I was missing the Cowboy Neal option, too, but I also wonder who are the 79 people are who voted "Yes". Can't believe there are that many members of the MMH club on Slashdot. Maybe legacy users from before Zuck bought it?
Anyway, I have enough problems with real reality. No reason to add another virtual reality with its own set of problems.
I was missing the Cowboy Neal option, too, but I also wonder who are the 79 people are who voted "Yes". Can't believe there are that many members of the MMH club on Slashdot.
But, the Meta Mile-High club is the only reason anybody would want to be on Meta!
I voted yes, because I am interested in virtual spaces although it's been a long time since I read Snow Crash and it was probably pretty dystopic there. No interest in reptile-man's version of it, though.
I was missing the Cowboy Neal option, too, but I also wonder who are the 79 people are who voted "Yes".
I voted yes because of the baseline "at all" qualifier. I'm no Zuckerfan, but I'd have to admit that the Metaverse is interesting, kind of like that bit of junk food you'd like to eat but know you shouldn't. How far can Meta or some other company take this sci-fi concept? So long as it's their money that's being sucked into the rabbit hole, I'm fine with observing their attempts at bringing the virtual into reality.
Only caveat is that there is always something else that their money could be spent on that would be better. The same is true for any company that develops for the Metaverse. The dollars going to R&D to a worthless end are accounted for someplace - lower salaries elsewhere, higher costs, lower stock prices - no free lunches served. So in fact as companies waste resources in Meta, you or someone you know will be paying for it in some way.
I don't think your observation would apply to a Big Data company such as Meta. It's not as if they're involved in the production of something essential like food or medicine, or even something less essential but useful in the real world, like BEVs or rocket ships (for delivering satellites not billionaire space tourists). Whatever they do, they're bound to be wasting their resources on something. So it's either this tech, which might at least prove useful (medical imaging or engineering previz), or another
The problem is that we've all seen this tech before, and it really left a sour taste, so it'll be an uphill climb. The real youngins -- those who grew up on Minecraft -- are probably the real target market. They, at least, don't have an immediate rejection reaction.
If that's the best money can buy, the consumer market is dead. There's nearly an unlimited checkbook for the military, so if there is going to be some sweet tech, they're going to get to play with it well before we can afford it as consumers.
When the drone operators are using VR instead of monitors, I'll assume that the major consumer offerings will be here within a decade. Then I'll start to be cautiously optimistic that we might actually get some sort of virtual "meta
People voting "yes" probably just fans of Snow Crash
I love Snow Crash, and I voted 'No'. Anybody who, based on reading Snow Crash, thinks the Metaverse is desirable, is either masochistic or too thick to recognize a dystopia when it's described to them.
In Snow Crash it was sort of an escape from the real world where people could connect safely. It was also a much smaller scale than the Internet is today and importantly not run by a megacorp
The zucc version doesn't provide much more than we have on the Internet already. The real world still exists, we have apartments and homes, we don't need to live in a storage container and only safely meet people through the metaverse.
Facebook's Metaverse? No, not in its current state.
Is it possible? Sure.
I love all things Stephenson, but I think the more interesting use cases were presented in a sci-fi short story collaboration named "Metatopolis"
No spoilers for the storytelling, but some of the compelling environment there were people using VR/AR to live comfortably in storage containers on cargo ships (OK, maybe not that different from Snow Crash's portrayal of real estate), but also using it to telecommute through a network of on-s
I voted "yes" because "metaverse" was lowercase. To me it implied the vision of what authors like Stephenson, Gibson, Cline, et al; and even silly films like Lawnmower Man; and early games like Second Life can inspire.
The current tech is puke-inducing, but my vote was for the future possibility of appeal, not the current appeal.
That motion sickness can probably be trained away. I'm not prone to it, but when I haven't used VR for a long time and play VR-games where you can freely and fast move and turn in all directions I might get a little queasy feeling in my stomach. It goes away after my brain gets used to the by the eyes perceived movement while the ear tells it that it's still stationary. There's probably not that much that future tech will be able to dl about it, apart from inventing medicine against it.
I have already dropped my "Social Media" by about 90%
The time freed up is spent doing useful things, interesting things, visiting real people and having a cup of tea with them.
As someone who could only play Quake for about 30 minutes at a stretch due to motion sickness, I am not looking forward to the current generation of goggle/controller VR. If it was something like Ready Player One, with the 2D treadmill, so I could trick my inner ear into thinking I was moving it might, MIGHT but a possibility. But the current generation is just a vomit commit I don't want to ride.
I have also had a lot of motion sickness on FPS type games. Through experimentation I have found that it I can remove the bounce (some games have setting to remove the head/hand bounces while walking) then it almost always goes away.
In VR (quest) it is quite odd to me. Making walking motions during movement seems to cure the issue, except there are a couple games with no bounce in them and then I start to feel seasick. Oddly sitting down helps with that.
The quality needs to quadruple simultaneously with the cost diving by at least a third. Ads and/or Facebook can't have anything to do with it. Or any additional tracking. No Google ties ins either. Fix that and I'm all in.
Even if all of the above were met, I would still have one pressing question:
What problem does the metaverse actually solve for me?
I can see VR video games. Apart from that, I can't think of anything that could be done in the metaverse that couldn't be done more efficiently without the metaverse. To give an example here's a video showing how 'virtual' shopping might work in the metaverse [youtu.be]. It's a horror show; bringing the inefficiencies of in-store shopping (and a few new ones) to the digital realm. Meanwhile
If your definition is "whatever Zuck / Meta says," no. We don't need that. Zuck wants a playground where people will focus all their attention, as long as possible, so he can influence what you see and how you spend your money. He wants to make Fecebook more immersive. Again, we don't need that.
I'm a coder by day. If I had something which could use 3D rendering to show how the code I'm developing interacts with other code and other systems, that would be helpful. Having 3D for depth could really add to th
Somehow Meta shopping is even worse then shopping in-person. Even in a Walmart.
And the snarky digital assistant I could do without: "I see you put condoms in your shopping bag. You still have a 20-pack at home. Based on current usage rates, your next refill is scheduled for 2065."
Don't let them rename what has always been called cyberspace.. It was a silly idea of what the internet would be like, and even dumber now that we have had the internet for decades.
At least you could build and script (almost) however you wanted, and there was some fun in that. But Metaâ(TM)s proposal is just yet another way to f*** up with your private life and monetize the details. Be sure anything you say or do WILL be used in their financial interest.
Plus PG Yiffy! (just fur fun)
Given that Hello Games are the only operation who've ever managed to whip up anything resembling actual-turf enthusiasm for the idea of a metaverse, now that they've apparently managed to get No Man's Sky out of public beta, they oughta maybe start figuring out how to lease out their skies to the highest bidder. (And they'd probably get away with it too, but for how they're more or less guaranteed to succumb to a series of mysteriously-funded lawsuits in which mysteriously-funded plaintiff claims to have Pr
Fuck Zuck sideways with a rusty chainsaw. I want the Metaverse from Snow Crash. We don't quite have the technology to make it happen though.
In any case I think Stephenson should sue Zuck based on prior art; Stephenson coined the term, he should have control over it's use.
Maybe if I could control the robot that is making my sandwich or pizza it could be kinda cool. then I wouldn't need to know how to read or other stuff... just grab the toppings I want..
The idea of the internet evolving to AR and VR is absolutely spot on. However, it should be common protocols to allow users' devices to interact in a constantly changing wild west of interconnections, not some heavily scripted thing relying on massive databases and servers. There isn't even a need for multiple users interacting with each other to see the same environment unless that is what they want. If it is, they can just share that environment to each other - perhaps by all downloading it from a common
The idea of the internet evolving to AR and VR is absolutely spot on. However, it should be common protocols to allow users' devices to interact in a constantly changing wild west of interconnections, not some heavily scripted thing relying on massive databases and servers.
Sadly, I think we're beyond this.
IRC exists, but it's a rounding error now, because Discord and its centralized server supplanted it. Usenet exists, but it's a rounding error now, because Reddit and its centralized server supplanted it. XMPP exists, but it's a rounding error now, because Slack and WhatsApp and Telegram supplanted it. FTP exists, but it's a rounding error now, because Dropbox supplanted it. Dedicated video game servers exist, but it's a rounding error now, because PSN and XBL and Steam and Battle.net supplanted them.
The reality is that there are very, very few people who would seek to implement their own server for this new 'common protocol'. Microsoft is far from the only company that is on board with "embrace, extend, extinguish", and Facebook sure as hell isn't in the business of releasing open source protocols that allow users to leverage tech they've sunk billions into without requiring a Facebook login prompt to do so.
It'd be nice, but the internet, sadly, doesn't encourage the creation or use of open protocols anymore.
But if they kinda tried to make like in the book where it's a decentralized, standardized web format that anyone can create their own stuff, it would be neat. Sadly we kinda tried it with vrml and didn't panned out very well.
Portable AR (not VR) appeals to me for games that would build upon reality layout: decorating a room into a princess castle, virtual pet, first-person games, sports anywhere (billiard on the kitchen table, virtual finish line when running outside, virtual field markings for ball games, virtual ball). I expect Meta will ruin it by painting ads everywhere, but we'll see.
It's got to be paid for somehow. Given our resistance to paying for things - though the Netflix model suggests we're more willing than was assumed - ads may be the best solution. Or - as with Netflix soon - a cheap ad filled version with a more expensive ad free version may be the way forward.
Being able to visit places and experience them in perfect detail without being swarmed by other tourists seriously appeals to me. To be able to fly up and see the detail you can't from the ground - wonderful. And all this almost carbon free;)
Both amazing places with wonderful buildings worth lots of exploring in detail. Yeah - not particularly relevant the Pyramids, but there are other cultural wonders out there, even a few in the USA
When I visit someplace, not a place for a meeting or business, but a place to be for enjoyment, delight, inspiration, I want to smell the ocean air or foliage, the sounds near and far, the feel of the ground under my feet, qualities of temperature and moisture in the air. VR has accomplished nothing in those regards. I'll put up with tourists if I must.
I think it can be great for hanging out with friends who are far away, it makes everyone appear right there with you, but I'll never use Meta's rubbish.:)
I used SecondLife for years, now I'm more often on VRChat.
I can already hang out with friends in my favorite mmorpg. The avatars they have are just as convincing as a glass-like, semitransparent image that reminds you of the ghosts in "Soul".
It's the verbal. The visual aspect of "hanging with friends" is a blip on the importance scale. "Hey, pass me that beer." And they're absorbed by the "experience", pick up a can and drop it on the floor as you reach out.
I don't want the metaverse, and for the same reason I didn't want 3D TV: for the foreseeable future the tech's going to be clunky, it gives me a headache, and it doesn't solve any problem that I have.
> I think the killer app Metaverse thing hasn't appeared yet. If it requires VR, it's doomed.
I agree with both of those statements.
The killer app will require access on every platform possible, plenty of integration with the real world via smartphones, and a wide array of hooks into all types of entertainment media. VR could be a draw for certain types of exclusive content, but to make it essential would be cutting the potential of the Metaverse short (to put it mildly). I'm thinking along the li
They're fun in short bursts, but when you ask me to take it seriously and spend a long time in a virtual world, buying useless skins and virtual attire, it's a bit much
I actually really like Meta's Horizon Worlds. But... you need to come to it with the right "mindset". If you're expecting a AAA game consumption experience, the "quality" of the graphics/gameplay is not great. But in my experience, it's really about actively building your own stuff, and sharing it with your friends, not passively consuming professionally made content.
There's certainly a place for professional VR content, but the social aspect of VR, especially with Horizon's attention to making the avat
Zuck's is proprietary so it'll require a proprietary client which can't integrate with anything else, and Zuck is going to make a lot of arbitrary decisions on users' behalf. He's just trying to make another playstation/xbox competitor. Nothing wrong with that, but: Yawn.
OTOH if the idea gets standardized, then while I'm still not sure it'll be useful, it'll at least be worth checking out.
I read a long article (sorry, not going to hunt it down) about a guy who programs in VR. He has five virtual screens open, which appear huge and stand a couple of meters away for comfortable reading. He normally wears glasses, but apparently you can have prescription lenses added to your VR headset.
A room surrounded by code, and devoid of visual distractions - honestly, it sounds glorious.
We need significant improvement in technology before the "metaverse" is more than a gimmick. No one wants to spend all day with a screen strapped to their head. We might be able to get AR to the level needed to be useful. Small form factor glasses with a heads up display with useful information I could possibly get behind. AR could also be great in vehicles. The technology they have developed for self driving cars could be added to a heads up display to highlight obstacles that a driver might not have noticed ye
There are several companies building metaverse, therefore yes I'm at least somewhat curious. Some singers have already organised concerts in metaverse. Why's almost everyone just whining about Zuckerberg?
I am not surprised. Just for fun, when I'm on a brain break from my work, I watch YT videos bashing Metaverse. Good points, they make. Who wants to live in a 1990s video game? Reminds me of 1980s 3D graphics, actually, just with somewhat better splines and shading. Not really. Sure, for live interactive stuff, quality loses in the tradeoff with responsiveness. But does it have to be that bad? It could easily be better but then the price of the HW will keep it
CowboyNeal option (Score:5, Funny)
* Only if CowboyNeal runs it.
Re: (Score:2)
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Agreed
Re: (Score:2)
I was missing the Cowboy Neal option, too, but I also wonder who are the 79 people are who voted "Yes". Can't believe there are that many members of the MMH club on Slashdot. Maybe legacy users from before Zuck bought it?
Anyway, I have enough problems with real reality. No reason to add another virtual reality with its own set of problems.
Re: (Score:2)
I was missing the Cowboy Neal option, too, but I also wonder who are the 79 people are who voted "Yes". Can't believe there are that many members of the MMH club on Slashdot.
But, the Meta Mile-High club is the only reason anybody would want to be on Meta!
Re: (Score:2)
I heard it as "Make Mark Happy".
Re: CowboyNeal option (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was missing the Cowboy Neal option, too, but I also wonder who are the 79 people are who voted "Yes".
I voted yes because of the baseline "at all" qualifier. I'm no Zuckerfan, but I'd have to admit that the Metaverse is interesting, kind of like that bit of junk food you'd like to eat but know you shouldn't. How far can Meta or some other company take this sci-fi concept? So long as it's their money that's being sucked into the rabbit hole, I'm fine with observing their attempts at bringing the virtual into reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Only caveat is that there is always something else that their money could be spent on that would be better. The same is true for any company that develops for the Metaverse. The dollars going to R&D to a worthless end are accounted for someplace - lower salaries elsewhere, higher costs, lower stock prices - no free lunches served. So in fact as companies waste resources in Meta, you or someone you know will be paying for it in some way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would've went with "I only visit the CowboyNeal-verse".
I like it Re:CowboyNeal option (Score:1)
Wish I'd thought of it.
It could be cool. But we've all been here before. (Score:2)
The problem is that we've all seen this tech before, and it really left a sour taste, so it'll be an uphill climb. The real youngins -- those who grew up on Minecraft -- are probably the real target market. They, at least, don't have an immediate rejection reaction.
Re: (Score:2)
That will take care of itself the first time they puke up their guts from VR induced nausea.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you talking about https://tech.slashdot.org/story/22/10/13/1525217/microsofts-army-goggles-left-us-soldiers-with-nausea-headaches-in-test [slashdot.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's a piece of it.
Re: (Score:2)
That was one of my first thoughts too.
If that's the best money can buy, the consumer market is dead. There's nearly an unlimited checkbook for the military, so if there is going to be some sweet tech, they're going to get to play with it well before we can afford it as consumers.
When the drone operators are using VR instead of monitors, I'll assume that the major consumer offerings will be here within a decade. Then I'll start to be cautiously optimistic that we might actually get some sort of virtual "meta
Metaverse? (Score:5, Funny)
People voting "yes" probably just fans of Snow Crash
Re:Metaverse? (Score:4, Insightful)
People voting "yes" probably just fans of Snow Crash
I love Snow Crash, and I voted 'No'. Anybody who, based on reading Snow Crash, thinks the Metaverse is desirable, is either masochistic or too thick to recognize a dystopia when it's described to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I have read Snow Crash (multiple times) and to be honest, the Metaverse in Snow Crash sounds a lot better than the Metaverse by Zuckerberg.
Re: (Score:3)
In Snow Crash it was sort of an escape from the real world where people could connect safely. It was also a much smaller scale than the Internet is today and importantly not run by a megacorp
The zucc version doesn't provide much more than we have on the Internet already. The real world still exists, we have apartments and homes, we don't need to live in a storage container and only safely meet people through the metaverse.
Re: (Score:2)
Tried to reread Snow Crash and had to stop.
I need an expurgated version that drops all the techy explanations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Metaverse? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook's Metaverse? No, not in its current state.
Is it possible? Sure.
I love all things Stephenson, but I think the more interesting use cases were presented in a sci-fi short story collaboration named "Metatopolis"
No spoilers for the storytelling, but some of the compelling environment there were people using VR/AR to live comfortably in storage containers on cargo ships (OK, maybe not that different from Snow Crash's portrayal of real estate), but also using it to telecommute through a network of on-s
Re: Metaverse? (Score:2)
I voted "yes" because "metaverse" was lowercase. To me it implied the vision of what authors like Stephenson, Gibson, Cline, et al; and even silly films like Lawnmower Man; and early games like Second Life can inspire.
The current tech is puke-inducing, but my vote was for the future possibility of appeal, not the current appeal.
The poll question has no time frame...
Re: Metaverse? (Score:2)
3D TV (Score:1)
I have already dropped my "Social Media" by about 90%
The time freed up is spent doing useful things, interesting things, visiting real people and having a cup of tea with them.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not fair to 3D TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, never 'ad a cup 'o tea with the telly.
When it is actually useful maybe (Score:1)
Hope This Is A Sign Of Impending Failure (Score:2)
It will be nice to see Zuck lose all his money though. Couldn't happen to a creepier guy.
I don't need more motion sickness in my life (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
~/ fov=120 my brother. That solved my FPS nausea back in the day. in fact, I won't buy any FPS game unless I can change the FOV to 120-ish.
Re: I don't need more motion sickness in my life (Score:2)
Same! 120 fixed it for me, led to a decade of casually playing Open Arena in its many modes.
Must control field of view, and sacrifice details for smoothness (frame rate).
Re: (Score:1)
I have also had a lot of motion sickness on FPS type games. Through experimentation I have found that it I can remove the bounce (some games have setting to remove the head/hand bounces while walking) then it almost always goes away.
In VR (quest) it is quite odd to me. Making walking motions during movement seems to cure the issue, except there are a couple games with no bounce in them and then I start to feel seasick. Oddly sitting down helps with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer meta http-equiv (Score:2)
X-Verse: stanza; poetry; Cowboy Neal
Re: (Score:3)
The quality needs to quadruple simultaneously with the cost diving by at least a third. Ads and/or Facebook can't have anything to do with it. Or any additional tracking. No Google ties ins either. Fix that and I'm all in.
Even if all of the above were met, I would still have one pressing question:
What problem does the metaverse actually solve for me?
I can see VR video games. Apart from that, I can't think of anything that could be done in the metaverse that couldn't be done more efficiently without the metaverse. To give an example here's a video showing how 'virtual' shopping might work in the metaverse [youtu.be]. It's a horror show; bringing the inefficiencies of in-store shopping (and a few new ones) to the digital realm. Meanwhile
Visit historic sites cheaply? (Score:2)
To be able to go in a virtual world to the sites I really want to visit would be great, with no carbon footprint...
Depends on how you define Metaverse (Score:1)
I'm a coder by day. If I had something which could use 3D rendering to show how the code I'm developing interacts with other code and other systems, that would be helpful. Having 3D for depth could really add to th
Re: (Score:2)
And the snarky digital assistant I could do without: "I see you put condoms in your shopping bag. You still have a 20-pack at home. Based on current usage rates, your next refill is scheduled for 2065."
Cyberspace with a dumber name (Score:2)
Don't let them rename what has always been called cyberspace.. It was a silly idea of what the internet would be like, and even dumber now that we have had the internet for decades.
Second Life didn't work the first time (Score:1)
It's Second Life, but owned by Meta aka Facebook and all of the absence of any semblance of privacy that entails.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe FB's planning on folks will want to RP as first world humans as the world goes to hell?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Second Life didn't work the first time (Score:2)
no but (Score:2)
no but only because Zuckerberg has anything to do with it.
Your message here (Score:1)
Only if it's Neal Stephensons' 'metaverse' (Score:2)
In any case I think Stephenson should sue Zuck based on prior art; Stephenson coined the term, he should have control over it's use.
âoeAt allâ is a low bar (Score:1)
Iâ(TM)d love to be able to (very) occasionally hang out with friends who live far away.
Second Life in VR? pass (Score:2)
Roblox is already a filth pit.
So many ways to waste time.
Maybe if I could control the robot that is making my sandwich or pizza it could be kinda cool. then I wouldn't need to know how to read or other stuff... just grab the toppings I want..
Augmented reality has uses though.
A Phillip K. Dick universe (Score:2)
I read âoeThe Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch.â
virtual world - yeah, centralization - no (Score:2)
Re:virtual world - yeah, centralization - no (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea of the internet evolving to AR and VR is absolutely spot on. However, it should be common protocols to allow users' devices to interact in a constantly changing wild west of interconnections, not some heavily scripted thing relying on massive databases and servers.
Sadly, I think we're beyond this.
IRC exists, but it's a rounding error now, because Discord and its centralized server supplanted it.
Usenet exists, but it's a rounding error now, because Reddit and its centralized server supplanted it.
XMPP exists, but it's a rounding error now, because Slack and WhatsApp and Telegram supplanted it.
FTP exists, but it's a rounding error now, because Dropbox supplanted it.
Dedicated video game servers exist, but it's a rounding error now, because PSN and XBL and Steam and Battle.net supplanted them.
The reality is that there are very, very few people who would seek to implement their own server for this new 'common protocol'. Microsoft is far from the only company that is on board with "embrace, extend, extinguish", and Facebook sure as hell isn't in the business of releasing open source protocols that allow users to leverage tech they've sunk billions into without requiring a Facebook login prompt to do so.
It'd be nice, but the internet, sadly, doesn't encourage the creation or use of open protocols anymore.
Zuck's dumb attempt no (Score:2)
But if they kinda tried to make like in the book where it's a decentralized, standardized web format that anyone can create their own stuff, it would be neat.
Sadly we kinda tried it with vrml and didn't panned out very well.
Re: (Score:2)
#VRMLweBarelyKnewYe
AR not VR (Score:3)
Portable AR (not VR) appeals to me for games that would build upon reality layout: decorating a room into a princess castle, virtual pet, first-person games, sports anywhere (billiard on the kitchen table, virtual finish line when running outside, virtual field markings for ball games, virtual ball). I expect Meta will ruin it by painting ads everywhere, but we'll see.
Re: (Score:2)
It's got to be paid for somehow. Given our resistance to paying for things - though the Netflix model suggests we're more willing than was assumed - ads may be the best solution. Or - as with Netflix soon - a cheap ad filled version with a more expensive ad free version may be the way forward.
Travel to far away places (Score:2)
Being able to visit places and experience them in perfect detail without being swarmed by other tourists seriously appeals to me. To be able to fly up and see the detail you can't from the ground - wonderful. And all this almost carbon free ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Try visiting Rome or Venice (Score:2)
Both amazing places with wonderful buildings worth lots of exploring in detail. Yeah - not particularly relevant the Pyramids, but there are other cultural wonders out there, even a few in the USA
Re: (Score:2)
When I visit someplace, not a place for a meeting or business, but a place to be for enjoyment, delight, inspiration, I want to smell the ocean air or foliage, the sounds near and far, the feel of the ground under my feet, qualities of temperature and moisture in the air. VR has accomplished nothing in those regards. I'll put up with tourists if I must.
It already existed.... (Score:1)
Just not that FB junk (Score:1)
I think it can be great for hanging out with friends who are far away, it makes everyone appear right there with you, but I'll never use Meta's rubbish. :)
I used SecondLife for years, now I'm more often on VRChat.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the verbal. The visual aspect of "hanging with friends" is a blip on the importance scale. "Hey, pass me that beer." And they're absorbed by the "experience", pick up a can and drop it on the floor as you reach out.
Like 3D TV (Score:2)
In theory... (Score:4, Insightful)
In theory the metaverse appeals to me.
In practice I won't touch Meta company's anything, that's a non starter. I'm talking about a metaverse as a concept.
I think the killer app Metaverse thing hasn't appeared yet. If it requires VR, it's doomed.
In a lot of ways this reminds me of VRML..
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with both of those statements.
The killer app will require access on every platform possible, plenty of integration with the real world via smartphones, and a wide array of hooks into all types of entertainment media. VR could be a draw for certain types of exclusive content, but to make it essential would be cutting the potential of the Metaverse short (to put it mildly). I'm thinking along the li
Re: (Score:1)
You took the works right from my mouth. The idea seems both useful (a better Zoom for example), and entertaining, but 100% not if Meta is involved.
Yes and No (Score:1)
Sure, something like a metaverse might be pretty cool, but not an untrustworthy Facebook-driven, expensive metaverse.
like video games (Score:2)
Horizon Worlds (Score:2)
There's certainly a place for professional VR content, but the social aspect of VR, especially with Horizon's attention to making the avat
Which one? (Score:2)
Zuck's is proprietary so it'll require a proprietary client which can't integrate with anything else, and Zuck is going to make a lot of arbitrary decisions on users' behalf. He's just trying to make another playstation/xbox competitor. Nothing wrong with that, but: Yawn.
OTOH if the idea gets standardized, then while I'm still not sure it'll be useful, it'll at least be worth checking out.
What does appeal... (Score:2)
I read a long article (sorry, not going to hunt it down) about a guy who programs in VR. He has five virtual screens open, which appear huge and stand a couple of meters away for comfortable reading. He normally wears glasses, but apparently you can have prescription lenses added to your VR headset.
A room surrounded by code, and devoid of visual distractions - honestly, it sounds glorious.
not at the current technology level (Score:2)
We need significant improvement in technology before the "metaverse" is more than a gimmick.
No one wants to spend all day with a screen strapped to their head.
We might be able to get AR to the level needed to be useful.
Small form factor glasses with a heads up display with useful information I could possibly get behind.
AR could also be great in vehicles. The technology they have developed for self driving cars
could be added to a heads up display to highlight obstacles that a driver might not have noticed
ye
The Metaverse is already here (Score:1)
It's called Wow Classic. :)
Zuckerberg is not the only one (Score:1)
That depends. (Score:1)
Bashers on YT for my brain breaks (Score:2)
Is this the strongest gap ever in any /. poll?
I am not surprised. Just for fun, when I'm on a brain break from my work, I watch YT videos bashing Metaverse. Good points, they make. Who wants to live in a 1990s video game? Reminds me of 1980s 3D graphics, actually, just with somewhat better splines and shading. Not really. Sure, for live interactive stuff, quality loses in the tradeoff with responsiveness. But does it have to be that bad? It could easily be better but then the price of the HW will keep it