It is 'definition time' in the virtual worlds industry. As this industry is growing, it is becoming more and more important to define categories, to draw border lines - especially between 'games' (bleh) and 'the other worlds', the 'serious stuff'. Check the ongoing discussion over at Metaversed for example or Raph Kosters blog.
I always liked definition games - especially after the third or fourth beer. So here goes my own one (which I had it laying around from a book chapter, which I did a month ago):
The most important 'feature' of a virtual world is, that it should facilitate a sense of immersion, the feeling that I am not sitting in front of my PC's screen, but that I am 'inside' at another place or time, together with other users, which are not physically present with me in physical reality. This is a bad definition, though, as it is terrible subjective.
Fortunately, there are four easily detectable characteristics which are necessary and sufficient to create the feeling mentioned above: Space, Avatars, Consensus and Persistence.
- Space. A virtual world has to present the context in which users are interacting as a kind of 'space' where each object has a location, where there is distance and proximity.
- Identity - the Avatar. In a true virtual world each user is represented by a persona or character, which is usually called an 'avatar' and is controlled by the user (not by software). The avatar is unique and has a certain set of attributes (at least a name, usually a lot more). It has a location inside the virtual worlds space and can be seen by the user and by other avatars which are located in the proximity of this location.
- Consensus. All users at or near a certain location can see the same objects and avatars - from different perspectives, if the platform supports 'perspective' and viewpoints. Any change in the world is reflected in the world view of all users present.
- Persistence. When a user (avatar) changes something in a virtual world, this change is permanent. If the user leaves the world (logs off) and comes back later, the change is still in place (if someone else hasn't reversed it.
This definition is a broad one - intentionally so. It encompasses text based MUDs. It encompasses online games like World of Warcraft, and it certainly encompasses platforms like Second Life, There, Kaneva at al.
The latter type of platforms is actually the smallest one in terms of user base and revenues. Still it seems the most interesting to me. How to define this segment? Easy. Just take away predefined goals and add Freedom (credit goes to Joel Greenberg/Giff Constable and to John Lopez here):
Freedom. A Social (open-ended) Virtual World is a virtual world, in which their are no predefined goals, which the user has to achieve, no artificial barriers the user has to overcome to be able to enjoy his or her 'virtual life' in this world. In an open-ended virtual world users have the freedom to define and pursue their own goals.
That's it. Space, Avatar, Consensus and Persistence are the ingredients of a virtual world. Add Freedom and you get a social, open-ended virtual world.
Some additional thoughts and explanations ...
Technorati Tags: 3d web, second life, virtual worlds, web 3.d
As many people more or less make the equation "Virtual World = Second Life", it makes sense to emphasize that some of Second Life's features are not necessary for a virtual world. There is much more diversity out there and these alternatives can achieve similar results - more efficently sometimes.
The question of SPACE
A virtual world does not necessarily have to be presented as a 3D replica of physical reality. The legendary text MUDs of the 80s were fine virtual worlds. Ask any MUD player and he will tell you, how immersion can be achieved just with character on a screen which was unable to display the simplest graphic. There are find 2D and 2.5D virtual worlds out there. Actually some of largest the virtual worlds (measuring that by number of accounts) are 2.5D worlds. The is true for Habbo Hotel, CyWorld, Barbie World etc. Check out Freggers, if you want to see, how beautiful such a 2.5D world can be rendered today.
Space can be presented as a contiguous world (like in Second Life or HiPiHi), or as a lattice of interconnected locations (like in Kaneva or Habbo). It does not have to presented as islands or continents on a map (which is my personal preference, I have to admit).
The question of AVATARS
Avatars are present on every platform I would call virtual world (and on some others). Often, they can be customized to a large degree. This is certainly important, as customization is very important for the phenomenon of identification with ones avatar. It is hard to identify with a character which is identical to all the others on the screen. It is certainly not necessary though, to be able to create a lifelike replica of a human. People can easily identify with the cute Habbo avatars, the fantastic WoW avatars and sometimes even with the featureless avatars of a text MUD. There has to be an individual name, of course, so other can identify and build a relationship with me.
The question of CONSENSUS
... is an often underestimated one. But actually it might be one of the most important features of virtual worlds. Why would I like to watch a movie or a life videostream together with a few fellow avatars in Second Life? It is much easier to do that on the web. But only in a consensual virtual world like Second Life I get the feeling, that I am watching this together. Some virtual world platforms sacrifice consensus to overcome technical hurdles. When I open a door for example. it might take a while until other avatars will see this door open (or they will not see this at all). This is possible to a certain degree. But if my worldview is too much different from another avatars world view ("which open door?") it is hard, to maintain the feeling that we are in same world.
The question of PERSISTENCE
Even, when a virtual world does not allow its users to really 'create' something (most virtual worlds don't), avatars have to be able to change the world, move around objects (or destroy them), open and close doors, drive vehicles around etc. It is hard to create the feeling, that you are part of a world if there is no way for you to change this world, to somehow leave a trace.
If your changes are gone, when you log in the next day, this also destroys the immersive feeling. Because people want to have an impact on the world. And that impact is nil, when nothing they do 'leaves a trace'.
The question of FREEDOM
In an open ended virtual world the users can define and pursue their own goals. This does not mean, that there are no rules and no 'common goals'. In many social virtual worlds, popularity and (virtual) wealth are certainly common goals. Even Second Life, the proverbial Social Virtual World, had a 'leader board' until 2006 which listed the avatars with the largest L$ balance, with the most virtual land, etc. This is a copy of the society we know from physical reality, of course. And avatars seem to reproduce some aspects of this society in every virtual world, no matter what the initial setup includes.
But these 'goals' are not predefined. I don't have to achieve them, to enjoy Second Life or There or Kaneva. I can find meaning, fun and even fulfillment outside these materialistic (sic) models of success.
Other Features
There are many more features mentioned as necessary often, when people discuss virtual worlds - especially open-ended social worlds. User generated content, the ability to 'upload' your own stuff, for example. Money and an inworld economy is mentioned often, too. Some participants in the discussion even go so far, as to say that the virtual world's currency has to be convertible to a currency of the physical world.
I agree that all of this is important. It is not necessary, though (or "helpful but not required" as John Lopez phrased it). I can imagine a perfect and intensively immersive virtual world, in which people only interact with predefined objects and have no need for money.
A fundamental feature distinguishing games and worlds is PROPERTY.
In part, this relates to the notion of persistence and manipulation, but neither of those go far enough.
The PROPERTY can be of the real estate/home/space type, or inventory with objects and such or even just a set of links and calling cards.
There has to be something that is mine in the world that I can also give to others and take from them.
Otherwise, I'm playing a browser or flash game or going into a 2-D world with just a lot of clicking -- and no take-home.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | October 30, 2007 at 04:22 PM
Prokofy:
I don't really see why does your Property definition differs to the Avatar definition as presented by Markus. I mean, yes, by his definition you must have property. Your avatar is yourse, your clothes (if any) and what you have in their pockets (if something) is yourse. Even if you don't have any land yourse, or money (those "helpful but not required") you are yourself (or your Avatar), so you have, at that extent, property. After that, the existence or not of more property is more like defining the "social set" of that Virtual World. It was discussed countless times the use of Virtual Worlds to explore possible social or historical sets. If you force the definition of property in the definition of a social virtual world, than you're excluding every virtual world that lets its avatars adopt a society like, for instance, anarchist communism...
Posted by: Mind Booster Noori | October 31, 2007 at 08:52 AM