Business & Games: The Blog

This poses many interesting questions, the most obvious one so far goes something like “Will browser-based worlds such as Google Lively replace virtual worlds requiring a download and installation such as Second Life”? In response Linden Lab founder Philip Rosedale claimed in recent interviews the browser based virtual environments could not offer the same ‘immersion’ a client based virtual world (“like World of Warcraft”) could. But are browser-based virtual worlds really that far behind in the race to provide the ‘early majority’ immersive 3D spaces?

When looking at browser based worlds such as Habbo Hotel or Club Pinguin, its not hard to see what Philip might have meant, these 2D spaces are significantly different ‘virtual worlds’ than the kind Second Life offers. But the recent wave of browser based virtual worlds is no longer ‘flat’. They have added the third dimension with the help of Flash techniques (Papervision or Alternativa) and Java, creating 3D spaces inside the browser. The most recent update of Flash (10) can even address a computers graphical card directly, promising major improvements in graphics over the next year (perhaps months) compared to older 3D Flash applications. Last, the recently updated ‘3Dxplorer‘ by Altadyn allows users to create environments which I find hard to distinguish from the graphical quality Second Life offers with the help of Java:

One of the major advantages of these browse-based virtual worlds is they can be hyperlinked, or even simply placed into your (2D) website. However, the embedding of these virtual worlds into regular websites is not just about the application, or adding immersive spaces to contribute to 2D pages. It’s not even necessarily because these browser-based worlds can use and interact with other digital data more easily. I think it will turn out to be healthy competition that could benefit both the browser-based and client-based virtual worlds because people who wouldn’t seek out virtual worlds by themselves will get to experience these 3D environments as they become part of the established web instead of ‘a geeky isolated place/game’.

Client-based virtual worlds require a certain path to visit, with a lot of obstacles you might not be willing to deal with if you don’t know what the virtual environment will have to offer. Think of the download, installation, orientation etc. This prevents a lot of people from experiencing the added value of immersion and experience on the ‘flat web’. As said, the browser based worlds can be easily hyperlinked, or embedded on websites if they make a valuable contribution, merging them seamlessly with the web and removing the obstacles and still contributing their value as immersive environments.

So will client-based virtual worlds ‘recover’, or are they being replaced by their browser-based competition? I think it will depend on some technological improvements inside the client, versus improvements in the browser. Right now browsers were not made to support 3D, but with enough demand (and given Microsoft’s own interest in 3D and virtualization) this could significantly change. So will a separate program/client really be required in 3 to 4 years to offer the exact same kind of experience, without concessions on graphics or speed? If concessions have to be made, do they weigh up against the accessibility of client-based virtual worlds? Given that the audience outside of virtual worlds is still vastly larger than the audience inside virtual worlds, companies and institutions will go for accessibility over immersion (reach over experience).

Original Post: http://digado.nl/are-client-based-worlds-being-replaced.html