3 ms·

I think what is sorely missing from the entire debate, is a clear definition of what a metaverse actually is. This article here seems to believe that the metav

by hooby 5y ago

I think what is sorely missing from the entire debate, is a clear definition of what a metaverse actually is. This article here seems to believe that the metaverse is nothing but "internet VR". The talk by Carmack for the most part equates the metaverse with MMVR - massively multiuser virtual reality. But according to the explanation that Raph Koster (the mind behing metaplace - the only prior attempt at ever building a metaverse) recently posted at the Playable Worlds homepage, what Facebook is trying to do, is building a mirror world - which is just one world out of many in a multiverse, which in itself is just one small part of the metaverse... All that enthusiastic talk about "it's the future!" isn't helping either - if anything that muddies the waters even more. Right now, we are on the best track of turning "metaverse" into a completely meaningless marketing buzzword. Everyone uses the term, behaving as if it was totally clear and obvious what it meant - but nobody seems to be able to actually produce a clear and to the point explanation or definition. What actually is the metaverse?

TheColorYellow 5y ago
Let's just call it the digital ecosystem and leave it at that.
- hooby 5y ago
  Well, in that case all the current debate is meaningless. Facebook already is a digital ecosystem company - they aren't changing anything at all.
  - TheColorYellow 5y ago
    In so many ways...isn't that exactly the truth? Today Facebook steals your time by locking your attention to their web page or mobile app. Tomorrow they do it by locking your attention to their VR headset or AR glasses. And each time, the whole Facebook ecosystem comes with you. This is exactly what they do and Meta is a natural extension that is betting in a cultural change as much as it is a continuation of everything Facebook is.
netcan 5y ago
It's easy to get entangled in definitions, metaphors and such. It's kind of pointless though. They aren't precise anyway. Instead of clearly defining what these things mean, I think it's better for clarity if we just focus on implications. That's what we care about anyway. We care that "The internet will be the metaverse" inasmuch as this statement has implications. "VR Internet" implies, IMO, decentralisation standard protocols. Zuckerverse implies centralisation. The WWW didn't grow because with one or two companies controlling it. It grew out of a mass of individual webmasters.
- hooby 5y ago
  That's why I'm asking for a more precise definition. To me, it seems kinda hard to discuss the implications of something, when you don't understand what it is - or when the people discussing it, have incompatible ideas of what it is. For example, by the arguments of this article right here, AR/VR is not a requirement for a metaverse (otherwise the current internet could not be a metaverse, right?). According to the keynotes/talks of Facebook and John Carmack, VR seems to be the most central ingredient though. Raph Koster seems to rather agree with the notion that VR/AR is not required. It only has to be multiple virtual worlds that (at least some of which) can interact with the real world somehow. As another example, Raph Koster thinks, that there must be many virtual worlds in a metaverse, and that this virtual worlds must be able to be significantly different from each other - visually and mechanically. Facebook seems to think that having just one single virtual worlds (Facebook's own VR-world) is kinda enough to create a metaverse. This article right here implies that no virtual world is required at all - as the internet doesn't qualify. As a third example, both Facebook and Koster seem to agree, that it is important that a user in the metaverse be represented through some sort of Avatar. They seemingly disagree on what constitutes an Avatar though - Facebook's ideas imply a full 3D VR Avatar - while Koster counts MUDs as virtual worlds, where you get nothing but a handle (username) and maybe a small "description" text-box. This article seems to deny even that notion, since in the internet you are just a more or less random IP-address. You can have all sorts of Avatars on various places on the internet - from usernames to profile images to fully customizable 2D or 3D-models. But all of those are separate and siloed. And that's just the first few examples that came to mind - there's a lot more contradictions like these.
doomleika 5y ago
I would argue that the term "metaverse" is kept vague so they can rebrand everything with it. For Zuck, "metaverse" is just VR with their app store.

by hooby 5y ago

TheColorYellow 5y ago

Let's just call it the digital ecosystem and leave it at that.

hooby 5y ago
Well, in that case all the current debate is meaningless. Facebook already is a digital ecosystem company - they aren't changing anything at all.
- TheColorYellow 5y ago
  In so many ways...isn't that exactly the truth? Today Facebook steals your time by locking your attention to their web page or mobile app. Tomorrow they do it by locking your attention to their VR headset or AR glasses. And each time, the whole Facebook ecosystem comes with you. This is exactly what they do and Meta is a natural extension that is betting in a cultural change as much as it is a continuation of everything Facebook is.

netcan 5y ago

It's easy to get entangled in definitions, metaphors and such. It's kind of pointless though. They aren't precise anyway. Instead of clearly defining what these things mean, I think it's better for clarity if we just focus on implications. That's what we care about anyway. We care that "The internet will be the metaverse" inasmuch as this statement has implications. "VR Internet" implies, IMO, decentralisation standard protocols. Zuckerverse implies centralisation. The WWW didn't grow because with one or two companies controlling it. It grew out of a mass of individual webmasters.

hooby 5y ago
That's why I'm asking for a more precise definition. To me, it seems kinda hard to discuss the implications of something, when you don't understand what it is - or when the people discussing it, have incompatible ideas of what it is. For example, by the arguments of this article right here, AR/VR is not a requirement for a metaverse (otherwise the current internet could not be a metaverse, right?). According to the keynotes/talks of Facebook and John Carmack, VR seems to be the most central ingredient though. Raph Koster seems to rather agree with the notion that VR/AR is not required. It only has to be multiple virtual worlds that (at least some of which) can interact with the real world somehow. As another example, Raph Koster thinks, that there must be many virtual worlds in a metaverse, and that this virtual worlds must be able to be significantly different from each other - visually and mechanically. Facebook seems to think that having just one single virtual worlds (Facebook's own VR-world) is kinda enough to create a metaverse. This article right here implies that no virtual world is required at all - as the internet doesn't qualify. As a third example, both Facebook and Koster seem to agree, that it is important that a user in the metaverse be represented through some sort of Avatar. They seemingly disagree on what constitutes an Avatar though - Facebook's ideas imply a full 3D VR Avatar - while Koster counts MUDs as virtual worlds, where you get nothing but a handle (username) and maybe a small "description" text-box. This article seems to deny even that notion, since in the internet you are just a more or less random IP-address. You can have all sorts of Avatars on various places on the internet - from usernames to profile images to fully customizable 2D or 3D-models. But all of those are separate and siloed. And that's just the first few examples that came to mind - there's a lot more contradictions like these.

doomleika 5y ago

I would argue that the term "metaverse" is kept vague so they can rebrand everything with it. For Zuck, "metaverse" is just VR with their app store.