Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Social Networks The Internet Businesses Google

Google Lively Review 205

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the deja-what-now dept.
joc1985 writes "An objective review of Google Lively after a few hours of playing around. It seems to be a bad copy of Second Life. Somehow all the rooms are crowded, and porn has made its way in there already"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Lively Review

Comments Filter:
  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Thursday July 10, 2008 @10:18AM (#24135209)
    Billions of dollars in capital and they give us a retread of AlphaWorld [digitalspace.com] from 1996? What's next, GoogleMUD?
    • by Minupla (62455) <minupla@NOspAM.gmail.com> on Thursday July 10, 2008 @10:40AM (#24135787) Homepage Journal

      That'd be cool. GoogleMUSH! @desc me=A grue. He is likely to eat you.;@adesc me=@emit The Grue pours water on your lantern.

    • by Ngarrang (1023425)

      Billions of dollars in capital and they give us a retread of AlphaWorld [digitalspace.com] from 1996? What's next, GoogleMUD?

      A MUD hosted by Google...that would be so retro-awesome! I still have a copy of TinyFugue laying around.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by negRo_slim (636783)
        FTFA:

        On a side note I was VERY disappointed when I found several Sex oriented rooms. Google has always been very good at protecting their users in youtube, picasa, and any other service they provide. This time they let the ball drop.

        Good to see someone who knows they are in dire need of being protected from, gasp, sex!

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Timex (11710) *

          Read the article again, and pay close attention to the context that the author used your excerpt in.

          As far as the adults go, it's not a question of needing to be protected from it... Most adults are perfectly aware of where to go to get it if they want it.

          The point that the article's author was making was simply that there was no discernible means of verifying age, and since most states in the US have laws on the books stipulating a legal age to obtain sexual material, failure to have limits in place to pr

  • by MLopat (848735) * on Thursday July 10, 2008 @10:19AM (#24135227) Homepage
    This is hardly an objective review. Then again the Slashdot submitter is also the author of the blog...

    When you read comments like "if it wasn't for the logo at the top left you wouldn't even know it was owned and operated by Google. The page is blend with no much color or style" it really makes you wonder. Does it matter that Google didn't brand it everywhere they could like other companies? In classical Google fashion, they took a simplified approach, which itself is a form of Google branding (just look at google.com)

    Then the reviewer goes on "It is 100% centered around the mouse, this for me is a horrible defect that must be solved immediately. I happen to know every keyboard shortcut known to man kind (sic) and I absolutely hate the mouse. I am sure there are many people like me out there. " Well good for you buddy. And great research you've done there in assuming that everyone else is just like you.

    Finally he concludes with saying he found "several Sex oriented rooms". A quick glance through the room index shows maybe a dozen of the 1000+ rooms that are listed there have a sexual theme. Seems like a pretty good ratio considering the amount of porn to be found on the internet and people's computers in relationship to the rest of the content on the web.

    But then again, remember this blog is from "The Random thoughts of a Christian IT Professional."
  • by pete_norm (150498) on Thursday July 10, 2008 @10:20AM (#24135249)

    Somehow all the rooms are crowded and porn has made its way in there already"

    What more could you ask for???

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by AkaKaryuu (1062882)
      Let's be honest... Google has been the starting point of porn searches for years now. They are just now presenting it to their users in a 3d environment! Technological advancement at it's finest!
  • by sakdoctor (1087155) on Thursday July 10, 2008 @10:20AM (#24135259) Homepage

    You write that as if it's a bad thing.

    • You write that as if it's a bad thing.

      Did you read the header of his blog? "Technology meets Theology -- The Random thoughts of a Christian IT Professional."

      • by edmicman (830206)
        Why does Christianity and porn have to be mutually exclusive?
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by nine-times (778537)
          I'm not sure whether there's a clear reason (it wouldn't surprise me if someone could come up with an argument). However, I think it's fair to assume that if someone would define himself as "a Christian IT Professional" enough to have it as the heading of his blog, then that guy would probably not be openly enthusiastic about porn.
          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by joc1985 (1297589)
            Porn is a form of adultery. TADA!
            • by saider (177166) on Thursday July 10, 2008 @11:45AM (#24137299)

              Not if the couple is married!

              I've wondered if there could be a market for "Christian porn" that addresses all the issues they have with it.

              1) Depict married couples in racey and stimulating scenes.
              2) Provide a system that ensures that the actors are not exploited.
              3) ???
              4) Profit!!!

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Anonymous Coward

                How do you enjoy watching married couple porn without coveting the guy's wife?

            • by SQLGuru (980662) on Thursday July 10, 2008 @12:57PM (#24139059) Journal

              Actually, many Christian faith have as a fundamental belief the "Priesthood of the believer" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_of_all_believers [wikipedia.org] which allows that the individual has the right to interpret the Bible as they see fit (and preach that interpretation). So, some will consider it adultery and others will consider it "admiring the works of God". So, there you go.....maybe it is, maybe it isn't. You need to search your own concscience and proceed from there.

              Layne

  • Porn? (Score:3, Funny)

    by neoform (551705) <djneoform@gmail.com> on Thursday July 10, 2008 @10:20AM (#24135265) Homepage

    I'm just waiting for the blackjack and hookers.

    • "Screw you guys, I'll build my own [virtual world], with Blackjack, and Hookers. In fact forget the [virtual world] and the blackjack!"
  • Bad copy? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Hatta (162192)

    Does that imply that a copy of Second Life could somehow be good?

    • Re:Bad copy? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Ron_Fitzgerald (1101005) on Thursday July 10, 2008 @10:34AM (#24135633)
      Direct hit to the nail head. I was truly let down with Second Life. I will even go back here and there to see if things changed but they never do.

      Last time I ventured into second life I searched for 'Beach' and was treated to a picture of a girl fingering herself.

      I had hopes for Second Life for businesses that I work with to have open house and virtual tours for lodging. I would not think about suggesting it anymore.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by BrentH (1154987)

        Last time I ventured into second life I searched for 'Beach' and was treated to a picture of a girl fingering herself.

        I once had this happen to me in First Life...

      • by kermit1221 (75994) on Thursday July 10, 2008 @11:41AM (#24137213)

        "Last time I ventured into second life I searched for 'Beach' and was treated to a picture of a girl fingering herself."

        Yet if that were to happen to you in First Life you probably wouldn't complain.

      • by kv9 (697238) on Thursday July 10, 2008 @12:14PM (#24138061) Homepage

        [...] I was truly let down with Second Life [...] Last time I ventured into second life I searched for 'Beach' and was treated to a picture of a girl fingering herself.

        explain to me, in simple terms, how THAT is a bad thing?

    • by eln (21727) on Thursday July 10, 2008 @10:35AM (#24135651) Homepage

      Does that imply that a copy of Second Life could somehow be good?

      It could be a good thing if it was an antimatter copy of Second Life, which was then brought into contact with the original Second Life.

    • by moosesocks (264553) on Thursday July 10, 2008 @10:58AM (#24136245) Homepage

      "Second Life is not a game," Dwight replied authoritatively. "It is a multi-user virtual environment. It doesn't have points or scores; it doesn't have winners or losers."

      "Oh, it has losers."

  • by Paranatural (661514) on Thursday July 10, 2008 @10:21AM (#24135291)

    It was slow. It was clunky. The interface was pretty disappointing. Hell, even the 'Avatar choosing' part was badly done. I couldn't tell if I was supposed to be designing my own somewhere or just 'using someone elses'. It seems to be a half-baked beta indeed.

    • by mxs (42717) on Thursday July 10, 2008 @11:34AM (#24137047)

      And worst of all, it's not apparent that there is a direction this is going in, or a usage that would not be a complete timewaster or done better elsewhere. Right now, you have a basic "take these 3d objects, slap them in a room, tack some animations on, maybe display a picture here, a youtube video there, and pretend there is something oh-so-cool that everybody is missing.

      It reminds me a lot of VRML, 'ca 1997.

      • Picture frames you can load up with your own pictures (goatse), TV that you can load with youtube vids (Rick Ashley).
        Think of the possibilities here. Where else can you goatse AND rickroll everyone at the same time! ;-)

    • by nobodyman (90587)

      Why on earth did Google buy this? Yeah, they're scooping up all sorts of social web apps, but they tend to be pretty goo web apps. Maybe they were really after underlying patents?

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Paranatural (661514)

        Because you never know what may be the next big thing.

        And seriously, would you prefer Google to be a company who only did Safe, and popular things?

        Lively is a gamble.

        That's not a bad thing.

  • porn has made its way in there already

    Are you really that surprised?

  • LOL DONGS. (Score:3, Funny)

    by bellers (254327) on Thursday July 10, 2008 @10:27AM (#24135447) Homepage

    If it's anything like Second Life, that's what you'll be saying a lot of.

  • Serious accusation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Junta (36770) on Thursday July 10, 2008 @10:28AM (#24135497)

    It seems to be a bad copy of Second Life.

    That's a severe accusation. I tried Second Life. I thought of it as all the design 'quality' and intelligence of myspace, now with 3D goodness...

    • It seems to be a bad copy of Second Life.

      That's a severe accusation. I tried Second Life. I thought of it as all the design 'quality' and intelligence of myspace, now with 3D goodness...

      In that case, maybe a bad copy is better! ;)

  • Definitely a beta (Score:5, Informative)

    by Dmala (752610) on Thursday July 10, 2008 @10:32AM (#24135601)
    Actually, calling it a beta is being generous. There are a lot of interface quirks and bugs to work out, and the content (as far as avatars, furniture, clothes, etc.) definitely feels more like a sample of what will be available. Once they open it up to user created content, I imagine there will be no shortage of "stuff". FWIW, I didn't really have the connection problems the reviewer had. The whole thing thing gets a little laggy in a crowded room, especially if the room is full of junk, but I didn't have any problems getting in.

    As far as the sex themed rooms, they seemed pretty tame to me, at least for now. (Uh, not that I checked them out or anything.) You're limited to streaming videos from YouTube, so you can't show anything that wouldn't pass muster there. You can also display static images in a "picture frame", but the frames seems to be pretty broken at the moment. They seem to only display a small portion of the image, regardless of the resolution. So, at least for the moment, it's pretty much impossible to display anything pornographic. I imagine once they open it up to user created content, though, it will become yet another haven for furries.
  • Platform Support (Score:5, Informative)

    by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Thursday July 10, 2008 @10:34AM (#24135627)

    I looked at this the other day and it seemed to claim to be a "Windows only" service. My Windows system was busy at the time, so I didn't investigate further and it was unclear if they planned on supporting other platforms in future. That's a non-starter in my book.

  • Hello, I'm new to this ./ website. Can you please tell me know to moderate the summary (-1, binspam)?

    TIA!
  • Actually, I played with Lively a bit yesterday and I have to say, for a beta, I'm quite impressed. The poster seems to be ignoring the fact that this is a beta.

    I found it FAR more user-friendly than 2nd life. The tools for building things up aren't bad. Again, it's still in beta, but it all looks very promising. Is it better than second life? I doubt it, but it's also in BETA!

    I do have some issues with it. Camera doesn't seem to follow the avatar. Can't get a view from the avatar's perspective ("Avatar's Vi

    • by rho (6063)

      The poster seems to be ignoring the fact that this is a beta.

      I'm about ready for Google to go gold with something. This perma-beta crap is for the fail.

      • by Pedrito (94783)

        I'm about ready for Google to go gold with something. This perma-beta crap is for the fail.

        Which Google apps are you talking about? Obviously not GMail, Toolbar, Desktop, Talk, Reader, Picasa, or Sketchup. Maybe it's just that Google doesn't make things gold until they're ready...

        • by rho (6063)

          GMail is still beta. They bought SketchUp. Picasa, too, IIRC. Dunno about the others.

          Google doesn't go gold because people like you who excuse errors with, "it's BETA!".

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by JWSmythe (446288) *

      Everything at Google is Beta. They're like a bad project manager. They can start things. They can even make them pretty good, but they'll never actually finish anything. :)

          I can't comment much on the game. I primarily use Linux machines, so I'll have to plug in a Windows machine, and see if it turns on, before I can play.

    • by DaveV1.0 (203135)

      The problem is that there is so much stuff in perpetual beta. "Beta" is the new V1.0.

      Too many people think that "Beta" means it is ready for general use and just needs feature enhancement.

    • by Kelbear (870538)

      Say beta a few more times. Maybe it'll eventually add up into a valid excuse.

      SPOILER: It won't. A public beta is the same thing as 1.0 release no matter how you want to paint it. Different names for the same thing.

  • I didn't really even try it out. Why on earth would they choose DirectX over SDL (or VRML or something) if they planned to release this for more than the one crappy platform that supports DirectX (by design).

    From google, I was really expecting an open product or protocol. If it's just another closed directx app I'll just go play guild wars or something.

    • by gmuslera (3436)
      Google version of open protocols is usually regarding formats or messaging, not so much on native desktop client application. Think in google talk, the native client from google is for windows, but based all in open specifications to enable developers to do their own implementations. Anyway, maybe it still didnt reach yet the "open" stage in the life cycle of that product, as is in early beta.
  • by Chyeld (713439) <chyeld@gm a i l . c om> on Thursday July 10, 2008 @10:47AM (#24135981)

    it's not interesting enough in itself for me to want to spend time playing with it.

    Looking at it in terms of a "20%" product that one of their engineers whipped out on their 'spare' time, it's fairly cool. I don't think they really expected the level of interest that would be shown though, or they would have held it back a bit longer for some more polish.

    It has been in testing before this current release. I can't remember which, but it was released to a university a year prior for their student community to play with.

    In a year, when it's been hammered on a bit more and Google either rolls it into a full fledged product or cuts it loose, I'll start paying more attention.

  • Without RTFA... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by HerculesMO (693085)

    Anybody else feel that Google is biting off more than they can chew?

    I mean, smart people work there to be sure, they have a neat work environment and they excel at search. But everything else they do, and there might be a few exceptions here and there, doesn't hit the mark as far as being "top tier" like their search is. Gmail is probably their best product, albeit free but subsidized by advertising, and then Picasa and Google Analytics. Otherwise a lot of things are very 'meh'... their online office suite,

  • So its a new Web 2.0-esque masturbation party where people can chat with avatars, instead of on AIM or god forbid, calling them on the phone. Its overcrowded, underpowered, full of spam, and doesn't offer anything compelling. Do we pimp everything Google does? Does the term "Google fanboy" suddenly have meaning?

  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Thursday July 10, 2008 @12:08PM (#24137917) Homepage Journal

    If these virtual worlds included tagging other users with different "reject" or "approve" ratings, we could make pivate notes of who we reject and approve association with. People could even tag themselves with these ratings, which we could accept or ignore at our own option. And if the world included a social network function, we could adopt our friends' (or, probably unwisely, strangers' or enemies') ratings. If we could attach simple logic to the social network's ratings implications, like "friend of my friend is my friend" or "enemy of my enemy is my friend", or "30:10:60% friend:enemy:unknown is my friend, unless my friend X is their enemy, in which case they're my enemy", we'd be able to use our real world social skills to screen access to virtual characters.

    That system seems like a natural fit for Google's Orkut social network. With any luck, those tagging/rating/screening systems will be exposed in a standard protocol that will let us merge all our social networks in the separate sites into one big happy family (and mortal enemies, and true strangers), with all points between.

  • ugly (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Efialtis (777851)
    So, I installed and played with it for a few hours...
    Not impressed...
    It takes for-ever to load, and then everyone stands around changing their settings, waiting for it to load, adding or moving or deleting furniture...
    Chatting is the last thing on people's minds...and the way you can interact with others is odd...body slamming, slapping, kissing...
    So there is a lot of that going on...and most of the guys in one chat room had female avatars...
    I don't see it as the "next generation" of chat...text is sti
  • Pr0n? (Score:2, Funny)

    by GottliebPins (1113707)
    What's this guy talking about, porn? That's what the web was mad for. And what's wrong with the mouse? Who surfs for porn with both hands free? ;)
  • Its a well known fact that secondLife has really taken off and made a hit with everyone that can pay for it. It is essentually one virtual world rather than many virtual rooms. I really wish Google would have taken this approach rather than just launch some embedled 3-d chat rooms. There is so much more potential, if Google wanted to, it could take a majority of secondLife's users just by modleing after it except making many aspects of it free. Their was also the potential of virtual ads, virtual web brow
  • by DerekLyons (302214) <(fairwater) (at) (gmail.com)> on Thursday July 10, 2008 @02:37PM (#24141143) Homepage

    Downloaded and installed the app and logged in - after over a minute of waiting for a room to load I closed the browser. I went back to site and clicked on 'help', and found (as is typical of Google) not documentation but forums where people share what learned about how the app works by luck and random clicking about.

    Yet another Google product tossed up without much thought, development, testing, or follow through... Trusting that the googledroids around the world will use it anyhow even though it lacks key features and functionality.

    I probably won't be back, as like most of Google's suite it seems destined to be a distant second place also-ran.

Klein bottle for rent -- inquire within.

Working...