Comments on: Virtual items design: Build it yourself or use UGC?

By: ux design

ux design — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 15:54:59 +0000

test

By: jav

jav — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 15:42:10 +0000

hello

By: Mforiero

Mforiero — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 06:17:04 +0000

I think that IMVU is making a great job for user generated contents…..but there is a big issue related to the re-selling of credits….
IMVU developers can't convert their credits in $ on IMVU official banks, so they try with un-official resellers….some of them steal money to developers……and they suffer from big lost…..

I think that the solution could be the introduction of a real cash economy inside IMVU company for supporting the great job of developers and revenue them with real money….

By: Brian Balfour

Brian Balfour — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:41:45 +0000

Andrew, good post. I have a couple other thoughts from what we have observed at Viximo.

In the use case of expressive and behavioral (gifts) goods the need for some form of UGC is very high. As you know virtual goods are largely about self expression, personalization, customization. Which means that the more personal and unique an item is to a person, the more social value it has, which increases the users willingness to buy.

But there is a key fact here. Virtual goods are just that....virtual. Which means there are no limitations to what an item can be, and thus what a user wants. Thats why we see some of the most random virtual items being the most successful.

An example....there might be a virtual gift that is a Cucumber. I bet that has no social meaning to you and plenty of other people, and therefore has no value to you. But I have an inside joke about a Cucumber with my friend Bret Terrill. So to Bret and I, that cucumber has a lot more social value, and our willingness to buy and send to each other is much higher then yours.

Combine my two previous points together, and it causes a couple problems:

1. Providing a large enough inventory to fill your users aggregate virtual demand by using an in house content team is near impossible. Content is expensive and time consuming.

2. No one person, or group of people will be able to predict what will be successful and what won't.

A marketplace that includes thousands of creators that are properly motivated is required to solve these problems. IMVU has done a good job at this, but as Eric Reis said their exact model has come with a bag of headaches. Obviously I'm biased, but I think a solution that is between IMVU's model, and no UGC is going to be the answer.

By: spanky

spanky — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:10:40 +0000

Hmmm, Charles makes some good points. I, too, am not sure where to start w/ my response… There's actually a step between DIY and UGC that hasn't been mentioned – and that is: Derive-DIY to get to UGC. IMVU provides tools for the casual developer to derive from a DIY asset, and simply re-skin it. For example, a developer can take a really cool 3D room, and just change the texture map to make an entirely new room. In terms of skills, basic photoshop is the only requirement. When it's sold in the catalog, there's a rev-share, if you will, between the original developer and the one who derives. So with a few really good DIY assets, you can have lots of UGC in no time.

Also, Charles is right – managing UGC is challenging. With UGC you also have less control of the size of the assets which impact overall performance. And if you allow your UGC to be derived, then you run the risk that derivation chains can be broken, if a developer at the top of the chain makes drastic changes to the asset.