Comments on: A question on Liddle’s three stages of technology adoption

by: bblodgett

Mon, 28 Jul 2008 02:12:20 +0000

See I think when you add MUDa/MUSHs/MOOs into the equation there a bit more a development along those stages. In reality, MUDs were really the stage 1 since they were very hobbyish, required time and only had a few players who were insanely devoted to the point of developing these worlds themselves. However, most of them began to become rather systematic in their outlook and took on a D&D style rule set.

This really made for a transition into stage 2 which was further stabilized by the rise of UO and the first MMOs. That plan was then followed through to the transition into phase 3 where I think the game based VWs are now.

However I think the non-game based ones are in either of two positions. They stymied at the transition to stage 2 since really how to you systematize a whole world in a uniform way and haven’t moved forward in 20 years or so (except for adding pictures really they’re similar to the older MOOs) or the modern VWs have no connection to the non-game MUDs of the past and instead are a throw back to the beginning of stage 2 when the MMOs moved into the transition between 2 and 3. MMOs showed there could be a business model but the concept of VW is so different from the game based MMOs that they really need to go through 2 again.

Please excuse any typos or gross logic flaws I’m still a little jet-lagged

by: swords

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 02:51:34 +0000

I agree the industry as a whole has not followed this progression but I think the individual families of virtual world technologies can be mapped to these stages. Then the question as you point out becomes, did they follow a linear path or are they jumping around. Maybe Liddle should revise this to be more about classification rather than a linear progression.

The underlying technology of the kids entertainment variety do have more characteristics in common with games than virtual worlds so they may be an exception.

by: Sibley

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:04:10 +0000

I would say that the virtual worlds industry doesn’t particularly follow this progression, as I think some technologies don’t. The only successful genre of virtual worlds is in the third category - kids’ entertainment. So I would say VWs went from 1 to 3 and then will get to 2.

I think that this can happen with some internet or Web tools for a variety of reasons - their first valuable form only has the capability to fulfill a mass market need in the consumer space and has to get more sophisticated before being appropriate for the enterprise space; or cultural barriers are higher in some cases within the workplace; or security concerns are too high initially within the enterprise. With virtual worlds I think it has been primarily the first reason.