The Metaverse Is NOT Collapsing. Here's Why.
- Thread starter DarthOne
- Start date
DarthOne
☦️
- it's going to be incredibly addictive. Addictive like you've never experienced before; already people spend around six hours a day on their phones and several hours more on their laptops and computers because of the dopamine addiction you get from them.
- the metaverse is already here and the concept has been proven to work. This was evidenced during the pandemic when millions of people had to work from home and were thrust into the primitive version of a metaverse workspace. It hasn't just penetrated the corporate world either. The concept of the metaverse has taken over everything with modern games now becoming whole universes and that's why younger audiences the people, who are the metaverse's prime targets, have already adopted this model.
- the Metaverse isn't collapsing is simply the amount of competition there is. All of the big tech companies are striving towards making their own metaverses. It's all because of the massive amount of power and money that the metaverse can give them. As the real world and the virtual world gets more and more muddled control over one will be more and more control over the other.
This sounds like blatant advertising for Meta.
bintananth
behind a desk
That's because it is.
I do think VR spaces straight out of cyberpunk are coming in the coming decades, and we're seeing primitive versions of it now.
That being said, we saw plenty of technologies, concepts, and companies (some of which were the goliaths of their day, like Google, Facebook, Amazon, et cetera, are now) in the 80's and 90's that ultimately collapsed or "went poof", despite the fact that a decade or two/three later those very concepts became publicly accessible and refined.
We had smartphones and tablets in the 90's, for example. They just never took off due to how primitive and expensive they were, but in the late 00's Steve Jobs/Apple came out with the i series of devices (iPod, et cetera) which culminated in the first iPhone. The first versions of Android, bought by Google before they could be released (or were they able to release a 1.0 before being acquired? I forget which one), were also in development at this time.
They also were needed as the forerunners in their field.
This is why I think Meta is going to crash and burn, but they are going to be like the companies who made the smartphones and tablets of the 80's and 90's. Basically needed (and in this case welcomed because fuck Zuckertwat) sacrifices.
We've seen it constantly in recent decades.
That being said, we saw plenty of technologies, concepts, and companies (some of which were the goliaths of their day, like Google, Facebook, Amazon, et cetera, are now) in the 80's and 90's that ultimately collapsed or "went poof", despite the fact that a decade or two/three later those very concepts became publicly accessible and refined.
We had smartphones and tablets in the 90's, for example. They just never took off due to how primitive and expensive they were, but in the late 00's Steve Jobs/Apple came out with the i series of devices (iPod, et cetera) which culminated in the first iPhone. The first versions of Android, bought by Google before they could be released (or were they able to release a 1.0 before being acquired? I forget which one), were also in development at this time.
They also were needed as the forerunners in their field.
This is why I think Meta is going to crash and burn, but they are going to be like the companies who made the smartphones and tablets of the 80's and 90's. Basically needed (and in this case welcomed because fuck Zuckertwat) sacrifices.
We've seen it constantly in recent decades.
See, you could be right, but we also had thr crash and burn of metaverse-like technologies, too. This is the refined version.
I can't remember the name, but I remember playing a PC game in the early 2000s where you just walked around as your avatar and talked to people and interacted with the world.
But yeah I don't think you're necessarily wrong. This kind of thing will take off in a big way at some point. This may or may not be the iteration that takes off, but it's coming.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
I think the game was called Second Life.
That rings a bell. That could be it.
bintananth
behind a desk
That was the first thing which popped into my mind as well.
I had an ex-gf who was quite into that.
Yes, the tech companies sure do want to break into the "new tech thing" market that VR is.
They also will continue to throw money at this way beyond what would be reasonable for their expected success rate. And Facebook has enough money to keep it on life support indefinitely.
But that doesn't mean they have any good ideas for how to succeed at it.
See: the fate of Google Stadia.
In reality, they are getting dabbed on by VR chat when it comes to entertainment.
As things stand, Meta is so pointless that even the people making Meta don't want to use it for work either.
It's basically a solution with no problem. It's an attempt to de facto break into the gaming business by a tech company, and we have seen how well those usually work. The comparison to iphones is quite apt. Even at best, it's going to be more of a public consciousness meme than a global monopoly - after all, while everyone talks about iphones, in reality they are a cash grab aimed at snobs who want the popular thing, and the vast majority of smartphones in the world are variations of Android.
There are only so many people who want to buy VR capable hardware and use it to play Zuckerberg's overpriced spin on Second Life with more limitations.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
I think Zuck wants to make a real-life Ready Player One. I don't think he realizes how much normies think the premise of the book itself is utterly garbage and self-indulgent, and this is me admitting that as someone who loves Ready Player One.
Second Life is still quite popular, even though it's a "niche" thing. A few years ago, they had a promotion on GPT sites that paid you like $10.00 to sign up and have a certain amount of hours logged in e.g. 12.
Typically dying companies don't do that sort of promotion.
IMVU... I think that's still used but died off? I remember seeing adverts for it a few years back, but it's been all quiet since then.
The most common implementation of VR chat I've seen is basically VR streamers on Twitch and the like, though some actually just have a 3D avatar synched to keyboard shortcuts and their own body movements (see ShyLily as an example -- she's also fucking hilarious).
VR Chat also no longer needs one to be in VR.Second Life is still quite popular, even though it's a "niche" thing. A few years ago, they had a promotion on GPT sites that paid you like $10.00 to sign up and have a certain amount of hours logged in e.g. 12.
Typically dying companies don't do that sort of promotion.
IMVU... I think that's still used but died off? I remember seeing adverts for it a few years back, but it's been all quiet since then.
The most common implementation of VR chat I've seen is basically VR streamers on Twitch and the like, though some actually just have a 3D avatar synched to keyboard shortcuts and their own body movements (see ShyLily as an example -- she's also fucking hilarious).
It is also full of degenerates.
IMVU is still somewhat popular as is Second life.
They arnt AS popular as a lot of other games
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Copying my post from the other thread where he put this:
About half of this is analysis is so flawed as to be completely the wrong way around.
Metaverse is almost certainly never going to become a dominant thing like The Oasis in Ready Player One. Nor will the combination of various different VR worlds.
Why?
Because VR equipment, and quality you gain using it, just isn't that great. The headset is bulky and somewhat uncomfortable (at best), you have to stand up and move around in a real-world environment, the control wand(s) are vastly more limited than hands, etc, etc, etc.
Also, technology can only solve these problems so far, without going into massive costs. Omnidirectional treadmills, especially one with the ruggedness and responsiveness you'd need to keep up with a VR system? That's going to be thousands of dollars just to manufacture, much less install.
By comparison, a decent webcam and microphone is 40-60 dollars, and decently-large wide-screen TVs can be had for about $200. Almost every advantage that a VR environment gives you for meeting people over a distance, a fraction of the cost, and can be used for all the other things a modern screen can be used for.
And this is before we get into people who have nausea issues, people who just don't like the technology, the potential issues with hacking/system interruptions, etc, etc.
There's also the matter of skillset and competency. Using VR technology effectively is a skill, one that takes time to learn, time that could be spent on other things, some people have little or no aptitude for, and others will disdain to develop even if they do. Comparatively, if you're competent with a smartphone or computer (basically mandatory in a modern business environment), you already have the know-how to activate a video conference call, and you conduct yourself the same way you would in a business meeting IRL.
That video basically just looks at the positives, and not at the many reasons why VR rollouts failed in the past, and are probably destined to only ever be a modestly-sized market throughout the future. VR is a good gimmick for some types of games, has some use for virtual tours, and if the technology becomes mature enough and cheap enough, it might develop into a role like game consoles, where many but not all homes have at least one system, but how much use it sees varies massively.
And, of course, that video also ignores the fact that not all jobs are white-collar. You can't install a plumbing, wiring, a furnace, an AC unit in a virtual environment. Even if androids capable of reasonably mimicing the full suite of human physical capabilities come into existence, moving them around would cost the same amount as moving a person, and you again would have the problem of it taking a skill to use them effectively.
All of these problems, better technology can alleviate to some degree. In the long run, technology may be able to outright solve these problems. But not in a time-frame that can rescue the amount of money that Facebook is investing in the Metaverse.
Finally, the single biggest problem with the metaverse, is that it just is not that popular. I'm a Computer Nerd. I hang out with Computer Nerds. I also hang out with book-nerds, have family and friends who are more outdoors-and-hunting types, people into theater, people in different parts of the political spectrum. About the only social strata I don't have social contact with are the 'trendy cool' types.
And I don't know anybody who uses the thing. I don't know anybody who's used Metaverse or a similar service even once. I know people with VR headsets, but they are exclusively used for a few games, and not all that many of them.
Most people simply do not see something like the metaverse adding anything meaningful or substantial to their life.
Discord, Skype, Zoom, the legacy messenger clients, forum boards, conventional video games, conventional voice and video calls, all of these things offer the most important things the 'Metaverse' offers, and most people just are not interested.
Obviously, some people are interested, as the service does get some use, but it looks a lot more like people trying 'the new hot thing' than something that's growing to dominate the market.
The video-maker draws a comparison between the iPhone and preceding pseudo-smartphones like Blackberry, but fails to really follow through on it. Blackberry did the same kinds of things the first iPhone did, but on a lesser tech base, and at a high enough cost to make it prohibitive to most people. The iPhone took off, and very visibly became the new industry standard, forcing other companies to catch up and offer similar products within a timeline of a year or so. Also, the iPhone came out before Apple completely trashed its brand name among techies; Facebook's name has been mud for years now.
Metaverse has done no such thing. It's a footnote to most techies, it has no 'must-have' capability that other platforms aren't offering, it has no quality-of-life upgrade over what people were using before.
There's just no compelling reason for people to want it.
I do agree with the video that a lot of powerful people want to use it as a tool to exert more power and influence over others.. I just don't think it's going to be an effective one, not on the scale big tech is used to operating.
As a straw poll, who here has ever used Metaverse, who has the equipment to use it themselves, and who actually uses it regularly?
About half of this is analysis is so flawed as to be completely the wrong way around.
Metaverse is almost certainly never going to become a dominant thing like The Oasis in Ready Player One. Nor will the combination of various different VR worlds.
Why?
Because VR equipment, and quality you gain using it, just isn't that great. The headset is bulky and somewhat uncomfortable (at best), you have to stand up and move around in a real-world environment, the control wand(s) are vastly more limited than hands, etc, etc, etc.
Also, technology can only solve these problems so far, without going into massive costs. Omnidirectional treadmills, especially one with the ruggedness and responsiveness you'd need to keep up with a VR system? That's going to be thousands of dollars just to manufacture, much less install.
By comparison, a decent webcam and microphone is 40-60 dollars, and decently-large wide-screen TVs can be had for about $200. Almost every advantage that a VR environment gives you for meeting people over a distance, a fraction of the cost, and can be used for all the other things a modern screen can be used for.
And this is before we get into people who have nausea issues, people who just don't like the technology, the potential issues with hacking/system interruptions, etc, etc.
There's also the matter of skillset and competency. Using VR technology effectively is a skill, one that takes time to learn, time that could be spent on other things, some people have little or no aptitude for, and others will disdain to develop even if they do. Comparatively, if you're competent with a smartphone or computer (basically mandatory in a modern business environment), you already have the know-how to activate a video conference call, and you conduct yourself the same way you would in a business meeting IRL.
That video basically just looks at the positives, and not at the many reasons why VR rollouts failed in the past, and are probably destined to only ever be a modestly-sized market throughout the future. VR is a good gimmick for some types of games, has some use for virtual tours, and if the technology becomes mature enough and cheap enough, it might develop into a role like game consoles, where many but not all homes have at least one system, but how much use it sees varies massively.
And, of course, that video also ignores the fact that not all jobs are white-collar. You can't install a plumbing, wiring, a furnace, an AC unit in a virtual environment. Even if androids capable of reasonably mimicing the full suite of human physical capabilities come into existence, moving them around would cost the same amount as moving a person, and you again would have the problem of it taking a skill to use them effectively.
All of these problems, better technology can alleviate to some degree. In the long run, technology may be able to outright solve these problems. But not in a time-frame that can rescue the amount of money that Facebook is investing in the Metaverse.
Finally, the single biggest problem with the metaverse, is that it just is not that popular. I'm a Computer Nerd. I hang out with Computer Nerds. I also hang out with book-nerds, have family and friends who are more outdoors-and-hunting types, people into theater, people in different parts of the political spectrum. About the only social strata I don't have social contact with are the 'trendy cool' types.
And I don't know anybody who uses the thing. I don't know anybody who's used Metaverse or a similar service even once. I know people with VR headsets, but they are exclusively used for a few games, and not all that many of them.
Most people simply do not see something like the metaverse adding anything meaningful or substantial to their life.
Discord, Skype, Zoom, the legacy messenger clients, forum boards, conventional video games, conventional voice and video calls, all of these things offer the most important things the 'Metaverse' offers, and most people just are not interested.
Obviously, some people are interested, as the service does get some use, but it looks a lot more like people trying 'the new hot thing' than something that's growing to dominate the market.
The video-maker draws a comparison between the iPhone and preceding pseudo-smartphones like Blackberry, but fails to really follow through on it. Blackberry did the same kinds of things the first iPhone did, but on a lesser tech base, and at a high enough cost to make it prohibitive to most people. The iPhone took off, and very visibly became the new industry standard, forcing other companies to catch up and offer similar products within a timeline of a year or so. Also, the iPhone came out before Apple completely trashed its brand name among techies; Facebook's name has been mud for years now.
Metaverse has done no such thing. It's a footnote to most techies, it has no 'must-have' capability that other platforms aren't offering, it has no quality-of-life upgrade over what people were using before.
There's just no compelling reason for people to want it.
I do agree with the video that a lot of powerful people want to use it as a tool to exert more power and influence over others.. I just don't think it's going to be an effective one, not on the scale big tech is used to operating.
As a straw poll, who here has ever used Metaverse, who has the equipment to use it themselves, and who actually uses it regularly?
Sobek
Disgusting Scalie
The Metaverse has a good chance to work. The problem is Meta as a company is cringe and shit.
VRChat does a far better job. It's more free, more open, better graphics, and so on. Like Sseth said "If you want shit done, don't hire on LinkedIn; Hire on FurAffinity". Say what you will them furries have made VRChat work, they constantly make addons and avatars and keep it fresh and expanding. Meta, meanwhile, is stuck trying to be Fagbook with VR and blander than hospital food and shilling for advertisers and partnerships with ESG and WEF types. Not gonna fly.
VRChat does a far better job. It's more free, more open, better graphics, and so on. Like Sseth said "If you want shit done, don't hire on LinkedIn; Hire on FurAffinity". Say what you will them furries have made VRChat work, they constantly make addons and avatars and keep it fresh and expanding. Meta, meanwhile, is stuck trying to be Fagbook with VR and blander than hospital food and shilling for advertisers and partnerships with ESG and WEF types. Not gonna fly.
VRChat has a clear focus and goal, making an social-entertainment application of VR.
It's fairly successful in that niche for that reason, and doesn't get distracted with ambitions of going way beyond that and having billions of users.
Meanwhile the Metaverse cannot settle on whether it wants to be that, a social media for normies, or a remote work software, or a game, or wtf else gimmick their buzzword team comes up with. The technology is far from mature, its capabilities are limited, and it does require focused efforts to turn it into anything actually worth using.
In the end they may well end up with a product that technically can do everything, but in the end is good at nothing.
bintananth
behind a desk
Good multi-role platforms usually don't start out multi-role. They start out intended to be good at one thing with the rest getting added in a haphazard "What the heck, why not?" manner as time passes.