The thing you're missing is that Second Life isn't lacking any features, because any features that don't exist can be added by the users. If the owner of a region of land decides that they want to create enemies that can attack and kill other players, that's entirely within their power.
The only thing wrong with Second Life is that it was too ahead of its time. The typical person who's heard of it usually isn't aware of just how radically flexible and open-ended it is, and even if you explain it to them, they find it hard to believe that a game built over a decade ago can really do what it claims to do.
Heck, people have even built Minecraft in Second Life.
You accuse me of trying to turn this into a contest. In fact, it's you who started the contest by inviting comparisons and talking about how Minecraft did something "right" while Second Life did it "wrong."
My point about how people have built Minecraft in Second Life isn't to start a pissing contest. I'm only trying to show you that you're comparing apples to oranges, because Minecraft is a game, and Second Life is a platform. Second Life doesn't have game-like features such as enemies because that's up to the users to create them if they want.
Some people create game experiences in Second Life, but other people are using it to run a virtual business that generates real-world income. Why would a business owner want creepers attacking customers while they're trying to shop?
"Lack of bad guys trying to kill you" doesn't typically come up when people are discussing the pros and cons of Android and iOS, why should that be an issue for this platform?
Looking at Second Life as a game I 100% agree with you, however as a platform virtual world sandbox, I think it was a design success (nothing that I know of comes close). Minecraft found a happy middle ground by being more of a game than SL, but less of a platform.
Minecraft mods are implemented in java, not in minecraft itself. I guess you could make a case that any game with a level editor is a platform. However, no level editor I have seen comes close to what SL does. All these concepts are blurry, its like debating how to classify a piece of music.
You are being obtuse now, minecraft is a game with a level editor and a mod scene. SL is something different that you don't seem to grok and thats ok. :)
I take them as two extremely different genres. Minecraft is mainly about building and exploring with friends, while second life is largely based on building close personal relationships focused on discussion and sex.
There's some overlap for sure, but I think generally speaking, the players of each game want very different things (I also expect the average age of Second Life players to be much older than those who play Minecraft).
I think you're overestimating how much Minecraft is about combat/survival/etc. Most of what I hear about Minecraft sure makes it sound like it's largely about playing with your virtual legos, alone or with your friends, which is not so far off from one of the things some people love SL for - building crazy places to hang out with your friends, in crazy costumes.
I'm currently making my living on a game that's hosted within Second Life, http://mossms.com. I used to work for Linden Lab. It's good to see them trying to move forward. I've long felt like the people there mostly don't understand Second Life, what draws people to it, what makes it special, or what it could be. There's a future in virtual worlds, but I'll be very surprised if that future is brought to us by Linden Lab. They've been kind of adrift for a few years. Maybe they'll get their groove back!
I'm very curious to hear your thoughts on what this future for virtual worlds would look like. The entire notion of Second Life has perplexed me. Perhaps you could write a blog post about Second Life, the issues with Linden Lab, and your vision.
That read as a press release a la Paul Graham's "Submarine" article. I've been a member of Second Life for about seven years now, and for all its original promise, its dying. Soooo slowly, but it is. I doubt it will actually fold for many years to come, if ever, but the rosy picture in this release sounds more like a desperate PR move than anything.
One must look behind the release. It's not as if there's some kind of deception here, but more "Wait, if their main game, their bread and butter is in great shape, why are they releasing a direct successor instead of improving the main?"
It is a valid question.
Second Life is truly dying - I've been there on and off for ten years.
If not through Linden Lab's horrible mismanagement, through simple attrition as there simply isn't anything to do there anymore. The novelty has worn off. We're well past the days when a well scripted game gets ported outside of that ecosystem and turned into a Gameboy title[1]. We're well past the days where someone can make a ton of money selling virtual land[2].
The value proposition isn't there anymore. The starry-eyed excitement that surrounded both Linden Lab and the player base when the world was in its early days has been replaced by cynicism and apathy.
I'd say rebuilding the game with what they've learned in mind is probably the only way to shake things up. Hence the upcoming sequel.
From a business point of view, Second Life is a huge success. Just in the last few years, it's been massively profitable. Hence why Linden Labs has been able to fund so many new projects at once (I think they are working on four new games now?)
So, saying that it's "dying" is overstating things a bit. They found their niche (whatever the hell niche they are serving), and there's little motivation to change.
The article mentions that it could be a reference to High Fidelity, Philip Rosedale's new project. However, it couldn't be that, because Hi Fidelity is totally open source, and the article also mentions that this world will be closed source.
SL could be using High Fidelity code (it's permissively licensed), we can't tell. But yeah, I assume these are separate things. There are lots of next-gen virtual worlds platforms, 1 or 2 more is not that surprising.
The same reason people "waste life" watching TV, playing video games, drinking alcohol, and hanging out with friends. Not every minute of every day need be productive, Mr. Serious!
Escaping from a shitty real life. Overworked and underpaid? Clinically depressed? Cut off from social contact? You can leave it all behind and step into a fantasy where you are beautiful, live in a comfortable place, and where there are people who will actually talk to you. Do it long enough and your entire social circle lives online.
From what I recall one of the groups that seemed to be heavily represented in Second Life was stay-at-home mums, who were obviously limited in how much they could go out and socialise in the real world.
Do you get why people build model trains or play golf or go skydiving? None of these are very productive uses of your life, but people do them because they are enjoyable (to them — if you stuck me on a golf course, I would definitely not feel like I was doing something enjoyable).
