Most Business-Launched Virtual Worlds Fail

bughunter writes "Internet consultant firm Gartner claims that only 1 in 10 commercial virtual worlds succeeds, and most fail within 18 months: 'Businesses have learned some hard lessons," Gartner analyst Steve Prentice said in a statement released Thursday. "They need to realize that virtual worlds mark the transition from Web pages to Web places and a successful virtual presence starts with people, not physics. Realistic graphics and physical behavior count for little unless the presence is valued by and engaging to a large audience."'" Hard to believe it's even as high as one in ten -- most "virtual worlds" with obvious commercial trappings certainly don't inspire much besides mockery.

Comments

Most Businesses Fail

[hardburn]

The average success rates for most businesses is also about 1 in 10.

Re:Most Businesses Fail

[mrbluze]

What more really needs saying? I dunno, maybe only 1 in 10 posts gets modded up to +5, despite good intentions?

Re:Most Businesses Fail

[NetSettler]

hardburn:
The average success rates for most businesses is also about 1 in 10.

Anonymous Coward:
[citation needed]

Well, your mileage may vary, but I didn't take the point of hardburn's post to to be that he was offering precise data to be taken to the bank, nor do I think the absence of a citation invalidates the point. I took the statement to be a stylized way of asking "is it clear that this failure rate is special to the business domain?" Or, put another way, "is the choice of business domain driving these businesses down artificially, or is it the same thing that drives all businesses down: failure to keep an eye on the business need?" Even in the summary, the statement:

From the article:
Realistic graphics and physical behavior count for little unless the presence is valued by and engaging to a large audience.

highlights an issue that seems certain to bring down plenty of companies (who cares the precise number?) if they fail to attend to a material customer need for which people will be willing to pay.

After the so-called dot-com bust, for example, there seemed to be a sense that investing in things named ".com" was risky or bad. Surely people had lost money investing in this or that dot com. But not because of the name ".com". That was just smokescreen designed by some skillful person interested in face-saving to say "It's ok you lost money here. Don't be embarrassed. It wasn't something you could have forseen. It was due to the nature of the market." But in quite a lot of cases it wasn't. It was due to the idea of investing in something you didn't understand and that never had a clearly articulated plan for making money in the first place. And learning that the absence of such a plan is going to lead to problems wasn't news ... or shouldn't have been.

So whether the poster can back that specific pseudo-statistic with a citation or not, I still think the apparent point seems valid.

Re:Sturgeon's Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless it's Scottish... In which case it's shite.

Re:Virtual Lawyers?

[Oktober Sunset]

Oh, application-of-adequate-pressure-to-the-T-key nazis! I have sinned! There fixed that for you, you mustn't encourage them, that's like throwing chum to a shark.

Re:Web Places?

[owlnation]

Don't worry about it, it's Gartner. Probably the only reason that businesses fail is because they listen to the mindless, erroneous, buzzword-infested garbage that Gartner spews out every so often. Gartner exists for the sake of existing, they add no genuine value to anything, virtual or real.