Is There Really Mass Confusion Around the Term of ‘Virtual World’?
November 10th, 2009
The recent 3DTLC conference brought together many virtual world enthusiasts to convene and re-think the future of virtual worlds. Among one of the more talked about topics at the conference was defining (or rather redefining) the term ‘virtual world,’ is it still the correct term to use or are there better terms out there to aid in bringing virtual worlds to main stream adoption?
When I talk about what I do- do people automatically associate virtual worlds with Second Life and some of the popular kid/ tween/ teen virtual worlds? Does this put a bad taste in the mouth of potential virtual world adopters? In Thinkbalm’s recent blog post they suggest possible alternatives to be used in lieu of the term ‘virtual world.’ Among the terms are: control room, operations center, studio, and/ or collaboration space. So for the next potential client we pitch- lets go into the presentation pitching a new ‘control room’ training program. Depending upon the client I am sure they would have no clue as to what we were referring to. Why confuse virtual world skeptics when trying to sell the technology?
No longer are we in-world, rather we are in an immersive Internet environment – I think this just leads to further confusion. It’s kind of like running through a stop sign, and then re-thinking and throwing the car in reverse to back up to the stop and do it all over. You’re still going to get a ticket so is it really worth changing something that was already going down the tracks in the right direction at the risk of derailing the entire train?
And no longer are we supposed to refer to games or simulations, but rather one of these terms: practice tool, rehearsal environment, or interactive scenario. Geez, I am even more confused now then when I started writing this blog post. If someone that is immersed in the industry is confused, imagine what the decision makers are thinking. These terms seem to provide more vagueness and seem even more complex than previously adopted terminology.
According to Thinkbalm’s Crossing the Chasm, One Implementation at a Time Report when interviewing immersive internet advocates “The three major types of barriers to Immersive Internet adoption are technology, people (in particular, time and perception), and money.” With a shift to interact in 3D, new applications are in the news daily. In my humble opinion a ‘barrier’ is just an easy excuse not to adapt to a new, innovative and potentially valuable technology. In life there are many obstacles and challenges but not necessarily full of barriers. Evidence exists that some virtual worlds give others a bad name. Just because the term ‘virtual world’ is broad and encompasses a vast array of different world types (from kids to teens to serious) that is not to say that it is the wrong term. Overcoming the ‘game’ term will always be something that we as virtual world adopters and marketers will have to overcome. And yes we do realize that access and security are always a concern with any type of training program to include simulation or virtual world.
A new lexicon in the offing? I doubt it. Like it or not, virtual world is here to stay, for now. Maybe a killer VW app will change all that for the better. A girl can dream.
Leave a Reply