5 Thoughts On Reactions to Home: Is It Getting Harder To Launch a Virtual World?

It's been less than a week since Home went to open beta on the PlayStation 3, and, so far, the press has been a bit middling. From virtual world bloggers to game publications to tech writers to the mainstream press, reactions seem to mostly vary from disgust (IGN summed up, "PlayStation Home is dumb") to frustrations with the evolving technology and inability to log in to, at the better end, optimism that the free service is an impressive feat and has room for growth. New World Notes is already listing reasons why Home will fail and others are pointing out, seemingly everywhere, that some sort of sex is possible in Home. There has been some positive coverage as well, but this is just a small sampling from my RSS reader and Google Alerts over the weekend.

It reminds me of when Lively launched to open beta this summer, and, less than a month later, The Economist called it as a "flop." Given Lively's track record, that's not too hopeful for Home.

I take away a few lessons and thoughts from the reaction, though.

First: It's getting harder for major companies to get into the consumer virtual worlds space. The possibility, even the rumor, that Google and Sony would be launching virtual worlds generated fanfare and buzz for one to two years in advance. With nothing shown from Google and only small bits from Sony spread out over delays, that excitement built on their track records elsewhere and their names.  In return, the backlash was almost immediate when the final (or at least public beta) products didn't live up to the hype. 

Second: "Public beta" doesn't mean much for virtual worlds. Google thought it could quietly push Lively into an open beta, just like it had done with tens or hundreds of its other products, and leave it there while it worked out the kinks. Director of Home Jack Buser told me that the open beta could last a long time (It seemed like the possibility was open for an indefinite beta) as it was a living and breathing platform.

So "beta" starts to sound like "live" from the companies. Regardless, press, critics, and users don't care. I'd guess that's a mix of both the hype (everyone knows how long has gone into development already) and the game-like aspects of virtual worlds. While we're used to productivity software going in to beta, most gamers don't see that step in the sausage-making process. They just get the final product--and judge it accordingly. 

Third: The biggest question for adults is still "What do you do?" Kids, tween, and teen virtual worlds, are chock full of games and activities on day one. And if they're not, they're geared towards socializing for a demographic that just wants to socialize. Teen world developers know part of the point is hooking up, even if they're promoting a PG-13 atmosphere.

The PlayStation 3, though, is strong in the 18-35 male demographic (roughly). That's not a group that's looking to hookup on a virtual world--at least among itself. There are games a plenty in Home, but there have been some connection issues and, for gamers, they don't seem to be taking hold. The question seems to be "Why play pool in Home when I can play Metal Gear Solid?" And it's one, as a gamer, that I understand.  If the choice is between a rich, orchestrated bit of media and a lighter, self-directed experience, it's a hard sell. Likewise, Lively was so open ended, but at the same time limited for user creations, that many found it hard to get a handhold.

Instead, virtual worlds for young adults and older that focus on niche verticals seem to be taking off. I'm incredibly optimistic about the success of several over the next year that have focuses as diverse (but ubiquitous)  as sports, music, and games.

Fourth: Virtual world experience counts for the biggies, and the startups get room to breathe. I say this because while some of the biggest news of the last year has been Sony and Google's development, other major companies, like Disney and Viacom, have been quietly expanding their portfolios of virtual worlds. I have no doubt that least 3-4 will become hits for next year for a variety of reasons, but, not least of all, because the companies are already in the virtual worlds space. These aren't brand new entrants, but more products from an established brand.

On the other hand, the number of virtual worlds-oriented startups is still booming even in the recession. The example of Vivaty and IMVU is one worth looking at. Vivaty launched the same day as Lively and IMVU came only a week or so ahead of time. Both drew plenty of comparisons and a few snide comments about competing with Google. Both are still there, growing and scaling.

I don't think the crowded space of virtual worlds is making it impossible for startups to launch. I think the rising mainstream awareness of what a virtual world is, how big the potential is, and who's involved is heightening expectations and making it harder for the big companies to break in to the space.

Fifth: We're all a little bit crazy. By "We," I mean everyone working as a reporter, blogger, media pundit, or just kibbitzing as a casual observer--myself included. I actually think Wagner James Au makes some great points at New World Notes, and the technical problems are hard to ignore in Home. 

Still, the fact remains that Home is an ambitious project, is still in beta (whatever that means), and has already drawn relatively strong interest from a variety of brands. My biggest question--and one I heard a lot--when Lively shut down was why Google hadn't given the product more time to grow.  Sony seems to be putting support behind Home, though. If nothing else, the pre-launch PR campaign was the largest I've seen for a virtual world (if small for a game). Perhaps more importantly, Home is already generating revenue.  

None of that may mean anything in the long run if users don't take to the virtual world (or the PS3), but it certainly holds out some strong possibilities from my point of view. That's kind of a boring story, though: "New product has some flaws; seems to have potential."

Instead, we get just the flaws or the gut reaction. And I think that's especially odd and problematic for something like Home. As a freelance video game reviewer, I can't imagine spending only a few hours with a title, as some critics did with Home, and slamming it. As a technology reporter, I'd have a tough time evaluating a platform, really a sort of OS, in just a few hours as well.  Virtual worlds offer a little bit of both, and they take time to build communities. But any product launched by a big name like Sony or Google likely won't get that time because we all need to write something on day one. 

So that's why I think far from major companies like Google and Sony being threats to the startups in the virtual worlds industry, they're facing an uphill battle. It doesn't mean they can't succeed, and I'm optimistic about Home, if only since it's going to be in front of every PlayStation gamer every time he or she logs on. It does mean, to me, that it's going to be hard for these companies, which add validation to the industry, to make their splash. 

What do you think? 

Comments

[len]

So a virtual world is like a band: get a big hit fast or have a day gig or do covers and get a house gig until you do because hits are driven by the press?

Here's a question often asked and never answered: what is the bottom line cost (minus promotion), to create and maintain a multi-user virtual world online? Does this cost vary A LOT by platform? IOW, is a barrier to entry put there by trying to emulate Second Life and insisting not only on building the world but inventing concrete and hammers at the same time?

Do the big guys like Google fail not only because of inherently uninteresting worlds, but because they have to be prepared to scale very fast and therefore, they have to make and sustain too large an upfront investment? IOW, are they the equivalent of a 100 story high rise office building with condos in the right side of town that needs to recruit anchor tenants before they launch?

It seems to me that:

a) If scale is under control, it doesn't cost too much to launch a virtual world as long as one is not simultaneously developing the platform technology.

b) A better business model will emphasize finding anchor customers before opening the doors. IOW, if you are emphasizing conferencing, don't open until BigCos are already signed up and registering employees. If you are emphasizing merchandising, don't open until the clothes designers are there. If you are emphasizing entertainment, have your deals with the agents and labels in place first.

c) Don't emphasize gaming unless you already have developed a kick ass game and if you have, there are better means and markets for you than virtual worlds.

Bypass the press. Quit trying to do this the way it could be done in the 90s when we were all wide eyed if we could see a revolving earth in a web browser. Virtual worlds are long past the gee whiz phase. It's no longer a matter of what they do but one of what we can do with them, which is still sadly, not a lot we can't do without them. Presence has limits.

I think it is as hard as it ever was in terms of eyeballs and easier than it ever was in terms of technology. What has gotten more expensive is the cost of launching hype with hyperdrive.

[Pete S]

"There are games a plenty in Home,"

Uh, no, there really aren't games a plenty. There's bowling, pool, some cruddy flash, I mean arcade games, and that saucer game. And YOU HAVE TO WAIT IN LINE TO PLAY THEM.

What on earth were they thinking??

[Whizz]

Home is really great. It's just on the wrong platform and as a result aimed at the wrong audience. Young boys are naturally annoying.

Lively failed simply because it was fundamentally crap.

[Stranger]

If Home is better integrated with other PS3 games, then it will do well. They may need to introduce 2D UI to streamline some common tasks though.

[Valiant Westland]

It will be interesting to see how a closed environment, that amounts to a “lobby/lounge” for the connected gaming environment does… My guess is that it will wind up being a ghost town.

Most “hard core” gamers do their socializing while they game… talking/chatting about the game, but also about whatever at the same time. For them, sitting around a static environment is just not going to happen.

Those who are interested in social interaction more than gaming, may get introduced to it via the PS3 platform, but will soon crave the more immersive and rich experience offered by VW environments like Second Life.

[Megatron]

I consider myself a "hardcore" gamer and their isn't much socializing while playing games besides the usual trash talking. My fiends list is full of people I've played with once and I have idea who they right or why I put them on my friends list.

I think it would be interesting to socialize with the gaming community that I play with and to actually feel like a, well...community. As appose to a bunch of random voices for the 2 minutes were in the games lobby before kicking off another match.

I'm not sure I understand this quot in the article.

"Why play pool in Home when I can play Metal Gear Solid?"

Why is this a choice that needs to be made. This is the advantage that Home has over other virtual worlds, it's game library. Instead of playing a min-game of pool or bolling after meeting someone why don't you play "Metal Gear Solid 4" or "Little Big Planet," those are your real games in Home not pool but "Resistance 2".

[Whizz]

Just like in the real world - playing games like pool is rarely about playing the game. It's just something to twiddle with while you chat.

Home is really just a place to chat. If you only want to play games then maybe go play games.

[Mooncatx]

One of my friends got the beta for Home before i went public beta... Well, on one hand it has a nice clarity and smooth movement of avatars, on the other hand the avatars look like crap. No upload of content from users means you are dependent on the low volume of input from the creators. Compared to worlds/platforms like Second Life, the more buggy programming is compensated by huge influx of content form it's user base, providing a wealth of items to allow an avatar a true customized experience in virtual materialism.

The difference is like a smooth ride on a premium luxury automobile that takes you no where interesting fast, while the more junky rough riding dirt bike that can take you anywhere you want to go, and find anything you want to find from the sublime to the horrific, with tons of content to choose from.

I absolutely think there is a market for more virtual worlds, and there is a ton of interest in the ones that are using the open source programming released by Second Life -- unfortunately the ride at the moment is rougher than SL, but people who like a world they can build and add to, and access the content provided by fellow users, want a place where they can do that and 1) have real freedom, and 2) not get ripped off by the world administration.

One reason lots of premium paying costumers of SL are looking at new places for their virtual hat is due to a 67 percent monthly maintainence price hike on certain goods that that cost 250 to set up and 75 a month to maintain -- open spaces -- which is one type of virtual land that can be "owned" by a SL user. That has a lot of land owners in SL taking notice. Everything gets more expensive as time goes buy, that's a given, but 67 percent jump in monthly expenses is more than most reasonable people will swallow.

So yes there IS a ready consumer pool already existing, and growing, for good virtual world platforms, that give the members freedom to create and share content with each other, and doesn't rip off the users with either blatant price gouging or 'bait switch' toned practices where they sell you something that is a certain way when you buy it, then they change the parameters of it drastically.

Home is lacking the things right now that make SL popular. A way for members to invest themselves in the world.

If Home were enough like SL, I'd have gotten myself (or hinted to Santa) a Play Station 3. I'm a girl, and more than half of Second Life users are female. Right now I'm not really interested in teh game types on Playstation, even if the graphics are really pretty. Christmas Eve is my birthday and I just dropped a load of money in SL to celebrate with online friends. We had a blast *^_^* ... but I'm so poor now! Need to buy more SL virtual currency!!!

I did buy a play station gift card today though, to give one of my PS playing guy friends some currency for PS3 stuff. He loves his PS3. I'd be happy to have gotten a PS3 so I could play with him in Home, if Home were worth hanging out in. He lives a good hour drive away in another town, so this would be perfect to hang out in and play together when he's not in town. But so far Home to me is extremely boring and limited.

MooncatX