Google's Lively Virtual World: "A Flop"?

I just read an article in The Economist online about Google's new virtual world, Lively.

So, I decided to log in and check it out for myself.



The system is basically an IMVU-clone, small chat rooms for a couple dozen users, tops. Some obvious nice things that I noticed right away:

- Quick download of plug-in, runs right in your web browser
- Quick login, uses your Google ID.
- Easy to choose and customize an avatar, even if there aren't many options yet
- Streaming video
- Easy character animations
- Pretty easy interface, and the thing I like the most, which I've badgered Linden Lab to adopt for years: To move, you double-click the ground where you want to go, just like how navigation works in the Internet and on your PC. Duh.

It's new, and clunky, and sure, I assume it'll get better, etc, blah blah blah, but let me get to the point:

IT'S GOOGLE! I expected way, way more than this.

And considering that there are already Google Earth / Avatar mashups out there, the obvious question is: Why isn't this in Google Earth?

Well, part of the reason is that Google *cares* about ease-of-use in the user interface, something that, so far, in virtual worlds, every other developer seems to not care about. Perhaps Google plans to integrate Lively with the bigger Google Earth picture, but ... meh, it does not seem so from anything I've read or seen. From all appearances, Google went out to build a completely new engine.

So, the lesson I take from this - for all the money Google has to pour into a virtual world, and for the years it's had to develop a virtual world, it created a clunky IMVU clone. That's it? There are so many critics of other virtual worlds (Second Life getting the majority of the heat, since it's the most popular.) and complaining that it's feature-thin or hard-to-use. Well, folks, here's your answer: It's really *not* that Linden Lab and others are doing things wrong.

Second Life Blues Performer Signed to Label

From Rolling Stone's "Rock and Roll Daily" blog.

EDIT: Original source, Wired Online

So, I'm surprised it took this long. In fact, reading the article, I saw this interesting statement: "The company’s scouts spent months on Second Life searching for talent before discovering Van Johin’s virtual venue Blue Note Club."

I have to wonder ... did they just take forever learning to use Second Life, because of the learning curve? Or, did they have so many music venues to choose that it took a while to find him? Or, did they just do this part time in their spare time, only a couple days a week?

Regardless, I'm very happy Rolling Stone picked up on this story, because it just supports what a number of us have been saying for a while; Second Life allows people to experience musicians in a way similar to real life venues, but while removing geography as an obstacle to the artist and audience discovering each other. For those who would mock virtual worlds' ability to be "real", I have to just remind people about the real clubs and bars where local musicians are told they need to play to "make it" or whatever:

Why Virtual Venues May Be Better than Real Venues

1. Real venues often have fewer people in them then virtual venues, which easily go 50 - 100.

2. Real venues often are visited by people more interested in the drinking and socializing aspect than the music; the music is the background and ambiance, not the center of attention. In Second Life, people are surprisingly attentive. They go to see a musician perform, because there's a thousand other spots in SL they could be instead, instantly.

3. Real venues have very little interaction between artist and audience, because of various reasons, such as crowding in the space, noise level, and the simple fact that people tend to be more shy in general in the real world than online. Virtual spaces allow anyone in the room to converse with the artist, quietly. Moreover, it allows the entire club to focus conversation to the topic of the music.

4. Real venues take a considerable amount of prep and breakdown time. An artist must pack up their gear, get to the venue, set up, do sound checks, and then break it all down, pack up, and travel home at the end. Virtual spaces allow artists to use the setup that they already have in their own living space. It's much more convenient, especially for artists holding down a day job.

5. Real venues limit the audience to whomever shares a geographic locality to the artist.

Real spaces pay better, certainly, but really, when you're a new artist, most places pay enough to cover for your time you spend getting there, playing, and getting home. It's hardly lucrative, unless you have some steady weekly gig that's very close to home. Even still, that buys what? New equipment when your old equipment breaks / wears down.

MTV2 has done coverage of new artists in Second Life before, so seeing the Rolling Stone article makes me think we're going to see more scouts logging in. The artists are here already, and that will continue to grow, but perhaps the minds of the record labels will be persuaded.

Or, perhaps, the industry leave the record labels at the wayside for failing to innovate, and artists will just go straight to online music sales.