5 ms·
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
by 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.
- netcan 5y agoThere isn't a precise definition. How precise can "metaverse" be? You can't get the implications from the definition. That's why I suggest going directly for implications.
- hooby 5y agoI remember similar things happening in the past. "Cloud" was a very ill-defined term once - many companies threw it around, often in completely nonsensical fashion. The cloud turned out to not be that magical future some where predicting back then. It's basically a new-ish way of hosting virtual servers in data-centers, that allows more flexible forms of deployment and new accounting methods - like pay per actually used compute power. Also more dynamic scaling. It didn't quite completely change the internet, and people's lifes like many claimed it would. Blockchain is another such concept, that saw a lot of completely over-blown and outright nonsensical claims at first - and many companies claimed to use "blockchain" even when they didn't, just because it helped attract investment money. That's what happens when terms get thrown around, that aren't properly understood. Back to your suggestion of going straight for the implications. So, for example, let's ask the question what implications the metaverse might have on the future of VR and VR adoption. If the metaverse is defined as "it's just the internet and already exists" - like this article claims, then I see no special implications for VR here at all. If the metaverse is defined as massively-multiuser-VR, then the success of a metaverse is going to have huge implications for VR. So, how do I go straight for those implications, without knowing whether the metaverse has something to do with VR or not?