I think it would also be interesting to explore, within this discussion, what the limitations of Second Life and other multi-user environments are. Second Life in particular differs from normal 'games' because there is essentially no 'winning' or 'losing', just the day-in, day-out cycle of successes and disappointments, world without end. And in a way this format is quite attractive to people outside the traditional gaming community, as it appeals on an intellectual level. But will their appeal expand to a wider demographic, or will they still remain within the realms of gamers?
I think Myspace may soon serve to demonstrate some of the limitations of these environments - the number of new users signing up is declining and it may be swallowed by its own hype.
There is a lot of talk about the potential of these environments, but sometimes this talk is a self-serving exercise on the part of the media. Second Life has 13 million registered users (many of these accounts are inactive) and whilst at first glance this looks like an impressive number, does this number of users warrant the hype wherein it is referred to as 'revolutionary'?

Considering Second Life as a game is highly problematic. It doesn't have clear goals and allows for much more influence from participants. I think that this is where the 'revolutionary' term has some strength. There a many new similar styled applications emerging such as Croquet, Kaneeva and Wonderland which have been floated as open source, meaning much more freedom in regards to content and actions etc. These examples are also, due to their obscurity , devoid of advertising. I think that the reality is that like offline culture, online culture cannot avoid media involvement due to the economics inherent in such systems.

Definitely there are a lot of inactive SL accounts and MySpace accounts. The sad reality of non tangible occurrences is that they never seem to have longevity that are concurrent with traditional notions of fashions and and social trends. I myself have two inactive SL profiles and three in MySpace. I think the interesting thing about this is that people now set up great avatars with great lives and sell them, for real money like some sort of personal identity designer. Given the freedom and detail SL allows for avatar creation this is very interesting when juxtaposed with all these inactive characters. Online identities are proven to be expendable, ephemeral, just like the networks they exist in. Will such systems, when superseded become mass avatar grave sites, destined for online archaeological "digs"?

This is where the significance of such a system lies. Not in the gameplay, which I admittedly find tedious at times, but in the opportunities provided for further cultural investigation and understanding though participation within such environments. This lack of purpose does deter many seasoned gamers, but what it provides as an alternative is superior. The ability to meet in a space and hang out, meet for business, shop for virtual and real items etc. will, as interfaces further develop become more immersive and engage a wider audience than at current.

Whether or not the hype around SL proves warranted the hype around the potential these environments show is definitely not to be ignored. There are so many things to consume online leisure enthusiasts that exposure is the key and unfortunately, rather than in world advertisements for gadgets, add ons etc. to improve interaction and the experience we see adds for new clothes, penises, houses, homewares and many other narcissistic products that thrive on gimmick rather than integrity. Not that I'm too critical of this, in the case of SL such advertising is what got the media and business affiliated with the application in the first place, and was a main factor towards its success.

I believe the limitations placed on such systems are unfortunately dictated by economics in order to keep afloat. This is where digital artists need to once more take one for the team and input creative, thoughtful work into such environments, in order to articulate positive ideas and avenues for new experience. With every new virtual environment/ social network we are responsible for what content is created as we determine what it becomes. But where do you draw the line between artistic integrity and making a lot of money when a good idea is realised and commercially funded? The economics of these systems I think will be a popular area of research increasingly so in the future...

Hmmm... I love Second Life - just because I can build my own badly designed houses, bling and sculptures and flog them off for .0001 of a cent and feel good about not having to mortgage my rl house to start a business!

I also love shopping for things that I could never afford in rl (I don’t have Ivana Trump's chequebook) and I am bloody good at pole dancing!

Am I trapped in a consumerist nightmare or is this another version of the car boot sale, where I can buy cheap crap, get rid of my urge to spend, spend, spend all the time and still have money left over in my wallet to go pay the rent!

I may never have to set foot in a retail store again!

Am I alone in my little digital cheapskate heaven or do others get the same satisfaction?

Yeah totally... I think SL is all about providing alternatives to create diversity of options in our daily lives, rather than pointless distraction. I have meetings in world for my research and often test ideas in the virtual space, kind of like building a maquette or diorama. It is a new way for me to test ideas and to tweak my perspective.

I think it is interesting that due to this "alternative" status SL is so frequently compare it to real life. Of course real life will be superior in terms of experience to most, my point is that SL offers an other environment for us to function in. Whether we enjoy it, hate it, fear it or embrace Second Life it is hard to ignore the discussions it has created and I do honestly believe it to be a great space to experiment and discover new ideas.

You have to attack it in the right way though, which is why the interface needs to be developed so that it offers a greater sensory experience for participants. Providing a greater experience in such applications will help display their true potential. This is only possible through innovative development, particularly in the area of immersion and haptic interaction.