The article suggests that only part of it is technological (a single Linden Lab server can only handle about 70 avatars at a time). Another issue is — well, what is there to do when u do get to Second Life? The answer is not a whole lot.
This last bit reminds me of some of our recent discussions about community vs “groups of individuals” and what role having a “purpose” plays in how strong a community’s bond is. One thing we did NOT do is apply that thinking of “purpose” to “crisis level” in the change function’s parlance. And, “crisis” around “joining for the sheer sake of community” is much lower than “crisis around a higher purpose”….
In the Second Life example, there doesn’t appear to be a “higher purpose” for joining. Here, the lure of joining the Second Life “community” is apparently merely for the sheer sake of being around other people. So, Second Life would be addressing my “fear of isolation” crisis. But this is a weaker bond than if my community was striving towards a greater good - ie, creating change in the world.
So what am I getting at? I think all this helps address WHY a “community” that addresses the “fear of isolation” crisis as opposed to “having a deeper purpose” has a “weaker tie”. I think it is because I have a million other ways to address the “fear of isolation” crisis. I can go to a cafe. Or pick up the phone. Or go to the gym.
Anyway, aside from philosophizing about “weak” vs “strong” ties, I suppose one takeaway here is … let’s remember the Change Function. Social networks are cool and all… But if there isn’t a crisis to address, or if the crisis is more easily addressed by another “technology”, then I’ll likely bet against it.
Image
Second Life is an online event and therefor either seen as a new popular destination (something to go to) or a new application (something that changes the way we view stuff - virtual world). Meanwhile the hype grows and grows because of news that you can now eat an online pizza, that there are sexcapades, that there is a Second Life superhero etc… People use this news to support the idea that this will be the new thing, living your alternative life.
We mixed it up two things:
1. Second life is a generation-X way of dealing with virtuallity. Digital natives percieve their msning etc as virtual enough. We, genX, try to create tables, houses, islands etc… (as real looking stuff as possible) to deal with the virtual space… that is a very temporary event. You can already create a totally new persona without walking through a semi-virtual world. By the way we have seen the same kind of evolutions within gaming. The first shooters were a third-person shooter… I saw Lara Croft walking in front of me, and I was controlling her. Later, when we got used to the controls, we shifted more to first person shooters, since people were more capable to imagine that the two guns in the screen were suppost to represent YOUR hands… So, in shirt… second life is ot the next big thing… it is a stepping stone for digital immigrants to learn and deal with what is a virtual space.
2. Another proble with second life is that discrimination between online and offline events. As soon as something is online, it is futre, offline is history? In my view second life is a format, a show… like those on TV… especially like Big Brother for example. What I mean is… that a lot of people watch Big Brother… almost everybody could attend… but hardly anybody reaaallyy wants to be in tha house (too much trouble). The same is with Second Life. It is a format where everybody could attend, always a good start for reality-like entertainment. But 90% is looking AT second-life, not in. Meaning, they know it exists (unthought in our last digital native panel, 90% never heard of second life), and they talk about what is happening inside… rumours, gossip, news, etc… By looking at Second Life as if it was a format, not the next big thing in the future of the internet, the number of members is of less importance… the awareness they are able to create than counts + advertisers they attract.
I Agree with your second point, but about the first I have my doubts.
I’m not arguing that Second Life is a passing phenomena but I do think 3d worlds have something to add for both generations. I think msn isn’t “virtual enough” for both generations.
Digital natives play online multiplayer games like World of Warcraft, maybe gen-x is more attracted to second-life because it’s less associated with gaming (“which is something kids do”). Both generations are attracted to those 3d worlds. I think it’s because the lack of certain features in none 3d media like msn, facebook, discussion boards.
One of those features is the feeling of presence. Being together in an online 3d environment and seeing, hearing and ‘feeling’ each other creates a much greater feeling of presence. Presence will stimulate a sense of community. People in online games tend to form all sorts of communities (alliances, clans, etc). Also those environments often present you with the physical features of an online identity (man, woman, elf , ork, good guy, bad guy). So a part of the identity building has been done for you. Other thinks that pop to mind are the support for imagination and creativity which are much more present in 3d worlds than none 3d environments.
To support your second statement: Isn’t YouTube in some way the reallife version of Second Life?
I agree that virtual worlds and 3d environments are indeed interesting… but not like Second Life, making a copy of the existing world and even copying behaviour only adding the fact that you could lead another lifestory. Nothing wrong with that, great format, but not the next big thing.
World of Warcraft is really Virtual Surreality, not living just another life, but living in a another world, with functions and events that go beyond. Indeed more innovating, but less appealing to the average consumer.
Like a great philosopher said:”All the new needs to connect to the old.”
Second Life is just a digital version of the old and not new enough to really be the next big thing… World of Warcraft is maybe to new and not connecting to the old enough to be even a more massive hit… so, there is space for the a real virtual killer app? =))
I’m going to think about your Youtube remark, but I tend to say that I also agree on that point =))