Slashdot Mirror


Second Life Hype vs. Anti-Hype

The new GigaGamez site, part of the OM network, has a look today at the hype fight over Second Life. It's the new darling of media companies, but is increasingly attracting negative feedback by people who know a thing or two about the industry. James Wagner Au tries to sort out who is saying what, and provide a little context for the discussion. From the article: "Can they really build a fully streamed world comprised of tens of thousands of servers? That's way above my paygrade, but I'll guess that task fits under the rubric of Fricking Hard. Can they fix a profoundly unfriendly user interface and thoroughly disorienting first hour user experience, which are aggressively, almost intentionally unwelcoming to the vast majority of interested users? Both shortcomings are at the heart of Second Life's poor retention rates, but neither have significantly changed in the three years since its commercial release. You have to wonder, whatever their stated intentions, if Linden's tech-centric corporate culture simply puts their improvement at a low priority."

13 of 67 comments (clear)

  1. Guess there's no Hype Fight... by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 2, Funny

    Clicking on the Article I get "Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here." Guess that means that one of the sides gave up eh?

    (Watch, someone will tell me to RTA)

    --
    There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
  2. Entrance Restrictions by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't we wail about Newbies everywhere else? There could be a side benefit that only certain people "get it" and stay. Anyone who doesn't ... "doesn't deserve to be there".

    External world communities are rampant with unspoken restrictions. Some call you a Greenhorn for five years after you move there.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    1. Re:Entrance Restrictions by HappySqurriel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't we wail about Newbies everywhere else? There could be a side benefit that only certain people "get it" and stay. Anyone who doesn't ... "doesn't deserve to be there".

      And the benefit is that you have a Massively Multiplayer Game that lacks the Massively Multiplayer part ...

      I could be wrong, but from my understanding Second Life was a game that was largely based around user generated content; the game gets better as you attract more people to develop interesting content within your game. If you actively discourage people from playing a game like this you will probably scare away a lot of people who could bring a lot of value to it; consider that a lot of "artistic" people have a great deal of difficulty just "getting" a user interface that makes sense to technical people.

    2. Re:Entrance Restrictions by Lordfly · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's the way it should work, yes. But any sort of "professional" or "artistic" content gets pushed aside by the free market. People in SL who are the consumers just want to, generally, get their fetishes on, hire hookers, dance at clubs, and gamble at casinos. That's it.

      Art museums, discussions, roleplaying, etc. all still happen, but they are, as a rule, harder to find.

      --
      hookers and grits.
    3. Re:Entrance Restrictions by misleb · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I could be wrong, but from my understanding Second Life was a game that was largely based around user generated content; the game gets better as you attract more people to develop interesting content within your game. If you actively discourage people from playing a game like this you will probably scare away a lot of people who could bring a lot of value to it; consider that a lot of "artistic" people have a great deal of difficulty just "getting" a user interface that makes sense to technical people.


      I haven't played SL much. Just a few days as a n00b. But from what I gather, building objects (the confusing part) is a technical AND artistic. Designing objects is one thing, but then you have to script them to make them do interesting things. Scripting is technical. There is really no way to get around that. One might liken it to designing a website with Javascript and server side scripting. Doing it well is not easy. And it isn't for everyone.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
  3. Oh no! It's hard! I'm scared! by ivan256 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Can they really build a fully streamed world comprised of tens of thousands of servers? That's way above my paygrade, but I'll guess that task fits under the rubric of Fricking Hard.

    I don't want this to sound like a blanket indictment, because some studios get this right, but a lot of the unreliability, and failure to execute on difficult tasks in the gaming industry is due to the moronic staffing decisions of many game development companies. I haven't played Second Life, so for all I know (and from the sounds of it) maybe they got it right. A fully streamed world comprised of thens of thousands of servers? Sounds like some work, but it sounds completely feasible. When you're only willing to hire people who want to work in games so badly that they're drooling all over themselves at the opportunity and thus are willing to work at well below industry average pay level, what do you think you are going to get?

    There are people out there who have built massive clusters and have decades of experience solving these problems... But they usually don't work in games, because they can make five times as much in other industries. When a company comes along and runs a game studio like a real software company, people who are stuck in the more traditional 'you should thank your lucky stars you are working in games' mindset shouldn't be too surprised when that company actually succeeds at problems that were considered too hard in the past.

  4. I tried second life by sam_paris · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sorry to any big fans here but my experience sucked. The user interface is incredibly unfriendly and unresponsive, the graphics are appalling, the animation shocking and the sound lamentable.

    After playing WoW for a few months and seeing how fluid, beautiful and easy to use a virtual world can be, Second Life was a shocking kick in the nether regions. It reminded me of very early 3D games with no collision detection and collosal clipping issues.

    Yes I know it's streamed and if that's the primary cause of it's issues then it shouldn't be.

    Additionally, for my first hour I wandered around trying to find something to do but was profoundly ignored by my fellow "2nd lifers", presumably because I looked like a newb.

    If the developers could at least sort out the shocking camera and other control issues I may consider retrying it. I spend about 10 minutes of my first hour working out how to unzoom the camera which was permanently stuck 50 yards behind my guy.

    1. Re:I tried second life by foolish · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As someone who has tried three or four times now to "get it" I have to concur with your assessment. Either you have to know and incredibly active social network of people already in, so that you can be guided and have shit explained to you, or you're stuck with the non-intuitive nature of the UI, world and environments.

      Not to mention the furries, the sex clubs and the walking dildos. Or the assholes who setup content bombs that pop you.

      Second Life is user created, but it has all the unattractive qualities of a fan-fic slush pile and MUSH combined, graphics that are from the mid-90s, and performance of a P90 trying to play DOOM3.

      The first thing they really need to nail is the UI for just plain interacting. Then they need to nail the "base" avatar creation. As is, you can spend hours creating your first avatar and it will still look like shit, whereas in most other virtual worlds, you fiddle with a few sliders and have a respectable-looking avatar.

      I'd love to find a reason to stay, but Second Life doesn't seem to want to "get it" to the idea of bringing new people in who want a world on par with the other virtual worlds they are already interacting in. If aesthetics/content/performance don't matter, then I could use IM and "myspace" much more effectively in networking than Second life will ever be. If they do matter, then they need base content and performance that is of peer-quality to the current state of the industry.

    2. Re:I tried second life by kionel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've tried Second Life twice. It was dreadful both times.

      1. The User Interface: Yes, it's really as bad as you've heard. Here I am, an ex-IT, lifelong computer-using guy, and I couldn't figure out how to do squat.

      Fix it, Linden.

      2. The Graphics: The very best that 1999 has to offer.

      Of course, this is probably due to number four below.

      3. The "Content": User-created content? Intruiging. Pity it turns out to be mostly empty buildings, shops pushing expensive and difficult-to-use items (seriously, even putting on clothes is hard!), and, of course, porn, porn, porn.

      4. The Streaming World: Virtual World? Destroy your immersion with real-time streaming content!

      Okay, so, streaming makes the front-end client teensy tiny. Thing is, it also means that you always have to wait for the world to actually show up. Even if you do master the poor movement controls, hostile interface, and confusing content management system, you'll still be left waiting for something to actually do.

      4. Porn: I'm not a prude. I likes me my porn. But the way it's handled in SecondLife was uniformly tacky. The constant barrage of images, vids, animations (yikes!) made me feel like I'd stumbled into a low-res version of Larry Flynt's brain.

      That being said, all that content did make the world slightly more immersive: It made me imagine that the streets of Second Life were sticky.

      5. Lack of Users: Except for the newbie entrances and the porn palaces, the world seemed completely empty. Vast shops with no one inside. Replica starships without any visitors. Interactive games waiting for users. It was just sad.

      Ironically enough, I do plan a return visit. This time I plan to try out their 3D Modeling and Scripting tools. Maybe I can create an interactive "Maybe You Should Be Playing WoW Instead!" sign...

      --
      "'My Country Right or Wrong'is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober,'" -- Chesterton
  5. As a longtime user... by Lordfly · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...(3.5 years and counting), I've seen it explode from scarcely 50 people online at a time to now more than 20,000.

    Since it began it's always had a hard time keeping new users. I think the way it's setup (completely user-created content, so there's less of a "wow" factor to people who just want to consume) means that you either "get it" and stay there, or you don't and leave immediately. The 10% churn rate cited in the article soudns about right; I've introduced something like two dozen people to SL, only one (my gf) stayed on, and that's probably only because I'm such a big fan of it.

    SL needs a more compelling new user experience (professionally done content, some sort of direction, quests, whatever) if they want to keep people there for more than five minutes. PRoblem is, no matter how much professional content you throw at the newbie, once the newbie experience is done, you're still thrown in the middle of the content quagmire of SL; cube houses, poorly textured sex clubs, and rigged casinos.

    For someone who just wants to experience things, unless you're incredibly social, you won't last in SL. For the creative types there's more of a stick.

    Generally speaking, though, if you have to ask "what's the point of this place", you dont' get it. :)

    --
    hookers and grits.
    1. Re:As a longtime user... by FooAtWFU · · Score: 2, Insightful
      For someone who just wants to experience things, unless you're incredibly social, you won't last in SL. For the creative types there's more of a stick.
      The real question isn't whether or not a Second Life user "gets it", it's a question of whether those who "get it" are numerous and interesting enough for real-world companies to consider a Second Life presence... or for Linden Labs will be able to remain financially solvent. I have more doubts about these issues.
      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  6. Re:There.com by Lordfly · · Score: 2, Informative

    There hasn't updated it's technology significantly since early 2004 (with the exception of MTV's Laguna Beach). They've lost most of their developers since almost going under, and haven't really grown much.

    Their main impetus to growth is the insistence of screening all custom content before approving it, and then taking a commission for each sale. It tends to limit growth as most people are interested in sex stuff (look at SL).

    --
    hookers and grits.
  7. I always thought the problem with second life... by Ingolfke · · Score: 3, Informative

    was that it is a magnet for every sick and twisted loser the trolls around on the Internet. This article, and the articles it links to, should be enough for anyone to understand exactly what kind of person likes second life.