturally be drawn to tools that let them explore those identities in deeper and deeper ways.
In virtual worlds, this idea becomes more powerful because they are beginning to combine the content-creation power of Web 2.0 with the social and communicative power of “presence.” Even though I have no idea whether Kaneva will take off or sink like a lead balloon, I think the idea of creating a shared social space for experiencing media — the kind of media that hundreds of millions of users are putting on MySpace, Flickr and YouTube every day — is a very powerful one. So I asked the audience to imagine the difference between uploading photos to Flickr, and uploading them to a place like Kaneva. On Flickr, many people can view my photos, but I can’t interact with them and they can’t interact with each other (although I did note that some new Web 2.0 apps like me.dium and others have begun to bring this social quality of presence to the Web). A place like Kaneva adds the social power of presence and interactivity to the mix.
To wrap up, I described the convergence I see happening, calling it The New New Media™ as I have done from time to time here, and positing a set of next-generation virtual worlds that would emerge which would feature full integration with the Web, so that all of the Web 2.0 stuff we get so excited about would be available to us in 3D online spaces, after the fashion of Kaneva or what it sounds like Raph Koster is trying to accomplish with Areae. This would include video integration, and begin to draw in the television and film industries as well. But as I’ve mentioned before w/r/t Kaneva, I don’t see why there needs to be a separate Web-based storage space for your various media. Why not just let your virtual world interact with your Flickr account, your MySpace, account, etc.? This would actually reduce the load on the developer, rather than having to recreate these functions in a closed system.
On the way out, I very briefly mentioned the rather large set of mirror worlds and geospatial technologies that would have digital information streaming to us from the physical world that surrounds us, and finally tied it all together into the package we’ve been calling “The Metaverse” (captal: Brooklyn). And then I sat down.
I hate making predictions, but I do think this is what’s going to happen. Given the enthusiasm with which people are mashing Second Life with Web 2.0 (and even World of Warcraft with Web 2.0, come to think of it, in the likes of Shawn Fanning’s Rupture), and the things like Kaneva and Metaversum (more on which in an upcoming post) that are beginning to arise, it seems inevitable to me that the next place virtual worlds will head is toward a greater integration with the Web (which itself is beginning to sprout some of the symptoms of an MMO — viz. PMOG — or a virtual world). To me, that’s a very exciting development. What do you think?
Feeds
“What do you think?”
I think RAP (and associated projects) in conjuntion with Croquet is the most compelling thing on the radar atm.
Someone needs to persuade Second Life to bite the bullet and integrate uBrowser libraries - then we’d all have Web, Flash, etc. in world.
I think your Convergence flowchart is spot on, Mark. Personally, I’m curious to see what kind of innovative interfaces are developed to enhance the interaction between the human user and “The Metaverse.” As I recall very early in Linden Lab’s development Philip and Cory (I think it was Cory, someone correct me if I’m wrong) created some sort of new hardware interface; I don’t recall the details, but I think it was with made with the intention of using it with something like SL. Will new modes of interaction engender new types of services?
The other key topic you touch upon is the concept of “identity” in this New New Media; in the recent interview I did for Samvirke (http://www.fdb.dk/samvirke) the primary thrust of the journalist’s article was the reconciliation of virtual identities with real ones in the context of marketing, commerce, and finance. The ramifications are huge on this front, both socially and philosophically. PhD candidates, start your engines.
Thanks for the report!
@Scott — is there an English version?
@csven — I’m pretty sure Web integration will come before interoperability, though I’d love to see real interoperability too, for sure.
I think you should stop using the future tense when you talk about these ideas.
future tense…;)lol
yes. considering virtual worlds using technologies like vrml or active worlds
(more limited) were directly connected to the www via in browser play/url linking/ and video/audio /image playback in 3d realtime spaces a decade ago.:)
where was the “media punditry then”?. well it was for 2D animations and Flash- the OBVIOUS media type for the future of the web..;)—
good thing we’re so much smarter now…..;)
BTW- a nice bit of reporting might be on the MMO craze of 2001– whats that i say- a mania around MMOs in 2001 that lead to hundreds financed at millions of dollars each, and how many shipped? and how many stayed online for more than a few months?
Or better yet a survey of the web-flash entertainment/ community /social portals from 1996-2001…..
just trying to keep the virtual real.
cube3
> some sort of new hardware interface
Scott, this was “The Rig” - Linden Lab was originally envisaged as a hardware developer of haptics devices for interacting with VR systems. Second Life (Lindenworld as was) was the software developed to prove the concept of The Rig. I believe they still have it in their office and are known to fire it up on occasion.
Mark, I found this article very interesting, but wonder if the mashup frenzy right now is driven by unease at the potential of true immersion in the metaverse - psychologically the desire to create a “return path” to the web is a sign of the need to remain rooted in corporeality.
OK that may be fanciful.
Put another way, people are writing so many web services that integrate with VWs because Second Life and their like just don’t do all the things that we want them to well enough. The best place to read a document is on the web, or on paper. Media makes us find a critical path to its successful consuption.
Either way, the convergence is a symptom of cognitive friction caused by placing a 2D interacton model (computer / windows) in between two 3D continua (real world / virtual world).
So perhaps a haptic interface is something that really will rear its head in the future we all want to see.
I think I’ll write more on this back at my place.
Mark, great roadmap for virtual world developments. It seems very plausible on the consumer end of the market. How do you see the business side going? (i.e. developments like Qwaq)
> placing virtual worlds nearly at the level of face-to-face interaction in terms of the breadth of the channel.
I am usually hesitant in comparing virtual worlds to face-to-face interaction. We have been trying to imitate face-to-face contact with computer-mediated communication for a few decades now and it is a dead-end street, in my view. I prefer to take the power of virtual worlds as a starting point.
By the way, your SMS to face-to-face chart is essentially a representation of the information richness framework of Daft & Lengel (1986). But I guess you knew that.
[…] […]
Yes, Linden Lab’s old haptic devices still exist. They are sequestered to a back room and are sometimes used by staffers but for the most part are there as the legacy of the present day Second Life. If you ever visit their offices ask to see them.
3B was founded with the idea of mixing the web with all the benefits of 3D.
If you check out http://bbb.3B.net you can put your myspace, flickr, deviant art gallery etc into 3D. And hang out with your friends.
Part of the idea is to shorten the learning curve
Hi!
Great read. ;) You mentioned that the powerpoint slides could be e-mailed. Could I request them? I’d appreciate being able to review them offline. Thanks so much!
E-mail: eslsecondlife@gmail.com
@Jeroen: No, I didn’t know that, but I’m not surprised, since I was pretty sure this kind of thinking had started long before I came to it, as noted. Thanks for the reference, I will definitely look that up.
Great thoughts. I like the comments on Kaneva - high prospect for shared immersive environment. Will be interesting to monitor this and others. Would like to see the full deck from your Berlin presentation. Thanks
Great post - helps paint the big picture. I agree that there is significant value in allowing people to perpetuate their true identity online. While media integration is happening today in Kaneva, eventually a broader set of Web 2.0 integration will be the next wave. We just added MeetMe 3d links from the profile to a person’s avatar or home. Still tweaking it, and seeing positive feedback. Like to hear what you think.
The powerful socialization and connection in 3D will only be strengthen by giving people the tools they need to easily showcase and connect in ways that were not possible before.
[…]OH COOL! :) thanks! :)[..]