I would like to start off by saying I, myself, had to spend a lot of time in Second Life for a class, however my outcome and your was different. Although I went into Second Life with the mindset that I thought it was weird and I wasn't going to enjoy it, the results of it, in my case, was the same; Second Life convinces people that it has something that they couldn't accomplish in reality. Although to a certain extent this is true, I feel as though people's insecurities and vulnerabilities are played up to use against them. I know you stated that your goal in writing your article was to create virtual worlds for studying real-world business. I'm not necessarily sure how an imagined, created world could prep us for the real world. Granted Second Life can create different scenarios so people can see how to respond and act in certain events-that I understand-however I feel the best way to learn about real-world business and life is to get out there and live/experience it.
You mentioned something else that I found very interesting in the article. You stated serious games provide a better understanding of both forms of "study"; by students who acquire business knowledge and researchers in academia. I don't fully agree with that. I'm not sure if it's because I'm a hands on person that believes in going out and getting your hands dirty, or because I am a huge pessimist when it comes to focusing too much time on technology. I feel with this games and "study" behind the screen, society will get to comfortable with being behind the screen that we won't want to come from behind it.
Using games such as Second LIfe isn't terrible and it isn't the worst way to do "research", however no one person has the ability to control or regulate technology and the Internet, which is partially the reason why it is so popular and why it works. However this lack of control and lack of a gatekeeper, which was the main reason why technology is so great, may in fact be the reason why it is possibly detrimental also.