It's fair to say that Second Life didn't fail. It's profitable and has a large stable userbase. It definitely didn't live up to expectations, though.
From my perspective, the problem was that the entire architecture is built around simulating on the server. This makes servers expensive, creates lag, and entirely prevents a whole type of 3D environments - anything that requires lag-free responsiveness, like a first person shooter.
Imagine if people could create any kind of 3D game in Second Life. People would be using that instead of Unity/Unreal/other game engines.
Games are a potentially huge market, if Second Life had tied into that it could have grown its userbase tremendously. It had almost all the necessary technology - it just was structured in a way that you just can't do responsive games.
(Btw, why does the article use SecondLife without a space between the two words?)
From my perspective, the problem was that the entire architecture is built around simulating on the server. This makes servers expensive, creates lag, and entirely prevents a whole type of 3D environments - anything that requires lag-free responsiveness, like a first person shooter.
Imagine if people could create any kind of 3D game in Second Life. People would be using that instead of Unity/Unreal/other game engines.
Games are a potentially huge market, if Second Life had tied into that it could have grown its userbase tremendously. It had almost all the necessary technology - it just was structured in a way that you just can't do responsive games.
(Btw, why does the article use SecondLife without a space between the two words?)