On the issue of when the virtual world will adopted on a mass scale and replace many in-person interactions with other people, I would argue that it has already taken effect to a large degree on many of our common behaviors.  The average college student probably spends the majority of his or her time on the computer when in the dorm room.  Email and instant messaging has probably become a more common communication method then appointments or head to heads.  Shopping can be done conveniently at home.  Research, study, gaming, and nearly everything that can be done without actual physical activity has already been accessible for years online.  The virtual world does not necessarily have to be a program like Second Life.  It is already largely in effect, and we have already grown a dependence to it.

I think there's something else to consider about the parable Mr. Kapor drew between the PC and Second Life. Certainly the early developers of the PC envisioned very different computers (in all of size, design, and functionality) in the homes of users than those that are in use today. Similarly, some of the concepts of Second Life, for example spatial interaction and modeling, are compelling designs that could make their way into the interfaces of other applications without actual proliferation of avatar-based virtual worlds. Is there necessarily a social interference aspect to the growth of Second Life ideas?

I think that after all talk of the negative effects of getting lost in virtual world, it is important to note some areas that would greatly benefit from virtual reality. For example, Mr. Kapor mentioned using a virtual world for training purposes, which would make it alot easier to role play. Perhaps there could be virtual tutoring, coaching, or even therapy. Alot of psychiatrists conduct behavioral retraining to help people get over phobias by trying to put them in the exact situations that frighten them, which is often quite challenging. Virtual therapy could help with that...

I agree that virtual words could improve REAL life as well. I believe, everyone can learn a lot from a virtual world. Mitch Kapor said that Second Life is really a platform, it has to force creativity and innovation by the people who use it and develop their services, commercial and non-commercial. Actually, the Second Life effort is an extension of Web presence for many companies and corporations around the world. As an example, technology companies like IBM, Cisco, Microsoft, and Sun Microsystems, have presences in Second Life. They do their announcements, conferences, advertisement and so on. If some person's budget is restricted to go to a big event he would like to attend, there could be an analog of the event in a virtual world.

I think it's hard to say whether Second Life will prove to be a lasting benefit and follow the path of PCs in the next 10 years. It creates a virtual environment that emulates real world, which as we all know, have lots of +'s and -'s.

I also have never participated in Second Life, but after some initial research, it seems to be a great tool for real life businesses. Hotels can put up "second life" versions of hotels they are planning to make and test it out before building the real one. Retailers can place certain objects in their stores and obtain feedback without too much investment. Even educational forums can be conducted in Second Life settings. Since I'm an SCPD student, I would be curious to see how my avatar can interact during class.

On the negative side, as Mr. Kapor mentioned, there are issues Second Life has had to interfere with such as unaccredited banking systems. Furthermore, it seems that Second Life has also run into problems with child pornography. Although Second Life prides itself in giving its users the freedom to create and build, just like in real life, that liberty can be used for terrible purposes. Perhaps once Second Life figures out how to deal with the harmful aspects of the system, it can become a virtual environment that is not only beneficial for social interaction, but also profitable for businesses and other institutions.

Check out this Introduction to Second Life. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b72CvvMuD6Q&NR=1

I think that it is important not to get caught up in the hype when considering things like Second Life. While SL has been getting a lot of press attention and has been the platform for all sorts of gimmicky things (virtual Swedish embassy, IBM press conferences, etc.) I really have yet to meet someone who uses it regularly. The truth is, in-person interaction trumps all other forms of communication. Even in the age of Skype and webcams, many people still prefer to meet in person if at all possible. While technologies like Second Life can make it easier to communicate for people that are geographically scattered, they cannot (and in my opinion, will never) replace personal interaction.

It certainly will be interesting to see how Second Life and other virtual worlds develop in the coming years.  I see no reason why, ten years from now, virtual worlds could not turn into the OS of the future, replacing the need for separate sources for computing, television, phone/video conferencing, movies, music etc.  So while I was intially surprised by Mitch's comment on Second Life's potential, I now see his point.  Regardless of whether virtual worlds develop so extensively, I appreciated Solomons comments on how all of this interconnectivity can actually isolate people.  When it comes to human interactions, quality often trumps quantity.

I do not have an Avatar and have never used Second Life, but I think the idea that SL might become as common as PCs is intriguing. I'd like to see if that holds true. I am doubtful it will because in 10 to 15 years, who knows where we'll be. Perhaps there will be an new and improved version or SL or simply a competitive market.  I think SL is a great opportunity to run lots of tests and simulations. Going off of what Mandy said, I think SL will only be successful if people act in a similar fashion to everyday life. If people go on shooting rampages in SL, how accurately does that reflect the peoples' true sentiments. Would they do the same in real life if they were given the opportunity? It seems overly dramatic, but I think that running tests and trying to learn from an avatar that doesn't reflect people's true actions and feelings will have limited scope. You have to give it the designers. They make money from a virtual world. People pay hard currency in order to decorate their "image" and actions. I think it's crazy to spend lots of money on a computer generated image, but if it's profitable to exploit that, then more power to them.

I believe current disadvantages in SL are based on the lack of accountability that residents have in their actions. Of course, this may also often serve as a positive effect by promoting creativity and liberatin. However, my belief is that as network bandwidth, computational power and traffic!?! ramp up in years to come, the flexibility and convenience of working, playing or meeting in a net environment could become 'common sense'. Accountability of acts or some type of governmental body implementation will be key to bridging the gaps between a virtual world to our real world activities. In addition, I am eager to see the deployment of high accuracy/fidelity 3D based simulators that will elevate the user experience in a virtual world in the near future.

Last edited by David.Shih (2008-01-21 12:53:35)

I don't really have much virtual world experience and so far I still prefer interacting with people in real life.  However, I'd like to see the virtual world as just a different channel for people to communicate.   A new innovation attracts people only if it creates values for the users.  Whether it will endures or not depends on the benefits it brings to people consistently.  Therefore, there's no need to predict the future of SL.  It will finally find its way out.  We, as a consumer, just need to keep looking around and search for what we like.  How enjoyable it is to be a consumer who doesn't stick with a product!!

Michael.Wendelken wrote:

I recently heard about the use of Second Life as a test-bed vehicle to pitch fund-raising strategies for both non- and for-profit start-ups. The theory being this would allow residents to employ a particular methodology or strategy in a virtually risk-free environment, then to employ those lessons learned to the real thing.

"Multinational corporations use virtual worlds to solve real problems in business. IBM has over 40 islands on SL and has used ‘Active Worlds’ as a platform for a ‘meeting of the minds’ for employees from several countries. It also operates a large complex on SL where virtual world innovators collaborate with clients to investigate means to boost productivity. " - The Hindu

I think SL is an excellent tool for nurturing skills be it social, entrepreneurial, political or any other totally different skillset.

That said, it deserves more mention for the pro 3D-virtual world trend it has brought about and will continue to bring about on a much larger scale for the next couple of years. As one of you said, it's nice being a consumer and just enjoying products, i think it is totally noteworthy how a consumer-centric world can very easily and quickly help popularise the tiniest bright idea because almost all of a sudden, producers want to compete for making available to the consumer, the idea in its "best" form. "There" for example is one other competitor of SL, and there are many others in the pipeline.
"Active Worlds" is another virtual reality platform. It is different from SL however, in that it lets a user build an interactive 3D world in which he can sortof "showcase" or even sell whatever he wants to, and other users visit his world.
It's amazing how much of a demand there can suddenly be for 3D animators, models, textures, avatars, graphics, worlds, softwares etc.

I had the same question before as how Second Life has been so successful with the retention rate of 1 out of 10 visitor come back.  After using Second Life as part of my research project related to virtual reality, I think part of the answer goes to advertisement.  Just like any online community and media provider, the main revenue comes from the advertisers who want to target thousands of online users who may not know their behavior has been segmented and reported to the advertisement industry.  Monetization can be very tricky nowadays for publishers.  Advertisement means much more than a brand ad on TV or radio, it can be a flash or a text ad on some web pages you are visiting,  but it is so precise that it seems already bonded to your consumption behavior.  Second life is not just a virtual world of virtual information, it has a lot of valuable behavior information which can be monetized greatly.  Another interesting fact is that I found some big companies such as IBM or SONY have their virtual "booth" in Second Life to attract users.  What does advertisement in virtual world mean to the public?  I think it is commercial profit in reality.

However, success in commercial world might not be the ultimate goal in our society.  I have a lot of concerns about kids and people of all ages escaping into virtual worlds and avoiding all social interaction.  If things keep going into virtual, this practice is very questionable as regard to our social value system.