Talk:Second Life/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Not a game

The comment by user Jimmi Hugh hasn't made his meaning clear. However I suggest that SL is not a game. A definition of game - a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.

Competitive - SL is not inherently competitive. There is competitivness in SL, in that people may strive to build a better sim than others, but it is not a requirement of participation in SL. One can simply stroll around and undertake activities like shopping that have none of the features of a game.

Skill - Check. Skill is required in SL. Whether it is the skill to move around or the skill to build amazing things or the skill to interact soicially. The presence of this feature alone is not however enough to constitute being a game.

Chance - Hmmm, not sure about this one. Sometimes it seems as if finding things in SL is a matter of chance. They really need a better search engine... But chance as in 'games of chance' isn't a factor in SL. Yes, some people do build games of chance in SL, but they are games, SL is not.

Endurance - Trying to find things in SL can require endurance, and trying to TP somewhere when the gods of teleporting are not smiling on SL also requires endurance, and paitence. But not the kind of endurance usually found in games like football etc., which is what I think the definition is referring to here.

Rules - Here is a key point. SL has no rules of play. Sure there are rules like 'don't impinge on other resident's activities' and rules of how the world works i.e. gravity etc. But not rules of play. There is no imperative in SL as there is in a game. There are no levels, no set tasks, no goals, you decide it all yourself.

SL is lacking the main feature of a game i.e. game play. Yes there are places in SL that are set up as games, but this does not mean that SL as a whole is a game. If you use that argument (all things that contain the set games are themselves games) then the whole world is a game as there are games in it. Actually I do think the whole world is a game, but that's not helping my argument so I'll just ignore it :) Many people when new to SL bemoan this lack of game play. "What do I do now?" being one of the most common things I get asked by new people. "Whatever you like", is what I tell them. Just like life really. Maybe that's why some find it boring...

Morgan Leigh | Talk 15:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't really care less what you personally believe (no offence, see WP:POLICY and don't stop reading till you're sure that people's own opinions are not for inclusion, it's everywhere), and detailing your own beliefs doesn't help, I simply ignored everything that wasn't sourced from a verifiable site (everything you said). Considering that Second Life fits the accepted definition of Video Game (and is fairy listed in the Video Games Project) I put to you that it requires a source to say it isn't a Video Game as opposed to the reverse. And I mean a real source, not some claim by Second Life or some fad loving company/blogger who thinks it's all new and exciting. Just because the format of the game is slightly different doesn't make it a different breed of Fish from World of Warcraft, Runescape or Minesweeper.

Now to be fair... and don't come back at this, because your personal opinion really doesn't matter, so i'm going to refute your every point, just to show you that it is purely a matter of prespective and that the actual definition is pretty solid. Firstly, your definition, perhaps somewhat outdated, unless you want to claim half the games featured on Wikipedia are also infact "Virtual Worlds", because I play as one person, in non-competitive games involving little skill and sometimes don't enjoy it, that's correct, i play Minesweeper alot. As for skill, not always, sometimes MMORPG's are full of skillless grind, for example, Runescape and Second Life. Chance... Well you've never played tic-tac-toe then? I thought i was going to have to write more but you've pretty much answered the rest for me, if you just keep matching your points against, say, every other MMORPG ever you'll see that Skill, Chance, Endurance and Rules all rate about the same. I'm afriad the definition evolved somewhat since Tiddly-winks was the height of gaming. Sorry if i came off a little strong, i've reverted the removal of "Video Game" a few times over the last year, and it becomes old when the only attempt to give a source that was ever given, didn't even support the claim.

Also, watch your NPOV... I play Second Life, and still manage to stay neutral in my decision to keep the "Video Game" label, you seem to come off as a serious fan who thinks they have a superior view of the whole thing, near the end of your comment at least. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jimmi,

Whilst your comment that my opinion is not what matters when it comes to articles is completely true, you seem not to have understood my intent. Perhaps I didn't make it clear in my previous post, but my intention was to situmalate some discussion on the matter of whether or not SL is a game. I do feel the tone of your remarks isn't in keeping with Wikipedia's policiy to assume good faith, in fact you come across as quite contentious and negative. I assure you that when writing my post my only intention was to muse on what I have experienced in SL, not to make any judgements about others. I only ask that you reply in a manner that addresses my argument, instead of ranting at me.

Regarding your claim that SL fits the "accepted definition of Video Game". Please provide the source for this definition. My definition for game came from dictionary.com and i'll admit it is very broad. I used it as I thought it might be usefull as a starting point. Although you put it to me that my opinion matters not and what is required is reliable sources, in your post you don't cite a single source for your claim that SL is a game. Please provide any sources you know of as otherwise your claim is also just an opinion

Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As stated in wikipedia policy, you only have to provide sources for those things which might be reasonably doubted. You don't doubt that Second Life is a game because it is reasonable, but because you really want it to be different. Just because it's not set in a fantasy land and full of violence doesn't remove the role playing and enjoyment elements that define it. Fortunately, we do have a Game article that covers most of the definition and provides sources. And I quote, "A game is a structured activity, usually undertaken for enjoyment and sometimes also used as an educational tool". What is more structured than a programmed world designed purely because of the enjoyment such proto-realism provides the ego? Also, though I hate when people, especially those that are supposedly educated, make comments on using such programs to "learn" things about the real world, I’m pretty sure that covers educational. It's really that simple, with only Sport being the exception, and I don't think you're going to argue that it's a sport. However, that article, not wanting to actually be well written claims a series of definitions, so I will also settle for the definition "toy" if you really don't like game. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 09:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please provide sources not just more assumptions as to my motivation, which are by the way, incorrect. If you cannot contribute in a meaningful way please refrain from posts which only contain assertions as to other's points of view. I will do some research into this and then edit appropriately. I think it may well be reasonably doubted that SL is a game, because of this I am calling for comment and/or sources from my fellow wikipedians. I think the definition of a game from Game that you mention is way too broad to be useful. By this definition a great many things qualify as games. Attending religious services for example, definitely a structured activity undertaken for enjoyment. Making toast, a structured activity undertaken for enjoyment. Gardening etc etc. If we just go by definitions we find that SL is also a tool. From Tool "a tool is an entity used to interface between two or more domains that facilitates more effective action of one domain upon the other". Please let's work together to gain understanding rather than just jumping to conclusions about other's motivations.

Morgan Leigh | Talk 10:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, i'm finding it really hard to discuss this when you're completley ignoring my every point and constantly talking with POV. I haven't made any assumptions, you have a biased position and considering that I'm doing very well to be both polite and entirely correct. Second Life is a game, so it's hard for you to say that you're not just trying to be different because you want it, that's the very definition of opinion. Please try not taking all my comments about Second Life personally, this is an encyclopedia, not a forum for discussion. I have of course contributed perfectly, I added the video game label, and was even broad minded enough to leave in the "virual world" label so that even the biased point of view has it's say. Of course you think the definition of Game is too broad, it defeats your point, but alas that is the definition accepted in the minds of the general public, and so you require sources to doubt it. As i said, there is an entire list of source on both the Game and Video Game articles, there really is no need to keep asking that when i already gave you these links. Attending religious service is not undertaken for purposes of enjoyment, and if someone enjoys it, that is a separate issue, it's considered a religious obligations and/or a sign of respect, but that is completley off topic. Making toast is done for the purposes of creating an enjoyable food for consumption, the process of making toast is not inherently enjoyable or, most importantly, meant to be enjoyable. Again, gardening, serves a greater purpose, whereas the primary purpose of second life, independent of any claims made in order to try and increase it's fad status, is to provide enjoyment, it serves no greater purpose, and the use of it for other purposes isn't supported by your far off anologies. Second Life might be considered an entity used to interface by a few people, but it certaingly doesn't facilitate more effective actions and isn't designed to serve a purpose, it is simply used to that end. If we use an aeroplane to conduct experiments, it doens't make the aeroplane a tool for conducting experiments, it's simply the platform upon which the experiments take place. Finally, can we please stop discussing Opinion, the definition is solid, whether it works how you want it to or not doesn't matter, because it is the way it is. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of a game that doesn't have any rules, cannot be won or lost and it's impossible to tell whether or not you are making moves to your advantage; this seems almost to be an absurd suggestion and cannot meet any definition of "game" that makes sense, at least to me. I'm very familiar with Second Life and it is many things, but it isn't a game. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It does have a set of rules, they are the programmed limits of the enviroment, and while they can develop, so can any other games programming. I'll answer the few obvious arguments now. Firstly, the claim that those rules don't manage the activies of the character. This is similar to many other RPG's, where the activities or Quests in Fantasy MMORPG parlance are all separate to the overall game experience, just because Second Life is Limited in features doesn't mean it isn't a game. Secondly, and this is speculation, if it isn't true that just strengthens the correct position, but I assume for the more in depth players there is a way to introduce custom content and character abilities, which would lead you to describe it as a somewhat unlimited Game... however, this is yet again another feature included in other games, most predominentally First Person Shooters, where scripting, and Modding have long been common. I think the best example of another Game without aims and goals but where there are rules and limits (just as there are in Second Life) is the Sims, at least not including expansions which actually remembered this is a missing feature, not something that makes the game superior. So i offer once again, by one of the many definitions on the ,as of yet, not wikified Game article, we can call Second Life a toy instead. I reiterate, Just because Second Life has limited game experience and an extensive set of features, does not stop it being a game. If the enviroment was inherently fantasy, with all the other Second Life abilities, but Fantasy content, simply missing the exciting features that would make it a good game (as opposed to a somewhat dull and forced experience like i personally believe Second Life to be, but of course once again, we're all stipulating opinion instead of staying within guidelines, which support the Video Game label), then i doubt anyone would question it was a game. Don't let the fad or people's wishes that it was more than a game, confuse the issue. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As near as I can tell from what you are saying, you would be suggesting that Microsoft Word is a game, because it has rules and limits that govern the user's behaviour within the context of the program. I don't think there's any use in my discussing this with you any further, since it seems we are using different dictionaries to define ordinary words and consensus will not therefore be possible, but if someone wants to submit this to any form of arbitration that seems appropriate, please let me know; that would be useful participation. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No, wait, I actually do have a useful comment. Can someone show me arm's-length, third-party expert opinion -- what we call here reliable sources -- that suggests that Second Life is a "video game"? Accounting4Taste:talk 21:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an unusual case, but WP:BURDEN rests with those on the side that it isn't a Video Game as opposed to those that wish to include the statement because it fits the definition of Video Game perfectly, I can see where the confusion can come from, and I too am of course looking to source the definition of it as a Virtual World and not as a Video Game, however, the current source (Wikipedia/Wiktionary/Every dictionary in the world) currently disagrees with that definition. If it makes it easyier to comprehend, i can remove the Virtual World label as well and you the burden can lie to find a source to support inclusion of that label as opposed to the video game one, however i was looking for a compromise. Also, you keep asking for sources, and on numerous occasions, i've pointed you to the dictionary definition of Game and Video Game, so please stop asking. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I may have suggested that if I put forward discussion of only one minor point of any definition (as has been done in favour of removing the Video Game label, unfortunately.) However, Microsoft Word doesn't fulfill any of the many other criteria which Second Life does fulfill, and I have discussed in detail above, most notably the enjoyment factors among the presentation of those Rules, which define a certain amount of interaction that doesn't appear in a Word Processor. However, once again, i don't really wish to argue our opinions on whether it is a game, the definition of game on the Wikipedia article, in My own Oxford dictionary, and on Wiktionary all support that this is a game. Alternatively, by the definition discussed on the Game article as starting with Chris Crawford (until such time as that article is cleaned up to provide a single defintion), we could always instead term this a Toy, if you'd really prefer? - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it took me just a few seconds to find what Second Life itself calls Second Life, in answer to the question "What is Second Life?" (at [1]): "Second Life® is a 3-D virtual world created by its Residents." The word "game" is nowhere mentioned. I think that shifts the putative burden of proof; the people who created it call it a "virtual world". I'm not especially interested in how Second Life does or does not meet a dictionary definition, since none of the ones that you've mentioned include a specific definition of Second Life, but just a definition of the word "game"; if you can find an arm's-length third-party expert source that defines Second Life as a game, or a reputable dictionary that defines "virtual world", I would be glad to see it. (And I mean that; I'm bringing good faith to this discussion, since I can tell you are seriously trying to contribute to knowledge here, and I trust you will feel the same way about my efforts.) Accounting4Taste:talk 22:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh well in that case fair enough... better change all those Articles about criminals who claim they are innocent to say they are innocent. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced actually. The dictionary definitions of "game" as "an amusement or pastime" or "a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators" can apply to Second Life, but just as often they don't apply at all. For example, I know several people who are using Second Life to create a interactive platform for teaching and management training. Personally, I use Second Life to run a business, and thats pretty much all I use it for. I would certainly not regard doing what I do in Second Life as an "amusment or pastime"; I do it as a self education in testing business models, and because it makes money. Admittedly, running a Second Life business is competitive, and you do have to operate within a broad set of rules, but then so do you in real life - businesses and finance both operate within the law which is merely a set of rules. I doubt anyone would refer to running a real life business, or performing some aspect of real-world commerce as "playing a game". It seems to me that the preference for calling Second Life "a game" here is more for the purposes of demeaning it in some way. Because one aspect of Second Life is the fact that it is done using computers and game-like graphics it is perceived as somehow silly or trivial. I seem to recall people saying that the whole concept of home internet use was silly and trivial about 15 years ago. I would have hoped that we were over that by now. Yes, its possible to use Second Life as basis for game playing, just as it is possible to use the internet as a gaming tool. But to suggest that is all it can be used for, and therefore that it should be the overriding label for it, is more than a little misleading, and hardly NPOV either. StanPomeray (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it actually a video "game", though...?

Have a look over at Wiktionary's definition . Not that it would detract from it, surely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.64.6 (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"A pursuit or activity with rules performed either alone or with others, for the purpose of entertainment. " An absolutely perfect explanation of what Second Life is. Good source. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 20:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

From "Second Life for Dummies" by Bell, Mark, and Robbins, Sarah (ISBN 9780470180259) in a section of Chapter 1 called "Second Life: It's not a Game:" "Want to make a bunch of Second Life users mad really quick? Call Second Life a 'game'. Although it looks like a video game similar to World of Warcraft or The Sims, Second Life isn't a game. In SL, you don't level-up, complete missions, or earn new armor. … Because SL isn't a game, the folks who use it don't refer to themselves as players. Instead, the people who inhabit the SL world are residents. There are games 'in' SL, though."

From "Second Life: the Official Guide" by Rymaszewski et al, Chapter 1, ISBN 047009608X: "What is Second Life? Second Life is a virtual world. No, Second Life is a 3D online digital world imagined, created, and owned by its residents. But hang on, there's more; critical authorities have defined Second Life as a 'metaverse' … All the statements above are true. Second Life is basically anything you want it to be."

From "The Unofficial Tourists' Guide to Second Life", by Carr, P. and Pond, G., St. Martin's Griffin, SBN 0312376480; "So, what exactly is Second Life? In a nutshell, Second Life is a virtual world created by computer programmers; a world that you can enter and explore like any other tourist destination, just by logging on via the Internet."

Three absolutely perfect explanations of what Second Life is -- from reliable sources. No need to assess dictionary definitions of the component parts at all. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating, however, a Million authors could argue their opinion on the matter and all it does it source a section about the discussion of whether or not it is a Video Game. Sources are required for verifiable fact, when Second Life is a Video Game, and it is, saying it isn't is a matter of wishful opinion. I am all for sticking those references (all by authors who for some reason i can't find any serious or notable books by) in a new section about the questioning of Second Life being a game. It can't "prove" it isn't a game though, especially as the comments you've quoted seem to be by close minded fans of the game. I don't recall having to level-up, complete missions and earn armor in The Sims, and World of Warcraft can be anything you want it to be, withing the limits of the Fantasy Virtual World, just as Second Life is in bound in a modernist Virtual World, hence people want to believe it's not a game, in what is known as novelty, another word pretty much every dictionary contains. The final one doesn't make a statement either way as I left in the Virtual World label. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

From Coming of Age In Second Life, probably the best anthropological study of SL to date. "Debates as to whether or not Second Life was a game were common and sometimes heated during my fieldwork. One Second Life resident offered this analysis: " Stadiums and casinos. Venues for games? Yes. Games? No. Canvas and paint? Artistic medium? Yes. Game? No... Don't confuse the container with the contents. SL is no more a game than a box of crayons". As this resident noted, virtual worlds are not in and of themselves games, and assuming that theories about games and play are necessary foundations to understanding virtual worlds leads to serious misinterpretations. This includes a conflation of online society with entertainment, obviating the consequential forms of intimacy, community, and political economy in virtual worlds. Scholars have long noted how a virtual world "is not goal-oriented; it has no beginning or end, no 'score' and no notion of 'winning' or 'success... [Such a world] isn't really a game at all" (Curtis 1992:122). As a result "virtual worlds" are not games. Even the ones written to be games aren't games. People can play games in them for sure, and they can be set up to that end, but this merely makes them venues." From - Boellstorff, T., "Coming of Age In Second Life: An Anthropologist Explores the Virtually Human", Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2008, p22.

The Curtis to whom he refers is Pavel Curtis, "Mudding: Social phenomena in Text-Based Virtual Realities", in Culture of the Internet ed. Sara Kiesler, pp121-42, Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erbaum Associates.

Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again... it fits the definition of game, so that's just what people want it to be known as, it is a game. Yet again, to give an obvious example, Virtual Magic Kingdom is not a game because it is simply a container for games... wrong. Winning and Success don't appear in The Sims... so what? It's still a game, that authors limited understanding of the world does not reshape the Universe. I could go on but this grows tiresome. You don't want it to be a Game, but because Game is a solid and understood definition, it doesn't matter how many people argue the point that it isn't. There is no limit on the number of books that are able to be published that call it a cheese burger, but i don't think any of you would allow that label. You're picking and choosing the label you want. You may go on to argue, if you weren't all reqapeating points I've nulified a million times that if a huge numbers of authors (all who for some reason are all very heavily attached to the Internet and the novelty bias, where's the discussion by an Objective author who isn't likely to think Web 2.0 is an actual term? Could it be that no respectable or unbiased author coul;d possibly make the claim?) write a book claiming it then it becomes the status quo. That's like arguing that the huge numbers of books written about Creationism make it fact, that we can't say anything in the Bible isn't real, and given some of the interesting cases of criminals with huge supportive fan bases, we can stick some innocent labels on their pages despite them being in prison. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The definition in wiktionary is flawed. By that definition, watching a movie in a cinema (aka theater) would be a game, since at least one of the rules is keep quiet while the movie is playing, and another is don't use a video camera inside. I'd say one necessary rule for something to be a game is that there be a victory condition, which is something that SL clearly doesn't have. Rhialto (talk) 07:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, once again you pick and choose the few points that try to counter despite the fact your attampt at an analogy is hugely flawed in the fact that being Silent isn't a rule of the game, and that none of the rules of the Game create the enjoyment. In Second Life, the rules are what make the experience, there aren't rules on top of it, they are it. Again, no Victory condition in "The Sims", "Nintendogs", "Virtual Magic Kingdom" (as long as you're still claiming this silly "container for a game" point), "Sim City" (Before the days of fads having a huge effect on language, so a perfect example of the culture surrounding it not increasing it's importance into pretending it's something it's not), "Runescape" (Independent of how many Quests you finish, the game continues and there's no substantial story beyond that of a quest that is "contained" among others.), "Pinball", I can't be bothered none of you are actualyl listening to the arguemnt, you just really want it to not be a game. The source of fact is the dictionary, i'll put it back in until a source that defeats evey dictionary can be found. If no one has a proper discussion about it before beginning an edit war, i'll ask for arbitration and we'll lose the Virtual World tag that I compromised. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Four reliable sources is a consensus. My edit today does not constitute an edit war. You reverted some other stuff like spelling mistakes and typos that I fixed at the time I edited. Please be more careful when reverting. You know, the way you phrased calling for arbitration could almost be construed as a threat...

Morgan Leigh | Talk 11:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary definition ("Is it actually a game" 1.5)

Oh, you want a dictionary definition then? How about the OED then? Quoting the noun part of the definition word-for-word from my print copy...

1. a form or spell of play or sport, esp. a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.
2. a single portion of play forming a scoring unit in some contests, eg. bridge or tennis.
3. (in pl) a. athletics or sports organised in a school etc. b. a meeting for athletics etc. contests (Olympic Games)
4. a winning score in a game; the state of the score in a game (the game is two all)
5. the equipment for a game
6. one's level of achievement in a game, as specified (played a good game)
7. a. a piece of fun; a jest (was only playing a game with you) b. (in pl) dodges, tricks (none of your games!)
8. a scheme or undertaking etc. regarded as a game (so that's your game)
9. a policy or line of action
10. (collect.) a. wild animals or birds hunted for sport or food b. the flesh of these
11. a hunted animal' a quarry or object of pursuit or attack
12. a kept flock of swans

Now, SL has no competitive aspect, so it is certainly not 1. Nor is there any scoring system present, so it isn't 2 or 4. It has nothing to do with athletics, so it isn't 3. About the only item in that OED definition under which SL might qualify is 5, since it is undoubtedly a piece of equipment required to play certain games set within the virtual world commonly called SL. I rather think that number 5 was meant to refer to self-referential equipment for games, such as, for example, a chess set being called a chess game. Otherwise, a computer would have to be called a game too, since it is undoubtedly a vital piece of equipment for playing minesweeper, whose status as a game is beyond dispute, I would hope.

Basically, I don't see how any reasonable interpretation of any of the OED's definitions could see SL regarded as a game. Rhialto (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

As for Sim City, the Sims, etc., Maxis themselves are on record as calling their products "toys", not "games". Rhialto (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Deciding that SL is a "game" because it fits a dictionary definition of a game is original research by synthesis. Until you can produce primary sources that back up the assertion, please do not return that suggestion to the article. Also, I'm going to ask all concerned to make themselves familiar with the three-revert rule. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This thread was originally started by someone in the "SL is a game" camp, who cited wiktionary (a dictionary, and one which by WP's citing standards must not be used as it is considered inherently unreliable). Now that the most authoritative dictionary in the UK has been cited to show the opposite case, it seems highly hypocritical to turn around and say dictionaries can't be used.

Either way, I dispute your accusation of synthesis. I am using just a single source, so I am not synthesising on that aspect. And that source does directly address the question of whether or not a thing is a game, so I am not inferring from unrelated sources. Now, as for direct cites to this effect...

Since you want a cite though, Linden Lab has called SL a "metagame" here [2]. The following sentence in their blog article explains that they mean it is a container for games.

Also [3] in their official wiki, they say it is not a game. The official wiki repeats this assertion again here [4].

In their SL Education mailing lists, it isn't hard to find commenst to the effect that SL is not a game, such as this one: [5].

Finally, in [6], Philip Rosedale, former CEO of LL, is on record as saying it is not a game.

Rhialto (talk) 06:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is that just because Linden Labs, and Second Life fans, say that it is not a game does not make it so - even if they write books which get published due to the same publicity machine. Both of those groups constantly make all kinds of outlandish claims about Second Life ("your world"; "be anything you want to be"; "create whatever you can imagine"). The question is whether a source unconnected to Second Life would consider it not to be a game, and this seems unlikely, as the common usage of "video game" refers to any leisure activity that is conducted by use of a computer (rather than merely using a computer as a tool to do something else that could have been done in the real world, or that corresponds to a real world activity).

Note that definition 1 in the "play" definition does not require that the "game" be competitive, it only says "especially a competitive one". Second Life could still be regarded as a game in the sense of [5] "the equipment for.. [a game as defined by 1] a form.. of play". I should also point out that the dictionary definition of virtual is "simulated, but so real it is indistinguishable from reality" - which Second Life doesn't meet.

And also, how about:

"SL is a MetaGame", Ben Linden, [7]

"Second Life is a Game full of Games", Yo Brewster [8]

"[Second Life] is a game because it’s a form of entertainment,", Chenelle Bremont in MSNBC [9]

"Second Life is a game", Gizmodo UK [10]

"Second Life is a game. YOU ARE SUPPOSE TO HAVE FUN IN SECOND LIFE.", Natalia Zelmanov [11]

"Second Life is a game", Virtual world on Wikipedia, in "Social" section (intriguing as it implies that you can call it a "virtual world" all you want, but you can't define "virtual world" without reference to games)

"Second Life is a game", Jack Schofeld, The Guardian UK [12]

"The idea that Second Life is a game is supported wide and far. I'd be pretty willing to bet you'd find 200 role players playing a game for every 1 person who would call it a platform or virtual environment.", Lillani Lowell [13]

"Second Life is a game. A fantastic, creative, ever-expanding game, but a game nonetheless.", Laetizia Coronet [14]

"Genre: Massively Multiplayer Online > Role-Playing" [15]

"In the last week, I've experimented with a hearty load of English-language multiplayer games: Phantasy Star Online (Xbox and Game Cube), and a mess of PC titles - Battlefield 1942, Puzzle Pirates, Second Life, There.com and ToonTown.", Game Girl Advance [16]

161.73.146.153 (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. We have reputable dictionaries saying it is not a game. We have the company itself saying it is not a game. We have the guy who founded it saying it is not a game. We have published books about SL saying it is not a game. We have many professional educators saying it is not a game. We can easily find bloggers to say it is not a game (I refused to cite them earlier as they are not reliable by wp standards). I can't think of any category of citeable source material which does not, somewhere within it, say SL is not a game.

If, in the face of cites from every imaginable category of source saying it is not a game, you still insist on calling it a game, I'm going to have to say your head may not be properly-extracted from the sand. I shan't bother to itemise your list of cites to the contrary, except to note that at least one cite is wikipedia itself or one of its sister sites (and therefore not valid as a source), at least one is a blog (also not valid), and at least one, when read in detail, actually states the opposite case, and at least one doesn't mention SL in connection with games in either the for or against side of this debate.

basically, it isn't enough to just google "SL game" and c+p a list of links. You need to read and critically analyse those results. Rhialto (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. The OED definition doesn't exclude Second Life as a game (it says only that the word is especially used to describe competitive games, not that anything that is not competitive cannot be a game), and all of the other sources you refer to are parts of a circle of SL fans. Most of the books you site were written by LL members themselves, or by SL fans, and were published only because they would sell given the huge amount of publicity SL had at the time. In other words, if they had claimed that Second Life was a small moon across from Europa, they'd still have been published. They aren't academic references which have passed peer review for quality, they're commercial books printed for commercial reasons, and I don't think should be considered reliable. Ditto with what a commercial company says about their own product - should the Coke article mention that it "adds life"? :)

Moreover, since there clearly are multiple views on whether Second Life is a game or not, it would seem that NPOV would require WP to make no statement at all about this, or to present both views.

161.73.146.153 (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, you're using blogs and discussion forums to back up your viewpoint as cites, then attack me for not using peer-reviewed academic journals as cites? I think you need to take a step back and get some perspective here. Rhialto (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this thread was started by someone who was in the entirely opposite "camp" of that suggested; and not even by an exceptionally interested resident/player of the world/game. It was an unbiased point of debate. Personally, I would've preferred to type out an Oxford definition but was unsure how much clutter is permitted. 91.125.240.66 (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously SecondLife is a game for some users, and is not a game for others: It appears to depend upon who the user is and why they're using it. Because of this, one should look to the most basic concepts for which use of the software was intended. Therefore it should be noted that this escapist activity most certainly was not tested nor marketed as a game in and of itself, but a platform by which gamers, artists, entrepreneurs, and educators might be able to conduct the activity of their choice. TranquiliC (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Second Life is not a game since a game requires a goal and there is no set goal achievable. There are many ways to treat any environment as a game for anyone who chooses to. That though does not make the environment its self a game. Within SL there are many games being played that are using the SL platform to simulate a typical 3D gaming environment but without entering into those games by choice residents are not actively seeking any of their goals and are not required to do so. The very nature of SL is to make of it what you will (user created content) and as such could not be considered a game (If everyone involved in a game of chess or football made it up as they went along...well you prolly see my point). -- Eddy ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet another misinformed conjecture on the erroneous idea that all games have set goals. Social games do not. Dictionary definitions of game:

game1  [geym] Show IPA noun, adjective, gam⋅er, gam⋅est, verb, gamed, gam⋅ing. –noun 1. an amusement or pastime: children's games. 3. a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators. 4. a single occasion of such an activity, or a definite portion of one: the final game of the season; a rubber of three games at bridge. 7. a particular manner or style of playing a game: Her game of chess is improving. 8. anything resembling a game, as in requiring skill, endurance, or adherence to rules: the game of diplomacy. 9. a trick or strategy: to see through someone's game. 10. fun; sport of any kind; joke: That's about enough of your games.

SL certainly fits the first definition for the majority of its users. {{Caliah (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)}}

Is it actually a video "game", though...? (part 2)

(Just adding a subheader to make scrolling navigation easier)

Bear in mind that simply being written by a "SL fan" is not in itself a reason to dismiss the source, provided the source meets all other WP standards. LL itself is also valid as a source of data about itself [17], as it is a reliable source (large company with a definite corporate line). However, as a primary source, that also limits its impartiality; interpretation of such a source requires a secondary source for corroboration. [WP:QS] notes that wikis, blogs, forums, mailing lists, etc, are not valid sources. A primary source that has been published in a secondary source (such as a corporate representative being quoted in a news article) is specifically noted as an example of a valid cite.

Summary of all cites given so far (on both sides), and full analysis...

"SL is a game" camp...

[18] - not a valid cite (WP & related sites are not to be used as a source of data for WP articles)

[19] company blog. primary source, so of questionable value (and actually makes the opposite case from what its being cited for!)

[20] myspace-style self-publishing site. no value.

[21] By claiming "SL is a game because it is a form of entertainment", this cite makes itself open to ridicule, since watching TV (and taking with friends, and taking a walk in the park, and dining out, and...) is also a form of entertainment, yet is plainly not a game. Not well-written enough to be useful as a cite. Barely well-written enough to be published by a news channel, tbh.

[22] Its a blog. not valid as a cite.

[[23]] WP is not valid as a cite.

[24] Valid secondary source.

[25] discussion form. Not valid as a cite. (plus, I know her, and she'd be quite amused to find her words twisted that way. Read her following sentence, and she makes it clear she regards SL as a game in the same way a corporate executive would regard big business as a game (ie. not really).

[26] blog. not valid as a cite.

[27] List SL as "Massively Multiplayer Online" and also under "Role-Playing". No mention of "game" at all, except in the site's name, which isn't in itself proof of anything (claiming otherwise would be like claiming the BBC only ever writes about stuff inside Britain).

[28] its a blog. not valid as a cite.

Score: 2 wp cites, 1 priamry source, 1 myspace-type, 1 very badly written secondary source, 3 blogs, 1 forum, 1 null cite (no data either way), 1 valid cite (guardian). 1/11

"SL is not a game" camp...

SL for Dummies Author has no known connection to LL. Author almost certainly has an avatar in SL (it's impossible to write with any effective knowledge without one, so that should not be held against the author). No reason to question this source.

SL the official guide Published by LL. This is a primary source, and is thus questionable.

[[29]] (apologies for amazon link, no convenient url to copy) Authors have no known connection to LL. valid cite.

[[30]] (apologies for amazon link, no convenient url to copy) Author has no known connection to LL. valid cite.

OED (no url) - Reliable, but tertiary source, so by WP standards it is of questionable value, and should only be used to corroborate a secondary source.

[31] primary source. questionable value.

[32] and [33] primary source (official wiki). questionable value.

[34] mailing list. questionable value (even though most contributors on that list, being university lecturers, will have been cited in peer-reviewed publications elsewhere, it si still not reliable enough for WP standards).

[35] Phil Rosedale quoted by a major publication. Reliable secondary source.

Score: 1 tertiary source (OED), 3 primary sources, 1 mailing list, 4 valid cites (SL for dummies, unofficial tourists guide, coming of age in SL, Phil Rosedale quoted in Wired). 4/9.

With 1 valid cite in the "is a game" camp, and 4 valid cites in the "not a game" camp, the citeable sources give, if not an absolute consensus, certainly an overwhelming majority of opinion. Rhialto (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Although you're right that my sources aren't ideal. But the ones that you list are also invalid because they aren't impartial. All of the published books are by people who are making money via Second Life (by selling those books), and thus have a vested interest in SL appearing to be more than it is. If they had written that SL was a game, they wouldn't have been published, except maybe by Prima. None of them have been peer reviewed. Phil Rosedale is the managing director of LL and therefore is a primary, not a secondary, source.

The OED definition above is out of date - actually checking OED online gives relevant definitions game(3a): "an amusement, diversion, pastime", and game(4a): "A diversion of the nature of a contest, played according to rules, and displaying in the result the superiority either in skill, strength, or good fortune of the winner or winners.". For those who do business in SL, it's 4a, for everyone else it's 3a. That seems fairly covering..

If you can find an actual citation by someone who has been in SL long enough to make their own opinions, and who is not on the gravy train (ie, is making nothing from the idea that SL is not a game, directly or indirectly - and that includes both making money, and having SL considered a serious enough topic for research), that would be valid. In other words, somebody who is stating their own opinion and who would lose nothing if SL was recognized as a game. Otherwise, you're just citing Bill Gates on the merits of Windows.

161.73.146.153 (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to call a published book an invalid source because they are making money out of getting the book published, then you must also reject every news article for the same reason; journalists excel at "sensationalism" after all, and a sufficient number of insufficiently-sensational articles means the journal sells fewer copies and eventually the journalist loses his job. Simply making money out of a book is NOT grounds for rejecting its validity as a source. Nowhere in WP's standards for sources does your impartiality criticism get mentioned, and so your complaint should be rejected.

As for Phil Rosedale, yes, he was the CEO. Not now of course, but at the time he was quoted, he was. However, the source that is quoting him *is* a secondary source, which makes it a valid cite. There is a fundamental difference in WP's standards between a primary source saying something, and a secondary source quoting that primary source as saying it. The former is not valid as a cite; the latter is.

Whether or not the OED is out of date, it is a tertiary source, and so I rejected it. I rejected tertiary sources on both sides of the debate, you will notice (although some got rejected for other reasons).

someone who has been in SL long enough to make their own opinions, and who is not on the gravy train. Hmm, I am willing to bet no such source exists. Well, except myself. Except of course, I'm not published, nor do I plan on being published anytime soon. It's a reasonable supposition that anyone who is planning on getting published is on some kind of gravy train, which makes your criteria impossible to fulfil. Fortunately for WP, as noted in its standards for reliable sources, there is no such requirement as the one you are making. Rhialto (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I am going to call a published book an invalid source because a) they are making money from the perception that SL is more than a game, and b) the part you're citing is a tiny sentence in the foreward of those books, while the material that actually got the book published is the SL tutorial that follows afterwards. No number of checkboxes about "reliable sources" can substitute for actually looking at the books - in fact, in many cases those same forewards are nothing but paraphrased LL marketing material. These books are not opinion pieces, nor critical analyses of virtual worlds and whether or not they are games; if they were, they would be far more valid. There is no evidence of that particular claim having been subject to "fact-checking" as described in WP:V, even if the rest of the book has.

The quote from Phil Rosedale, ditto. What he actually said was: "I'm not building a game, I'm building a new country." Not only do LL themselves now consider the description of SL is a country to be incorrect, but it's also irrelevant: he only stated what he was building - not what SL actually turned out to be, which isn't 100% under his control. Again, Bill Gates might have stated he was building the most reliable operating system that would ever exist - that doesn't mean he succeeded.

If there is really nobody - or only one person - who agrees that SL is not a game, and has been in SL long enough to make their own opinion, and is not on the gravy train; then that clearly means that, among unbiased commentators, it's a minority viewpoint (since LL's own statistics show that a large number of users use SL)

161.73.146.153 (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You do realise that, if we exclude anyone who is on any kind of gravy train, there are in fact no cites whatsoever to support any viewpoint at all, either for or against? Rhialto (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No, because presence on a gravy train doesn't void every possible viewpoint. For somebody who writes an accurate scientific textbook, for example, they will be paid for that accuracy - the gravy train is productive. Likewise, someone who writes an opinion piece about a popularly important issue (such as terrorism) may indeed be riding the gravy train of the public debate on that issue, but that fact doesn't in particular determine the opinion they must espouse (although there is some effect - controversial views are more frequently published).

The "is Second Life a game" debate is different because it's about significance. Second Life must be significant for these things to be published, for people to make money from it, for people to give talks and set up companies, etc. So is it any surprise that all the people doing this have to argue that SL is significant? To do otherwise would be sabotaging themselves. Believing in the significance of Second Life (or at least espousing it - some reports have suggested there is a very small contingent who, even as they actively promote SL, have their fingers crossed behind their backs) is the ticket on the gravy train.

Yet for the vast majority of users, there is no such significance. Most users who aren't on the gravy train eventually come to the opinion that Second Life is a game, or worse, a chatroom. But many only doing so after having invested money believing that it was more, and that money fuels the gravy train to make the next round of people believe that, too.

161.73.146.153 (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

ok, once more. Whether you personally consider a given cited source to have an axe to grind is absolutely not relevant. The issue in determining whether a cite is valid is a) does it actually say what the citer claims it is saying, and b) is it a valid cite as defined by WP's citing policies? Everything else is utterly irrelevant, and your desire that the person not be on some kind of gravy train is not relevant. if you cannot accept that, I suggest we call in some 3rd parties to arbitrate. Rhialto (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As written, WP's citing policies forbid the citing of "self-serving material" from "questionable sources". I think this is a flaw, as I don't see why self-serving material becomes OK just because it self-served the commercial publisher to publish the book too. And I'd actually be very interested to see this discussed further (even if I lose!), so go ahead to call in, if that's what you want to do. 161.73.146.153 (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think WP's citing policies are flawed, then I suggest you take up that discussion on the relevant pages. Rhialto (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

...Again, it's worth noting that the author of this topic is unbiased and generally uninterested in SL itself, and thus requested views on matter as a mere point of interest. I just had to clarify, as some may be under the impression that the suggestion came from a one-sided perspective. 91.125.240.66 (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

--- First WP edit for me and I must admit that I am quite distracted by the style of conversation that is presented here. However, instead of continuing this rather fruit and as far as it seems rather pointless discussion let me raise the issue of calling Second Life a virtual world in contrast to calling it a game. A source that is not associated to SL, at least at the time of writing, is Richard Bartle. According to his 2003 publication Designing Virtual Worlds (New riders Publishing, 2003) a virtual world is refered to as a world that "is an environment that its inhabitants regard as being self-contained" related to a virtual setup. Virtual is described in this regard as "That which isn't, having the form or effect of that which is".

---

(reformatted post for better clarity)

According to Bartle, virtual worlds are characterized by different criteria:

1. The world has intrinsic rules that enable players to make changes upon the world. Bartle refers to this as the worlds "physics"
2. Every user (Bartle uses in this case the term "player") is depicted as a single individual
3. Interaction happens in real time
4. The world is shared.
5. The world is (at least to some degree) persistent.

I can see that Second Life fits in this collection of criteria. Anybody disagrees to this?

However, I would also support it to make the discussion about whether SL is a game or not a part of the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.199.54 (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to Richard Bartle? With a cite, this would make an excellent addition to the main page. Rhialto (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to discuss Bartle it should be recalled his [definition] also includes gaming worlds under the umbrella term "virtual world." By his definition MUDs and WoW are considered virtual worlds. Which amuses me as I have no real problem with calling SL a virtual world OR game, but in the presence of anyone I meet who is a stickler for the term "virtual world" and annoyed at people who use it interchangeably with "game" I surely should be able to call WoW a virtual world. What does Bartle call worlds like SL? Simple...social worlds. Which is arguably nothing but a derivative of "social game", which is what we used to call MOOs back in the old days, when a) gaming and social worlds didn't diverge as much as they have in terms of audience b) people didn't have their panties in a bunch over semantics (most MOOs did not have a set story or purpose and functioned as social talkers with the added feature of being able to contribute to the world by building, yet they were still categorised as games under MU* listings). I think people do also forget that "game" (as opposed to "a game") amongst MU* and virtual world veterans was often used synonymously for "platform" or *shrug* gameworld/world. Which SL is. SL introduces no real new elements that other platforms haven't already in the past decade or so. Those platforms were often referred to as a game, not in reference to content or purpose, but to indicate a discrete world. The idea that SL merits "special treatment" - at least in the eyes of some - is especially grating. While this [article] is wrong on several points regarding activity, it illustrates my point on MU*s well. From an experienced SL player who uses it for both work and play. Caliah (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

   It's a ♥ virtual world platform ♥....imho =^.^= ArishiaNishi (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Embassies

The "Embassies" section states that the Maldives and Sweden were the first two countries to open embassies. The article states that Estonia created the third embassy in December 2007. However the next sentence indicates that Colombia and Serbia opened embassies in September 2007. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Article/lead section length

I agree that this article is too long (needs to be brought down 25-50% in length). It's lead is quite the opposite, too short. It should be around about 3 times as long as it is now. Richard001 (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC) an article should be as long as is needed to convey pertinent info. i think that this is a particularly well structured article that remains relatively current keeping pace with current developments in world and at LL Jumpman Lane (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Art section

The Art section is very limited and almost biased on a traditional idea of what art is. It is tempting to split it into a new section on Experimental Art, and naming a few. But if theres worry the article is too long already, the section should at least reflect the breadth and not only the pop.

Someone (someone who is neutral with no axe to grind) should expand this section- for example- my project Brooklyn is Watching should be in there- its been mentioned in the new york times, and several of the most-read blogs about SL-- other things that should be mentioned are Artopolis, Odessey, Ars Virtua, Second Front, NPIRL, etc. SL art is exploding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.145.33 (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"site"?

"Second Life (abbreviated as SL) and its sister site Teen Second Life" SL is a virtual world (or video game depending on who you ask. I myself dislike this ´point of view), Teen Second Life is basicly the same thing but limited to people under legal age and above a minimum age (I can't remember what the minimum is exactly), it does got a website, but SL itself isn't a site...

ps: I myself disagree with it bein called a game, I prefer much more virtual world, platform etc, though others seem to be more skiled at defending this point of view than me, though I do agree that there should at least be mentioned in the article that SL's status as a "game" is disputed fervently by many --TiagoTiago (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is NOT a "game". One can not make REAL money playing a game. I don't see anyone building a business in Mario Bros. or Sonic. Those are games. SL is a virtual world with a VERY REAL economy. 71.80.71.225 (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You're sadly deluded if you think one can't make money off playing a game. What about pro gamers, or gold farmers in China? There are games with real economies - any MMORPG with trade enabled has a miniature economy and such games as Entropia operate on the same principle. Do some more research before making such silly claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.236.114 (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

false accusations of being underage also lock people who already verified, no?

"A further greater concern is that, although the age verification process is voluntary, an account that has not been age verified can be instantly locked out of the world if another user files a report to Linden Lab that the owner of the account is underage."

I've heard about people that had passed the verification they ae above legal age IRL but were still locked out due to false accusations of being minors. I believe I've read about it on th bog Massively, but since blogs tend to not be accepted as sources here in WP, could someone get a source that is approved for this and fix the article please? --TiagoTiago (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Age verification isn't going to be perfect. Currently, SL uses either a payment to Linden Labs, by Paypal or credit card, or a document check system described as a "beta". The document check is going to be tricky. How can a US company check a UK driving licence or passport number? And I can see why Linden Labs would play safe on an adult tag. But "adult" seems to be applicable to the combat-sim settings too. 88.109.197.65 (talk) 11:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

MMO

The abbreviation is used but not expanded nor linked to an encyclopedia entry about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a game - again

The game/not a game issue has been settled by the provision of academically relaible asources. See above. Please do not keep making this edit.Morgan Leigh | Talk 11:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it has been settled but is still in dispute and has been noted as such. Some of the sources noted above appear to be biased as noted by one of those participating in the argument. Caliah (talk) 07:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Those "biased" sources satisfy all of WP's criteria for a reliable unbiased source. The writer in question who claims the sources in question are biased is disputing WP's overall policy on what should be counted as a valid cite, which is an unreasonable cause for keeping the discussion active. Rhialto (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Linden Scripting Language

Shouldn't this have a link to LSL somewhere in it? —206.174.65.179 (talk) 05:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

New sections

There should probably be an entire section devoted to content creation, including scripting, and another to commerce. These are central to the Second Life experience. 199.67.131.155 (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Second this idea. Perhaps entire new articles should be created? But in particular, there should be reference to the statement, published in the Official Guide to Second Life, 2nd edition, that only something like 5% of businesses in SL turn a profit. This seems to suprise even veteran SL users. Piano non troppo (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

The whole "land ownership" section is unsourced personal commentary. In fact, little since revision 254083878 (here) is of value. We should aim to reduce the churn in this article, especially unsourced / POV churn, and I think reverting to that version and adding constructive material from more recent edits back in piecemeal is good idea. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Italics for "Second Life"?

The term "Second Life" is italicised in the first sentence but very rarely in the rest of the article. I don't know whether it should be italicised or not, but it should be consistent throughout the article and throughout Wikipedia. Nurg (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It's the name of the - complicated. Kausill (Talk) (Contribs) 15:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Buildings

Does it cost money to build a house? For example if you have a land where houses can be build do you have to pay Linden Dollars for the things you´re building (or for the materials)?

And is it also possible to quit your account at any time? By the way: How many months do you pay in advance?

You don't have to pay anything to join, unless you have a Premium Account which gives you a small amount of land and a stipend (a stipend that you are paying for); personally, only a fool would get a premium account as it really gives you very little for you could buy more land from somebody in the game for cheaper). You can quit at any time.99.150.203.131 (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Dagadt (talk) 10:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no additional charge for building. And you can pay month by month. Zompist (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well the thing that you're really paying for are "prims". Each size plot of land is tied to a certain amount of "prims". In SL all things are built by using prims. If, for example, you buy a plot of land that supports 256 prims, you can put/build anything on that land that does not exceed 256 prims (which really isn't that much). To increase your prim allotment you have to buy more land. It would be nice if you could just increase the prim amount without having to buy more land (as land in a sim is limited), but the ppl who run SL aren't this smart unfortunately. In fact, if they lowered land tier prices across the board they would increase land ownership and increase their profits (for ppl who buy land then spend a lot of money buying things to furnish land), but, again, they're not that bright. Sigh....99.150.203.131 (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

theres no charge to build anything unless your spending money on parts that others have made that you need. you dont even need land to build a house, just go to a sandbox and you can build to your hearts content. --Talk Shugoːː 20:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC) password —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.68.79.173 (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Edits needed

I dont have the research timing, but if someone could validate the need to change "Onrez" and "SLX" mentions to include "Xstreet SL" which was the factor of Linden Labs aquiring both companies. (although most former SLX users still call it SLX, and it still LOOKS like and acts like SLX)

SL Jobs

Also, was there a mention in the article about the idea of getting jobs, much like already mentioning abotu land ownership, building etc. I know it's not good to advertise, but i figured i'd mention some of the examples of jobs due to places i know of off heart..

• Modeling : Simplicity designs, En Vogue, Ewing Fashion Agency, Evane, DejaVu (and many others)
• Retail owning: Creating your own content (Much like i'd had my own tshirt shop ages ago)

• Photography and Graphic Design services in world

• Owning a business (Nightclubs, Retail, etc..)

• Dj

• Dancing in nightclubs

• prostitution in world (ex:redlight district)

• in world business promoter —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielTrox (talk • contribs) 20:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ways of earning money

Also to mention other ways of "EARNING" money.. just as an optino if it's NOT ALREADY MENTIONED:

• Camping

• Selling off in world resellable (freebies or bulk lots) goods

• Buying your own L$ as even in NZ it's 5USD for a good chunk of money and at 75 odd cents to hte US dollar that's not much.

Constant Issues about CopyBot Browsers/Open Sources Viewers =

There's been noted browsers/viewers to do actual copybotting. Because of this LL is starting to stare stragiht in the face of Open Source Viewers, or at least i think it has.

Veiwers it refuses to support or take notice of being decnet:

• Green Life Emerald
• CoolLife (I cant remember its other name)

• HippoOpenSim

and many others.

Issues with people and residents constantly throwing AR/Copybot/Copyright Issues (AKA SL BULLYING)

There was almost a huge legal battle involving a few residents vs a somewhat supposed LARGE SL company. There were claims that the images therein their "stall" were copybotted, or incorrectly used. INfact this was incorrectly claimed, the images that were brought into use as "POSTERS" for sale were indeed of Copyright, but the user had liscence from the artists/companies to use them for promotion. This is a common issue with second life, people claiming SL business is a viable RL business, while it may be - there is no absolute proof that SL can be completley RL business. The actual suit was with a former employee of said SL business, and current employee, of the company (RL Company that uses SL as another promotion base) that was involved in a "FAIR" or "MALL". The company in SL running the mall/fair (names withheld of course) refused illegally to work with the actual stall renter, and attempted to maul and personally defame via skype (proof of course would have to be if someone could go to skype's databases and see if calls are recorded.) - the family and person within. Later on, there was an issue of importance of former employee's useage of the situation in a blog post (website withheld) . Fair/Mall owner proceeded to threaten RL legal action (over a second life business stand point) towards something that was viably offensive towards her former employee. Said person had claimed before to have made over 30 grand in business one year a lone.

Suggetions of outcomes from things like this:

• LEGALLY DOCUMENT EVERYTHING YOU DO IN SECOND LIFE

• Never let someone bully you into a voice chat, or skype just so you can't document what went on

• Renting and buying from people in SL is a public-legal bound transaction.

XxReikoxX - The Visual Asia Geek (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)XxReikoxX - The Visual Asia Geek (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC) edoard limondi terrain edoard limondi

Land Ownership

Websters refers to ownership as being "exclusive right of possession". This does not describe ownership of land in SecondLife. In fact, what is referred to as SecondLife land ownership is a very good example of an antonym of the word, "ownership". Shouldn't this more aptly be referred to as virtual land rental? The user never really owns anything. The closest that one comes to owning land appears to be when the user pays a sum of money to Linden Lab or the previous renter in exchange for the rights to use virtual space or pass on rights of use to another user. The user never really obtains ownership, though, because a fee is extracted from the user for every month they plan to use the space. For a large sum paid to Linden Lab or a secondary party, the user may even get to utilize a very large virtual space...but here, again, there is no ownership. There is no payment plan, the completion of which provides the user with ownership of a server or of land. I simply can see no way this can realistically be described as ownership. TranquiliC (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds more like a lease to me, but that probably has it's own faults. 88.109.197.65 (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Opinions and Editorializing

There is quite a bit of opinion and editorializing in this article such as in the section on Adult content that does not seem appropriate to a neutral collection of facts about Second Life such as one might expect in an encyclopedia. Mikerock (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sex in Second Life is certainly worth a mention since there is a lot of sex in SL. So much so that LL (Linden Labs) have built an entire new category of region to segregate those who wish to indulge. All is well while those that wish to be involved are able to do it without forcing it on others. The fact that it is quite prevalent enough in SL to bring about the creation of these adult regions makes it unavoidable information if the subject of Second Life is to be covered accurately. -- Eddy ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Going by the LL definitions, "adult" includes violence: the combat sim elements seem a clear fit. [Second Life PG/Mature/Adult] is the page to check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.197.65 (talk) 11:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

More information about offline building tools

I think there should be a section listing some of the offline (and semi-offline) content-creation tools that have been written in the past few years. There is:

• A script converting NURBS surfaces into sculpted prims in Maya (writes a script for assembling them in-world too). Written by Qarl Linden, as far as I remember.
• A script for helping with the upload of the above data.
• An in-world tool for converting several simple prims into a sculpted prim (sculpt-o-matic or similar name).
• A tool called Henshin for automatically converting AutoCAD drawings into prims and uploading them. SketchUp Pro and other software can export to this common format too.
• Prim.blender, which lets users manipulate prims inside Blender. It also has some sculptie functionality.
• PrimComposer for 3dsMax, also for manipulating prims.
• A sculptie exporter for Wings3D.
• A set of scripts to help create sculpties and textures in Blender, called Primstar.
• Sketchlife, plugin for the free version for SketchUp, for drawing and texturing simple prims.

The above is from memory, and everything needs to be verified. I also haven't tried some of the tools, this is based on information I have read.

I don't want to add this information myself, because I have a conflict of interest, since I wrote Sketchlife: http://vrshed.com/sketchlife . I can write without bias, but people may interpret this as questionable.

Building tools are important, because some building tool was used to shape every single object that is found in SL. Note that there is no Sculpted Prim creation functionality found inside the Second Life Viewer at this time. The building tools offered by the Second Life Viewer are not easy to use for anything serious.

--Evgeni Sergeev (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"in-world"

Someone just asked me what "in-world" meant. I took a guess (sort of like "in country", meaning "in South Vietnam"--I'll let you guess how old I am). Looking at the way the term is used in this article, I suspect my guess was correct. (I've never played SL.) But it would probably be wise to define it at first use. Mcswell (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

"in-world" means inside SL, inside the virtual world --189.46.208.85 (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox

I have not seen the label sandbox pass in this discussion. The question about it being a game or not is in itself a weighted one. It already implies a preference. A sandbox is anything you wish it to be. And I feel it fits the discription of Second Life. --81.69.198.17 (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The term has a meaning within the game: a place designated for trying stuff out, where changes are not permanent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.197.65 (talk) 11:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

sandboxes intentional where created for users to build and expearament with skripts now there full of people that greef everyone --Talk Shugoːː 20:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The word sandbox has also a meaning outside of SecondLife. It usually describes a interactive environment without goals or rules. http://dan-ball.jp/en/javagame/dust/ has no rules, it has elements with behaviour, but you decide what to do with it. It is a sandbox game. Second Life is a sandbox game. --62.21.249.193 (talk) 10:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

References in popular culture - Other section - Probably incorrect

Under the "References in popular culture" under the "Other" section, the following list item states:

"A Second Life girl, caLLie cLine, was chosen to represent Second Life Girls at #95 on the "Top 100 Hottest Females of 2007" in Maxim, the first nonhuman ever to be selected."

I believe this to be factually incorrect. A quick search revealed the following sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aki_Ross#cite_note-12 http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/06/style/perfect-model-gorgeous-no-complaints-made-of-pixels.html?pagewanted=1

I believe the fictional Final Fantasy character, Aki Ross was the first non-human to be selected for Maxim's Top 100 Hottest Females (not sure about the year).

Secondly,should this prove true, would the edit need to be removed or just changed to something like "one of the few non-humans to ever be selected"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.7.24.197 (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Possibly of interest

I don't know much about Second Life, but this article may be of interest. BigPond pulls plug on Second Life. Manning (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I would think that certainly warrants a mention in the article, not sure if the link would be a reliable source though. ArcAngel (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, that article is from the Sydney Morning Herald - Australia's largest and most respected newspaper. I think it meets the RS requirements. 59.101.33.190 (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Roleplay Sims

I'm interested to know what others who play in these sims think about this: "to allow a gaming/roleplay experience in that canon where the userbase is too small, or the theme too specific to justify a "traditional," full-scale MMORPG" I don't see size of the user-base this as "the" reason these roleplay sims were created.

SL is heavily focused on the social aspect of roleplay. You will not hear someone in WoW saying "I look around, sensing danger, and draw my sword." That aspect is completely lost - most MMORPGs are hack em slash em kind of games. And let's also not forget there is a heavily adult aspect to many if not most of these sims.

And there are many reasons people choose to RP in SL rather than one of the current MMORPGs. First off, yes, they are free. But also you can use the various comabt systems in several different roleplay environments. In other words, you can be a samurai one day and a mage the next in 2 complately different roleplay sims. They also have themed events. For instance one sim had a week-long roleplay event where a disease ravaged the land that caused widespread amnesia. People had to figure out who they were and make friends, avoid conflict or eliminate threats. Some people ended up killing their best friend or lover not knowing who they were. I am aware of no MMORPG that allows that kind of flexibility (nor am I aware of any attempts or plans to build one).

This last part is heavily subjective, but for me SL is just a much friendlier place. Anyone who has played Eve will tell you it's really cut throat. It's also really hard and you can lose a fully-equipped ship worth $500 USD in the blink of an eye. Do I even need go into the politics of guilds in WoW? That's not fun to me, it's stress. Call me crazy, if I'm paying $19.99/mo I want to have fun, not get stressed out.

BTW there are roleplay grids popping up. I know the Goreans are attempting to build a complete re-creation of Gor in OpenSim for instance. I guess you could call those MMORPGs, but once you can tp between them it will blur that line.

Any feedback? Webjedi (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)