5 ms·

I would argue VR is not a neutral example. In the physical world, space is a limited resource that sells at a premium. You have benefit from things being in a

by dwaite 3y ago

I would argue VR is not a neutral example. In the physical world, space is a limited resource that sells at a premium. You have benefit from things being in a reasonable distance for walking/traveling. Being near water has real-world benefits for transportation and trade as well as agriculture. A virtual world is still based on fundamental spatial concepts like needing to travel, having benefit of proximity/association, and so on. So there needs to be a specific set of decisions made on how to deal with spatial assumptions when they go counter to your design goals: - Games have instanced areas because otherwise there would be physically too many people to move, or allow you to walk through other people to get around. - A chat service might represent _your_ rooms off a hub, rather than a megaplex conference center of all rooms. - Individual zones might be represented as distinct 'worlds' with portal entrances, to allow for each to have its own spatial rules (and even physics), where each has its own sense of layout/locality. each of these has their own sets of trade-offs, but importantly you want consistency for users. That set of trade-offs literally lead to representing the world as a walled garden. That is before you get to business interests being first and foremost around succeeding with their own products, not interoperability with nonexistent or noncooperative competitors. The market has to hit a point where vendors agree that interoperability is important enough to accept the tradeoffs that come with it, before any technical effort there can succeed.

nonrandomstring 3y ago
I wish this conversation could continue because the question of "what adds value in a digital space" is the big one. And, for me, ways to add value that are ethical and empowering are a subject of great interest. Anyway, happy and prosperous 2024 to both correspondents.
- dale_glass 3y ago
  A surprising value add I find is actually a walled garden. Many 3D/VR platforms rely on it. Eg, say you want to sell avatars. Well, an avatar is a big job which can easily cost $1K or more if it's made from scratch for you. So maybe you can make a design, have it in multiple colors, and sell for $10 a copy. But for that to work you need to work in a system that prevents duplication, and which punishes rule breaking. That's pretty much impossible to implement in a fully open system, and results in a weird situation where being open source and decentralized is actually seen as a downside by some users.
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    Has a thought today about where you're right on this. Where is the value and why does it still not feel right for me. Walls work both ways of course. So for the inhabitants of a walled world an element of seclusion and protection is offered if they've insecure needs. Indeed there are many network security companies providing just this model. Where I feel friction with this is in the latitude between benevolent and malevolent protection, as in "protection racket"... to cultivate dependency. And that there's a difference between operating "in the world", and operating in special, decoupled version of your own reality isolated from everyone else which is fragmentary. So my objection comes from there, if that makes sense? I just don't think it's good for the world if we live in bubbles, some degree of mutual exposure is healthy for society if not for business,
dale_glass 3y ago
> A virtual world is still based on fundamental spatial concepts like needing to travel, having benefit of proximity/association, and so on. Yup. Second Life heavily takes advantage of that, and sells virtual land. Which actually works, because it turns out there's such a thing as a desirable location even when it's completely artificial. For instance SL has "welcome areas" where new people show up, and depending on what you do, that may or not be a good thing. > That is before you get to business interests being first and foremost around succeeding with their own products, not interoperability with nonexistent or noncooperative competitors. The market has to hit a point where vendors agree that interoperability is important enough to accept the tradeoffs that come with it, before any technical effort there can succeed. IMO, interoperability in the space to a significant extent is near impossible. Yeah, on the surface we all can use JPG textures and figure out an avatar standard, but beyond that things quickly get complicated. Second Life has its own scripting language, and its own set of limited primitive object types (eg, cube, sphere) that can be created parametrically, and nothing else is compatible with that. The different internal architectures also get expressed in the way scripting works, so it just doesn't translate.

by dwaite 3y ago

nonrandomstring 3y ago

I wish this conversation could continue because the question of "what adds value in a digital space" is the big one. And, for me, ways to add value that are ethical and empowering are a subject of great interest. Anyway, happy and prosperous 2024 to both correspondents.

dale_glass 3y ago
A surprising value add I find is actually a walled garden. Many 3D/VR platforms rely on it. Eg, say you want to sell avatars. Well, an avatar is a big job which can easily cost $1K or more if it's made from scratch for you. So maybe you can make a design, have it in multiple colors, and sell for $10 a copy. But for that to work you need to work in a system that prevents duplication, and which punishes rule breaking. That's pretty much impossible to implement in a fully open system, and results in a weird situation where being open source and decentralized is actually seen as a downside by some users.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  Has a thought today about where you're right on this. Where is the value and why does it still not feel right for me. Walls work both ways of course. So for the inhabitants of a walled world an element of seclusion and protection is offered if they've insecure needs. Indeed there are many network security companies providing just this model. Where I feel friction with this is in the latitude between benevolent and malevolent protection, as in "protection racket"... to cultivate dependency. And that there's a difference between operating "in the world", and operating in special, decoupled version of your own reality isolated from everyone else which is fragmentary. So my objection comes from there, if that makes sense? I just don't think it's good for the world if we live in bubbles, some degree of mutual exposure is healthy for society if not for business,

dale_glass 3y ago

> A virtual world is still based on fundamental spatial concepts like needing to travel, having benefit of proximity/association, and so on. Yup. Second Life heavily takes advantage of that, and sells virtual land. Which actually works, because it turns out there's such a thing as a desirable location even when it's completely artificial. For instance SL has "welcome areas" where new people show up, and depending on what you do, that may or not be a good thing. > That is before you get to business interests being first and foremost around succeeding with their own products, not interoperability with nonexistent or noncooperative competitors. The market has to hit a point where vendors agree that interoperability is important enough to accept the tradeoffs that come with it, before any technical effort there can succeed. IMO, interoperability in the space to a significant extent is near impossible. Yeah, on the surface we all can use JPG textures and figure out an avatar standard, but beyond that things quickly get complicated. Second Life has its own scripting language, and its own set of limited primitive object types (eg, cube, sphere) that can be created parametrically, and nothing else is compatible with that. The different internal architectures also get expressed in the way scripting works, so it just doesn't translate.