Coldwell Banker To Sell Second Life Properties

Dekortage sends news of what may be a new development in the attempted mainstreaming of Second Life. We've seen plenty of examples of real-world news media, politicos, and PR campaigns setting up in SL. But so far most of this action has been about first-life organizations trying to gain real-world publicity by their forays into SL. CNN is reporting that the real estate firm Coldwell Banker is moving into SL for the purpose of selling and renting in-world properties. From the article: "Coldwell Banker has bought extensive tracts of property on the central 'mainland' of Second Life. (Most companies own 'islands' scattered all over.) It subdivided this digital land into 520 individual houses and living units, half of which it will sell and half it will rent... 'A small number of land barons mostly control real estate in Second Life, and we thought we could bring real estate to the masses,' [a VP explained]."

Comments

Supply and demand

[Harmonious Botch]

Has Linden guaranteed in writing that they will never expand the world? If not, then Coldwell Banker buyers are idiots.

What is to keep Linden from increasing the amount of land? ( They did it back in 2003, IIRC ) Not only would this give them more space for more players, but it decreases the power of land barons. And having a 'new world' to explore would add more interest to the game. Anyone want to be Magellan? Or Columbus? There seems to be no downside for Linden to increase the ammount of land.
There definitely is a downside to NOT increasing the ammount of land: competition. If SL gets too crowded, that just helps up-and-coming competitors.

As supply increases, price decreases. There is not even the real-world parallel of "location, location, and location" to uphold property value in Second Life because of teleportation.

I predict that Coldwell Banker will lose their shirts on this one.

Re:Supply and demand

[Lally Singh]

I think CW's buying the initial land in order to get the ball rolling on getting themselves involved in the transactional business of real estate on SL. Long after the current stuff is sold off, they want to be the agents you buy virtual real estate from later.

Re:Supply and demand

[TapeCutter]

I don't know much about SL, it strikes me as a world where most people have more money than sense.

Re:Supply and demand

[Usquebaugh]

Hey that reminds me of another world I know.

Re:Supply and demand

[Orpheus Liar]

Then you already know all, my friend.

Re:Supply and demand

[Cyberllama]

Linden seem to be masters of manipulating the media to the point where major companies think its smart to be involved in a game that actaully has very few players relative to other MMOs. I don't even know anyone who plays Second Life or has ever played it.

An interesting read on the subject:

Here

The article basically points out that when Linden says they have 4 million "residents" they mean 4 million avatars have been created. This number isn't even directly related to the number of people who regularly play the game in any measurable way -- but its a safe bet that the actual number of regular users is probably in the hundreds of thousands at the most. That may be bigger than some games, but compared to a monster like World of Warcraft, which easily musters 20 times as many regular users, it's really not that many.

Re:Supply and demand

[maxume]

The whole idea of virtual land is stupid anyway. They can let the space moderate itself; just let people decide who gets to have a 'door' into their space, and then the highly connected nodes are 'valuable', and it might even be worth owning land next to some that was highly connected, but probably not, connections are pretty cheap in lots of ways.

Re:Supply and demand

[UbuntuDupe]

As supply increases, price decreases. There is not even the real-world parallel of "location, location, and location" to uphold property value in Second Life because of teleportation.

Well, not quite true: it helps to have e.g. a lot of merchants together in one place, as it's a pain to teleport 30 times to look at everyone's goods. So new merchants are going to want to be where the merchants already are. Although I agree you can't use the whole "They ain't makin' any more land" line here, as LL certainly can do that.

Still, I have to ask, WTF? Don't people play SL to get away from assholes who add no value but take your money ... such as real estate agents?

Re:Supply and demand

[rubberchickenboy]

I predict that Coldwell Banker will lose their shirts on this one.

Maybe, but they're only virtual shirts, and they can just rez others.

Re:Supply and demand

[paladinrocks]

Am I the only person who doesn't get this? This must be the point in time when I must call myself old. I played MUD games (text-based) online games twenty years ago. I don't understand how a real company buys up land in a world that doesn't even exist, except in an online gaming forum?

Re:Supply and demand

[dufachi]

Actually, Linden has recently said that they intend to build a new continent and make all that land available to the unwashed masses. http://blog.secondlife.com/2007/02/20/first-land-p rogram-to-end/

Re:Supply and demand

[John Hurliman]

In 2003? They increase the amount of land all the time. Every time someone buys a new island the amount of real estate in-world is increased, and the Linden-owned mainland continent grows all the time as well. Around a month ago over 100 new sims were added, and these sims the Coldwell Bankers bought were auctioned off meaning it was fresh mainland additions.

It's like when a company sells more shares, and all those idiot investors lose their shirts. You should probably get on the phone and tell Coldwell why they are idiots, and how if you were in charge you could save the company. They'll probably hire you on the spot.

Re:Supply and demand

[NetSettler]

Has Linden guaranteed in writing that they will never expand the world? If not, then Coldwell Banker buyers are idiots.

Indeed. This is what happened with domain names. They went sky high, then lots of businesses crashed and they increased the number of TLDs, so people who had invested in the land grab didn't always win.

The other thing is that any theory of scarcity presupposes that Linden will be the only, or at least the winning, item in this area. If someone came along and offered an alternate space, it wouldn't even matter if Linden had put a guarantee in writing... the value could still drop due to ordinary competition. No one has guaranteed Linden a monopoly.

Cyberspace is big... There's really no reason for there to be a scarcity of real estate. It isn't, after all, real estate. It's contrived. And if the prices go too high, that simple fact should invite competition. A key defining characteristic of real estate is supposed to be that they're not making more of it.

Re:Supply and demand

[victortyt]

buy virtual real estate

So, is the estate virtual or real?

Re:Supply and demand

[Skreems]

The key thing that remains like the real world, though, is location. Proximity to the "good neighborhoods", the center of the mainland, etc. When they add land, they do it at the edges of the mainland, or in islands (as I understand, I've never played). But if there's a viable "commercial district", owning land in it will actually make a difference. Just like in Stephenson's "Snow Crash", there's essentially unlimited space to expand on the outskirts, but all the old clubs, cool stores, events, and "in crowd" people are located much closer together.

Re:Supply and demand

[Chmcginn]

Just like in Stephenson's "Snow Crash", there's essentially unlimited space to expand on the outskirts, but all the old clubs, cool stores, events, and "in crowd" people are located much closer together.

And the furthest reaches of the 'world' contain a secret government lab building WMD's?

Re:Supply and demand

[forgotten_my_nick]

Thought I would respond to this (and one of your responses) in one go.

If Linden Labs increase the land size it will have no real effect on the people with the houses.

As it stands now lets say you have the premium account (about $72 a year). That allows you to buy up to 512m3 without incurring extra costs. However the price to do that is about $1600 then a couple of $100 a month on top of that. Once you have land you can lease land for cheaper (works around $30 for three months) but you incur extra costs on top of that.

Even if you have the land you have to pay for prims (objects like walls, etc). If you want a good job of it you normally pay someone to build your houses/landscape.

But if you own land you can make money from it, mainly because there are people in the world who can't afford the initial prices. A price of say $9-$10 a month where you have a fixed abode to put your own items down is reasonable for a lot of people. I pay more then that for playing Eve. Apart from buying stuff in game, a lot of people use it as a kind of paypal.

It is also possible to earn money in the world, of course the better pay requires more work but if it is just general spending money you can find places like that too. Lots of places will have "camping spots". You basically sit down and do something for a set time and they pay you (more people in the zone bumps them up the searches). But some stores will actually pay people to act as store staff.

As to why do people play the "game". You need to change that mindset. It is not a game. It is a virtual world. There is no leveling/no high score. Lots of areas fall into sex related or shops but there are huge sections of the grid that put some of the current games in shame to the level of detail (eg "Lost Gardens of Apollo"). There are game areas, for example Toxican (vampire city) or Dune worlds. If thats what you are in to.

SL is probably not the future (IMHO their hardware can't handle it) but it gives a good idea of what the future could be. I've been using it for holding meetings with other team members around the world, as well as studying some coding from real world apps into/out of SL.

Re:Supply and demand

[Frozen Void]

Reification > value creation > marketing
Your MUD probably had some powerful items,which only elite did have(Virtual items,Reification)
They are very useful in the context of the MUD (Value creation)
Imagine that someone offered you that items for measly 10$(Marketing)?

Re:Supply and demand

[Knuckles]

But if there's a viable "commercial district", owning land in it will actually make a difference.

Why should i care for "physical" location if I can teleport wherever I want?

Re:Supply and demand

[KDR_11k]

It's complex, duh!

Re:Supply and demand

[Travoltus]

If a comet hits the SL data center, they're going to lose their shirts.

This has got to be the most spectacular example of foolishness ever. This is not real estate, it's virtual estate, and CW will be made to understand that the hard way.

Re:Supply and demand

[pandrijeczko]

As it stands now lets say you have the premium account (about $72 a year). That allows you to buy up to 512m3 without incurring extra costs. However the price to do that is about $1600 then a couple of $100 a month on top of that. Once you have land you can lease land for cheaper (works around $30 for three months) but you incur extra costs on top of that.

As an ex-AD&D player, although I have absolutely no interest in World Of Warcraft myself, I can see the appeal of pretending to be a psionic goblin (or whatever) and running around in a pretend world with lots of other psionic goblins.

But playing around with *REAL ESTATE*??? Sheesh, you people SURE know how to have a GOOD TIME!!!

As to why do people play the "game". You need to change that mindset. It is not a game. It is a virtual world.

Thanks for that definition and for your sacrifice for the benefit of all. Because those of us who were thought of by others as being slightly "sad" for playing the occasional game of Counter-Strike or Doom (especially middle-agers like me) have absolutely nothing on you people.

Lots of areas fall into sex related

You really ought to try the real thing in a loving monogamous relationship as it's much nicer when there's at least two people involved in it. On-line sex always factors down to the same thing - someone sat in front of a keyboard trying to type with one hand...

Re:Supply and demand

[DaleGlass]

I don't see what's strange about that, lots of people pay for things that don't exist physically. Insurance, for one. SL land is just like paying for space on a webserver.

Re:Supply and demand

[DaleGlass]

Convenience.

For example, people in SL often try to buy land next to their friends' land. Sure you can teleport, but teleporting isn't completely instant, and teleporting has to be an intentional action. If you have your friends near your location then you don't need to specifically visit them, you'll see them when they're there.

This is why despite teleporting SL still has large stores with products from many vendors. When you're looking for something (or nothing particular at all) it's easier to just walk around one large shop than to teleport from one to another.

Re:Supply and demand

[forgotten_my_nick]

> I can see the appeal of pretending to be a psionic goblin (or whatever)
> and running around in a pretend world with lots of other psionic goblins.
> But playing around with *REAL ESTATE*??? Sheesh, you people SURE know
> how to have a GOOD TIME!!!

Even a Psionic Goblin needs to relax at home sometime. Been a few years since I played D&D but I recal real estate was also in it. :p

> Thanks for that definition and for your sacrifice for the benefit of all.

*shrug* The issue that most people find it crap is that they expect a game like WOW, UO. It isn't. It is a basically a 3D medium to do what you want in the same way Web pages are a 2D medium. Just because you think its nerdy is your issue not mine.

> You really ought to try the real thing in a loving monogamous relationship

Thanks but I already am. I was just describing what some areas of SL are like.

Re:Supply and demand

[Knuckles]

I see, thanks for the explanation - I don't play SL (as you noticed). However, it seems to me that these reasons call for SL being fixed to overcome these silly limitations they needlessly inherited from the real world. But that's just me I guess.

Re:Supply and demand

[notthepainter]

Why do you say that? You say you dont know much about SL then you disparage it.

SL is not for everyone but it certainly for some. I enjoy doing things in SL that, for whatever reason, I found myself unable or unwilling to do in RL, sometimes for financial reasons (sailboat racing for example) and other times for more obscure reasons (I'm finally attempting to be an artist in SL, something I've always wanted to do in RL but never did)

Have I spent much mony there? No. Time? Yes.

Re:Supply and demand

[DaleGlass]

Well, it's something that will probably stay.

Imagine you could teleport instantly anywhere. No downsides. You could live in a cabin in the mountains, and instantly appear on a chair in the office. But even then I don't think people would just go live in a random place. If there's nothing but strangers around, you can't look of the window and say "Howdy, neighbour!". Teleporting would still take a conscious action, and suddenly appearing at somebody's house would be a disruptive way of trying to start a conversation (that's something you can do in SL, and which many people hate). Simply seeing somebody nearby is a perfect excuse to start talking, without being disruptive.

Re:Supply and demand

[Urza9814]

Well, since the land is sold at set prices by LL, supply and demand doesn't really matter. As long as there's free land, it's gonna cost the same amount. Doesn't matter how much of it there is.

Re:Supply and demand

[Zspdude]

Not at all. This is a just a case of good, smart and ambitious advertising. What better way to tell people, "We are here to help you buy a house."? (Even in your video games!)

More land only means more opportunity for them to grow their presence in the SL world. CB is a large company with a lot of resources that they can spend on escapades like this, if they so desire. If land expansion happens, they are in a pole position to take advantage of it. Nor are they stupid - they know exactly what they're willing to spend on this, and exactly what they wish/expect to get out of it.

RTA - FTA

Coldwell, which employs over 120,000 real-world sales agents in the United States and operates in a total of 45 countries, isn't in Second Life to make money, says Charlie Young, the company's senior vice president for marketing. "In the end this is about buying and selling homes in the real world," he says. "We're trying to figure out how to reach what we call the 'new consumer'." Executives insist that any profits will be reinvested in Second Life real estate. Real world homes make large amounts of money. SL homes don't. However, in terms of advertising expenses, CB is probably spending peanuts to make this happen. I don't know the dollar figures as I don't play SL, and IANARealtor, but I'd be very surprised if this didn't equate to cheap advertising.

Best of all, a virtual world allows CB to present exactly the image they wish. Everything is scripted, all the realtors are friendly and competent, and everyone has an overwhelmingly positive experience. People feel *real gratitude* for a virtual experience and CB generates *real* goodwill.

Of course, I personally think this is insidious and that it runs counter to the entire idea of a virtual world.
But I realize that it's a calculated business decision that has likely undergone cost/benefit and risk analyis, and that CB will walk away the moment they feel that they're not getting their money's worth from the investment.
And I personally think it's quite a clever idea.

Re:Supply and demand

[Joe The Dragon]

The hardware cost of adding more land. They don't have that much money.

Re:Supply and demand

[Tarinth]

"Losing their shirts?" I doubt that the amount of money they spent even makes a dent.

This is really just a method for Coldwell Banker to get a lot of free advertising and publicity. Compare the cost of what they "invested" in VR real estate to the cost a national advertising campaigns (which they spend money on regularly).

Re:Supply and demand

[dr.badass]

Linden seem to be masters of manipulating the media to the point where major companies think its smart to be involved in a game that actaully has very few players relative to other MMOs.

The number of players isn't what interests these companies. It's the fact that they can be a part of the economy, i.e. they can make money in a new way. There are few other virtual worlds for which that is true, and among them, Second Life is undoubtedly the largest.

Re:Supply and demand

[dr.badass]

Not only would this give them more space for more players, but it decreases the power of land barons. And having a 'new world' to explore would add more interest to the game. Anyone want to be Magellan? Or Columbus?

Did the discovery of the New World destroy property values in the Old World?

I predict that Coldwell Banker will lose their shirts on this one.

To lose one's shirt implies losing everything one has. If Coldwell Banker were shifting it's entire business to virtual land, that might be a sound prediction. As it is, it's more of a speculative investment. I don't know how much virtual land they own, but I doubt seriously that they spent much more than their annual budget for paperclips on it.

Re:Supply and demand

[dr.badass]

The whole idea of virtual land is stupid anyway. They can let the space moderate itself; just let people decide who gets to have a 'door' into their space, and then the highly connected nodes are 'valuable', and it might even be worth owning land next to some that was highly connected, but probably not, connections are pretty cheap in lots of ways.

You've just described the web, more or less. Kind of hard to implement in a 3D world modeled on the real world.

Re:Supply and demand

[NetSettler]

If you have your friends near your location then you don't need to specifically visit them, you'll see them when they're there.

(Disclaimer: I have it on my list to visit Second Life, but for now my remarks below are based on other virtual universes I've been to, and my general understanding of what Second Life is trying to do.)

What it sounds like Linden is selling and others are banking on is real-world geometry injected into cyberspace. That's an artificial restriction. There really is no reason that it has to be laid out that way, and while I don't doubt they'll do well at that, I think they will ultimately fall to a more loose-knit organization that lets people choose who they connect to in a more flexible way.

In cyberspace, geometry doesn't have to be like in the real world. Connections don't have to be symmetric (you can have a door that operates in one direction but not another), "inside" doesn't have to have smaller volume than "outside" (e.g., you could have a tardis that was small on the outside but big on the inside, sound and sight can be transported non-locally (e.g., you could have a window out of your house looking through a neighbor's building and seeing the beach on the far side).

There's plenty enough space unless the universe has made it one of the selling points to deny you that space by creating a model that makes it hard to get those things I just mentioned. If I tell you that to see the beach, you must be on the beach, then sure, if you stay in the paradigm the good neighborhoods are limited, but why would you pay good real-world money to be in a paradigm like that? Why not start a competing business that was more flexible?

You can claim these violations of geometry will lead to a violation of real world desires for privacy. That is, you can say that having someone see you who you can't see back is confusing, but the real world is full of cameras and microphones these days, so that's always a risk any more when you're in public... "public" is, by definition, not private. It would be ironic indeed if the selling point for cyberspace became that people went there to get a more constrained, rather than more flexible, world than the real world!

If Second Life doesn't have or permit "magic windows" that can be connected to views elsewhere not directly connected (so you can see your friends "naturally" without being "next to" them), "magic doors" that make far away places local (so you can get the teleportation effect without losing the virtual reality feel of local point-to-point connectivity), etc., then someone else is likely to offer that and it will probably seem exotic, fun, and less cost... and they'll lose some customers.

Now, on the other hand, if they get some fundamental power from that connectivity that is truly a limitation of the technology (rendering caching or load balancing or something like that), then they may be able to defend their turf if no one can make a system that operates better because of that fundamental limitation. But that seems to me an open question this early in the game.

There is, of course, the possibility that the public is so naive about the possibilities that they will just try this and never investigate alternatives. They've come to believe that the words "Internet" and "web browser" are synonymous, for example. Or that "Personal Computer" and "computer that runs a Microsoft operating system" mean the same thing. So it wouldn't be the first time...

Perhaps the "scarce commodity" in this scenario isn't real estate, but imagination.

Re:Supply and demand

[maxume]

Not really, doors can go anywhere, they just need a dial to set the destination. You wouldn't even need that many 'special' doors, people who wanted to could 'travel' and so forth. If you set it up so that some doors only connected two places, it gets rid of the whole 'land value' problem, and neat stuff wins(is there any in SL?), and can connect.

If arbitrary, artificial geography were a good idea, the web would have it.

Re:Supply and demand

[DaleGlass]

SL currently sells land that maps to server resources. SL regions have a 256x256 virtual meters size. This is the size that's simulated as a whole, that is, when something goes wrong with the simulator process, that's the size of the chunk of the world that goes down. Regions are located on servers, with a region per CPU, so a 4 core box would host 4 256x256 regions.

Land costs what it does because it maps directly to the underlying hardware. When paying for a piece of virtual land you're paying for your share of CPU usage and a number of objects you can have (15000 per region, you get a limit that depends on how much land you got).

Of course it doesn't have to be this way. They could have made it differently, by letting you have as much land as you want and charging for resource usage. So instead of paying for 1024m^2 of land, you'd be able to have a desert as large as you'd like for very cheap, and then pay extra for the objects and scripts you put in it.

That does present a technical challenge though. In that situation, it should be possible to have an area with a small size but immense processing requirements. One problem is that load moves around as people move. So the SL grid would need to be able to somehow allocate more processing to busy areas, and dedicate less to idle ones. I suppose that such a thing must be technically doable, but it doesn't sound easy.

The problem is that LL went with the easy way of dividing the world in fixed chunks and letting people pay for a piece of a server. That might have worked in the beginning, but with the current situation more and more people often want to gather in the same place. So some regions stay idle, and some have a crushing load. And they can't really power down idle regions because there are scripts running on them, some of which have to run even when nobody is around. They also take a considerable time to start, which can be seen when a region restarts.

This sounds like something technically difficult to fix. A radical redesign of the underlying architecture on a system used by thousands of people can't be easy, and it's bound to mean changes that will cause large amounts of drama.

Re:Supply and demand

[AmberBlackCat]

I don't know much about SL, it strikes me as a world where most people have more money than sense.

If that's the case then it makes a lot of sense to get into the business of selling things to them.

Re:Supply and demand

[NetSettler]

This sounds like something technically difficult to fix. A radical redesign of the underlying architecture on a system used by thousands of people can't be easy, and it's bound to mean changes that will cause large amounts of drama.

Well, the usual way the market sorts out whether it's worth retooling is by having some company compete, having the incompatible services already in play, and having people leave one product for another. That involves on "incompatibility" other than the sense in which it's incompatible to have had revenue one day and not another. So if Second Life perceives its revenue is "sufficiently incompatible" due to competition, it will presumably think harder about adjusting.

Then there becoms a market in metametaverses as people have "connected avatars" in the various underlying metaverses...

(Thanks for the technical overview, by the way. Although I didn't quote it here, it was very helpful.)

Re:Supply and demand

[TapeCutter]

Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt for a second that it's creative and entertaining, and I fully understand people spending money on both.

I am however very skeptical of SL's "creative" marketing.

BTW: I have been sailboat racing, you don't need a yatch or a fortune. Yatch clubs are not as expensive as you think and many have short term memberships if you just want to "dip your toe" (at least here in Australia). Be warned though, once you get on the yatch the skipper is boss and your his dog, even if it's your yatch!

I've also experienced several storms on a 60 foot fishing trawler somewhere in Bass Strait and at nearly 50yo have no desire to go back in a sailboat. I'm far from dead but I am old enough to find the idea of a "second life" appealing, having said that, I can't imagine getting a virtual experience like those storms through anything short of a direct interface to the brain and Speilberg at the controls.

Re:Supply and demand

[IQpierce]

Haha, I get it.

WoW, right?

Re:Supply and demand

[bheilig]

i.e. = id est = that is
e.g. = exempli gratia = for example

Thanks for posting that!

Re:Supply and demand

[smellsofbikes]

If you live in the US, you can say "have more dollars than sense" for added piquancy.

I wonder...

[LynnwoodRooster]

If I can get one of those 30 year, first 5 years interest-only subprime mortgages here? Maybe this is the way to "save" the sub-primes - virtual property! After all, it seems that "virtual" clients didn't work to well...

Re:I wonder...

[pete6677]

Buy now or be priced out forever!

ouch........

[TomHandy]

Somehow this news made my brain urinate a little. No, I don't understand how that's physically possible, but nevertheless.

Anshe chung

[chanrobi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RedLyae4b2s?

Bringing real estate to the masses, in SL...

[NewToNix]

and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and other important issues...

Re:Whoa Cowboy!

[tm2b]

You don't understand...

When you die in New Jersey, you die in real life !

More or less likely to use CB for a real house?

[astrashe]

Does this make people more or less likely to use Coldwell Banker for real (ie., meatspace) houses? Or does it matter?

Re:More or less likely to use CB for a real house?

[Anonymous Coward]

well, John Edwards (the fraud lawyer, not the fraud psychic) set up a second life campaign headquarters. He also has a second life wife with second life cancer.

Re:More or less likely to use CB for a real house?

[simstick]

Less likely when people who enjoy the game find out that the Coldwell Banker developers who were contracted are two of the most prolific land terrorists in the game. They buy chunks of land then sell off all but a 16 meter square then put up eyesore ads to force someone who wants a half assed view to buy it for an inflated price.
http://www.secondlifeherald.com/slh/2007/03/signex tortionis.html

Re:WTF is the point of this game?

[TorKlingberg]

Because when they do, the real world press writes about it.

Re:Whoa Cowboy!

[Asztal_]

No, but you could have your account warned/suspended for abuse(shooting someone can send them flying quite far, depending on how the weapon is made). You can't kill someone, by the way - even if you trapped them in a box or whatever, they can teleport out.

(PS. If you ever go into the sandboxes in Second Life, you'll see all sorts of other types of abuse too - floating batman cubes/bananaphones which follow you around playing an annoying/catchy* loop, hundreds of stupidly high-detail models just left lying around by their long-gone creators, bendy penises which follow people around annoying them, thousands of physics objects which attempt to waste the simulator's resources, etc.)
*delete where appropriate

hmmmm

[Spookticus]

I wonder how much they would sell me Badlands for...actually all I would rather have is just Uldaman, I could easily turn all of them dark iron guys into my minions and just like invade the rest of badlands, maybe setup a post in Loch Modan. I hear its nice there in spring.

Re:Whoa Cowboy!

[JimDaGeek]

Huh? Your comment doesn't even make sense. Oh, an why are you posting as an AC? Seriously.

Blurring the line between real and virtual

[2Bits]

When people are too addictive to games such that the line between reality and virtuality is blurred, it starts to get into a dangerous point. Life suddenly becomes all about speculation, nothing is real and no productivity is gained for human societies as a whole.

It's the worst kind of speculation we can have, worse than speculating on the stock or commodity market. If you buy a bunch of stocks on a company, and if the market crashes, you still own bits of that company, and the company may be just doing well, making a profit every year. If you buy the so-called lands in SL, and if SL were to die, what are you left up with?

I think this is where gamings are dangerous. And this is an area where I support legislative control. We already have regulations on stock markets, on currency trading, on casino, on auction, on the general trading, etc, we might as well have regulations on the worst kind of speculation: speculation on nothing.

Re:Blurring the line between real and virtual

[MaelstromX]

Your comment makes no sense. Any number of other commodities would lose all their value if suddenly they had no use to people anymore, and it's not a scenario that's unique to imaginary assets. If Second Life "dies" you are left with a valueless property, the same way that an exodus of people and businesses or an environmental disaster might leave real life property worthless.

A smart investor will not put his money in something that has the risk of becoming valueless. Evidently, Linden has made many people very confident that their world will be not just up and functioning but thriving for a long time to come, and therefore its land has legitimate value in the same way that anything else might.

Re:Blurring the line between real and virtual

[Kjella]

I think trying to create an economy that allows for proper speculation while at the same time being completely under another company's control, it like asking water not to be wet. While there's clearly a monetary value to virtual items (like selling MMORPG-equipment on ebay), it's temporary. They could change the rules at any time, but that'd destory gameplay so you can be fairly sure the powerful sword you bought today is a powerful sword tomorrow. That predictability is the only thing that gives it value. It's not just a matter of regulating the content itself, SL could do all sorts of tricks like making TARDIS-like housing, choking the amount of new users which would force a price drop, rearrange the map/view/default starting locations to make the "center" be somewhere else, anything and everything. By the time you have it regulated in well enough, it'll be about as fun as investing in the stock market. Take it for what it is, it's basicly an e-penis. As long as you pay more than Joe Average (both for starters and in upkeep), you'll have this fancy thing to show off to your friends. This speculation is in that SL will be the next big e-penis thing and that it'll somehow be a status symbol to show how much money you've wasted on this. How can you possibly regulate the value of a SL property when the only value it has is perception? Might as well try to regulate the market for pet rocks.

Re:Blurring the line between real and virtual

[Wellington Grey]

It's the worst kind of speculation we can have, worse than speculating on the stock or commodity market. If you buy a bunch of stocks on a company, and if the market crashes, you still own bits of that company, and the company may be just doing well, making a profit every year.

Not if they've gone bankrupt. They you are left with nothing. In the real world.

-Grey

Re:Blurring the line between real and virtual

[gordo3000]

A smart investor will not put his money in something that has the risk of becoming valueless.

not true. no one would invest in start up companies if this was true and private equity would be almost non existent. and then, mortgages wouldn't be written in Florida for a primary house(because in bankruptcy court, you can't take someone's primary residence in the state(I know its a simplification, but assuming no other assets that the court can force to be liquidated...). The rule is simple, the bigger the downside risk(probability weighted , that is), the more upside you need to accept it. Its not a question of there being some downside breaking point, it just requires a raising of the upside bar(or simply lowering the current price to bring it all back to equilibrium).

Re:Blurring the line between real and virtual

[cliffski]

"A smart investor will not put his money in something that has the risk of becoming valueless"

you mean like the futures market?
I disagree, its a matter of risk.

Re:Blurring the line between real and virtual

[ThosLives]

If Second Life "dies" you are left with a valueless property, the same way that an exodus of people and businesses or an environmental disaster might leave real life property worthless.

The only problem there is that real physical property always has some level of intrinsic value simply because it physically exists. Sure, it might not have any people living near it, and it may be somehow polluted or wrecked by natural disaster, but there is always intrinsic value in matter because it is, well, matter.

This is significantly different than what "virtual property" is, which is really an embodiment of human effort. Basically, I think all "virtual goods" need to be treated as a service, because they are really the result of creative effort or time spent by individuals; there is no other value associated with the virtual items.

Re:Blurring the line between real and virtual

[Plutonite]

How can you possibly regulate the value of a SL property when the only value it has is perception? All things in a system ruled by the banknote have values based only on percieved faith in the economic system(theoretical promise to pay gold..etc). The SL economic system is not backed by the faith of enough real people to make it reasonable to trade in for the wise man, hence the GP is actually correct. Both the real and the SL system are "nothing", but the "nothing" of the SL system is far more volatile. If people wanted to only to show-off, then very well.. this maturity of understanding (ironic isn't it) does not need to be safeguarded because they take SL for what it is. It is the people who do not understand, and who will participate in earnest, who will suffer when the servers dissapear one day or the game shuts down. For their sake, everybody should be made aware of the dangers of engaging in this nonsense. Why can't people just stick to make-believe money in make-believe worlds?

Re:Blurring the line between real and virtual

[vertinox]

When people are too addictive to games such that the line between reality and virtuality is blurred, it starts to get into a dangerous point. Life suddenly becomes all about speculation, nothing is real and no productivity is gained for human societies as a whole.

The same could be said about the stock market or any other hyper reality system.

Actually, the stock market itself is nothing but computers, lots of paper, and a bunch of guys screaming at each other on a floor. Isolated from the rest of the world it has no productivity unto itself. It creates no art, makes no product, and provides no service to consumers.

If the stock market was not tied to any real world money you wouldn't notice much if you formatted their hard drives, burnt the back up tapes, shredded the shares, and sent the yelling traders home.

However, since the stock markets of the world as tied into basically the entire world's money and create a meta-reality that affects me and you on a daily basis.

By itself second life does nothing for productivity of the world other than art and entertainment, but if people value this and put a price on it then it becomes like the stock market in that sense.

(I can't really believe I'm comparing the two but productivity is in the eye of the beholder)

Re:Blurring the line between real and virtual

[Znork]

"Any number of other commodities would lose all their value if suddenly they had no use to people anymore"

No, commodities would lose all their cost if they suddenly became non-scarce. Which is the whole point of the economy; to make things non-scarce.

Virtual property is inherently non-scarce. There are no natural limitations to its production, only an artificial construct. It's like monopoly money; you can pretend it has value, but as you (or Linden labs) can print up a bazillion if you want to, there is no actual scarcity (or heavily regulated scarcity as with a real currency).

I agree with the GP. There's a choice to be made here; either disallow monetary exchange for virtual property, or the actual content of virtual worlds needs to be regulated (as per usual currency exchange between countries). Allowing uncontrolled cross-border exchange to intermingle to any large extent with the real economy is tantamount to handing out minting rights to the companies running the virtual worlds; it will pollute the real world economy with game world economic effects, ranging from value crashes to inflation.

Re:Blurring the line between real and virtual

[vertinox]

The only problem there is that real physical property always has some level of intrinsic value simply because it physically exists.

I would disagree.

Sometimes having a physical property is liability.

Lets say its 1969 Detroit. You buy a house...

During 1970 Detroit the US car manufacturing plummets, crime increases, and your neighborhood becomes a warzone.

You still are paying the mortgage... Now you can't sell the house and even if you didn't have a mortgage you still have to pay taxes and eventually you either stay put for the next 50 years and hope you don't get killed with the slim hope of an urban revival.

If not, you either foreclose or let the government seize the property for back taxes and all of this will cost you money.

I use Detroit for an example, but there are plenty of other things that could cause this in other cities. Not just crime, but natural disasters and man made (like toxic spills)

To be fair... In Philadelphia, housing prices are skyrocketing because of urban revival.

Of course this didn't happen because of wise investors who held on to their property over the years... But rather the City passed a law that seizes property that has been abandoned and sells it off to the highest bidder.

Re:Blurring the line between real and virtual

[ThosLives]

What I meant by "intrinsic value" is that a house is always a house (assuming it isn't crumbling) despite the fact that it may not be in a nice neighborhood, or even if it doesn't have a high trade value. I think taxes are irrelevant and just confuse the issue because that's a social construct and involves opportunity cost, not intrinsic value.

Don't confuse "monetary value" with "intrinsic value". Put another way: does a slice of bread have any less nutritional value if it costs $0.05 instead of $1.00? The answer is no. A slice of bread may have a different relative value (based on its monetary price) but a piece of bread is always a piece of bread (until it rots, in which case it is no longer a piece of bread). Simpler still: Does a thing cease to be that thing if its price changes?

That last question is related most closely to what I mean by 'intrinsic value': It is the property of an object that does not change when its trade value changes.

For something like virtual "property" there is no intrinsic value, because inherently the thing is entirely trade value: for instance, the amount of time required to obtain the virtual "good" without trading some currency units for it. This is the only value associated with virtual goods because there is no intrinsic value to a store of information. I would give DNA an example of this; the sequence of bases in a molecule of DNA has no intrinsic value, but that base sequence encoded physically as a DNA molecule has intrinsic value because it can direct the creation of other molecules. That is, the "information" itself is not useful, but the physical embodiment of that information is. Everything to-date which is classified as "virtual property" does not, as far as I am aware, have any corresponding physical embodiment which has intrinsic value. It's a subtle difference, but a very important one (consider: a listing of the base sequences of DNA cannot develop into an organism; you have to actually build a physical object with that sequence to do accomplish anything).

Re:Blurring the line between real and virtual

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

The mortgage company's lien on the house can be executed if you default, homestead and/or bankruptcy protection notwithstanding.

THEY can take your house, believe it.

Any secured creditor can take the collateral in default (that's what secured means), unless someone has a higher priority lien on it.

With houses: Fed gov't first for back taxes, then other taxes, then first mortgage, then second, then third (if there is such an abomination), etc is the usual order.

Re:Blurring the line between real and virtual

[Laxitive]

I agree with you. What it means is that ultimately, the investment CB made to acquire that property is as much an investment in Second Life as it is in the actual real estate. Considering the cost of real-estate in second life, though (65,536 m2, roughly an 8km x 8km chunk of "land" for US$195), it's not a hefty outlay, so they can afford to be risky with it. On the other hand, if it does take off for whatever reason, they have a leg in the market and can capitalize on it. Why not do it? Cheap outlay for something that might take off.

-Laxitive

Re:Blurring the line between real and virtual

[frdmfghtr]

A smart investor will not put his money in something that has the risk of becoming valueless. Evidently, Linden has made many people very confident that their world will be not just up and functioning but thriving for a long time to come, and therefore its land has legitimate value in the same way that anything else might.

The risk here isn't in that what you "purchase" would become valueless; that happens when you buy stock in a company that goes bankrupt.

The risk here is that you are buying virtual real estate (would that make it "virtual estate"?) If you buy a real piece of property and the real estate market dives, the value of your property dives, but it doesn't cease to exist. That plot of land may be worth 1/10 of the purchase price, but it still exists; it didn't vanish.

You buy property in SL, and if SL goes under, you have nothing. It seems to me that buying "property" in SL is more like buying stock in SL, symbolized by the virtual estate you own instead of stock certificates.

Re:Blurring the line between real and virtual

[gordo3000]

wrong , look at state law.

it clearly states that in bankruptcy proceedings in Florida(and any other liability claim) no claim can be made on a person's homestead. its why during the major corporate scandals, lots of executives dumped money into new homes in florida. as long as that was their primary residence, they could shield some assets from being taken.

A new florida law states that under certain circumstances, this can change. There is now only blanket protection up to 125k (not much here) and unlimited protection if you have lived in the home for more than 40 months and have not put money into it with the intention of defrauding creditors.

here is a blurb:

http://www.alperlaw.com/constitutional_protection. html

Re:Blurring the line between real and virtual

[brkello]

By manipulating the perception of the populace that it is worth something by putting out articles about how awesome it is every 5 hours and getting dumb people at Slashdot to post it.

I can't stand all the Second Life articles...and by far I think Slashdot's perception of it is negative. But Slashdot is heavily biased. Who knows, maybe the MySpace generation eats this stuff up. I just wish I didn't have to read about it so often. You would think Second Life is bigger than World of Warcraft with the amount of press it receives and the number of articles posted to this site.

Re:Blurring the line between real and virtual

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

From that webpage:

Homestead is not protected against tax liens, mortgages, homeowner association assessments, or from mechanics liens associated with labor or materials to repair or improve the homestead property. Also, the asset protection benefits of homestead should not be confused with the homestated tax exemption.

The real question is . . .

[GeneralAntilles]

Who the hell actually plays Second Life? I seed tons of stories on /. and digg about it, but out of all the incredibly geeky people I know, none of them plays Second Life (or at least they wont admit to it).

Re:The real question is . . .

[darth_fishy]

I think that's the issue with SL. From my limited experience with it its mostly non-geeky, but computer literate people who play SL. You're graphc designer with a good grip on Photoshop but not your typical alpha-geek.

It appears, entirely from anecdotal evidence, that it's more the artistic types that prefer SL. This might explain why it's such a weird place for us hard-core geeks (for any given value of hard-core).

Re:The real question is . . .

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

I used to. Actually, I was in the beta, and I got back into it about a year after it went free.

Eventually I just got bored with it.

Re:The real question is . . .

[CronoCloud]

Tons of art students in SL, as well as other artistic types, those who design things like jewelry or costumes in RL. Which explains the higher than average number of female players than your average online game.

Re:The real question is . . .

[thethibs]

The best way to learn, child, is to experience. Why don't you join and find out?

Re:The real question is . . .

[DerekLyons]

Who the hell actually plays Second Life? I seed tons of stories on /. and digg about it, but out of all the incredibly geeky people I know, none of them plays Second Life (or at least they wont admit to it).

This should be obvious without me having to say it, but since it isn't...
 
There are one hell of a lot more people in the world than the sets 'incredibly geeky' or 'people you know'. That being said - SL players are a pretty large cross section of the population. Pretty much like any game or online social community.

Re:Whoa Cowboy!

[rubberchickenboy]

Can anyone say...... loser?

The five million people who spend varying amounts of time in Second Life have probably heard the word before. Has it never been applied to you for playing D&D? Well, OK then...

So what happens if I create a person in SL, have this make pretend person go and get/buy a gun. Next I have this make pretend person go and shoot someone. Does that mean that in _real_life_ I get arrested for murder?

If you're in areas of Second Life that allow people to be killed (most of the areas don't). So, no, there's no ramifications for killing someone in SL. That doesn't mean there won't be someday. I could see a time where SL avatars' real life owners are sued for the equivalent of Denial of Service attacks.

wow...

[Facegarden]

i actually don't even understand this... like, i've never played second life and i simply don't even understand how one could sell land in it... i dunno, it just doesn't make sense, from an outsider's prospective. obviously, i'm not the target market, and i give props to companies for understanding this "new frontier", but still, yeah, i just don't understand...I'm gonna go back to drinking in my first life, since there are some cute girls here, but uh, enjoy second live for those people that, um, don't have a worthwhile first life...
-Taylor

Re:wow...

[keeboo]

uh, enjoy second live for those people that, um, don't have a worthwhile first life...

Sadly, many do not have it indeed.
Yet I fail to see how a game increasingly becoming close to real-world rules (financial speculation and stuff) is attractive compared to the real world.

Re:wow...

[Facegarden]

Heh, it's gonna get too real, and someone will come out with a "third world", heh. -Taylor

This made me check my calendar.

[fredmosby]

The first thing I did after reading the summary was check my calendar. April 1 is still a week away though. Maybe they're just trying to get ahead in the April fools market.

Re:This made me check my calendar.

[ewhac]

That has to be it, because it is in all other respects absolutely crazy.

Schwab

Re:WTF is the point of this game?

[I_Love_Pocky!]

I'm convinced that the only people "playing" second life are the people writing these articles. I think that technology columnists are fascinated with the idea of second life, and love to write about it. I can't fault them for that, because the idea does have interesting implications, but I think they do us all a disservice by continually giving attention to a "phenomenon" that no one actually cares about.

After reading countless articles about this wonderful new world of second life, I decided to check it out. What a piece of bloated crap-ware. I don't think the idea behind second life is worthless, but it's current incarnation is a joke.

I don't have a PS3, and have no plans currently to purchase one, but I think their new "Home" has a better chance of becoming popular than second life ever will.

Re:Whoa Cowboy!

[Blakey Rat]

I take it that SL is just some VR game?

Some VR game with, apparently, the BEST PRESS AGENT EVAR!

Seriously, they're in the news every damned day with stories like this. And yet the only people who actually play Second Life are furry pedophile rapists. Well, that might be an exaggeration, but that's the reputation the game has. How the hell do they get all this press? Sexual favors?

Personally...

[glwtta]

I don't really care about any Second Life news that don't feature flying penises.

Do any of you actually use Second Life?

[lewp]

Do any of you actually spend time in Second Life? I'm not talking just popping in and poking around once in a while (I've done that), I mean you spend significant amounts of time in the world, you've actually invested some time and energy into making your character your own, and maybe you even develop content for it. I'm more interested in people who are more into the actual enjoyment of the world rather than speculators or people strictly trying to sell their wares.

The reason I ask is because so many companies seem to be on the bandwagon of this thing, but my friends are almost uniformly tech savvy early adopters and I don't know anybody who's ever logged into it other than to check it out and laugh at it. I've got nothing against it, and if anybody uses it I'm not going to laugh at you or anything. I may not see the appeal, but I don't see the appeal of a lot of things the average person likes. I just haven't seen anybody else who really likes it either, and that's made me question its popularity other than as a kind of inside joke.

I do think it's a great concept, and I'm sure true virtual worlds will be all the rage someday. I'm just suspicious that anybody actually sees this as a good enough implementation to really start spending time there. I've heard the furry community has taken up residence there to some extent, but honestly when I log in I hardly see any concentration of people anywhere, furry or not.

Re:Do any of you actually use Second Life?

[Mondo1287]

I've seen the press for this roll by for the last couple of years. Finally after seeing this post I said well I better see what all the hype is really about. I, like your friends, installed it and laughed. Anyone remember MTV's Tikki VRML world from about 10 years ago? Well I was instantly reminded of it. Someone at Coldwell must be delusional, or Linden Labs paid them a heafty sum and gave them free land. It's the lamest thing I've ever seen as far as modern content goes. Is this what they mean by Web 2.0? I think I'll be sticking to my first life with the occational raid in World of Warcraft. Who has time for a second life anyway? I just can't believe businesses are pumping money into this, or is it just media fluff? There is just no way this is going to be very profitable for anyone but Linden Labs. Any company looking to diversify into a market like this really ought to consider sticking to the real world.

Re:Do any of you actually use Second Life?

[Sycraft-fu]

I think the reason is because it is the only game that lets them invest. Investment companies are ALWAYS looking for new, hot markets to expand in. Given the massive rise in gaming, I'm sure they want to get in on that as well. Ok so you can buy stock in game companies, but you know the hedge fund managers are looking at the whole buying and selling of virtual items. It's not feasible to do in most games, since the companies outlaw it and thus it is kind of a black market activity. However Second Life encourages it. Thus, that's where they flock to.

I'm betting that they'll find, as others have in the past, that you really can't make any significant amount of money in it.

Re:Do any of you actually use Second Life?

[cruachan]

It's easy to miss the point of Second Life, because the eyecandy is nowhere near the same level as WoW or similar. Graphically it's certainly around desktop game circa 2000 and the Lindons certainly do have a bit of a blind spot about upgrading it - largely because they seem predominantly focused on server-side issues at the moment.

However SL isn't really a WoW competitor. It's more like IRC in 3D - think of it as a chatroom where you can actually do things with the other people there. And of course virtually *everything* in SL has been constructed by the people in it. True the building tools have limitations and there's vast amounts of crap. but equally there's some very imagenative stuff too. The scripting language is by no means a toy too, even though that has some major flaws.

It's also an interesting question who does play it. I see several groups :-

1. Newbies. Vast numbers of people sign on, hang around the public welcome areas briefly, do a little touring then never play it again. It's quite common to see later reactions from them on /. and the like saying 'I looked and the graphics were crap' - which misses the point about SL being a social thing as above.

2. Wankers. Literally. A friend of mine who owns a SL club believes 50% of signups do nothing else but cybersex fot the first month. I think she's proberbly right.

3. Designers, Builders, Coders. Although the tools are limited with imagination there's a lot that can be done. SL seems quite a common outlet for amateur designers, coders and 3D artists. It may not be cutting edge, but you tend to get a lot of attention and feedback. If you're a professional coder then SL is well worth a look as it does have potential and some of the Lindons actually hold open office hours so you can talk to the game designers directly if you wish.

4. Roleplayers. There's large communities of roleplayers - most of whom spend 90% of their time in roleplay sims so will never be encountered by newbies. A quite common scenario is for a group to jointly buy a server, construct an enviroment, then play in that. Sort of like design your own game and play it using SL simply as an environment to do that. Roleplay covers a wide range from extreme characterization to mild 'wouldn't it be nice to live in environment X' types. Tends to be very hardcore players who spend a lot of time in SL.

5. Social players. Similar to roleplayers in that they have a community of friends but without the roleplay angle. Again these people hardly ever go near the common meeting places so a newbie will never pick up on them. A large part of the 'core' SL players are in this group.

6. Others - musicians, speculators, educators etc etc

People can belong to more than one group of course. Myself I am uncertain about the future of SL. Against it it has

a. Relatively poor graphics
b. Architecture limitations - the *bloody* asset server is a major pain point. It's not clear how far it can scale. The 50 avs in a sim limit is laughable for example.
c. It has a certain reputation in some influential quarters
d. The Lindons appear to be a bunch of bloody hippies :-). Certainly their business methods need to take a step up.

But for

a. Because the world is user constructed and designed to be at a fundemental level - and not given, as in WoW or other games, then in theory it can evolve. Games with Everquest, WoW, Eve etc cannot move forward in the same way.
b. It is one world and not sharded
c. It does provide enough tools that there is room for professional level interest in it.
d. It's totally generic
e. It has an established user base of people with graphic, building and coding skills who can jointly take it forward as the tools and capabilities improve. Real first mover advantage that.

On balance I think it likely to be here to stay and evolve as the prime metaverse. However I expect it to be the first among many (possibly with interconnections) and remain a minority interest for many years yet. It is worth your time though to look at it on a deeper level than simply 'ooh the graphics are crap' or 'it's just full of wankers'.

Re:Do any of you actually use Second Life?

[DaleGlass]

Yep, I do.

I've been using SL for a little more than a year so far. Went there with the explicit idea of that I'd probably script something, as the idea sounded interesting. So I got a SL account, and now it got to the point I pretty much have a monitor dedicated to it.

I use SL mostly as a glorified chatroom, and don't move around much, primarily hanging around in Luskwood. If you want a concentration of furries then check it out, but have in mind that right now it'll be quite empty, as most of the population is American. There will be a lot more people in a few hours. I'd say the problem with SL is the same as with any IRC server, until you find a place for yourself it's hard to figure out what to do there.

I also like SL as a base for certain coding ideas. I run a reputation system as an alternative to the one provided by SL, and also do some work on the SL source code. In that sense, SL is appealing because it's already there, so I only have to add my ideas to it, and it offers a large potential user base. I think that SL is appealing for a programmer, builder or artist in that it's a very convenient medium for saying "hey look what I made" and getting a reaction (and perhaps even cash). You see people working on all sorts of interesting stuff.

So what do I do in SL? I mostly hang around and talk to people. It's a bit nicer than IRC in that you can have a more RL-like conversation. People can easily gather in a group and talk about whatever they want without having to form a separate channel. Sometimes I wander around and check out cool stuff people made. I try building a bit. Sometimes I try playing chess with rather bad results. I script and change the SL client. IMO, SL is a bit overhyped right now, but it's still pretty fun to be in.

Re:Do any of you actually use Second Life?

[DaleGlass]

Well, to each his own I guess, but I always thought that games like WoW are a pointless waste of time. Great, I get to grind for months and in the end have not gained anything of actual value for all that effort. In SL you can at least make some cash if you try a bit. In WoW you'll never be anything more than a little cog in a giant army. Even at level 60 you're just another level 60 character. On the other hand, in SL you can actually be rich and famous, and become so through your actual skill, and not just by being patient enough to keep killing rats.

Some people tell me that they play WoW as a way of socializing. In that case, SL shouldn't be hard to understand -- just like WoW, but graphics aren't as good, there's no game, you can make your own stuff, and it's not nearly as restricted in what you can do. If you want to look like a cleric, or a big demon that can be had in SL without having to grind to get good looking equipment. After playing WoW for years you'll still have nothing to show for it, while in SL you might actually acquire some valuable skills.

Re:Do any of you actually use Second Life?

[notthepainter]

Do any of you actually spend time in Second Life? I'm not talking just popping in and poking around once in a while (I've done that), I mean you spend significant amounts of time in the world, you've actually invested some time and energy into making your character your own, and maybe you even develop content for it. I'm more interested in people who are more into the actual enjoyment of the world rather than speculators or people strictly trying to sell their wares.

Count me in. I've been spending 1 to 3 hours a day in Second Life since about November. Stopping in and poknig about is not the way to go about it. Immersion is when you start to appreciate it and that's hard to do without significant time. I have 2 characters that are quite different from each other and one has recently started developing content.

I don't sell anything (but I do get some pittance of ad revenue from my web site) and really don't plan to. If it happens, it happens, but that's not why I'm there.

SL is about creating and interacting. If you are doing stuff all alone you are missing out on a huge part of it. Maybe that's why the geek community rejects it? I don't know...

Paul aka PleaseWakeMeUp Idler aka Seeker Gray

Re:Do any of you actually use Second Life?

[GrBear]

I used to spend significant amounts of time in Second Life.. if fact I met my life mate on SL, even though he lived on the other side of the country, we now live together in RL.

SL has alot of benefits in terms of social interaction, especially for those that are clumbsy in dealing with people or shy IRL. Sadly Linden Labs did a number of things to their virtual world, like catering to non-paying freeloaders instead of their paying customer base, and encouraging their world to turn into one big commercial advertisement by pandering to big business.

Those that are addicted to SL are simply biding their time for something better to come along. I left SL and alot of dear friends because I value morality, which Linden Labs has as much of as a rotten tomato.

Re:Do any of you actually use Second Life?

[ibbie]

I'd say another thing it has going for it, now, is that the client is open source.

Also, while the server-side code is still in Linden Labs' hands, they haven't said anything *against* eventually opening that. Until there's definitive word in that regard, I'll still hold out some hope that - if you'll excuse the play on words - SecondLife's reality will match its potential.

I do have to note, that it *is* kind of fun to play around with their scripting language. IBM's development center in SL has a nice 'build a robot to navigate this maze' game that has taken up quite a bit of my spare time.

Re:Do any of you actually use Second Life?

[FishWithAHammer]

I "played" it for about two weeks. Made about $120 by portraying myself as an "accomplished scripter" (in reality, I was learning it on the fly) and doing consulting work.

The language is just plain weird and the functionality fairly limited. Unless you're doing special work for someone, it's not going to make any money.

It's also laggy as hell.

I wouldn't play there again. Although I like my avatar, who looks like 47 from Hitman.

Re:Do any of you actually use Second Life?

[cruachan]

If your still in SL and coding then I'd highly recommend getting over to Zero Lindon's office hour in Grasmere on Tuesdays/Thursdays (check the SL Wiki for times). Fascinating stuff.

Re:Do any of you actually use Second Life?

[jthill]

I spent some time on it a while back (1.09 or so). I like the 3d-modeling interface; it's got its warts, but it's flexible and reasonably intuitive. Getting around takes very little getting used to, and flying is fun (but see below). The physics are arguably adequate. The community has some talented landscapers, architects, artists, vehicle designers, clothing and body designers ...

I hear their simulator architecture has scalability problems. The descriptions I've read of it make me believe that's true. I know their object-scripting language, when I looked at it, was severely damaged by backward-compatibility warts and half-measure improvements.

Scumballs found the place a while ago, so you have to deal with guys setting up stupid Ponzi schemes and worse, (and/)or stealing people's designs, (and/)or breaking every rule that can't be mechanically enforced and generally abusing anything that gets within range.

They had severe problems with the limits of ownership. The first time you get launched into outer space just for finding e.g. a really cool free-to-copy hovercraft and taking a sightseeing tour lets a lot of the magic out of the place, and that's if you can find a nice stretch of land that isn't a mirror-house maze of exclusion fields. If there were only some way to simply exclude all evidence of a few people's existence from that world, it would be lovely.

Re:Do any of you actually use Second Life?

[DerekLyons]

On balance I think it likely to be here to stay and evolve as the prime metaverse.

That's what I, and many thousands of others, thought about Alpha World lo these many years ago - but then the company made a few boneheaded decisions, and their lunch was eaten by Second Life and There. (Alpha World, at least currently, is the very definition of 'obscure and forgotten' - on the Wikipedia it's not redirected to the article about the parent company and it's barely mentioned in said article.)

Re:Do any of you actually use Second Life?

[cdh]

I spent a significant amount of time in SL for a while. It was with what you described as a "social group". We had meetings, classes, etc. It was a good time and I enjoyed it a lot. Due to some infighting I'm not associated with them anymore, but the concept was great and it worked well.

The big downside to SL IMHO is the stupid limits on number of avs on a sim. 30 people max? Unacceptable. Our group would sometimes hit that and we had people not go to meetings because it would be full. During a meeting/class, people can get by without full frame rates, but you should be able to get more than 30 people onto a sim. The asset server, like you said, is in bad shape too.

The upside to SL over anything else is that LL is hands off. You can create anything you want. In fact, you have to (or somebody has to) because LL doesn't provide anything other than the tools to do so. There's also a group for every interest you could possibly think of. My wife has a few stores and creates content and makes enough to pay for her land tier, so it is possible to do it even on a small scale.

The fact that it's not sharded is good IMHO. It frustrates me to find friends who play WoW, but are on a different server than me. We'd like to play together, but neither wants to transfer.

You honestly cannot get a good feel for SL by just downloading it and spending 30 minutes in it. You have to take some time and find things that interest you. Trust me, it's there somewhere. Just remember that it's not a FPS where your computer has all the graphics pre-loaded, it has to stream everything to you. It's really pretty amazing how well it does work when you consider all of that.

Second Life?

[coolgeek]

Really, I think some people need to get a First Life [tm].

Re:Second Life?

[Speed Pour]

Get a First Life

Call this post redundant if you like, but some things clearly bear repeating...especially to people dumping fortunes on something with a completely imagined value.

Coldwell Banker cares about you

[Wax_and_Wane]

From the summary:
But so far most of this action has been about first-life organizations trying to gain real-world publicity by their forays into SL

That sums up Coldwell Banker's move into SL as well.

. . . . 'A small number of land barons mostly control real estate in Second Life, and we thought we could bring real estate to the masses,' [a VP explained]."

Mainland real estate is the worst in the game and is already for the masses. It is hosted on the lowest class of servers (known as Class 3 compared to the latest Class 5) with more sims per server than "privately owned" Islands. Coldwell Banker is another stodgy corporation with no motive for being involved in virtual worlds other than trying to gain mindshare with the 18-35 demographic.

The whole financial concept of treating virtual space like real life land is flawed anyway. As metaverse-style systems evolve to become more distributed like the internet (an eventuality to which even Linden Labs concedes) these real-life style spatial limitations will seem silly. This market exists in this form only so long as Second Life is run exclusively on hardware controlled by Linden Lab. Linden Lab has already stated that at some point it intends on getting out of the hosting business and instead intends to license the SL server software. So as if a thinking person needed anyone to point this out, this land has no long term value (say 5 years). Coldwell Banker acting like they are taking SL land as a serious investment is all hyperbole. To them it is more like buying up Beanie Babies in the 90s and saying that " a small number of Beanie Baby barons control the Beanie Baby market and we thought we could bring Beanie Babies to the masses."

Gee thanks Coldwell Banker! My heroes!

Is SL wants it real, then.. lets give them real..

[JackMeyhoff]

Virtual World War? Virtual riots? Virtual pillaging? Virtual squatting? Virtual Crime? Lets let the value of land plumet as it would in those real life situation.

RTFA

[foniksonik]

This is 100% about publicity and not money. They state that any and all profit will simply be reinvested into SL...

OTOH they do want to make the process of buying a house or land or whatever inside SL easier and more trust-worthy... maybe they will become trusted brokers for transactions and help people avoid being swindled due to ignorance of how SL works?

I look forward to more companies establishing helpful services within virtual worlds. Would be even more amusing to find companies like Toyota putting characters into middle ages style MMORGs to sell you vehicles "You really want to get the full warranty on that chariot, if it blows an axle you'll want to be covered"

Re:Whoa Cowboy!

[MichaelSmith]

So, people actually pay real money so the can get a better "life" in SL? Damnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn! Can anyone say...... loser?

Well quite a lot of people also subscribe to slashdot. Why? Ask them.

Serious question

[Propaganda13]

How much did Coldwell actually spend on this?

Re:Serious question

[supremebob]

I'm wondering that as well. It it was a relatively small amount (under $50,000), it would be worthwhile just from the PR advertising value alone.

Who plays this?

[LittleImp]

According to mmogchart.com SecondLife has around 65'000 subscribers. So if you look at all the articles about SecondLife, it looks like only journalists are actually playing the game.

Re:WTF is the point of this game?

[QuantumG]

I think that technology columnists are fascinated with the idea of second life, and love to write about it. Reminds me of the days of LamdaMOO.

This is depressing

[edwardpickman]

I have a balloon payment coming up on my castle and it's value has dropped in half since the trolls burned all the surrounding forest. You know things are bad when gaming and internet based entertainment is as stressful as the real world.

There's also the problem

[Sycraft-fu]

Of what happens if people stop giving a shit about a given game or perhaps "virtual universe" if you prefer. In the real world, while certain areas may experience a net loss in people, population keeps growing so overall there's more people who are in the market.

Well games, that's not the case. The player base can leave. UO and EQ are two examples of that happening. Once both were major players, and were able to claim more people playing them than any MMORPG before. Both now have dwindled to be minor players (about 1% marketshare in the case of UO). Thus if one had gotten in at the peak and banked on them continuing to grow, you'd have lost out. WoW is now the big dog by far, shattering every record before it and still growing, but for how long? At some point it will probably be supplanted by something else.

Thus speculation in game markets doesn't make sense in the same was as real markets. Expansion aside, people can simply move on, and if they do it isn't like they move to a new part of the world, they move to a completely different world (or worlds) with different rules.

Then, of course, there's always the question of what happens if the company pulls the plug. The servers go off, all of a sudden your investments are worth precisely zero.

Re:WTF is the point of this game?

[forgotten_my_nick]

The issues really are.

1. You need a good machine with good graphics card.
2. You need a good internet connection.
3. You need to be on the grid at the right time of the day.
4. You need to know where the right places are.

Your correct, if your starting off for private tour to figure out what is going on, depending on when you enter the grid can make the place look like crap.

Do a bit of exploring. Some of the stuff is very impressive. Some of the places I found cool (in relation to design, neat).

Lost gardens of apollo: http://slurl.com/secondlife/Apollo/125/221/24
IBM: http://slurl.com/secondlife/IBM/104/3/601
Cisco: http://slurl.com/secondlife/Cisco%20Systems%202/12 6/128/601
Ivory Tower (teaches coding): http://slurl.com/secondlife/Natoma/189/164/26
Wolf Mountain Ski resort: http://slurl.com/secondlife/PeachTree%20Resort/62/ 43/29
Dublin city center: http://slurl.com/secondlife/Dublin/126/189/25
Little Seoul (still being built): http://slurl.com/secondlife/Korea2/13/0/27
Nexus Prime (gibson CyberPunk): http://slurl.com/secondlife/Gibson/128/128/0

There are many more but still exploring. :)

Re:WTF is the point of this game?

[dreamchaser]

I'm sure some people go there, but anectodally, I don't know a single person who does. I know a lot of people. It's certainly not gamers who are 'playing' there for the most part.

The analogy to LambdaMOO in another response to you is probably an apt one.

A Brilllllllliant Game!

[CyberGenesis]

Like well I've just got back from the Cafe, where I was discussing stockmarket spirituality with my friends. You know I'm really a very imporant person...Priceless

Second Life is a brilliant conceptual masterwork...Priceless

Its like a second me in there- not as special as the real me though...Priceless

I tried it out after getting pwned in this horrible working class game called World of Warcraft but OMG I did see Ponies in there...Priceless

Re:Whoa Cowboy!

[CriminalNerd]

VIRTUAL sex favors at the virtual strip club.

Re:WTF is the point of this game?

[notthepainter]

I'll toot my own horn and reccomend that you visit http://www.secondseeker.com/ a google ad supported but otherwise free Second Life review site. The above list is good, but there is a lot more.

Re:WTF is the point of this game?

[notthepainter]

It's certainly not gamers who are 'playing' there for the most part.

And how is this is a problem? SL isn't for everyone. I guess the real reason is that it isn't about playing at all. It is about interacting, creating, or doing, or some combination of those.

Accounting issues?

[JeffTL]

When you buy a tract of land in Second Life, can you capitalize it and stick it on the balance sheet under GAAP, since it will generate revenue in future periods (in fact, much of the publicity benefit would likely come after your venture were established for a while)? If so, is it depreciable or treated like real estate? Or do you have to expense the whole amount to begin with anyhow?

/IANACPA

Re:WTF is the point of this game?

[dreamchaser]

I understand that, I just don't think it's all that it's hyped up to be. And yes, I checked it out. I also don't think it's as popular as they claim it to be, but I have no numbers to back that up it's just my impression.

Virtual Goods and Virtual Property

[hypnotik]

Something always strikes me very odd about conversations about Second Life and their ilk here on Slashdot. Invariably someone decries the concept of buying "virtual goods" and renting "virtual property".

Let's step back a bit here... What is the difference between "software" and "a virtual shirt", or "digital music"? Are they not both just some pattern of ones and zeros? Sure, a virtual shirt only makes sense in terms of Second Life... But for me this is the same as buying digital music that can be played on some hardware device. Or buying software that can be run on some subset of computers.

Virtual land... Who would rent "virtual property"? What sense does that make? Perhaps we should ask all those that rent space for web pages?

That being said, I think Second Life is kinda daft in its implementation, but the concept is very very cool.

The artificial worlds damage character...

[Wonderkid]

Back in the 1980s, I was very enthusiastic about these 2 and 3D worlds. Older slashdotters may recall terms such as 'Virtual Reality' and such. Fast forward to today and it is not hard to notice a consistent flaw in people who rely upon electronics communications and escapist realities such as WOW, Second Life, MSN etc. The problem is these provide a barrier to genuine human interaction where our 5 senses come into play. So, such people become socially inept and in the eyes of those of us who have some values, incredibly rude and cold. I believe that the best use of these artificial worlds is not social interaction but simulating real world scenarios - from a business model to an aircraft design - before taking them to market or production. Those I interact with on MSN are the worst at real life social interaction - and I find this consistent, no matter the age group and am doing my best to ban iM from my company. (Yes, I use it as my team insist!) The most polite, 'together' and successful people I know do not use instant messaging or any artificial community. They use voice telephone calls and face to face meetings. I imagine this post is going to get flamed, but that is not the intent. I aim to trigger debate! Bring it on!

Re:The artificial worlds damage character...

[syrion]

I think that you may be confusing correlation and causation. If I recall correctly, back in the late 90s there was a study of personality types of people who used the Internet extensively. It found that introverts tend to use internet-based communities a great deal more than extraverts. In particular, the INT* types (on the Myers-Briggs scale) were particularly common. It's a mistake to think that this means that someone must be rude and cold, but social interaction is not generally an introvert's strong point. On the other hand, they tend to be better at analysis and planning than some people who may seem more "together" and friendly than they are.

One thing that I particularly like about the Internet is that I can seek out discussion groups about particular subjects which interest me and, having found those discussion groups, I can participate with none of the baggage that the physical world brings. I am interested in philosophy, so I can find a philosophy discussion group and discuss philosophy there--that simple. "Real life" groups always have irritating dynamics. One member of the group wants to sleep with another member, except the latter is actually sleeping with this other one... it's counter-productive. Furthermore, if you are selective about your online communities, you can find more intelligent people online than off. Offline, you tend to be required to deal with people of average intelligence, and that's just not a good thing at all.

Disclaimer: I am an INTP, of course. A polite and "together" sort of guy, but an introvert who uses virtual communities quite a bit, nonetheless.

Re:The artificial worlds damage character...

[Quiet_Desperation]

Maybe. I think you're being too broad brush. I know happily married people with active social lives who do all sorts of "connected" things, including online gaming.

*MY* problem with these online worlds (the freeform ones like SL) is that they are mirroring the real world too closely. Second Life has space hoarding land barons? Boy, that makes me want to jump right in! :-( Oh, and there's ideological extremists who will harass you? Sign me the fuck up! Furry pr0n! Goody! Politicians setting up shop, and their legions of mindless sycophants following them in? Be still my beating heart! People who will sue me for some imagined slight in a world doesn't exist? Oh joy and rapture!

Well, OK, so maybe furry porn isn't so prevalent in the Real World, but you get my drift.

Re:The artificial worlds damage character...

[Cro Magnon]

*MY* problem with these online worlds (the freeform ones like SL) is that they are mirroring the real world too closely

That's my concern too. I've never tried SL, so I don't know how "real" it is, but I DON'T want the same problems in a virtual world that I have in the RealWorld (tm). I'd rather kill dragons (or even get killed by one) than to mess with lawyers and land tycoons!

Re:The artificial worlds damage character...

[ioshhdflwuegfh]

...The problem is these provide a barrier to genuine human interaction where our 5 senses come into play.[...]The most polite, 'together' and successful people I know[...]use voice telephone calls and face to face meetings. What is then the genuine human interaction? "face to face meetings" and "voice telephone calls"?

Re:The artificial worlds damage character...

[fm6]

What's your favorite color?

Loose their shirt?

[SmallFurryCreature]

A real estate company? Please, they are used to dealing with millions of dollars, not the pennies involved in Second Life.

This is advertising but with a twist in that is slightly more then just putting up a banner. But it is advertising nonetheless and they know exactly what it is going to cost them because buying/renting land in Second Life is simple enough.

While the costs are high for a casual player for a company it is peanuts compared to even a simple direct mail campaign or even having a couple of pencils made with your logo on it.

This is NOT investment, this is NOT business, this is advertising. They would just as much loose their shirt in this as when Coca-Cola decides to sell shirts with its logo on it for cost. Yes, it is possible to totally bankrupt yourselve this way BUT I don't think that these people are that stupid.

Simply pay Linden a low monthly fee, hope it creates positive press and deduct it from the advertising budget. How could they loose? (Me starts a countdown for the number of seconds for someone to open a sexshop on Coldwell land, knowing second lifers, a furry pedo bdsm sex shop)

Re:Whoa Cowboy!

[forgotten_my_nick]

It is better to think of it like a 3D medium. I wouldn't call it a game. More of a browser in a 3D world.

For example if I'm interested in star trek I can find places in the grid that cater for me. If I have an interest in RPG/D&D there are places for that too. Likewise with Coding, design, general chatting, etc.

Shooting someone in an area that allows it but not allowed by rules can get you warned/banned/suspended.

The money aspect is give or take. You can get free cash in the game if you take time to look, certainly loads of free skins/clothes/etc to look more personalised.

But if you go in thinking its a game you will probably be disappointed.

Publicity Stunt

[OrangeTide]

Move along, nothing to see here.

Re:WTF is the point of this game?

[notthepainter]

Both of those statements are so true. Linden Lab is one of the best PR machines around. It is hyped beyond all importance, that's for sure! Also, they are certainly guilty of manipulating all sorts of numbers to make it seem that it is bigger than it is, no arguments there.

Both of these attributes are really distasteful, but sadly, it convinces many. They are not the only example I can think of of some organization using self-fufulling prophecies.

Re:Believe me, we tried.

[JackMeyhoff]

If thats the case then I see no reason to PAY MONEY :) The just cut off the hand that fed them.

Location, Location, Location.

[everphilski]

You forgot the three rules of real estate (see the subject line). They bought land on the main drag. Who cares if some outlying islands are created. It is all about location, location, location.

(disclaimer: I've worked for Coldwell Bankers before, but just as a courier to get through college.)

Do you realize the importantce of this?

[tkrotchko]

This is big big news. It means that if you own any shares or interest in Caldwell Banker, then it's time to sell before this news gets out.

Re:Do you realize the importantce of this?

[forgotten_my_nick]

Hardly. They could spend a couple of $1000 and do what they are suggesting and still make back their money after a couple of months. Wouldn't even cover the normal money they dump into renovating an already good house in real life.

Apart from the ability to offer houses at reasonable prices in SL, they could for example design some houses that are on market. People could tour a representation of a load of them and then figure out which one they might want to waste their time on in real life looking at.

Similar to looking at their website.

Just more "viral marketing." Move alongl

[Web Goddess]

I agree. I don't know anyone who goes there, and I live in Silicon Valley, home of early adapters and cybergeeks.

IMCO, this is just another in a series of marketing ploys by the company. Remember the flying penises? The company arranged this deal with Coldwell Banker, to get plenty-o-exposure. It also appears that they employ a large cadre of people to comb the net, creating buzz. /. is a very influential place, when it comes to buzz.

Ok I dont get it

[JustNiz]

Last weekend I finally decided to see for myself what 2nd Life is all about. So after downloading the 2nd Life client, ran through the vast tutorials before finally getting to the public area.
I spent about 10 minutes flying around before I realised there's nothing going on. Many people seem to have wasted large amounts of time creating some complex 3D models of houses and miscellaneous other junk, but for what? Maybe its just me but I don't get it. There doesn't seem to be any point, objective or benefit of err.. playing?.. 2nd life.
I mean really can anyone who regularly uses 2nd life tell me what keeps bringing you back, what you spend most of your time doing, and why?

Re:Ok I dont get it

[CronoCloud]

I have said this before:

SL is what the "player" makes of it. It has no goal, other than what you set for yourself.

Me, I hang with the SL fashionistas. I've done a bit of scripting with gadgets for the SL fashionistas in mind. I wander around and visit interesting places now and then, go listen to music now and then.

Re:Open M-F 7AM-5PM ???

[CronoCloud]

PST/PDT is that standard time of SL, events are listed in that timezone, the client constantly shows the time in that timezone.

Invest Invest Invest

[HomelessInLaJolla]

Is the ownership of any of those properties tax deductible?

There is no more brilliant money-laundering scheme than investing in property which doesn't even exist. How large is this industry?

Step 1: Qualify for low-interest loans for in game property.
Step 2: ???
Step 4: Profit!

It's tailor made to hide large investments or pass large amounts of money outside the line of plain sight. What's the most expensive domain name registrar?

Re:Is SL wants it real, then.. lets give them real

[Mr. Hankey]

There are plenty of other games with virtual wars, riots and pillaging. Second Life is something different, and probably more interesting due to this difference. I'm sure the rest will come with time as people play the system, but Linden Labs should probably see what happens with Virtual Realty first.

Re:WTF is the point of this game?

[@madeus]

1. You need a good machine with good graphics card.
2. You need a good internet connection.
3. You need to be on the grid at the right time of the day.
4. You need to know where the right places are.

Your correct, if your starting off for private tour to figure out what is going on, depending on when you enter the grid can make the place look like crap. I agree with the previous poster to your, in that I think SL - while obviously based on a popular premise that's been around for years - is over hyped and poorly implimented (and that something like Home - which is infinately more polished - is much more likely to enjoy mainstream success).

I've said this before here, but the Second Life client really is a joke, it's got terrible frame rate, pathetic client side collision detection, renders objects poorly and is laggy as hell. Objects appearing and disppearing in the world are not handled well. Object caching and distance rendering are pretty ropey too. Even moving around and navigating the menu system is a pretty nasty experience.

Having GigE network connection straight to major peering points and a couple of 7800 GTX's graphics cards in SLI (with an AMD FX CPU, and a couple of gigs of DDR) still doesn't make the client run smoothly, or make it look it good. I'm not sure why you suggest that's important, the problem clearly with the Second Life client - telling people it's "their graphics card" or "their network connection" is just bogus.

I'm very impressed with what some people have done (especially given the current state of the client), but it's got a long way to go before the software is anything like on a par with the other software I use day to day.

As it is, I think you have to REALLY, REALLY want to like it and have very low expectations when it comes to performance to find that it runs 'acceptably' .

Re:WTF is the point of this game?

[forgotten_my_nick]

IMHO I think it is less to do with the client and more to do with the fact the servers don't scale. In fact they they have something like 1 processor per grid with a limit of 50 people per package (area of land). someone with more knowledge can explain better. :)

If your on the grid off-peak times the whole thing runs very smoothly, everything renders fast and it is very usable. That is with a tablet PC (1gb memory, no gfx card) to an XPS laptop (2gb + 7800gtx).

I find from 5pm GMT time the whole thing turns into a complete joke. Stuff doesn't render, laggy even client lags. So yes it is more dependent on the back end rather then the client itself.

You can mitigate it somewhat by lowering gfx settings and setting max bandwidth to 200, but still pretty much unusable during peak times.

Re:WTF is the point of this game?

[@madeus]

That's interesting. The one thing I've not experimented with is trying it at different times (though I've knocked myself out with the various client settings on different systems).

I can actually see what you say being the case, it's hard to imagine because it would mean whoever wrote the client didn't know the first thing about network client software development of any kind and doesn't have much common sense, but if that is true (and I'm not suggesting your a liar) it is entirely the fault of the client (in that, if it's slow because the server is busy, it's just been implimented by an idiot).

I don't mean that as a vitriolic statement, I say that, as it should be caching as much as possible (i.e everything), and doing client side hit detection with the server rejecting invalid / out of bounds updates from the client and the client system have it's status re-set when the server tells the client it's out of sync. That's how all other similar software works.

i.e in the same way every modern FPS game work to make the gameplay as smooth as possible with 64 to 300 players & vehicles on the same map. Games have the advantage of having pre-rendered world objects, but there is no reason for the same approach not to work with Second Life.

From BattleField to PlanetSide all the tiles rely to varying extents on client side 'prediction' of world objects - including the movement of other players and vehicles, with objects 'reseting' intelligently if a client and the server get too much out of sync (e.g. every client slowly speeds up or slows down the speed of moving objects in view to 'adjust' for any unexpected change of course or speed made by the other player since the last second or so since it heard from the server).

Moving, rendering and drawing the world should be the same, no matter how slow or fast the server, as those ought to be entirely client driven operations (in the same way that no matter how slow a web server is, your browser should always be responsive - though of course we've all seen browsers that hang user input while waiting to render an element on a page, which is equally crummy design). If it's not smooth regardless of server performance, that's definitely a problem with the client (if the client doesn't have all the new data when it comes time to update the frame, the idea is it should just go ahead and render the scene as it is anyway and draw the changes on the next pass).

I'm somewhat doubtful (because I totally mistrust the client and think it's poorly written all round - never having seen it performed well), but I can believe you though, because I have seen a few (older) games where the developers apparently didn't know how to write non blocking netcode (or just didn't have the time to finish the implementation properly before release) and that behaved oddly when the server was under pressure (as I'm sure the SL servers are - given the huge area and the number of objects they have to track).