virtual worlds 102

Virtual Worlds

David BurdenManaging Director

In Association with:

© 2007 www.daden.co.uk

Who are we? Virtual worlds agency In Virtual Worlds since late 1990s, and Second Life

since 2004 Full Service virtual world developers Specialist expertise in:

Web integration Artificial Intelligence & Natural Language

Member Second Life Developers Directory


Agenda Virtual Worlds Overview A Quick Tour of SL Business Experience of Virtual Worlds Business Models and Opportunities Future Roadmap Questions


Virtual Worlds - a new medium Synchronous and immersive It won’t replace anything “Not” the 3D Internet (or the

future of the Internet) Internet = Information Virtual Worlds = Experience

Not a mass media, perhaps a “meta-media”

Expect other media to have to re-invent themselves

It will bring its own formats, language, stars and turkeys


Social Inclusion

What’s Different?

Social Interaction


The Synthetic Environment Space

Closed/MMO Open/VW

MA

RK

ET

OPENESS

Niche

Mass

Teen Worlds

Community Virtual Worlds

Game & Media Worlds

Kids Worlds

& Games

Simulation & Serious Games

3D ChatTrue

Virtual Worlds


Platform vs World

Supplier Platform Shared World

Linden Lab SL Grid Second Life

Forterra/Makena Olive There

Multiverse

Sony Home

Active Worlds Alpha World

Kaneva


Active Worlds Status: Live c. 2000 Owner: ActiveWorlds Inc Population: Not available Demographic: c.20s-30s Format: Shared & Private Technology: Client/Server Currency: In-world only Revenue Model: Membership Commercial Development:

Minimal Comment

In decline, looking old hat


There Status: Live c. 2003 Owner: Makena Technologies Inc Population: Not available Demographic: Teens-20s Format:

There - Shared Forterra/Olive - Private

Technology: C/S, Industry stds Currency: In-world only Revenue Model: Membership Commercial Development:

There - Minimal Olive – MTV, DoD, DHS

Comment There - Teen orientated Olive - £1m projects


Second Life Status: Live 2003 Owner: Linden Lab Population: 9.5m registrations Demographic: Avg age 32 Format:

Second Life - Shared Second Life Grid - Private

Technology: C/S, Proprietary Currency: Exchangable Revenue Model: Land+Premium Commercial Development:

Extensive & Decentralised Comment

Dominant virtual world Growing fast Almost too open


Second Life Grid

Teen GridMain Grid

SL Grid

Bank World School World

Media World


Second Life Grid


Multiverse Status: v1.0 Jul 2007 Owner: Multiverse Network Inc Population: not yet available Demographic: world specific Format: Private Technology: C/S, Industry stds Currency: In-world at moment Revenue Model: Revenue share Commercial Development:

Just beginning Private world based

Comment Little technical advance on SL Uses standard industry 3D

tools White label approach + limited

shared/social world


Sony Home Status: Launches 4Q07 Owner: Sony Population: not yet available Demographic: not yet available Format: Shared, Closed Technology: Console Currency: In-world at moment Revenue Model: Media sales Commercial Development:

Centralised Comment

PS3 based Sony chooses what you can

do More 3D chat than open world


Other Virtual Worlds


Features vs Cost

ProjectCost

£1m

£100k

£50k

£10k

£5k

Feature SetLow High

SL

SLG

Multiverse

Games Olive


Uses of Virtual Worlds


Socialising

It’s just another medium


Entertainment


Over 10,000 visitors

over 1 weekend


eCommerce



eBusiness


IBM had 200 visitors a day for

Virtual Wimbledon 2007.


eLearning



Imagining



Virtual Worlds – Who’s There?

… and over 70m users and growing


Aloft & American Apparel


Wells Fargo


ABN and ING


VISA and BCV


Race for Life

The American Cancer Society raised almost $90,000 from its sponsored Relay For Life in Second Life in 2007.


Dell


Pontiac vs BMW


Other Worlds


Virtual Worlds Business Ecosystem

EnterpriseCustomer

Hardware Manufacturers Communications Providers

Virtual WorldsPlatform Developer

Middleware and Software Component

Providers

Authoring Tool Providers

Virtual WorldsCreator

Server & Workstation Manufacturers

ManagementConsultant

Systems Integrator

EnterpriseIntegration Tools

Providers

Direction of (Potential) Revenue Flow

Source: SRIC-BI

Over $1Bn invested in 2007 in Virtual Worlds

companies


Why Engage with Virtual Worlds? Learning Generic Brand Building (RL or VW) Internal/Partner Communications & Collaboration Service delivery Recruitment Information Visualisation and Analysis New Concept Development CSR

Green issues Disability issues

Revenue


Revenue Models

In Real Life (RL)

In Virtual World (VW)

PAYM

ENT

MA

DE

DELIVERY OF SERVICE/PRODUCT

Uncharted territory

In-worldretailing/rentals

Virtual Worlds for:• marketing• sales• support

• VW Consultancy• Design & build

In Real Life (RL)

In Virtual World (VW)


Approaching Virtual Worlds What's the aim? Who's the audience? Private world or public world? Which world? Which engagement model? How do you implement? How do you market? How do you staff? How do you maintain interest?


Virtual Worlds Opportunities

Virtual Worlds

Banking

Tours

Identity

Social Media

Reputation

Recommendation

Retail

BuildingAdvertising

MarketingSales

Avatar Design

Education

Consulting

Search

Transfer

Communication

Entertainment

SystemsDesign

NO ANALOGUE

Raw MaterialsLogisticsPhysical HealthFood & Drink

TransportationPersonal Services

Agents

Security

Housing

Governance

Terraforming & Landscaping

Inventory

ArtLegal

Sports

Leisure


Engagement Models Inward looking Look at us.... Sponsorship Look at them.... Event focussed For only 3 days.... Education focussed Did you know that.... Facilitation Look at you..... Object based Look at this.... Service based Let's help you..... Game based Let's have fun... Private Presence Don't look!


Models of Fidelity – Stone 2007

CONTEXT FIDELITY (local, remote): the design of appropriate “background” sensory and behavioural detail (including avatar/agent styles and behaviours) to compliment – and not interfere with – the task being performed and the learning outcomes.

TASK FIDELITY: the design of appropriate sensory and behavioural features into the end user’s task that support the delivery of the desired learning effect.

INTERACTIVE FIDELITY: the degree to which input (control) and display technologies need to be representative of real life human-system interfaces and, where they do not, the careful management of control-display mapping and acknowledgement of human stereotypes. Understanding the benefits/ limitations of virtual vs. real control set-ups.

“HYPO-” and “HYPER-” FIDELITY: the inclusion of too little, too much or inappropriate sensory and/ or behavioural detail (task, context and interaction systems) leading to possible negative effects on serious game/simulation performance and on knowledge or skills transfer.


Virtual Worlds Marketing

In World

VW Blogs/Podcasts etc

Conventional Media


Approaching Virtual Worlds What's the aim? Who's the audience? Private world or public world? Which world? Which engagement model? How do you implement? How do you market? How do you staff? How do you maintain interest?


Characteristics

GLOBALDIGITAL

SOCIAL


The Future


The Future

UserInterface

Physics

Functionality

Rendering

AvatarAppearance

AvatarInteraction

Virtual

Agents


The Future

Short Term( 0 – 5 years)

Medium Term(5 – 20 years)

Long Term(15 – 50 years +)

Early adopter, no “hard” ROI Many, separate worlds Few standards Primarily social and “for fun”, or organisational

learning and PR/marketing

Emerging standards and consolidation Becomes viable business tool, and then “business as

usual” Trusted transactions (social, financial, commercial) Challenging game, then TV, then film media

Global standards and interconnected worlds Rise of agents Persistent Presence becomes the norm Possibility of significant societal changes


My Second Life...


One last thought....

“80% of active Internet users (and Global 500 companies) will have a 'second life' by 2011”

- Gartner Group April 2007

David BurdenManaging Director

[email protected]

www.daden.co.uk

IM: Corro Moseley