“Second Life is not a game!” has been the most polarizing, most debated, most misunderstood --and most ridiculed! -- statement about Second Life throughout most of Second Life’s history. Unsurprisingly, it continues to attract much conversation, and frustration among SL users, when so many people still insist on calling Second Life as game. This misunderstanding has also caused the company that owns it, Linden Lab, to make some disastrous strategic mistakes, and ignore obvious opportunities. This post will resolve the controversy once and for all.
TL;DR, this is the correct answer:
Second Life is not a traditional MMORPG. Second Life is best described as an open-ended, user-created online social game.
Why and how is Second Life a game? Before answering that, the best place to start, of course, is by defining what a game is, and I think game designer Raph Koster has the best one:
Playing a game is the act of solving statistically varied challenge situations presented by an opponent who may or may not be algorithmic within a framework that is a defined systemic model. Some see this as a “fundamentalist” approach to the definition. But I use it precisely because it is inclusive. It admits of me turning a toy into a game by imposing my own challenge on it (such as a ball being a toy, but trying to catch it after bouncing it against the wall becoming a game with simple rules that I myself define).
Defined that way, it becomes obvious how Second Life is a game in a most fundamental way:
Pretending that 3D graphics are a “world” and that fellow system users are fantastic “Avatars” within it is in itself a game.
On this view, the statistically varied challenges are baked into the entire Second Life experience. The first core statistically varied challenge is to accept 3D graphics as a “world” in some meaningful way, and to figure out how to navigate successfully within it. The second is to impose that challenge on your avatar (customizing, enhancing, and ultimately mastering it), and then on the avatars of others, pretending that they embody the fantastic, flying, god-like 3D representations they present to you. From that view, you could say that the game of Second Life is competing with others to accept Second Life as a second life -- and to demonstrate one’s mastery within it. Indeed, with no traditional MMORPG-type mechanics, Second Life users implicitly compete with each other by showing how well they’re able to use the UI and understand the system.
When I say all this, I’m mindful of my good friend Tom Boellstorff’s argument that “if you say Second Life is a ‘game’ then it's hard to not classify everything humans do as a ‘game’.” For instance, Tom might argue that on my logic, money is also a game -- it’s not really valuable, we just all pretend it is, and we often amass it as a way of keeping score. I believe Tom’s very legitimate point becomes shaky, however, when you consider a couple empirical points:
“Second Life is not a game” was first prominently promoted as part of a marketing campaign by Linden Lab in an attempt to encourage real world, non-game uses of Second Life.
Here's what happened:
In 2005-2006, David Fleck, Linden Lab’s head of marketing at the time, announced in a company-wide e-mail that thenceforth, Second Life would no longer be called a game. (We staffers often did.) Instead, it was from then on to be described as a “platform”, open to varieties of use cases, an attempt to become the “3D web”. Up until that point, Second Life had actually been marketed as a kind of social game, and was considered a direct competitor of The Sims Online. It even launched with player rankings and leader boards. But after Fleck’s ruling, promotion of Second Life as a game ended, and Linden Lab made a concerted effort to foster non-gaming uses and investments in SL.
Which takes us to our next point:
No non-game uses of Second Life have succeeded in a substantial, scalable way.
Fleck’s move seemed strategically sound at the time, because major companies like IBM were indeed acclaiming Second Life as “the 3D web” and were planning to launch a number of non-game applications within SL. (IBM had a whole campus in Second Life, which was subsequently protested by a labor union.) If any of these many attempts had gained traction, the “Second Life is not a game” argument would carry much more weight. Despite marginal examples, however, none of these non-game uses have demonstrated any traction, and instead, only the already-existing userbase, who play Second Life as an open-ended social game, remain.
And as I said, mistaking Second Life as something other than a game has caused Linden Lab to make several disastrous moves, chief among them a massive investment in SL as a real world work platform, leading directly in 2010 to a layoff of 30% of its staff:
The Dwight Schrute Echo Chamber are all the people in Linden Lab and in the company's orbit who've repeated Dwight's mantra [“Second Life is not a game!”] in various forms, until it seemed obviously true, and that a sizable market for real world applications of SL already existed. (As opposed to what it more likely is: a very interesting but numerically small niche.) This flawed assumption is probably why Linden Lab has devoted so much money, labor, and time attempting to turn SL into a platform for real world businesses and organizations.
Beyond the business uses that were tried and failed, advocates of the “it’s not a game” argument will point to the several examples of Second Life activity which seem non-game like -- live music, socialization, education, and so on. But that only takes us to our next point:
Every “non-game” use of Second Life also exists in one or more self-defined MMO games.
Several other MMOs enable live music performance; most MMOs also encourage non-game socialization; Minecraft is also used an education tool, as are others, and encourage user-generated content. The MMO Entropia Universe and others allow and encourage real money trading. And so on. Without a non-game use case which is unique to Second Life that other MMOs do not have, it’s simpler and more intuitive to put Second Life within the same category as them.
Which leads to a related realization:
Many or most active Second Life users consider it a game.
If Second Life’s wasn’t a game, few would call it that. Instead, many or most active Second Life users explicitly call it a game, or at minimum, use it for game-like purposes: For virtual fashion, roleplaying, social gaming, mini-MMOs, and more -- again, activity comparable to many games on the market.
So now that we’ve definitively established that Second Life is a kind of game, one question looms: So what? A core conclusion is this:
Since Second Life is indeed a game, it should be developed and enhanced by Linden Lab with that awareness in mind, becoming more and more “game-like”, with a return to achievement and ratings systems, for starters. At the same time, realizing that Second Life is a game should help the entire user base better understand what they are doing within it.
That Second Life is a game does not make it trivial, useless, or ridiculous -- quite the opposite. It means that Second Life is among the many games (both online and off) where people come together from all backgrounds to find meaning and commonalities to share with each other, hopefully enhancing their life outside its magic circle.
Image via Raph Koster.
Please share this post:
This again?
As I've said before SL isn't a game just because you can play games within it. And I say that as one who plays with fashion within SL.
You wouldn't call a table, "dinner" because you can eat on it. You wouldn't call a table, a computer, a java install, or a telnet session in a terminal window, a "game" because you can play games on it. No, it's a "tool", that you can do many things with, but it is not those specific things.
As another example, a PS4 itself isn't a game though you can play games on it. Sony has always referred to it's PlayStations as "Computer Entertainment Systems" Heck Home on the PS3 wasn't a game, though you could play games within it, it was a virtual world like SL.
Second Life is an online interactive massively multi-user virtual world that one can play games within, but it is not a game itself. It's a tool, or a platform, just as LL has always said.
What is with your focus on SL being a game? This post does NOTHING to resolve this because it is just your opinion, and as we both know, many SL users don't hold that same opinion.
I personally never refer to SL as just a "game", because it's not, it's MORE than that. Calling it a game confuses people because then they expect it to be like a game with set rules and goals, when it isn't like a game and the only goals are what users have for themselves.
Posted by: CronoCloud Creeggan | Wednesday, July 08, 2015 at 01:37 PM
Someone found a picture of the Fove headset on an album cover from 20yrs ago.
http://www.getfove.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_XI
Posted by: DNA | Wednesday, July 08, 2015 at 02:47 PM
Oh thank heavens if this is this blog's final word on this. Can we hold you to that? Be a man of your word.
Final retort: Nah.
Posted by: Ezra | Wednesday, July 08, 2015 at 03:19 PM
There are very few publications where you could get articles about Second Life published if you (Wagner James Au) framed it as a non-game. For example, that article you wrote for Polygon (a video games blog) repeatedly referred to Second Life as a game. Polygon almost certainly wouldn't have published it otherwise.
It's not like you're an objective, external observer. You have a stake in SL's categorization.
SL is only a game in the sense that *everything* is a game. Life itself is a game, so then is Second Life.
Posted by: George Karmand | Wednesday, July 08, 2015 at 10:37 PM
tbf to Hamlet, the last time this came up on here he did say that he would write this, as Tom B. challenged him to do
so Hamlet has and... The End
hopefully. maybe (:
Posted by: irihapeti | Thursday, July 09, 2015 at 01:34 AM
So Coporate foljs that hold a conference on SL, Me who gave a Photography clsss on SL, Louvre Museum that shows RL paintings, Life concerts with direct RL voices singing, etc, etc, etc is... gaming ? If so by definition than lets smoke a joint and get philosophycal - Facebook is a Game, Yahoo is a Gane, Webpages are a game, hummm nice joint, nice philosophical sides, the Sky is the limite
Posted by: Carlos Loff | Thursday, July 09, 2015 at 03:40 AM
Hmm well if 'Playing a game is the act of solving statistically varied challenge situations presented by an opponent who may or may not be algorithmic within a framework that is a defined systemic model' then I know where I have been going wrong, as that sums up Blender, the Gimp and Visual Studio all in one. Brilliant! Back to 'playing' then.
Posted by: sirhc deSantis | Thursday, July 09, 2015 at 04:15 AM
It's not a game, it's a weird sex simulator ;-)
Posted by: Cube Republic | Thursday, July 09, 2015 at 05:37 AM
Can you sodomize a man-squirrel while dressed as a horse in a video game?
I rest my case.
Posted by: Issa Heckroth | Thursday, July 09, 2015 at 08:42 AM
not stable enough
Posted by: Cube Republic | Thursday, July 09, 2015 at 10:37 AM
SL is a game. Yahoo, Flickr, Blogs, Facebook etc? YES, they are gamified platforms. I mean really do you believe EVERYTHING anyone uploads onto these pages is their real life?
Posted by: melponeme_k | Thursday, July 09, 2015 at 11:12 AM
Meh, It's just a hobby.
Posted by: Connie Arida | Thursday, July 09, 2015 at 08:59 PM
http://oliveremberton.com/2014/life-is-a-game-this-is-your-strategy-guide/
Posted by: zz bottom | Friday, July 10, 2015 at 06:55 AM
It's a game with UGC. Academic answer: SL is inherently "ludic," involving playful activity. Not all games need a winner or clear-cut goal to qualify.
The biggest game in SL is played by LL on its customers. LL tends to always win that one!
Posted by: Iggy | Monday, July 13, 2015 at 07:28 AM
Okay. Fine. It is a game.
So all the rules banning confederate flags and swastica a, we can get rid of those. After all, it is only a game. The rules against gambling, we can eliminate those too. After all it is only a game. And the rules against inworld banks? Age restrictions? Pg land limits? advertising restrictions? We can get rid of all those as well - it is only a game...
I accept it is partly a game in that nobody can be physically harmed by any activity within it. But it is not just a game to most who while away many hours building stuff to sell or create campsites for Relay for Life. If it is just a game then why do we have the absurdity of real life laws getting involved over IP rights? I've yet to hear a court case or dmca demand when people play candyland...
Posted by: Shockwave Yareach | Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 11:48 AM
Your good friend Tom Boellstorff is right. You should listen to him.
Posted by: Bill Freese | Friday, July 17, 2015 at 10:52 AM
In order for it to be a game, it has to have defined goals and rules of play.
You can win a game. You can't win at Second Life. (Not with LL making the rules and changing them at whim. LOL)
A more accurate definition of SL is it's a simulated environment. It's a pastime. It could even be called a toy. But game. No.
I would even go so far as to call it a simulated environment/social network application. As has so often been montioned, SL is pretty damn boring if you're all alone in it. It becomes interesting when you meet and get to know other people. Where else can you meet a robot, a talking squirrel, a scantily-clad nymphette with jiggly everything, and a dancing fox all in one place?
LL has never known how to define this miasma they cobbled together.
The most laughable attempts they made were trying to sell it as a training/business collaboration/conferencing platform. Then there was run a sim behind your corporate firewall. All in the hopes of growing their customer base to ridiculous new heights as the Grid melted down at the 90K level.
What they should have done is market it for what it is...A simulated world where you and others like you can express yourselves in new, fun, creative, and yes (oh woe is me LL) *adult* ways. (They hate that porn built the Interwebz and have always had this sense of corporate shame about *gasp* adults having sex in SL; had they embraced it they would have vaulted the company beyond a billion in value).
LL has always been too stodgey and too close to SL that it suffers "Can't see the forest for the trees" inability to see (for God's sake, they *don't* even use it!). Rather than provide the palette to allow others to express themselves freely, take care of theft, and rake in the money, they shot the golden goose, found no golden eggs, plucked it and it's in the oven as I write this.
When confronted with the "weird sex" or "expressions of adult themes" in SL, rather than be Puritanically embarrassed, they should have laughed and said, "We're always amazed how people use the platform. If you had this simulated world as your canvas, what would you do? What would you create?" In other words, rather than acting like a 13 year old boy caught with a Playboy, laugh about it and take delight in all the innovative ways users made use of the technology--even if it's uncomfortable. If it's not illegal, revel in it. After all, LL is nothing more than an overpriced, overblown hosting company. (Many hosting companies take the tack, "Not responsible for what's on the servers. If illegal, we'll co-operate with law enforcement and do a take-down."
Game, no. Simulation, yes. Canvas for expression, definitely. Badly managed and marketed, positively.
As for this being the final word about "SL is a game," that's ludicrous. Good link bait though.
Posted by: Krinkles Q. Klown | Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 11:15 AM
According to the law in my country, participating in virtual sex would be illlegal and even a criminal offence, because SL has no proper age verification. Even where it is not illegal the image of SL as being mainly a place for porn addicts, true or not, is an embarrassment. They should have done a completely seperate virtual world under a different name for porn content, as Youtube and Pornhub are seperate websites. But they will repeat the mistake with Sansar again, and as a result, Sansar will also embarass too many people to become a bigger niche.
Back on topic:
When I was playing one of the first (and best) MMOs, Mankind, there was certainly a large group of inhabitants who took it far more seriously than a mere game. And the funny thing is: It was easier to take it seriously than Second Life BECAUSE it was a proper game with proper game mechanics, albeit a sandbox which offered a lot of freedom. I think it needs a fine balance: Too few game mechanics and too many (linear) game mechanics both miss the sweet spot. For me, both World Of Warcraft and Second Life miss it, from different angles. Mankind is the only MMO that did not miss it, Jumpgate came close but hindered freedom too much already with predifined factions.
I would indeed appreciate if SL becomes more game-like - but "achievement and ratings systems" will surely not do the job. Proper physics enabling vehicles to cross sim borders smoothly - or getting rid of (narrow) sim borders as OpenSim with var-regions - PLUS getting rid of avatar flying and arbitrary teleporting, would be a way more weighty step to achieve a better balance somewhere in between god like powers and linear gameplay, the two extremes which lead to boredom.
Posted by: Thomas Galbreus | Sunday, February 07, 2016 at 10:59 AM
What's missing from the graphic above is the label for the graph paper on which the Venn diagram is drawn. That graph paper is labelled "life", which includes both pixel-based and molecular life.
Posted by: Raz | Monday, April 09, 2018 at 12:56 PM
All of the above, or maybe none of the above.
Posted by: Coughran | Saturday, October 10, 2020 at 10:26 PM