5 ms·

If I were William Gibson, or even Neal Stephenson, I'd be sitting back right now saying, "yup. Told ya".

by jnem 11y ago

drzaiusapelord 11y ago
Except they've been wrong almost universally in their career from a predicative POV (which is a bad way to judge sci-fi, btw. They write dramatic narratives, theyre not futurists trying to predict future tech, they're storytellers). The reality is we don't know if this stuff will ever catch on. Mounting a big black box on your face is limiting and unappealing to most. Hardcore gamers? Probably will deal with it. Everyone else? Probably not. There's also a fundamental issue here that's rarely addressed: that putting meatspace conventions into virtual spaces rarely works out. I don't want to have to wake up, dress, shower, etc my avatar so she can get in a car and drive to the virtual mall to walk into the virtual store to buy stuff. I just want to load up amazon.com and scroll to the product I want and one-click buy it. We tried Second Life, Playstation Home, etc and we didn't like them. Adding whiz-bang 3D isn't going to help a largely failed and discredited concept. The meta-verse is just annoyingly tedious and time-wasting. Those 80s visionaries had no conception of what things like the web or mobile could be. They didn't realize how powerful those technologies are (Hi, we're using it right now to communicate instead of Second Life for a reason). So they projected this idea of "just put people in computers" which helps a dramatic narrative as its easy to understand but isn't very practical in real life.
- jkaunisv1 11y ago
  You're not wrong, but you seem to be missing a huge part of the picture. Mounting a big black box sucks, yes, but the tech will mature, miniaturize and become more appealing. Even before then, I think many a CEO would rather put on a black box to have a meeting rather than fly for 16 hours. It's not all about putting meatspace conventions into virtual spaces. The appeal of the metaverse isn't about having to walk around a digital world to get anything done. It's about being able to connect with people across vast physical spaces with a lot of the same quality of the connection as in-person. And more generally, about providing that quality of experience in a ton of contexts. When buying something online, I think a lot of people would value being able to look at the product from various angles before buying. I know I've cancelled orders because I wasn't sure how a shoe would look based on the one or two angles a site provided. And yes, obviously, you will probably still buy toilet paper and books on amazon just by scrolling in your browser and clicking. But other purchasing processes will be hugely enhanced by VR. You could better gauge the fit (and when graphics improve, texture/fabric) of clothing. IKEA can go to the next level and actually project the furniture you want into a 3d mockup of the room you want it to go in. Hell, you could probably fly a special drone around your room and it would create the model for you. Yes, Second Life wasn't everything people imagined. But it was a crude first stab at the problem. Even Oculus is still relatively crude, but it's very immersive already and I don't see why it won't eventually become very refined and convincing. Look at the 3D rendering we're capable of already in games and movies, throw in some Moore's Law and wait to see what comes out.
  - drzaiusapelord 11y ago
    > It's about being able to connect with people across vast physical spaces with a lot of the same quality of the connection as in-person. This can be done trivially today with Facetime and other video software. Its largely seen as a gimmick. In the end, people value efficiency, not meatspace equivalents of things. That's why Amazon has all its products with an easy search box and a one click button, instead of a virtual shop assistant. >I wasn't sure how a shoe would look based on the one or two angles a site provided. That is a fairly obscure edge case here. Neurotic shoe buyers aren't going to buy a $500 headset and a $1000 gaming PC to buy shoes. They'll take themselves to the store, to you know, actually try the fit, which is fairly important. >IKEA can go to the next level and actually project the furniture you want into a 3d mockup of the room you want it to go in. That sounds a lot more like AR, not VR, nor the meta-verse. >You're not wrong, but you seem to be missing a huge part of the picture. You sound exactly like the people who were telling me Second Life would change everything about 8 years ago. The concepts are exactly the same, you're just putting on a fancier display. The metaverse is a failed concept for what are fairly obvious reasons. SL proved the skeptics right, so why are we still having this ridiculous conversation?
    - acous 11y ago
      Apologies in advance for the format and poor writing, I'm very tired! > This can be done trivially today with Facetime and other video software. Its largely seen as a gimmick. I find Facetime awkward and not at all like being with someone. That's in contrast to my visit to AltspaceVR a couple of months back. The community relations guy was giving a demonstration of body/handtracking, so his avatar was fairly well articulated. Despite everyone having robotic heads and the rest avatars being simplistic, I very much felt like I was in a courtyard with a group of people watching a man give a talk. > In the end, people value efficiency, not meatspace equivalents of things. That's why Amazon has all its products with an easy search box and a one click button, instead of a virtual shop assistant. People (will) value both. It's not like AmazonVR is going to be a giant mall where you walk to the electronics department and browse things by sight. The search box is a very good way to find what you want. > That is a fairly obscure edge case here. Neurotic shoe buyers aren't going to buy a $500 headset and a $1000 gaming PC to buy shoes. They'll take themselves to the store, to you know, actually try the fit, which is fairly important. I think GP is talking about a future where VR is cheap and ubiquitous. > That sounds a lot more like AR, not VR, nor the meta-verse. Technically augmented virtuality. > You sound exactly like the people who were telling me Second Life would change everything about 8 years ago. I never bought into the Second Life hype. Navigating 3d space with 2d devices is never going to feel right outside of a few experiences -- namely games. > The concepts are exactly the same, you're just putting on a fancier display. The metaverse is a failed concept for what are fairly obvious reasons. SL proved the skeptics right, so why are we still having this ridiculous conversation? One metaverse as envisaged may very well be a failed concept. That said, the fact that you use the phrase "putting on a display" makes me think you've probably never felt "presence" in VR. It is mind blowing, and that's the reason the conversation is circling back.
- moron4hire 11y ago
  >> Mounting a big black box on your face is limiting and unappealing to most. Honestly, everyone says that, until they try it with a good demo, and then they stop caring about the box. The hurdle is getting people to try it. Once they do, if they aren't the rare folks who are super-sensitive to motion sickness, they are immediately hooked. >> We tried Second Life, Playstation Home, etc and we didn't like them. Who exactly is "we"? Second Life is not so popular today, but it was pretty huge with some people for a very long time. The fact that it is still running at all after 12 years is surely a testament to its popularity with some people. And I'm not going to use anything Sony makes as invalidation of any concept.
  - drzaiusapelord 11y ago
    >Who exactly is "we"? Second Life is not so popular today, but it was pretty huge with some people for a very long time. Second Life was a real life and good implementation of the sci-fi metaverse concept. You could trivially build things, script things, monetize things, etc. It was shoved down everyone's throat by marketers and corporate fad chasers looking for the next big thing to reach customers with. It was universally panned for being...well stupid. Meatspace equivalents make zero sense, 3D goggles or not. Plan 9 from Outer Space is a bad movie in both 3D and 2D. >And I'm not going to use anything Sony makes as invalidation of any concept. Ironically, Home was a much more stable and mature Metaverse and it targeted gamers exclusively, who would be much more open to the concept as they spend so much time in virtual worlds anyway. Even that failed. No one wants this crap. 3D Rift will be great for AAA shooters. It'll be yet another expensive gaming toy, not a revolution. The same way the Ouya didn't kill consoles and how Linux didn't kill Windows desktop. The nerd friendly PR that Oculus and Facebook have paid for is very much working.
    - moron4hire 11y ago
      Uhhh, shooters are one of the areas VR is weakest. As it currently stands, it disconnects the visual and physical sensations of moving too much. New technology might change that, but as far as we know, right now, the most successful apps won't be shooters. I don't know what to say. You clearly have a bug up your ass about it. I doubt I'm going to convince you. I've been there, I've seen it, I work in and on it. I'm saying it's more than just a graphics gimmick. At the very least, it's a completely different way of thinking about applications. If you've experienced VR for yourself and and still don't see that, I don't know what to tell you.

If I were William Gibson, or even Neal Stephenson, I'd be sitting back right now saying, "yup. Told ya".

by jnem 11y ago

If I were William Gibson, or even Neal Stephenson, I'd be sitting back right now saying, "yup. Told ya".

Except they've been wrong almost universally in their career from a predicative POV (which is a bad way to judge sci-fi, btw. They write dramatic narratives, theyre not futurists trying to predict future tech, they're storytellers). The reality is we don't know if this stuff will ever catch on. Mounting a big black box on your face is limiting and unappealing to most. Hardcore gamers? Probably will deal with it. Everyone else? Probably not. There's also a fundamental issue here that's rarely addressed: that putting meatspace conventions into virtual spaces rarely works out. I don't want to have to wake up, dress, shower, etc my avatar so she can get in a car and drive to the virtual mall to walk into the virtual store to buy stuff. I just want to load up amazon.com and scroll to the product I want and one-click buy it. We tried Second Life, Playstation Home, etc and we didn't like them. Adding whiz-bang 3D isn't going to help a largely failed and discredited concept. The meta-verse is just annoyingly tedious and time-wasting. Those 80s visionaries had no conception of what things like the web or mobile could be. They didn't realize how powerful those technologies are (Hi, we're using it right now to communicate instead of Second Life for a reason). So they projected this idea of "just put people in computers" which helps a dramatic narrative as its easy to understand but isn't very practical in real life.

jkaunisv1 11y ago
You're not wrong, but you seem to be missing a huge part of the picture. Mounting a big black box sucks, yes, but the tech will mature, miniaturize and become more appealing. Even before then, I think many a CEO would rather put on a black box to have a meeting rather than fly for 16 hours. It's not all about putting meatspace conventions into virtual spaces. The appeal of the metaverse isn't about having to walk around a digital world to get anything done. It's about being able to connect with people across vast physical spaces with a lot of the same quality of the connection as in-person. And more generally, about providing that quality of experience in a ton of contexts. When buying something online, I think a lot of people would value being able to look at the product from various angles before buying. I know I've cancelled orders because I wasn't sure how a shoe would look based on the one or two angles a site provided. And yes, obviously, you will probably still buy toilet paper and books on amazon just by scrolling in your browser and clicking. But other purchasing processes will be hugely enhanced by VR. You could better gauge the fit (and when graphics improve, texture/fabric) of clothing. IKEA can go to the next level and actually project the furniture you want into a 3d mockup of the room you want it to go in. Hell, you could probably fly a special drone around your room and it would create the model for you. Yes, Second Life wasn't everything people imagined. But it was a crude first stab at the problem. Even Oculus is still relatively crude, but it's very immersive already and I don't see why it won't eventually become very refined and convincing. Look at the 3D rendering we're capable of already in games and movies, throw in some Moore's Law and wait to see what comes out.
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  > It's about being able to connect with people across vast physical spaces with a lot of the same quality of the connection as in-person. This can be done trivially today with Facetime and other video software. Its largely seen as a gimmick. In the end, people value efficiency, not meatspace equivalents of things. That's why Amazon has all its products with an easy search box and a one click button, instead of a virtual shop assistant. >I wasn't sure how a shoe would look based on the one or two angles a site provided. That is a fairly obscure edge case here. Neurotic shoe buyers aren't going to buy a $500 headset and a $1000 gaming PC to buy shoes. They'll take themselves to the store, to you know, actually try the fit, which is fairly important. >IKEA can go to the next level and actually project the furniture you want into a 3d mockup of the room you want it to go in. That sounds a lot more like AR, not VR, nor the meta-verse. >You're not wrong, but you seem to be missing a huge part of the picture. You sound exactly like the people who were telling me Second Life would change everything about 8 years ago. The concepts are exactly the same, you're just putting on a fancier display. The metaverse is a failed concept for what are fairly obvious reasons. SL proved the skeptics right, so why are we still having this ridiculous conversation?
  - acous 11y ago
    Apologies in advance for the format and poor writing, I'm very tired! > This can be done trivially today with Facetime and other video software. Its largely seen as a gimmick. I find Facetime awkward and not at all like being with someone. That's in contrast to my visit to AltspaceVR a couple of months back. The community relations guy was giving a demonstration of body/handtracking, so his avatar was fairly well articulated. Despite everyone having robotic heads and the rest avatars being simplistic, I very much felt like I was in a courtyard with a group of people watching a man give a talk. > In the end, people value efficiency, not meatspace equivalents of things. That's why Amazon has all its products with an easy search box and a one click button, instead of a virtual shop assistant. People (will) value both. It's not like AmazonVR is going to be a giant mall where you walk to the electronics department and browse things by sight. The search box is a very good way to find what you want. > That is a fairly obscure edge case here. Neurotic shoe buyers aren't going to buy a $500 headset and a $1000 gaming PC to buy shoes. They'll take themselves to the store, to you know, actually try the fit, which is fairly important. I think GP is talking about a future where VR is cheap and ubiquitous. > That sounds a lot more like AR, not VR, nor the meta-verse. Technically augmented virtuality. > You sound exactly like the people who were telling me Second Life would change everything about 8 years ago. I never bought into the Second Life hype. Navigating 3d space with 2d devices is never going to feel right outside of a few experiences -- namely games. > The concepts are exactly the same, you're just putting on a fancier display. The metaverse is a failed concept for what are fairly obvious reasons. SL proved the skeptics right, so why are we still having this ridiculous conversation? One metaverse as envisaged may very well be a failed concept. That said, the fact that you use the phrase "putting on a display" makes me think you've probably never felt "presence" in VR. It is mind blowing, and that's the reason the conversation is circling back.
moron4hire 11y ago
>> Mounting a big black box on your face is limiting and unappealing to most. Honestly, everyone says that, until they try it with a good demo, and then they stop caring about the box. The hurdle is getting people to try it. Once they do, if they aren't the rare folks who are super-sensitive to motion sickness, they are immediately hooked. >> We tried Second Life, Playstation Home, etc and we didn't like them. Who exactly is "we"? Second Life is not so popular today, but it was pretty huge with some people for a very long time. The fact that it is still running at all after 12 years is surely a testament to its popularity with some people. And I'm not going to use anything Sony makes as invalidation of any concept.
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  >Who exactly is "we"? Second Life is not so popular today, but it was pretty huge with some people for a very long time. Second Life was a real life and good implementation of the sci-fi metaverse concept. You could trivially build things, script things, monetize things, etc. It was shoved down everyone's throat by marketers and corporate fad chasers looking for the next big thing to reach customers with. It was universally panned for being...well stupid. Meatspace equivalents make zero sense, 3D goggles or not. Plan 9 from Outer Space is a bad movie in both 3D and 2D. >And I'm not going to use anything Sony makes as invalidation of any concept. Ironically, Home was a much more stable and mature Metaverse and it targeted gamers exclusively, who would be much more open to the concept as they spend so much time in virtual worlds anyway. Even that failed. No one wants this crap. 3D Rift will be great for AAA shooters. It'll be yet another expensive gaming toy, not a revolution. The same way the Ouya didn't kill consoles and how Linux didn't kill Windows desktop. The nerd friendly PR that Oculus and Facebook have paid for is very much working.
  - moron4hire 11y ago
    Uhhh, shooters are one of the areas VR is weakest. As it currently stands, it disconnects the visual and physical sensations of moving too much. New technology might change that, but as far as we know, right now, the most successful apps won't be shooters. I don't know what to say. You clearly have a bug up your ass about it. I doubt I'm going to convince you. I've been there, I've seen it, I work in and on it. I'm saying it's more than just a graphics gimmick. At the very least, it's a completely different way of thinking about applications. If you've experienced VR for yourself and and still don't see that, I don't know what to tell you.