Outeroperability or interoperability?

Outeroperability – there’s a word. Well, actually it isn’t a word at all (try a Google search on it).

.

It’s a word meant to mean the opposite to interoperability – the as yet unproven process of enabling avatars to move from one virtual world to another

..

When thinking about the process of actually moving from one world to another, several avatar-related issues crop up, such as:

.

Names

.

If you move from one world to another, what happens to your name if someone in the virtual world you’re heading to has the same name?

.

Interoperability as a concept would imply moving directly from one world to another. So, an issue here is naming convention – who owns and maintains the list of names?

.

A related problem more relevant to the future than to the present is the issue of virtual trademarks and branding. Second Life already has a few virtual celebrities with very well-known avatar names. But who owns the rights to those names in other virtual worlds?

.

Now think about new accounts – creating a new avatar account in a virtual world. If the account is created in There, then should it then be removed for someone to use it in Second Life?

.

If interoperability implies every virtual world interacting with the others then this could be a big management headache – and who takes responsibility for this?

.

Inventory

.

When moving directly from one world to another what happens to all the inventory/stuff owned by the avatar? This could be clothing, notecards, landmarks and scripts.

.

Maybe you have to leave your inventory in the world it was created in. But that could be an issue if the inventory item in question is required by the avatar in the other world.

.

Appearance

.

Appearance is probably going to be one of the ‘makers or breakers’ for cross-world avatar movement. This is because it is the most personal connection between the human (owner) and the avatar.

.

Spend some time in any virtual world and you’ll soon realise the people spending the most time there (and those who have been there longer) are extremely attached to their avatars with careful consideration given to how they virtually represent themselves.

.

So, if every world is directly connected, this would imply that each metaverse would have to translate the appearance of an avatar every time they enter the new world. The issue here then becomes one of how this actual translation works, in terms of designs, colours, textures and then the whole package.

.

One thing’s for sure – no-one is going to want to look silly or ‘out of character’ when they shift worlds. This could be a major hurdle to overcome in order to facilitate and encourage such movements.

.

Cash balances

.

Another critical element of cross-world avatar movement. Most people hold currency, be it a little or in some instances a lot.

Having the ability to move between worlds would imply the facility to spend Linden Dollars in There, or spend Therebucks in Kaneva.

So, two primary issues here. Firstly the micropayment transaction itself. The processes for managing a transaction in one world using currency for another means that somewhere, somehow, there needs to be a reconciliation between worlds.

.

Secondly there’s the exchange rate to consider. As we see with the Linden Dollar, it fluctuates daily. And what happens if an avatar has cash balances in multiple worlds? Perhaps an easier way would be a centralised hub allowing access to these deposits or even a centralised generic currency accepted across any virtual world?

.

The potential pitfall of interoperability – strategic conflict

.

A fundamental issue to be resolved when considering cross-world avatar movement is the development of common standards. Should every virtual world be devoting resource to reverse-engineering these standards into their platforms?

.

Arguably this resource would be better deployed in enhancing the actual experience of the world itself and the features/functions available to its residents. After all, cross-world movement is a two-way street – it allows just as many residents to leave a world as it does to enter – it’s a zero-sum game.

.

And, for new world in development the same issue is present – devote resource to the world itself or to the development of interoperability?

.

Explaining Outeroperability

.

But maybe there is another way, a way of making interoperability a more streamlined process. The answer may be, for lack of a better term, ‘Outeroperability’.

.

In essence, Outeroperability means having a central hub or destination for all avatars wishing to move between worlds. This hub acts as the gateway between all virtual worlds .

.

In this context, it is the hub that interacts with the virtual worlds, as opposed to each world having to talk to and interact with one another. The diagram below explains the basic differences between inter and outer-operability.

How it could work?

.

Outeroperability may be possible by having a centralised hub. This could be a standalone organisation that focuses on creating access in and out of each available metaverse.

.

This hub may actually be the first port of call for new people wanting to enter virtual worlds. In the first instance, the avatar name is selected from the hub, checking against name lists from all worlds. Appearance is managed from here as well with the hub creating a primary avatar style and then showing how it would be displayed across all worlds. And currency could be managed from here as well.

.

For existing avatars, the hub would have to provide the ability to import or access existing avatar profiles. Modification of appearance as well as cash balances would need to be available here as well.

.

Could this be the answer for cross-world avatar movement? Do worlds need to be able to talk to each other or is Outeroperability a more manageable solution?