Virtual Worlds 102

Virtual Worlds David Burden Managing Director In Association with:

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  © 2007 www.daden.co.uk

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 © 2007 www.daden.co.uk

The Synthetic Environment Space 3D Chat Mass True Virtual Worlds MARKET Game & Media Teen Worlds Worlds Niche Kids Worlds & Games Community Virtual Worlds Simulation & Serious Games Closed/MMO Open/VW OPENESS © 2007 www.daden.co.uk

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 © 2007 www.daden.co.uk

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 © 2007 www.daden.co.uk

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 © 2007 www.daden.co.uk

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 © 2007 www.daden.co.uk

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 © 2007 www.daden.co.uk

Virtual Worlds Business Ecosystem Over $1Bn invested in Middleware and Software Component 2007 in Virtual Worlds Providers companies Authoring Tool Providers Server & Workstation Manufacturers Management Consultant Virtual Worlds Virtual Worlds Enterprise Creator Platform Developer Customer Systems Integrator Direction of (Potential) Revenue Flow Hardware Enterprise Manufacturers Communications Providers Integration Tools Source: SRIC-BI Providers © 2007 www.daden.co.uk

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  © 2007 www.daden.co.uk

Revenue Models In Uncharted PAYMENT MADE Virtual territory World In-world (VW) retailing/rentals In Virtual Worlds for: Real • marketing Life • sales • VW Consultancy (RL) • support • Design & build In Real Life In Virtual World (RL) (VW) DELIVERY OF SERVICE/PRODUCT © 2007 www.daden.co.uk

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?  © 2007 www.daden.co.uk

Virtual Worlds Opportunities NO ANALOGUE Raw Materials Search Inventory Logistics Social Media Physical Health Transfer Food & Drink Recommendation Identity Reputation Banking Communication Security Leisure Virtual Worlds Governance Entertainment Tours Advertising Avatar Building Housing Design Marketing Sports Retail Sales Terraforming & Education Transportation Landscaping Art Personal Services Legal Agents Consulting Systems Design © 2007 www.daden.co.uk

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!  © 2007 www.daden.co.uk

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. © 2007 www.daden.co.uk

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?  © 2007 www.daden.co.uk

The Future Early adopter, no “hard” ROI  Many, separate worlds  Short Term Few standards  ( 0 – 5 years) Primarily social and “for fun”, or organisational  learning and PR/marketing Emerging standards and consolidation  Medium Term Becomes viable business tool, and then “business as  usual” (5 – 20 years) Trusted transactions (social, financial, commercial)  Challenging game, then TV, then film media  Global standards and interconnected worlds  Long Term Rise of agents  (15 – 50 years +) Persistent Presence becomes the norm  Possibility of significant societal changes  © 2007 www.daden.co.uk

David Burden Managing Director david.burden@daden.co.uk www.daden.co.uk IM: Corro Moseley

Virtual Worlds 102

0 comments

Notes on slide 1

4 Favorites & 1 Group