3DNPVEI Aims at Open-Standards Virtual World

The 3D Network Professional Virtual Enterprise Initiative (3DNPVEI, LLC - pronounce 3DNPV) is looking to create a "massively multiplayer, social and business networking virtual world, using open standard technologies such as Web3D's ISO-approved VRML and X3D." The world itself has been in development since March, but CEO Lauren Gauthier says that the project has had been growing explicitly for over a year and has its roots in the longer histories of the groups as-yet-undisclosed partners. But come December, look out for more information. "Basically, we are going to have a limited alpha release on invitation," Gauthier said. "A select group of people will be invited to come in and view what we have so far. Later we'll have the beta for the public. "

"There's always this thing in the back of my mind as a reason why virtual worlds haven't caught on yet," Gauthier continued. "There isn't too much to do here. You can chat, and that's about it. And we feel that's not enough to keep people interested in the long term. It might be in the short term, but then people give up."

That's a sentiment that's been bounced around by too many virtual worlds developers to count. But while most developers of that mindset are looking to add gameplay elements to spice up the social world, Gauthier wants to add a game that's focused on business.

"What we are doing is to build something in the way that there's something to do there," she explained. "That is the game element. But in essence, it is a social and business network with some game elements built into it so people are not just left to their own devices here. They're guided by the game to build businesses  into the world. The goal for this business networking site is for the users to actually use it to make money. It's not necessarily just for users to play. It's similar to serious games mixed with a social and business network."

Because 3DNPVEI is building on open standards, the goal is to have companies or individuals build their own worlds and connect them through the provided server technology based on X3D. Gauthier couldn't discuss the business model for the organization, though she said it's been tested and should be expandable. Right now the organization, which is open to new parties around the world, is only discussing details under NDA. However, Gauthier did say that she believes the open standard will set the world apart.

"One of the main differences between us and others, I don't see any company doing anything serious with Web 3D so far," she explained. "All the other companies are doing proprietary technology. As far as I'm concerned, and I know some people, you mentioned Multiverse, I don't see anything else that is as powerful as X3D. X3D has been around for ten years. Second Life and IBM are talking about open standards, but they don't have it. It's going to take them many, many years to get to the point that Web 3D and X3D are today. These are ISO standards. They just don't want to recognize it because it's not to their advantage. We feel someone needs to tell people the truth."

The X3Daemon Multi-User Network Server will be released as the first step towards the open platform, allowing anyone to build their own, interconnected virtual worlds.

Comments

[len]

Well said, Lauren.

[Eric Maranne]

Hi,
> ... I don't see any company doing anything serious with Web 3D so far ...

I would not put it so (my company is doing serious things ! :) ...). It's just that web wise, today's computers, internet bandpass capabilities, and VRML/X3D evolutions are just opening the way to appealing 3D content and even more interactivity, and that serious content developpers are emerging. But more than ten years of use, hidden ubiquity in universities, labs, almost all 3D modellers, scientific software, GIS software, architecture software, closed collaborative design work teams toolbench, CAVE systems, medical systems, work ergonomics tools, immersive collaborative training, etc, etc ... is backing your effort, with experience, technology, material, markets, ready now to be put on the web.

Go for it Lauren. You've done a wise choice and picked a good horse.

Eric.

[Eric M. Scharf]

Disclaimer: I do not work for Second Life nor am I an enemy of open source applications.

Lauren Gauthier is feeding the masses a false interpretation of the X3D multi-user network server (or “socket server”). This article is all talk and no substance. Her target audience is big and small business alike, however, her audience has “virtually” no understanding of gaming-in-support-of-business other than it is a cute little “black box” vehicle through which they can sell their products.

Lauren speaks of current virtual worlds as, essentially, social halls where people can chat, but that they need to be more to keep people interested. Her statement could not be farther from the truth about current virtual worlds that exist for both entertainment and business. She is describing a LAN Lobby, or a “text parser” from the early 1970’s, not a virtual world. Virtual worlds are literal, visual, and audible environments (generated as a collection of 3D geometry components and 2D texture-map imagery applied to those 3D components) in which users can translate around that given space, with or without a visible avatar, with and without interaction with other users. The issue of how to apply sellable goods to a virtual world is to be accomplished in a second pass.

Lauren suggests that Second Life and IBM are talking about open standards, but they do not have one to offer, or are not willing to offer one. Those who live in glass software development houses should not dare throw so much as a single byte. Second Life (forgetting IBM for a moment, with respect) is, at bare minimum, exactly what Lauren is touting as the great frontier for X3D, and Second Life exists now. Lauren has offered no “virtual” proof that X3D can deliver at least what Second Life has, and she is hiding that fact behind an NDA. Talk is cheap, especially in software development, whether considering office applications, entertainment software, serious games, or the Internet in general. Where is the proof to back up this big statement of Lauren’s?

How did Linux, Mozilla, and other similar open source software efforts catch on? Their creators made them public, as early as possible. Their creators showed proof of what they were trying to describe in a blanket statement, as early as possible. Sure, it is easy to sling mud at Microsoft for all of the problems with the Windows OS and Internet Explorer, but, at the end of the day, Linux and Mozilla had to show proof, as early as possible. No one, with money and know how, will really listen to you until you show proof that your NDA-secured effort is legitimate and as good as you claim.

Are people, such as Lauren, correct in complaining about proprietary engines and file formats that force the development community into restrictions not of their own creation (as well as costs they should not have to incur)? Absolutely. Whether starting from scratch or modifying an existing code base, the end result has been customized, and has, in a sense, become proprietary. Once that modified code base has been shared with another programmer, it will, once again, be modified into another proprietary set. Unfortunately, that is where most software development begins and ends, due to one dominant issue: quality control, or, standards, by another name.

All quality products require some level of quality control, whether you are referring to software, food, or clothing. How did Linux and Firefox become such fine examples of superior software at the open source level? The developers involved in those efforts, at several points along the way, needed to converge on the same level of quality / rules. One code component (maybe hundreds of lines of code) needed to recognize and mesh with another code component, followed by hours, weeks, and months of testing before the next code revision was released and put through the same testing grind.

Should Lauren be blamed for attempting to prop up her company’s product? Not necessarily, as she is being paid to do so. Do most software companies try to push a “demo” or “unfinished product” (even a 10-year-old one at that) with potential investors, with the blind hope they will gush over it and pump millions of dollars into the development process that will allegedly lead to product completion and grand sales? It happens all the time, at a shameless pace.

Should Lauren be making a more responsible attempt, breaking the NDA protection, to explain the effort all developers will be required to help bring X3D to the current level of Second Life, and push it beyond the competition? You better believe it. After all, she is championing “open source,” which, by its very nature, requires one person to be open with another. As I began, so shall I close: Lauren needs to show us the money, show us the goods, show us she knows and understands the true details behind her vague statement, and prove that X3D functions as claimed, with quality control and code standards in mind.

Everyone who is interested in software development deserves an opportunity to work with an open source library and challenge themselves to go where no proprietary software has been able or been allowed to go. The opportunity, however, should come with the truth and nothing but the truth about the real development effort you may be undertaking. Talk is cheap, and, in Lauren’s case, with hard facts, it may be vaporware.

[len]

Wow! Where to begin, Eric.

First, X3D is an ISO standard, not an engine. The specification has an object model. In this sense, it is already beyond Second Life, a proprietary product with no standard and only a release of client software. X3D has three encodings (Classic VRML, XML and binary) so it is also ahead of Second Life here. The provenance of X3D is with the the Web3D Consortium which has a published intellectual property consonant with the W3C, a liaison partner. It is ahead of Second Life here.

Virtual worlds are well understood by the X3D community given that the VRML97 worlds have been functional and in wide use for some time and predate the Second Life worlds (circa 2003) by almost a decade. X3D is the third generation of this language, has wide spread adoption and many more hours of development than Second Life. However, given that Second Life is a server-side system, these are different architectures.

The list goes on but I think most of this is public knowledge even if being obscured by sources such as yourself. Whatever the current state of Lauren's products, these are not in fact the state of X3D technology. X3D systems are functional, running in mission critical applications and have a wider current breadth of standards than Second Life. I hope the efforts to open the Linden Labs technology up for development are successful as this will add to the tools of virtual reality systems development. On the other hand, standards take a different set of skills to create than code trees and one needs to be mindful that this is what has been claimed for the IBM-led initiative with Linden Labs as a partner. I expect intense competition in these areas for some time to come.

Last, existing standards such as ISO X3D need not negate nor be negated by competing standards such as are/will be proposed by the IBM keiretsu and financed by such venture capital groups as the CIA-financed InQtel (sp?) through Forterra. I am glad to see this increased interest in virtual worlds by the intelligence agencies; however, acquisition policy typically determines the uptake in Federal systems and these policies are far from clear in the present administration which has financed the purchase of ISO X3D for public safety systems on the one hand, but continues to finance studies at Forterra.

As to Web3D, the web has a long history of resisting attempts to force faux standards for the sake of Federal policy and even popular sentiment, SVG being a prime example. The case for ISO X3D is its continued existence almost a decade and a half after VRML 1.0 and the fact that it continues to be extended and improved logically and consistently as an international standard. Given the vigorous competition for virtual world business and the churn in these technologies, it may be some time before any new standards are created that can be applied to long life cycle high cost Federal projects. That being the case, X3D is a safe bet and a proven technology. So it remains a viable option and it is up the community that works with it and the vendors that support them to do business sucessfully. What is true without a doubt is this community can say without refutation that where the topic is web 3D standards, they already have them, have had them, continue to improve them, and continue to make sales.

Good luck with your work at Linden Labs.

[Eric M. Scharf]

Len,

I appreciate your professional response and input. It is too bad that Lauren was not obligated to coordinate her thoughts with someone who appears to have a more thorough understanding of X3D, who is better prepared to represent the platform / file format.

The bottom line, unfortunately, is that for X3D to be a safe bet and a proven technology, it has to be adopted by a wide range of developers who use it as the foundation for their front line products. It should not matter whether Second Life involves a server-side architecture or not, because commercial software developers expect the same end-result: something, at bare minimum, like Second Life. Proving X3D viability within the somewhat-isolated federal ranks and sharing safe bet results, for example, in a series of white papers that may never reach the reading eyes of the masses do not make X3D shine any brighter either.

It may help you better understand my point of view by knowing that I hail from the entertainment software industry. I, objectively, have years of experience developing virtual worlds, big and small, with development cycles as big as three years and as small as 3 months. I continue to have regular access to proprietary game engines, socket servers, and file formats that support single-player, multi-player, LAN multi-player, LAN lobbies, massive multi-player online capabilities, AND the ability to buy and sell products of varying types.

Corporations and capable individuals pay good money for access to certain proprietary software platforms, because, 90% of the time, very little of the development process is left to chance. You get what you pay for, in almost every sense of the phrase. By getting what you pay for, unless otherwise specified, you also receive the source code (which is now "open source" to you and your team). And, if you want more functionality than the proprietary purchase guarantees, you and your team can generate additional, custom code modules, on your own dime, that can sit on top of these platforms. Nice, clean, and neat.

These game technologies have beaten open source software to the punch, at the very least, because of their wide adoption. Consider the most popular and well-known technologies delivered by id Software and Epic (Quake and Unreal, respectively). Both companies got to a point, right after the development of their first products, where they made their source code available to the masses. Now, hundreds of thousands of people and teams regularly generate "MODs" using the once-proprietary-but-now-open-source engine software. As the years go by, these proprietary technologies (whether eventually shared as open source or not) will be converted to support client-side / server-side requirements. The number of game developers(entertainment and educational / serious) is simply staggering.

As I said before: Everyone who is interested in software development deserves an opportunity to work with an open source library and challenge themselves to go where no proprietary software has been able or been allowed to go. The opportunity, however, should come with the truth and nothing but the truth about the real development effort you may be undertaking.

Commercial and proprietary OR open source? The equation is really much simpler than that: established-popular-and-supported software platforms OR open source platforms that may never, ever have the same following or support.

I know it may be hard to believe, but I want open source technologies to succeed very much. I am simply not a fan of the mess, disorganization, and lack of thoroughly documented support that seems to follow open source applications wherever they go. This vicious cycle tends to curb once an open source application formalizes into a commercial product . . . where development teams are forced to deliver a clean little package for the customers who are paying good money.

Ultimately, you are wrong on three counts: 1) the existence of X3D for 10+ years does not mean it is viable, competitive, or widely used by the software development community, (2) X3D must not be as safe a bet and proven as you say, because, again, there appears to be a non-existent list of early and current adopters (feel free to shove one in my face), and, finally, (3) I do not work for Linden Labs (visit www.emscharf.com for confirmation), though their team must be having a serious laugh about the free advertising we are giving them.

So, please, Len, give in on this doomed conversation you wish to have with me, but do not give up on the great potential of open source platforms (especially the kind that are presented and supported like their commercial counterparts).

[len]

Let's get some bits right first.

1. X3D is an ISO language supported by commercial platforms.

2. It is not a gaming language. Conflating games and VR is market stunt but incorrect. It is a real-time web-capable 3D scenegraph with an object model to provide for better behavioral fidelity. It is a client-side standard and yes, this does make a difference when considering it in the context of other proposals.

3. Multiple commercial companies have implemented it and are successful, among them, Bit Management and ParallelGraphics. PG in particular has been in operation for over ten years. They actually predate VRML. There are others but you can familiarize yourself with them by visiting www.web3d.org.

I understand the concerns of the entertainment industry but the standards are not of necessity entertainment concerns. Hollywood has become very involved but glitter does not a standard make, nor will large investments create automatic locks. In fact, the gaming industry is well-known for its explicit avoidance of such standards given the very competitive nature of the market. Open source there where it exists is a recent idea.

Open source will not of necessity result in good standards, products or markets. It is one business model of many and ascribing necessity to that for success is begging the case. Sometimes it works; sometimes it doesn't. Likewise, the commercial status of products in the market does not predict success, failure or appropriateness for standardization. Otherwise, all you would have on the web is Interleaf. Have you heard of Interleaf? It was predicted as the future of publishing at one time. Likewise, the Mentor Graphics Context publishing system which provided both WYSIWYG and markup support for early ETM systems. Both failed to survive. Experienced standards professionals know that products are not the basis for standards but that vendors who are producing successful products can bring knowledge to the standards process given appropriate conditions for intellectual property. This is why consortia and standards organizations are quite careful about processes and contributions to standard efforts.

No conversation is doomed when parties are open and honest. You have some facts to check. While your years of experience in creating virtual worlds gives you insight into technical issues to be covered, you are trying to make a case that fails on evidence because you are not experienced in the slow tedious but successful creation of market standards.

I also believe open source can be one part of the success of some products and open source implementations are excellent for the role of reference implementations (proof by code but non-normative).

As for Linden Labs, if they are laughing, it is nervous laughter. They are currently being subjected to scrutiny in the press both large, small, global and local. The reputation of Second Life is taking a beating as a result of incidents there and their business partners are realizing they have a problem with this. This creates opportunities for their numerous and quickly growing competitors who are starting with fresh codebases and the benefit of LL's market and architectural mistakes. It will be interesting to watch but if history repeats itself, LL will not be the market winner; it will as Inteleaf did, become a historical footnote unless it can quickly change its models. That is not an endorsement of X3D, btw, but an observation based on watching the press trends. When the very small markets begin to publish stories of customer problems with SL, the fat lady is warmed up and singing the first bars of the closing aria. The entertainment industry investors are looking for alternatives and there are plenty to choose from.

[Eric M. Scharf]

Len,

I simply love your response. Now, if you can package this highly-detailed information and send it to Lauren for her to include in any of her future interviews, I think my original goal, in reacting to the above article, will be somewhat fulfilled.

X3D may not be a gaming language, but it does support the display of 3D components, much like a gaming language does. So, logically and naturally, if a business wants to promote and sell its products using X3D (per Lauren's comments) to generate a virtual world (in which the user can move around and interact with a 3D environment), then, X3D will be made to function like a gaming language. I fail to see your point about what X3D really IS vs. my point of what X3D really NEEDS to be proven capable of and viable for.

And, what do you mean by "gaming language"? Software developers all over the world use C, C+, C++, Pearl, C Sharp, LINGO, LUA, and on and on. Some even still use Assembly. Developers use these languages to code for a tremendous variety of applications. None of these languages, however, are "gaming" languages. Game engines, file formats, and export plug-ins (embedded within popular 3D creation software) are written, in part, WITH those languages, but nothing more.

It also appears that you have taken my suggestion of non-interest by investors in anything but nice-clean-and-neat proprietary platforms, and you have converted it into a success vs. failure issue. I suppose by suggesting the avoidance of a technology by investors and the masses, it can be viewed as an imminent failure.

Regarding the Hollywood connection, there is no connection between Hollywood and the entertainment software industry OTHER THAN licensed film-to-game rights and game developers who wish upon a star that their original IP is so successful, with such cutting-edge story-telling, that movie studios line up for the game-to-film rights. Much in the same mode that you would ask me about Interleaf, have you any idea how many games, successful games (whether console, PC, Mac, Internet-based, or mobile) have nothing to do with Hollywood? While many developers may dream of writing the next Halo, Unreal, or Metal Gear, for all the success of those games, they are still the minority in a sea of game products that have completely different directions and purposes.

Regarding the shaking of Second Life in its virtual boots, it is of little long-term consequence to the developers who are using it. If it fails to keep market share, due to their numerous and quickly growing competitors with their fresh code bases, the developers will simply move on to work with those competitors. The same problem, however, remains: where are these competitors? Where are their code bases? Are they ready to engage developers with an initial support effort that matches how Second Life began? Are these competitors ready right now, regardless of the current status of Second Life? I am still waiting to see a robust list of X3D supporters / Second Life competitors.

Regarding entertainment industry investors in search of alternatives, that is the understatement of the century. Everyone is looking for better-faster-cheaper, or even free. There are two kinds of investors, however: (1) those who hand over the development funding and expect instant gratification, and (2) those who hand over development funding and understand that they will have to absorb an extended schedule in order for their developers to learn themselves to the technology and customize it to meet their needs. Thus, you can have all the alternatives in the world, but many will cease to be viable alternatives unless they are ready to perform, as advertised, right out of the box.

I am about as old school in my approach to software product development as you can get, but even I can acknowledge the truth in the face of our limited shelf-life "perform now" business models and our "want it now" society.

Again, as I began, so shall I end: where does X3D fit in with all of this? How ready is X3D to perform right out of the box? Are there more than TWO developers who are using X3D to generate virtual worlds? How can this "non-gaming" language be used to create the virtual worlds that behave like games? Oh, and the best question yet: who do you think investors may retain to develop their virtual world games (at about a 50% clip to be fair)? Why, the very people who are best equipped to create engaging virtual world experiences: game developers. This is not braggadocio, just fact. Think about it for a moment. All of the brilliant ad / marketing agencies in the world outsource this component of their campaigns to you-know-who, or, in the rarest-of-rare cases, they have a permanent team to handle the work. Like anything else, just because you want to create an interactive virtual world does not mean you are capable of doing so. But, I digress (trust me: the fact that it took me THIS long to digress is impressive).

I hope you can see now that the status of Second Life actually has very little to do with whether or not X3D / competitor languages catch on and take over market share. X3D et al will succeed or fail based upon its own legitimate capabilities. Can it deliver the same or better than Second Life? Can it deliver NOW without a learning curve? Maybe, but not without the proof I am still seeking from you and others. Pretend I am a client waiting for your demonstration of the latest project build. Are you still in debug mode, making me wait an extra hour in the conference room, or, are you ready to show me NOW?

The facts-that-count have been checked, Len. Feel free to find additional, relevant material to throw at me in order to finally prove your point about X3D. If it makes you feel any better, I will eventually relent . . . on some level.

Thanks for playing.

[len]

We're talking past each other a bit here. Applications of 3D right now that need standards don't tend to be commercial games. Commercial games can provide technology to serious games but these are different animals technically and in the markets. A game and a large scale simulation are different in task and kind. I realize that there is a earnest effort to combine these both in the gaming industry and some parts of the intel/acquisitions community. Trying to do this by forcing ill-prepared standards will not serve either or their customers well. My sense of things is the entertainment industry isn't aware or if it is, is going along for the ride to get funding for projects or simply to get money. Note that I am not talking about the languages or tools they CAN share; just the actual content.

X3D is third generation VRML97. VRML97 virtual worlds have been in operation for some time now and successfully. In Europe, the companies are doing well. In America, not so well but America has a habit of turning its back on technologies that don't reap immediate super-profits and your questions reflect that kind of thinking. Mass acceptance of X3D is not necessary for it to do the job it has been doing well. It is more critical for the X3D web standards community to finish work it has in progress. IBM talks about 'interoperable avatars'. X3D has those now. The problem is not the portability of the avatar; it is the server-side sharable state. VRML blew it here by abandoning Living Worlds before it was completed. The gaming community never attempted such and I don't see that succeeding their given the public resistance to it (See Raph Koster).

What I think Lauren and others object to is:

a) the falsification of history coming out of the IBM-led camp.

b) statements such as yours that X3D has something to prove when the proof has been online for a decade. It's a neat strategy but thin given anyone can log into Cybertown or even Jewel of Indra and see it working.

What I accept is that the closed system worlds such as WoW are light years ahead in quality of content, scale and mass market acceptance. In fact, one expects this of closed systems. What I don't expect is the gaming community to produce standards where these add nothing to the marketability of the products. EVE may be an exception given it is a long running persistent game with a reasonable rate of change, therefore, lifecycle issues, but since when has an EVE avatar or asset been used in a WoW or even a Second Life world?

Collada as an asset-exchange standard seems to be gaining traction, but if you look across all of your editors and determine the most common export format you find it is still VRML97. I don't think there is much to prove here. Just count.

All of that said, my assertion that X3D is a not a game language is based on its generality. I am familiar with public game formats and they tend to be much lighter than VRML97 although X3D profiles can decrease that gap. The original mission for VRML97 was web ubiquity and that meant tradeoffs with performance and ease. As you say, gamers like C++ or even C# and C. In the X3D world, those are engine-languages. The author works at a higher level language. The success of the web was in enabling that with HTML and its scripting language, but declarative systems usually run slower and in the performance-starved games market, that hasn't been considered acceptable. Gains hardware has been making to enable X3D/VRML to run faster are lost in the server-share of events. Also, shared event/telemetry protocols such as DIS are oriented to military simulation, not entertainment. This is where Jon Watte at Forterra gets one right with regards to large scale simulation although I dispute some of his other claims about X3D.

In fact, I believe we are trying to put too many eggs in the same standards basket. I don't think X3D is the right standard for all markets; nevertheless, it does work well in some and they tend to be in the sweet spot of web applications. Note that the European companies applying X3D have done so without the massive VC investments because they don't need them. They don't have to write a new engine for every simulation as has been the practice in the hotter part of the games market. They use the engines for other simulations such as oil industry, piping, collaborative design, and these work fine. Note that in America by contrast, Media Machines received $7 million in funding for its X3D products such as Flux and their 3D editor. Yet the superior browser by several orders of magnitude is BitManagment's (a German firm). I expect MM to make strides but the American costs for development are terrible by contrast and that may be part of what you perceive from your position in Maryland. The SanFran gulch denizens don't control costs as well as the Europeans do.

This is an industry where the venture capital investments and the awkward heavy handed maneuvers by the late entrants such as IBM are creating churn. For the X3D industry, the best thing to do is keep working on their initiatives, stay away from the gaming industry, and to ride out the storm. This they can do easily because as I said, they already have standards. The problems I believe are on the gaming side where the convergence of social networks and virtual worlds are beginning to put pressure on the 'one off high cost' products similar to the pressures put on the stereo industry by low cost transistor radios. In other words, lower quality products comparatively are surging forward and turning $50 million dollar products into $5 million dollar products; precisely what the VCs want to see.

The competitors to Second Life are starting up every day. Meanwhile LL has to contend with the nasty effects of launching fast and large with nothing at the helm in terms of in-world governance. The effects of that were/are predictable. There is NO way I would let my kids on that site or even MySpace or Facebook. I expect to see rating systems spring up just as they have in the gaming industry.

Interesting times, but not unpredictable.

BTW: Congrats on the new arrival at your home. Good looking family, Eric. Love 'em now. It goes by reallll fast.

cheers,

len

[Eric M. Scharf]

Len,

Your latest response is your best yet, as it has provided the kind of insight I have been requesting, aside from sitting down and generating X3D assets myself.

I can understand the frustration of Lauren, and others within the same camp, with falsification of history. Again, without the input you have effectively added to the original article, that frustration is reduced to whining, in the eyes of those who may be interested in adopting X3D but are not entirely familiar with the history.

Lauren, and others with the same goals, should ideally be prepared (whether necessary or not) to share any necessary historical details and build the information up with current-day details. What may temporarily be lost on someone like Lauren is that, like it or not, she is a spokesperson for more than her employer; she is also representing a technology that may ultimately affect far more than she has suggested. If you give an interested party a reason to be disinterested or a reason to doubt the furnished description, then, you get what you deserve.

As a hyper-organized creative, with a touch of OCD, I will stay away from joining your valid commentary on how questionable the various game industry development approaches and investment strategies have been and continue to be. Gaming continues to have equal parts brilliance and disaster, separate all-together from any issues of core technology standards.

More than interesting times, with near unpredictability.

I appreciate your kind words on the arrival of my son (now nearly 9 months old). Yeah, I let my wife take all the credit for the good-looking kids.

Check your LinkedIn profile for an invite to connect from yours-truly. If I do not bother you between now and the end of December, have a Happy New Year, Len.

Take Care,

Eric M. Scharf

[len]

I'll gladly accept your LinkedIn invite although I make little use of social networks. I'm too old and my social world was reduced to next-of-kin when I left my last band.

Where we may be headed with X3D or other changes such as what Raph is building is the emergence of the low-end HTML like worlds. As an SGMLer, there was considerable resistance to HTML for both valid and invalid reasons with XML being the compromise. Eventually I think everyone learned from each other what was required as the medium and market scaled outward thinly but far. For the top-pros such as yourself, there are opportunities in the a-list gigs but at the same time, we will see more SL-like systems that rely on user generated content. Now the question is one of content value based on lifecycle and the need to integrate across a wider scope of users just in time. This, I think is the essential problem of serious games and the virtual worlds: scale for just in time integration and long life cycle vs the performance and politics of proprietary systems. IMO, open source is not the ideal solution because the source tends to be on the engine side of that, not the content side and it is the content where the challenges I note are found. I expect high churn in the engines and indeed, with VRML, that was exactly the case. Yet as I've noted elsewhere, for the occasional semi-pro, the ability to pick up content made ten years ago and use it has a very high payoff. This is where I think games and virtual worlds rub raw. The gaming industry may have to adjust to the notion of longer lifecycles and the virtual worlds have to adjust to the fiercer competition from games for higher quality content.

Really, at the end of five years, games will be cheaper and virtual worlds will look a LOT better.

Cheers and thanks for this conversation!

[Eric M. Scharf]

I had no clue about LinkedIn nor the potential networking benefits until I got nagged into using it. Now, I use it as a fire-and-forget method of keeping in touch with a variety of industry folk (some who love to kibitz and others who are simply too busy to breathe).

Regarding SL-like systems that rely on user-generated content, there has been a growing trend ever since the hardcore art outsourcing "revolution" began. There are large numbers of asset libraries (for free and for purchase / great quality and poor quality) floating around on the Internet.

It should come as no surprise that, unless you are willing to pay for brand new generated-to-spec assets, or customization of pre-existing assets, the users must spend mild-to-significant time altering the assets (which also requires a general-to-thorough understanding of the 3D software and exporters used to generate said assets). Thus, users may also be on the hook for the additional creative software expense. This goes without saying whenever digital assets need to be altered, unless, of course, you are working with ASCII data. LOL! I can remember those painful days. Change a coordinate position here, change another there. Dot-to-dot coloring books are so much more fun.

To compound this cycle, there is the other issue you brought up, regarding value / quality of assets vs life cycle requirements. This issue almost gets beaten into submission through the alterations users ultimately end up applying to the asset libraries they collect.

At the end of the day, if a user is determined enough (or the requirements are inflexible enough), the user will survive-and-improve these production pathways based upon refined goals (eggs will certainly be broken before true focus is acquired), and, hopefully, like all software-based experiments, they will get the preferred results.

Regarding games becoming cheaper in five years, except for the Hollywood material (which has pushed average "AAA" game development cycles to upwards of three years and an AVERAGE of $15-$30 million, including marketing), I completely agree with you. Casual games (products that, IMO, cover PC, MAC, Linux, mobile, and Internet markets) are THE key.

I enjoyed the conversation as well, Len.

Take Care,

Eric M. Scharf

[Mistermr]

Yes, but the ultimate question for a lot of users is... does it look good?

[Mistermr]

I think all the people who have good x3d worlds should make their worlds easily accessible from their web page. As a user, I simply want to see nice content, and all I ever see is talk about the technical issues. The important thing is that it is
1. multiuser
2. has good graphics
3. has a free initial entry that requires minimial registration, if any
4. some streaming music and video
5. ability to animate avatars in SL is excellent.
6. able to trade goods and money

i think thats all. now... can x3d do this?
yes it can.

I dont know what you are talking about, but the only problem I see are fitting as many people into one space as possible, and LOD.

X3D does LOD and I have seen twenty people fit easily into an chat space. With broadband, x3d designers can make something equivalent to Second Life, now.

I say... focus First on how it looks.