Here's the trailer:

Microsoft pushed out an announcement that they were holding a C# developers meeting in Second Life.  The email pointed to an article on devsource.com.  At Clear Ink, we're finding that Second Life is a good place to hold meetings that would otherwise be on the phone. It made me wonder why Microsoft hasn't created their own competitor to Second Life. After all, it's practically in their brand that they take great ideas in the marketplace (Mac OS, Netscape Navigator, Google Earth) and make "better" versions (Windows XP, MSIE, Visual Earth). I've got to think they've got some bright people who could put together a clone. They definitely have MMORPGs (Asheron's Call).

So, they clearly recognize the utility of a virtual world. They clearly have the capital to fund a project. They clearly have the will, however misguided, to fight Google head to head. They must have some will to fight with IBM and Sun, both of whom have interesting virtual worlds work going on. It would nice to see Microsoft come out with a leading edge product after such a long time.

Maybe they need a visionary. I understand Cory Ondrejka doesn't have a job. He was the CTO at Linden Lab until recently. I'd wish him luck, but luck is something one makes. He's clearly made his own already. I will be really interested to know if the company in Redmond is paying attention.

Raph Koster, a game designer and writer, blogged last week about Studiocom, the agency that developed BarbieGirls.com. I enjoyed Raph's book A Theory of Fun, and I keep an eye on his blog. I appreciate his perspective on virtual worlds because it comes from a more experienced and critical position without being the shrill hyperbole of pieces on ValleyWag.

BarbieGirls.com is a virtual world for fans of Barbie, Mattel's cultural icon for little girls. There are a multitude of these virtual worlds, but this one is special because it attracted a lot of users really quickly. Aside from the success, the story is interesting because Studiocom is self-described as an agency.

You'd expect to find something like BarbieGirls invented by a division of Mattel dedicated to building games. It was developed by a marketing agency that happens to understand virtual worlds really well. It made me a little jealous. We're doing amazing work at Clear Ink, but an assignment like that would be off the scale. And I know we would totally nail an assignment like that.

Virtual worlds are the ultimate platform for engagement. Instead of a flat stack of words, you interface with your customers in an entire universe you've designed for them--or you've designed with them. In small ways, Clear Ink builds these experiences all the time. Of course, we've got the process of building properties and applications inside Second Life. We also develop rich experiences for the Web, such as interactive screencasts.

The immense challenge of developing a virtual world is that it's not just a technical exercise. Electronic Arts does that kind of thing all the time, but they ask their customers to pay up front. It's also not just a marketing exercise. How many ad agencies can you think of that understand the complexity of building an MMOG, not to mention the capacity to get the software development done?

Allow me to take Raph's point a step further. The technology for building virtual worlds is getting easier. This tends to shift the work of building them from the experts in the technology to the experts in the communication. Marketing agencies are the experts in designing communication with customers. Game designers are experts in designing entertaining interactive experiences. We're headed toward a future where marketing agencies have game designers on staff.

I recently posted a comment to Joe Jaffe's blog about Second Life as he is getting a lot of feedback about the pro's and con's of Second Life. From what I can tell, well-meaning marketers are still feeling it is something of a scam. I guess it is all in how one looks at it. We are quite bullish about 3D worlds in general, as long as one knows what they are getting in to at THIS STAGE OF THE GAME. That part is key:

I want to step in here. I work at a digital marketing agency that is spending quite a bit of time and internal capital on building a practice out of Second Life. It is just one of our practices, the others being more well established digital capabilities. Second Life is an early adopter experiment. It is a place to demonstrate the power of a 3D interface and content without being someone's beta product. If you are a client that needs to demonstrate complex visual models or ideas, it is a great space. If you are a client that wants to create an event but the constituents are narrow and worldwide, it is a great venue. If you want to demonstrate that you are exploring all forms of digital communication, then it is a low cost demonstration. Sun, Sony and others are also working on new 3D environments. But what they are missing is an audience. Second Life has the advantage of having real people constantly pushing the buttons and testing the limits. As far as ROI, the ROI lies in what would the difference be between building the kinds of things (an event, a model, a demo) in the real world vs. a 3D virtual version? Huge. And what is the impact when the right audience can now really "get" the complex idea? Really huge. So change your perspective. This is not a full mass market medium yet. It is a sandbox. A really cool, public sandbox. If you look at it this way (for now anyway), Second Life has all kinds of possibilities for the smart marketer.