Second Life vs. World of Warcraft

Two virtual worlds are out there which have grabbed the attention of the literati, the technorati, and most everybody else. One world has been subject to endless speculation on how it might shape the future of academia, society, and the very fabric of our daily existence. The other has been duly noted by elitists and pundits for its success and popularity, but largely ignored as a source of social significance. The world that is the darling of academic pundits is Second Life. The huge commercial success is World of Warcraft.

Second Life (SL) is a game-like environment, but it does not really pose as a game, per se. It proposes to serve as a social platform. It is a virtual interactive environment (VIE), and it holds many similarities to a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG). Users login and assume control of digital puppets (avatars), and interact with one another. Users have control over their environments, and can purchase items such as clothing for their avatars. But there the gaming comparisons end. There are few other game-like objectives in SL: no levels to attain, no bosses to defeat. Perhaps consequently, then, SL is viewed as a serious platform for societal change and educational benefit.

World of Warcraft (WoW) is much more popular than Second Life. Although the population of SL is unknown for certain, the most enthusiastic estimates range somewhere in the low hundred thousands. WoW recently topped 8.5 million subscribers worldwide. WoW’s population is easier to count than SL’s. WoW subscribers pay around $15/month (or slightly less if longer periods are purchased up front). Count the number of active subscribers, and one can come close to an accurate estimate of active members, since presumably those not active would let their monthly payments lapse.

SL offers free memberships. If users send money to Linden Labs, SL’s corporate parent, they receive added benefits such as the right to own virtual real estate. Lots of folks come in and try out SL, but many don’t stick around for very long. If they don’t make a social connection, they don’t tend to stay.

So, SL is a social world, and is not nearly as popular an online destination as WoW, a pure gaming environment. This remains true despite the fact that SL is more or less free and WoW is relatively expensive. Clay Shirky, over at NYU, writes for Many2Many (“A group weblog on social software”). In a recent entry, he offers a good history of previous comparisons between gaming sites and social sites (i.e., Ultima Online vs. Alphaworld), and an explanation for their disparities in popularities, even when both can mix in some elements from the other.

First, Shirky writes, game rules are simple and appealing, offering an escape from the mundane of the real world. Second, the difficulties inherent in good MMORPGs make them more engaging and fun, both of which seem to be missing from less complex social sites.

Third, despite graphical representations that only approximate the real world, users willingly engage in video gaming environments that are by necessity limited in nature … and suspend their disbelief. This is an argument that has been made before, BTW, most notably by Laurel, (1991). Shirky describes this more precisely as “goal-directed visual filtering.” But, he argues, video environments that are not set up for gaming (like social sites) are judged much more harshly, with their users less willing to suspend disbelief.

What I find interesting is the difference in seriousness SL is given in the press and in academics compared to WoW. SL is the place to be for educators right now, especially higher ed. For instance, Karl Kapp over at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania notes in his blog that he is requiring students to create content in SL this semester. He joins a host of other college classroom efforts in that vein. The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) is jumping on the SL bandwagon, too, offering conference meetings online through the service.

With WoW more popular, more successful, and more profitable than any other virtual world product out there, one would think there would be more academic interest in the product. However, the opposite seems true. SL is less popular, but considered more viable for learning. I’m sure most of this has to do with the inherent customizability of SL. WoW offers little customization to its users; the terms of service forbid users from customizing almost everything within the environment, except their user interface which can be modded at will. But the content, the environment, the quests and so forth; all are pre-scripted by the developers.

Ultimately, educators need to have the ability to customize content so they can mold it to what they are teaching. Thus, social environments such as SL will continue to be more popular with educators than rigid gaming environments like WoW. The converse is probably also true … gaming environments will continue to be more popular than social environments for the public at large, in part due to the fact that the games will be all laid out for the players with no modifications needed.

References

Laurel, B. (1991). On dramatic interaction. Verbum 3(3). 6-7.

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• GSU Train the Trainers Island Coming to SL
• Spies Want a Second Life of Their Own
• Second Life daily news