There is now a customizable digital Barbie that connects (with included cradle?) to a virtual world - 'a next-generation fashion doll and stylish MP3 player all in one'. You need the device to connect to the world, but once there can create a room, shop, and do other typical social VW stuff (all with parentally controlled permission settings). From Amazon (who are suggesting I buy one):
The hottest toy of the season is finally here! The interactive Barbie Girls let you do more with Barbie than ever before! At www.BarbieGirls.com, girls can create their own, personalized online space--everything from designing a "room" to creating a character--where they can then play games, chat with gal pals, watch videos and even shop with earned virtual money. They even play MP3's! Parents will appreciate extras such as word filters, moderation tools and other safety features to ensure that the virtual world stays friendly and fun for all visitors. Barbie Girls are the newest, coolest way to play.
Apparently the site has been up since April, but this is this first I've heard of it... anyone else got kids obsessed with Webkinz? Mine calls hers Websky.
Well, that's what girls were doing with Barbies since long before Barbie was born. Ok, except the last two: videos are natural extension of tea parties and shopping is the result of capitalism educating kids into nice future consumers.
Actually, it is a great fun to develop (and watch growing) a kid's and/or teen's virtual environment. Though, there are some things I don't like about tis one....
Posted by: dandellion | Oct 07, 2007 at 19:03
Lisa said: You need the device to connect to the world, but once there can create a room, shop, and do other typical social VW stuff ... (quoting the PR) they can then play games, chat with gal pals, watch videos and even shop with earned virtual money
Okay, let me ask the obvious and curmudgeonly question: So what? What makes this different from any of the other social worlds that have come and gone, and which are all the rage (in investment circles at least) now?
More pointedly, over the past ten years or so we've seen many "social worlds" come out with a big splash and then fizzle: Worlds Chat and Club Caribe were two early instances back in the mid-90s, heading up a trail of carcasses to the biggest kahuna in The Sims Online -- the best IP in the gaming universe, and it crashed on the rocks of there being nothing interesting to do there (other than make pizzas and virtual prostitution).
Now these social worlds are once again all the rage, and either market conditions have changed fundamentally this time around, or people aren't learning from earlier trials. To me, the longevity and especially the ability of these worlds to monetize millions of users consistently over time seems to be in question. There are now many places online where you can make an avatar, decorate an apartment, go shopping with virtual dollars for virtual stuff, play a few games, and chat. Maybe watch videos (of what?). But what, in business-speak, is the value proposition?
It might be that the rising tide of people online who are interested in a graphical social experience (something that's more than just IM, more than just YouTube or the SN site of the week) make these social worlds viable from a business POV. There are certainly many multi-million-dollar bets being put on this being the case.
But I'm still scratching my head. What is it that will keep someone -- a young girl in the Barbie case -- coming back after a month, six months, or a year, especially in a way that she's willing to pay for? New outfits to buy for your avatar? How long does that stay fresh and interesting?
How do these worlds not fall to the "that's so yesterday" phenomenon of trendy spots from restaurants to social networking sites? How do they avoid turning into the boring ghost towns first seen with the creepily empty "streets" in some of the early "homestead" websites and more recently seen in acres of constructed but uninhabited Second Life terrain?
It's not that I'm down on socialization or even on Barbie (though this particular product screams cultural decadence to me), much less on virtual worlds in general. But I have to wonder: in a few years are we going to be awash in vibrant social worlds each going their own direction? Or will we be looking vaguely embarrassed at the irrational exuberance in this area and some of the social worlds that launched, only to crumble in what snowballed into the Great Virtual World Bubble Burst of 2010?
And in either case, what does this mean for virtual worlds? If social worlds turn out to have staying power, how does perturb the development plans everyone from do-it-yourself spaces like Metaplace to worlds made by, say, EA -- or Google? And if this whole social world thing turns out to be a 'deja vu all over again' replay of the dotcom bubble bursting, what will that mean for the future of virtual worlds in general?
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Oct 07, 2007 at 20:03
I recently visited a friend of mine who has two 7 year-old twins, a boy and a girl. They both have webkinz. My friend, as a good mother, logged into both of their webkinz accounts to check things out.
She said the virtual version of the boy's stuffed animal stayed healthy regardless of whether the boy did anything with it or earned points playing games. The girl's virtual version however needed lots of care and lots of points to take care of. Her impression was that the site used the virtual equivalent of emotional blackmail to get girls to play more games and earn more points.
I haven't confirmed these observations myself, but regardless of whether they are accurate across the board, such differential treatment is obviously quite possible.
So is that a good thing or a bad thing? Or neither?
I think this may go to the question of why should we care about the virtualization of Barbie (and other toys). Adding a virtual component to these real world toys allows toy makers (the virtual world gods in this instance) to shape the child's experience, and they have the ability to provide differential treatment.
Posted by: Scott Boone | Oct 07, 2007 at 21:12
my older daughter likes her webkin, and she does like to take care of it at times, but she gets annoyed with having to take care of it, too. she wants to play.
Posted by: jeremy snyder | Oct 08, 2007 at 09:02
I agree that this is really not all that exciting from a virtual worlds studies perspective, but I'm fascinated by how mainstream it's all becoming. Especially after witnessing how seamlessly children connect physical to virtual... the line between the two is blurring quite a lot, and I think that presages a very interesting future.
Posted by: Lisa Galarneau | Oct 08, 2007 at 17:58
What worries me about virtual worlds for ever-younger audiences is that they could have a long-term affect on what we play as adults. It's long been noted that people regard their first virtual world as something special, and that they judge all other virtual worlds in terms of that first, awe-inspiring experience. What happens when your first virtual world was for 8-year-olds?
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Oct 09, 2007 at 03:18
Posted by: Morgan Ramsay | Oct 09, 2007 at 08:25
i think richard asks a really valid question about what happens when your first VW experiences are at age 8 (well, 7 for my daughter). i can tell you that her experiences are largely an extension of her real-world social network, such as it is. for instance, she only chats with people that she already knows, basically her friends from the neighborhood. this may change over time, and i'll watch that. but for now, she's just learning to use virtual communication tools and maintain a relationship through digital media.
Posted by: jeremy snyder | Oct 09, 2007 at 08:51
"The future is a strange thing to worry about since you'll never really know what would have happened if some event never occurred."
Certainly no stranger than worrying about the past.
Posted by: JuJutsu | Oct 09, 2007 at 11:12
Morgan Ramsay>Would you feel any better if you recognized that you will never truly know about those long-term effects?
No, I wouldn't. What would make me feel better is if what I suspect the long-term effects will be (ie. yet another turn of the mill of blandness that grinds virtual worlds to dust) turned out not to be the case.
>The future is a strange thing to worry about since you'll never really know what would have happened if some event never occurred.
But if I believe something is more likely to happen than something else, would I not be wise to consider taking contingency actions? If I'm not worried about crossing a busy road, that makes me more likely to get hit by a vehicle than if I am worried about it.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Oct 10, 2007 at 03:26
Mike: But I'm still scratching my head. What is it that will keep someone -- a young girl in the Barbie case -- coming back after a month, six months, or a year, especially in a way that she's willing to pay for?
Her friends, if it becomes their local after-school hang-out. Many kids live in suburbs where they can't hang out... So, a third place. The Palace worked this way. Teens hang out at friendship/dating sites with no particular features, just because everybody else does.
Anyway, it's a cheap marketing gimmick with low risk. So it's probably worth the investment even if you only get a few visits from your average customer? Sort of creates an image of Barbie-dolls being comtemporary high-tech toys, rater than outdated nostalgic items. Branding, no doubt.
Posted by: Ola Fosheim Grøstad | Oct 10, 2007 at 07:52
Ola, what you say is sort of my point: The Palace sort of worked that way for a relatively small core of people, and after awhile they got bored and moved on (well, a simplification, but not by too much). And that was when there were many fewer choices available online.
As a marketing gimmick, okay, I get that. But what, I wonder, will the value be of many of the "virtual social worlds" that have no attractors of their own (other than that they're temporarily popular) in a year, two, or three? Does this become a high-risk loss-leader business like opening a new restaurant hotspot every year or so?
It may be that I'm too old-school here, too steeped in the idea that worlds have to have internal attractors, things to do, reasons to be there, to have enduring value. But having seen so many social worlds (including The Palace) ride high and then flame out when people figured out there really was no reason to be there, I'm surprised people are still chasing this illusionary goal -- and that doing so has even come back into vogue!
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Oct 10, 2007 at 09:37
My youngest is all about TyGirlz. These dolls are offline/online plush toys with an individual personality that also inhabits a virtual world online. I work with Ty Inc., and it looks like these are going to be big on Christmas lists this year. If the Barbie Girls sparked your interest, take a look at tygirlz.com.
Posted by: Nadia | Oct 10, 2007 at 16:59
Nadia>If the Barbie Girls sparked your interest, take a look at tygirlz.com.
Wow, that's a lot of pink they have going on with that site.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Oct 11, 2007 at 03:55
It may be that we are too early on the curve. I've been struggling with the question of where shared spaces are. If you have a group of five friends that are in continuous contact (think wireless earpieces and cell phones in walkie-talkie mode) where is the group? Could a micro-virtual-world provide that sense of place? Is a sense of place even necessary? We take as a given that virtual worlds in the narrow MMOG sense replicate some geometric space. But must they? Do we need an anchor to ground us as our non-virtual worlds become more symbolic? I'm thinking the flip side of overlaying a virtual world on the physical world. Here we are providing a surrogate for the physical world where it's communication modes do not inherently have one.
This could be the attractor Mike is looking for -- rooted in the real-world relationships Jeremy describes for his daughter. With regard to Richard's concerns, I would emphasize a different focus. Rather than virtual worlds influencing the way we play, I see the way we interact changing the way we utilize virtual worlds. That being said, of course, I have little idea of how :)
Posted by: C_Park | Oct 11, 2007 at 14:16
It may be that we are too early on the curve. I've been struggling with the question of where shared spaces are. If you have a group of five friends that are in continuous contact (think wireless earpieces and cell phones in walkie-talkie mode) where is the group? Could a micro-virtual-world provide that sense of place? Is a sense of place even necessary? We take as a given that virtual worlds in the narrow MMOG sense replicate some geometric space. But must they? Do we need an anchor to ground us as our non-virtual worlds become more symbolic? I'm thinking the flip side of overlaying a virtual world on the physical world. Here we are providing a surrogate for the physical world where it's communication modes do not inherently have one.
This could be the attractor Mike is looking for -- rooted in the real-world relationships Jeremy describes for his daughter. With regard to Richard's concerns, I would emphasize a different focus. Rather than virtual worlds influencing the way we play, I see the way we interact changing the way we utilize virtual worlds. That being said, of course, I have little idea of how :)
Posted by: C_Park | Oct 11, 2007 at 18:39
@ c park: the group is nowhere, really, isn't it? i mean of course the world has servers in some location and users in various locations, but the only location that's important is the world setting.
for the second question concerning whether the way we interact irl influences the way we interact in a virtual world or vice versa, probably both are true, but at least for kids, we're on the early end of the curve to see the long-term effects.
Posted by: jeremy snyder | Oct 12, 2007 at 09:48
@Jeremy
>The group is nowhere, really, isn't it? i mean of course the world has servers in some location and users in various locations, but the only location that's important is the world setting.<
That's really the question I'm troubled by. (And BTW -- sorry for the earlier double post) When our physical environment is mediated by electronic communication (the cell phone example) we place ourselves in an abstract place. The five people in a mobile conference call are in some sense sharing a space. They can each overhear the conversations going on around the other folks in the conference call, each person has a grounding in their world setting, but the group is somewhere else. In a traditional conference call a shared slide can provide a group focus. In a two-person conversation the participants may be visualizing the other party's image or location. When the more complex space of the mobile, multi-person conference call -- where the participants, one can imagine, are on the move -- is created does it need some kind of realization that the participants can tie to? I can accept that the answer is "No", but somehow I don't think that's right. Anyone who's seen kids on a phone "in their own world" is experiencing an anecdotal counter-example.
As a stalking horse I'm suggesting that a micro-persistent-virtual-world (3-7 people) can provide an anchor for some future "fave five". Should T-Mobile and Matel get together to add real-world communications to the virtual Barbie Clubhouse?
Posted by: C-Park | Oct 12, 2007 at 12:22
Webkinz is awful - not only are there these maintenance issues, but you have to keep the tags forever because if you lose the secret code on the tag and forget your password (when you are eight, that's likely), you will never see your beloved virtual pet again. It's disgusting and it tears their little hearts out. There is no recourse - no place on the webkinz site to go for help, you can't even send tham an email if you don't have your password. DISGUSTING. So, parents, either make sure that information is preserved absolutely safely for the full year that the account runs (they make you buy more pets in order to keep your original webkinz alive, by the way. One per year.), or DO NOT START - your child will be heartbroken and there will be nothing whatsoever that you can do to retrieve the little virtual friend.
Posted by: Mom | Jan 23, 2008 at 12:19
dose anyone want to be my friend?
Posted by: destiny | Feb 04, 2008 at 18:34
coll da will ich auch angemeldet sein hahah coool
Posted by: christina | Oct 05, 2008 at 08:53