[furi]

I'd welcome anyone trying to explain this idea to me along a number of axises, because I really do not get it.

1. What does 3D space add? If I want to shop for some item it's more convenient for me to look at a list with pictures and text than to wander through a 3D store. It's also more efficient for the vendor to provide the list than pay people to model the interior of their 3D store, scan all their products in, etc. The Internet won through being more convenient, I don't see how this isn't a step backwards.

2. What are we going to do about UGC kitsch? Second Life and more recently VRChat and NeosVR have provided demonstrations of what a metaverse combining content from thousands of creators of mixed skill levels is like. While I can appreciate it on some level, the fact is it's hideous. Are the operators of metaverse-Amazon really going to let their in-store aesthetics be ruined by a low-poly neon-purple wolf wandering through it while I'm trying to browse? If they are, why? If they aren't, how is this an interconnected metaverse?

3. Why is anyone going to respect the interconnectedness of the metaverse? Websites successfully resisted the Semantic Web. Businesses don't want to point the way to their competitors. Games want to constrain what the player character can be to fit a specific power level, tone or art style. Fortnite, for all of its metaverse cred, does not allow players to upload their own avatars and has never (to my knowledge) added a portal which when entered closes Fortnite and opens another game.

[jackbrookes]

To address (1), I think shopping in what may end up being the "metaverse" will look somewhere in-between a current 2D lists with pictures and current aisle based stores. They don't need to be exact replicas of current stores, and the geometry doesn't even need to be Euclidean. There are a few things that we can take from real stores to possibly make metaverse shopping more enjoyable and efficient.

Think of some of the reasons people still shop in stores:

  * They can interact with products and see their true size.
  * Our brains are great at memorising and imagining 3D spaces. We can remember where in the store certain products are located, and so shopping can be more efficient than searching for every item. Of course, search could still work in the metaverse, but is not necessary. 
  * I feel like its easier for me to know if I've seen everything in a real store, because I know I have walked down each and every aisle.
  * 3D spaces seem more natural to navigate with other people - they can move around the same space, pointing at and grabbing hold of products

More generally, I think your point:

> It's also more efficient for the vendor to provide the list than pay people to model the interior of their 3D store, scan all their products in, etc

could also have been made 20 years ago when physical stores were hesitant about moving online; it cost money to build a website and take photos of all of their products.

[furi]

The non-euclidean idea I like, something a bit like a physical store but it reconfigures based on traditional search terms (perhaps supplied via voice). But that's incompatible with memorizing 3D spaces and also with knowing that you've seen everything. But both of those are probably more to do with scale than anything else. I'm not sure I could remember where I saw a good product within a 3D Amazon because it's going to be the size of a small city and constantly in flux. The multiplayer thing is a definite strength too.

>could also have been made 20 years ago when physical stores were hesitant about moving online

Indeed, but what we've learned since then is that consumer convenience is king (see: dark patterns in cookie prompts). Businesses were wary of the Internet transition but the force of convenience pushed them into it, I don't see a matching spike in convenience here.

[linkdd]

It's a hype-filled word. The metaverse is not interesting especially if it's operated by FAANG companies.

Virtual Reality is a Sci-Fi thing. I'd rather have Augmented Reality so I can have reviews on products while I browse a real/physical store without taking out my smartphone (which is getting slower and slower as time pass by).

IMHO, VR will never be a thing, not with the current technology at least.

I don't want to live in a world were the idea of sitting at home to live in a virtual world instead of going out is considered "progress".

[andybak]

> I don't want to live in a world were the idea of sitting at home to live in a virtual world instead of going out is considered "progress".

It's not either/or. I enjoy VR experiences. I enjoy sunshine, fresh air and travel.

For me VR is just an obvious upgrade to a flat screen for viewing spatial content and environments. I don't always need it but the fact that I can grab a headset from the shelf and view something properly rather than peering at it through a small rectangle seems to me to be a good thing.

[linkdd]

I dislike 360deg videos because there is always something happening where you're not looking, and you miss a lot. Using a VR headset doesn't solve the problem.

Cinema will never be VR. This leaves video games and simulations, both are expensive to make and play.

VR will never be as popular as a smartphone or a movie, it will always be a niche.

And the moment when every one has an oculus rift (or whatever headset) with a computer able to use it with enough FPS is far far along the road. So far we might turn in another direction before getting there.

[andybak]

> I dislike 360deg videos because there is always something happening where you're not looking, and you miss a lot. Using a VR headset doesn't solve the problem.

I'm not a fan of 360 video (it's very flat compared to true 6DOF VR and the resolution is currently very poor) but I think you're being unfair.

This is a creative failure - not something intrinsic to the medium. Watch a carefully made 6DOF experience and tell me that this problem isn't solvable. Wolves in the Walls or Gloomy Eyes are amazing examples of guiding the viewer through a volumetric scene.

> This leaves video games and simulations, both are expensive to make and play.

Considering I disagree with your previous statement I obvious disagree with this too. I'm also fairly sure you're missing a broad swathe of content but I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "simulations"

> VR will never be as popular as a smartphone or a movie, it will always be a niche.

Probably true but I'm fine with that.

> And the moment when every one has an oculus rift (or whatever headset) with a computer able to use it with enough FPS is far far along the road. So far we might turn in another direction before getting there.

Why is "everyone" an important benchmark? Smartphones were interesting even at the point where they were still niche and they would have remained interesting had they stayed that way. As long as a medium has enough makers and consumers to be self-sustaining then that's ok. I think VR has demonstrated a staying power way beyond the original nay-sayers. There's great work still being made and sales are still increasing.

And I still enjoy it and want to contribute to it.

[tomjen3]

I think you nailed it. The virtual world as described here is one designed for VCs to make money. The virtual world that would be interesting is one created by hackers who find it facinating and then those VCs can fund some startup that maybe figures out a way to make money in this world.

When you say sitting at home in a virtual world, I think of online meetings, which could be improved by having a more real-like world, rather than talking to a wall with Harry Potter like moving pictures of people.

[linkdd]

> When you say sitting at home in a virtual world, I think of online meetings, which could be improved by having a more real-like world

Are you thinking of Star Wars holograms but in VR?

[tomjen3]

I was thinking of 2D sprites, but yeah. We are not talking about making real, just putting people at different distances in order to make these meetings a bit more natural.

[macrolime]

A lot of this new Metaverse hypes stems from the idea that AR glasses will be the next mobile and with AR you need 3D space.

Interconnectedness is really just a hyperlink, but instead of going to the link by clicking a link, you go through a space. That space could be a portal or it could just be moving from one area to another, a web equivalent would be that you're scrolling a website and after scrolling for a while the content is loaded from another server.

[furi]

AR I have less difficulty understanding, the benefits of a real world HUD seem fairly obvious. That said, most of the projects held up as "metaverse" seem to involve "opaque" 3D worlds: Fortnite, VRChat, Neos VR, etc.

>Interconnectedness is really just a hyperlink, but instead of going to the link by clicking a link, you go through a space.

Hyperlinks are much easier to implement. There's no requirement to have your game engines interoperable and translate seamlessly between the two as the transition takes place. And even then traveling via hyperlink between websites is hardly a seamless experience already. Inter-site hyperlinks are also not that popular. Social websites of course deal in them in large quantities, but your average business website avoids them like the plague. I don't think there's a single hyperlink on Amazon's website that leads out of their ecosystem.

[tomjen3]

VR isn't AR. AR is just the real world, but when you shop you also see the current price of the same product on Amazon[0]. When you see your coworker you get the same floating name-tag that you see when you Zoom them.

All that has real world value. You also get the more advanced stuff, like seeing what your living room would look like with that IKEA couch before you buy it. Maybe you don't even need a computer screen, since your AR device can just show one whenever and whereever - great for movie nights with friends when you don't have a projector.

VR is great for gaming, porn and video. Maybe interactive learning too, idk.

[0]: Allowing the app maker to make a fortune by stealing your shopping habits, which most people will not care about.

[EvanAnderson]

I assume the recent "metaverse" hype is an effort to eventually orchestrate a virtual "land grab" and extract rents in a walled garden system.