Remember a couple of years ago when it seemed like every company started opening up a virtual presence in Second Life in order to “get with the times”? And remember how every magazine and newspaper had a big feature about how Second Life would forever change the way the Internet and world works? Well, things didn’t quite pan out, and the game has completely failed to live up to its hype. In fact, with the closure of Google’s Lively project, some would say that Second Life is just plain doomed.
Two years ago, Reuters tried to get ahead of the pack by opening a Second Life office reporting on in-”game” Second Life news, exclusively for Second Life players. While I never read their reports, I have to believe that at least 50% of the stories were about penis monsters or non-human sex.
A little over a week ago, however, the news giant confirmed that it was pulling out (insert penis monster joke here) of Linden’s virtual news world for good. In all honesty, it could have happened last month since their Second Life news page hasn’t been updated since the end of September. People just really stopped caring about the “game.”
According to a Reuters spokesman contacted by The Register, the agency will still report on Second Life, “but only as part of our usual tech and media coverage.” So expect a lot less stories about Second Life from Reuters. I predict we’ll only start to see them constantly again when Linden announces it’s closing for good.
How long until the other companies still spending thousands of dollars on maintaining their Second Life spaces follow suit? I can only hope they’ve already done so and we just haven’t noticed yet.
November 30th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
The demise of Lively and the unembedding of a single Reuters reporter has certainly hit the blogosphere of late although many folks are behind the curve as both events were covered weeks ago by the Second Life Herald (www.secondlifeherald.com). Add in the closure of the Avastar, Bild publications’ Second Life-orientated newspaper and one might, naively, predict the end of the Second Life as-we-know-it.
However, these incidents are simple contingencies, not causalities or casualities. Lively was something of a non-starter; Reuters reporting has been on the slide for six months; and the Avastar simply tried to do too much with very little. The plain business fact is that all these initiatives failed to generate a sustainable return on investment - a problem that bedevils both real life and Second Life ventures.
According to data from Gartner, Inc., 90% of all SL businesses fail (www.slentre.com/second-life-business-only-10-of-real-life-businesses-succeed-in-second-life/) and that suggests 90% of press ventures too. The Second Life Herald celebrated its fifth birthday last month and news of that success never made the mainstream.
Forecasting the closure of Linden Lab’s Second Life has become a virtual meme based, on the assumption that predicted the end of anything is likely to be true at some point. Certainly it is fair to argue that Linden Lab have made some business mistakes (sigmundleominster.blogspot.com/2008/11/second-lifes-demise-forecast-again.html) but these are fixable. In fact, the argument can be made that as more virtual worlds fail, Second Life’s marketability improves.
By all means keep an eye on the potential decline and fall of the Linden empire, but don’t write anything off just yet. the venture capital companies who have invested money in the company will be pushing for improved profitability, not treating LL as a sunk cost.
November 30th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
I agree with both views. I believe a closing of Second Life will happen sooner rather than later, but I can agree that the companies who invested money into it will be pushing their hardest to make it work.
Some will just pull out, though, especially if they can afford to do so or if staying in requires more commitment than just paying money. (Like Reuters with their reporter(s).)
It is unfair people (myself included) judge the game based on what fails, but that’s how the world works. When a big company goes in then pulls out, we notice. When smaller companies go in, grow, and continue to thrive, we don’t.