No way. LL has simply proven too unreliable. Any hope of seeing LL managing/brokering a metaverse of virtual worlds providing authentication of L$ validation services, links to external services or hosting... have gone up in smoke. Why should an organization pay to be locked-in without any option of backup or control over its resources, or hope of its development in the future? Sure, there's still a huge variety of locations and people, advanced content providers and stability, but no assurance or reliability for the mid-term regarding organizational services, external hosting, etc. OpenSim providers are less stable and have small communities, but organizations can have backups and even the freedom to host content externally or mpve it elsewhere. Why pay a lot more than with OSim providers just for easier start but be locked-in and risking losing it all if funding fails in any given year? LL had the overall trust of the community regarding its eventual evolution into an open provider/broker of open solutions and platforms. Now it is simply the caretaker of a private garden, with hopes dashed of becoming anything more.

Certainly! Last time I counted, something like 7-8 groups were proposing different kinds of standards for that. Some focusing on 3D content, others on identity federation, etc. There's even an official ISO/MPEG standard about that, informally called MPEG-V.

I agree with "I believe that we can reach those mass audiences. But it won't be from walled garden, niche worlds created for specific educational or nonprofit goals." but I disagree with your perspective that the answer is "massive, beautifully designed, immersive worlds that combine gameplay, socializing, entertainment and public good applications." Rather, I think it needs to be like the Web: a multitude of independent locations, created on a whim or professionally, but all connected seamlessly. A Beautiful designer worlds that are professionally crafted simply cannot keep up with the current world, full of innovation and initiatives.

I hadn't thought of that! Makes perfect sense in the line of what you had proposed in the "petri dishes" paper. It does makes one wonder how to develop efficient data-gathering strategies for freeform virtual worlds.

First, that is, as in "because Second Life is not a game".

Hear, hear! I've for some time abandoned that distinction! http://bit.ly/k8Qiqo.In fact, I believe that quite a few posts didn't make this distinction either, but it's glad to see this as "official", now!