The Promise and Perils of Virtual Worlds (Part 2)

Edited by: Ralf Haifisch, Jani Pirkola


Part two of the two-part series- this post will focus exclusively on the peril of virtual worlds.

When I pulled out my handy-dandy Webster's New World Dictionary to further define my term of peril- other words that stood out were: danger, jeopardy, and exposure to harm. So I thought to myself- could virtual worlds really be so ominous?  Forrester Research (http://www.forrester.com/rb/research) recently reported that "only 11% of enterprises have adopted virtual worlds to augment their work." With all of the press on virtual worlds- is this number really accurate… it seems like such a stark contrast to the numbers previously posted in The Promise of Virtual Worlds where we stated the following numbers from K Zero (http://www.kzero.co.uk/blog/):

 

"By the end of this year we'll be at the 150 mark for total worlds. We forecast this number to double by the end of 2010."

 

"Combine all of this and we get to our 2012 forecast of 900 virtual worlds."

 

"We forecast 2012 revenues to reach $6bn and 2013 to hit $9bn."cloudy

We've seen Google Lively and Weblin enter the virtual world scene and then quickly fold- will more follow suit? So does the infamous tagline from Field of Dreams- "If we build it, they will come"  really stand true for all virtual worlds (well it might if they don't go bankrupt first). First of all virtual worlds are not created equal- although most all of them hold promise in different respects, will that be enough to sustain and prosper?  The primary reason for some virtual worlds closing is the lack of funds generated- if a virtual world is free to users- there must be a valid business model underpinning the endeavor. Without such a model- will virtual worlds be able to continue. Sure lots of users are in-world and building communities but that ultimately doesn't bring home the bacon. Whereas if a virtual world company branches out- such as Second Life with branding opportunities or Blue Mars with the Smithsonian maybe success will ensue. What could possibly lead to the peril of virtual worlds as we know them? Although mainstream adoption may be a little ways out I wouldn't say that the perils outweigh the potential of virtual worlds. If a company makes a name or carves a niche then the opportunity for high-level success is there. But in today's economic times there are a lot more companies that go bankrupt before success is reaped. So I am sure that we will see more virtual world companies enter and then exit the scene for lack of funding.

 

Article tagged: business | virtual world

We recommend that you discuss this article on Think, but if you really want to you can leave a comment right here as well:

3 comment(s) for “The Promise and Perils of Virtual Worlds (Part 2)”


Gravatar of Grod Grod said on Thursday, November 05, 2009 (3:47:33 AM)
Yep.
But that's as with any other branch of business "companies enter and then exit the scene for lack of funding" or mismanagement or bad implementation or changing legislation or else.
I would say business as usual.
Gravatar of c3 c3 said on Thursday, November 05, 2009 (9:27:57 AM)
do you really want the complete list of vr world tech biz failures:)lets say from 1990 on.?

truth, you cant handle the truth:)

and i think its a bit more specific than "biz as usual" grod.
this is biz as of about 1980ish...

as the US economy/power/influence peaked in the post ww2 times, and it was clear ther was no real russia to worry about...biz changed....

Eisenhower warned us of it, in some ways he did the last truly presidential act shown in american history...

but time will tell. what was what.

right now after todays Linden Annoucement, i fear Open sims is the only factor i see if ther is to be any 3dweb of immersion media, to offer as much "freedom" of the little persons thoughts, since the www went "public" in the early 90s.

then again no WOW in china....think about it
Gravatar of John K Bates John K Bates said on Friday, December 11, 2009 (7:23:20 AM)
It also seems to me like there is a cross-over area, where the company I work for, Mindark, plays. This is the area of virtual world games: one shard as opposed to multiple shards, and extremely open possibilities, but also a context, pre-existing things to do, game focused functionality, and so on. Clearly I believe this offers a lot more than either virtual world or game, alone. As well, given how long real avatar portability is going to take we believe we can make a big difference in this space by offering our platform so that we can usher in an open metaverse with complete avatar portability and full interaction between all worlds. Finally, as you say, having a way to make money is key since creating and running these things costs money. If corporations can save money or realize advantages they'll invest, but consumers are a whole other kettle of fish. If it's not fun the majority won't be interested, IMO. Thanks for this, ya'll.