Interoperability; was: [sldev] Call for requirements: ISO MPEG-V ...

Mike Monkowski monkowsk at watson.ibm.com
Wed Jun 4 10:21:43 PDT 2008


Kelly Linden wrote:
> Sorry, Perhaps my response was pigeonholed? :)

Didn't mean to. :-)

> "Effort on interoperability should be focused on the products (potential 
> and existing) that would actually want it. "

And I would say "Effort on interoperability should be focused on the 
customers (potential and existing) that would actually want it."  The 
focus is different.

> The actual example being discussed was WoW, the specific reason given 
> was a user who didn't want to play WoW because they wanted a fully 
> customizable avatar in WoW because they didn't like elves and similar.  
> WoW is not going to want to upset their millions of paying subscribers 
> by allowing arbitrary content in world - it just isn't the product that 
> WoW is.  And people who don't like elves aren't the customers for WoW.  
> Almost all other MMORPGs in existance today fall into that category.  I 
> think this will be true of many games for a good long time.

I don't disagree, except perhaps in the meaning of "long time."

> Now that I've written this I realize what is being discussed isn't 
> really 'interoperability' but a small subset of it: content exchange.  
> What I have said primarily focuses on this aspect of interoperability, 
> and this isn't probably even the biggest part, nor the most important.

My feelings are the same as yours, but, as my wife often points out, 
most people do not think the way I do. :-)  I'm trying to understand why 
content exchange is at all important to anyone.

> There are definitely places where interoperability is not only possible 
> but highly desired.  My point is just to focus efforts there.  Even 
> products that may not want full interoperability (such as content 
> exchange) may be interested in other forms of interoperability such as 
> communication or authentication or a standard viewer (which is I think 
> what started this thread).  It might be beneficial even to WoW to be 
> able to get customers without them needing to install new software on 
> their machine.  In fact that future probably puts dollar signs in many 
> an Exec's eyes.

Those dollar signs often distort one's vision. :-)

> Little Big Planet is interesting because it does have facilities for 
> content creation ..... however from what I have seen that content 
> creation is still somewhat limited.  The characters have a specific 
> look, the content has a specific look.  Perhaps it isn't as vital to the 
> product as WoW and similar content-creation-less products, and perhaps 
> LBP is a potential customer for content exchange interoperability.  
> After thinking about this I think it is very important to be clear about 
> what form interoperability is being discussed and to allow and encourage 
> varying degrees of interoperability.

I brought up Little Big Planet because it doesn't fit either of the 
categories:  MMO game or virtual world.  I imagine that more MMO games 
might begin to include content creation.

But back to the main topic. You say that "LBP is a potential customer 
for content exchange interoperability."  Why?  Just because it has 
content?  Or does the content exchange provide synergy?

Mike


More information about the SLDev mailing list