IEEE Spectrum has a piece available decrying the need, and even the desire for the concept of avatar portability -- the idea that it's possible to take your favorite avatar from one virtual world to another, and have it keep its attributes. They've enlisted a four-point set of reasons why this can't and shouldn't work. Their ideas are cogent, but do make a few assumptions. "A company wants people to stick with the game that funds the company, not play games by other companies." Well, if you port your avatar to someone else's game, you ARE playing that game, with its associated fees. I'd think this would be a good way to experiment with a different platform, leavening the risk for those typically fearful of change.
"Games have different purposes, and thus different requirements of the art." Part of the point of developing portable avatars means that by the mere ability to enter a different space, they will already be equipped to deal with the rigors and strictures imposed by the game's mechanics. I'd imagine that IBM and LL are aware enough of the need for this that they'll work it into the standards.
More after the jump!
"Games have different themes." Again, all this stuff would be contained in the standards. And let's not forget: this set of standards will not be a crowbar, forcing games to accept outside avatars. I'm sure developers will be able to lock out unwanted intrusion.
"Not everyone wants to be the same person online, always." Same response as above; no one's putting a gun to your head demanding that you be the same all the time. Why are videogame journalists and commenters so uptight about these things! These proposed standards aren't even real yet; they may not ever be. They might never reach a stage of completion. They're certainly not something we can even be concerned about right now. Your little bubbles are safe, people. Get up in arms when there's something actual to be upset about.
1. Agreed. Avatar portability could be very useful for instance when travelling from SL to an OpenSim hosted grid, Kaneva, or something like that, and there's no reason to decry it's usefullness because you might not want to use it.
Posted at 10:31AM on Oct 24th 2007 by Sered Woollahra