The "metaverse" is a play to create a single 3D map that they (Facebook, somebody) own, so that they can sell real estate in the enforced public spaces.

The ideal environment would be one where I can create my own "town square" and put the things I want there, including my friends "buildings". In Facebooks version, we won't be allowed to do this, because then they wouldn't be able to sell the real estate.

Duplicate, made a the front page for a while when it was published

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29045930

> Zuckerberg calls the metaverse "an embodied internet where you're in the experience, not just looking at it."

A lot of the criticism is valid but it seems to me that many critics haven't experienced "embodiment". To me, that is the killer feature. Without it, the author is right, we already have the internet. I have a Oculus Quest that I don't use because there is not enough of that sense of embodiment. When the field of vision is extended to the periphery and the resolution is enough to not have the screen door effect, it will be much more likely to feel embodied. It's kind of mind blowing actually and the source of much of the quasi-religious fervor when some talk about VR.

I've experienced full "embodiment" with top end room-scale equipment. It's pretty cool, but it's nothing life changing, and certainly doesn't deserve the hype that is thankfully now starting to die down. I largely agree with the author.

What did you do while embodied? It seems dismissive to say it was tried and wasn't a big deal when it's such a vast heterogenous space of possibilities that getting a set of examples indicating upper bounds on available experiences would be highly non-trivial, esp. because it's so dependent on software, which we're still just beginning to explore.

And even in our early exploration there's already huge variety, from e.g. spatial CAD to novel social formats to new physical/coordination skill based games, virtual theaters, educational tools etc.

There is a wide range in how much being embodied is going to matter depending what you're doing in software. I think for an artist virtually sculpting 3d works it's not a stretch to say this could be life-changing, for example.

I was just thinking that experiencing live spectator sports in VR will be a big deal when the camera technology catches up. Imagine being _on_ the field with the players!

That's never going to work. You will always have to recreate the scene in an engine, otherwise you're unable to move your head away from the camera position... And that's nausea inducing af.

My guess is that very few watchers would prefer a 3d reenactment over the 2d original stream, as the reenactment will always have less details or even show things incorrectly.

Yeah that’s how I imagine it would have to be done (scene capture from many angles + 3d scene recreation) but I disagree on “that’s never going to work”. The number of everyday things that people in say 1950s would think were “never going to work” is staggering.

This is all just zuck jealous of worlds like roblox, it's full of kids unlike facebook

a big coporate rallying cry that they need to do something new to stay relevant in the future in truth they are as creative as a bag of rocks which is telling by their 3d re-creation of a boardroom and how unfun horizons is

virtural worlds are going to continue to evolve and be a big thing but meta's not going to win

Oculus will keep them in the running.

I think that's true on the hardware side, but IMO it's more likely that various virtual worlds gain traction on 2d screens then support slowly support VR/AR which will bring more players into that market

I feel like FB is already adding to much baggage and bloat to their stuff going on horizon a month or so ago annoying and frustrating overall. it's the whole cart before the horse thing; eg. their cryptocurrency project

either way it gives the vibe of out of touch execs with massive resources at their disposal trying to prevent roblox/recroom/whatever from ending their fun by aiming "big" but they wont be able to

I imagine there are some lower hanging fruit for an embodied internet like not having ads and a general respect for providing me with value rather than trying to extract value from me.

> A lot of the criticism is valid but it seems to me that many critics haven't experienced "embodiment". To me, that is the killer feature.

Who gives a shit about that? The Internet is an immediately-accessible universe of ideas; that's infininitely bigger than any silly VR-based walled garden, which this oh-so-tediously-obviously is an attempt to create.

So of course the robber barons / garden proprioetors in spe have to try and kill it and replace it with their puny "vision".

Un-fucking-believable how anyone can fall for it.

"embodiment" really is the raison d'etre of virtual reality. Without it, you might as well explore the internet as usual. I get that some people don't get a rush from embodiment.

> I get that some people don't get a rush from embodiment

I don't quite get that some do. :-) Heck, aren't we all embodied -- that is, in our actual bodies -- already?

(And yes, I have tried it. Only the once, but at a facility with, AIUI, fairly high-end equipment.)

Wouldn't even call it a worse internet, it's just a bunch of their own servers you'll be forced to use through the internet.

Zuckerberg has always proven himself to be jealous and to go on the warpath with anyone who disagrees with him, you can see that in Instagram and Whatsapp - whether the metaverse is a good idea or not I absolutely don't want he or Facebook a part of it

The metaverse is about filling your surroundings with ads. Everywhere you look will be full of ads.

In my humble opinion, the immersive version of the internet requires an enabling technology first which would be something akin to a direct neural link or a nerve-link to our central nerve system.

Only if it's perceived on the level of a separate arm can it really become intuitive.

We're definitely several decades out on that type of human-computer interaction.

I certainly cannot use a vr set longer than 10 minutes or I feel like vomiting

Most people do not have time to be in a VR world.

If VR tech replaces game consoles and TV I can see it happening. We already have dedicated TV rooms in most of our houses (at least in the US)

It just depends if VR can step into that market or not.

It's at least half a decade from that. VR is great, but it's going to remain niche until the tech improves on the tracking, motion sickness, and resolution dimensions and becomes affordable for the long tail.

There's also the issue of broad appeal. VR will remain a furry / anime / vtuber thing for awhile. Casual audiences aren't going to fit in.

AR is bullshit beyond Snap and Instagram lenses. Nobody is going to wear that full time outside of an industrial application.

Half a decade, try half a century.

There is no way that it will become a mainstream activity until vr headsets are as comfortable as a pair of reading glasses.

There also needs to be a major cultural shift. VR forces you to turn off your loved ones. You can't see or hear them at all.

Whats more, VR will only every occupy the space that gaming does now because it's an "active" activity that requires you to do something. It will never replace TV which allows you to turn off the decision making part of your brain.

Computer gaming shuts you off from your loved ones too. Most wear thick headphones.

VR has always been very social for my friends an I as we mirror the display to the tv so people can see. And the headset we use doesn't cover your ears so you can still talk.

Plus, vrchat and the likes feels much more intimate than any video game I've played. Many in my circle live too far to meet up IRL.

>VR forces you to turn off your loved ones. You can't see or hear them at all.

Not everyone has loved ones and not everyone's loved ones are physically near them.

> VR forces you to turn off your loved ones. You can't see or hear them at all.

But if they're in the same room, you can punch 'em in the face...

That made me laugh. I just pictured some kid in a VR headset punching is mom in the face. oops...sorry mom.....

Only, that's literally what happened. Thankfully, he's only 5, so it didn't actually hurt.

Motion sickness and tracking are solved problems. The biggest barrier is content (value prop right now is still not huge) and hardware comfort.

I'll believe it when I see it.

People get motion sick in a car or on a boat. Its not a software problem.

If your are attempting to build your VR experiences without moving the camera through the world then you'll be extremely hamstrung.

I really enjoyed Alyx, but building a simulation of this world that you can't actually walk around is just weird.

VR "looks" cool, but you can't do anything in it that you can't do just as easily using a traditional screen.

Motion sickness is not a solved problem. My wife and I both tried fairly recent headsets, both terribly motion sick.

It's not solved in consumer headsets, but the technology does exist.

I think the tracking is extremely precise by now.

Using a browser is actually viable even with low res headsets (tested rift S). While the low res is a constraint, turning your head quickly adjusts the viewport, so that your "virtual" resolution is quite good.

By the way, do these AR goggles solve the problem of focus distance?

(i.e. the eyes needs to focus onto an object if it is nearby, and shouldn't always focus on infinity)

Anyone can make time for VR.

I think where the Metaverse make the most sense, is to help people suffering from degenerative conditions such as dementia or paralysis, to participate in a virtual model of society.

Other than that The Metaverse seems like a novelty, not the future of the Internet.

I wonder if they'd also make their own crypto for this metaverse.

They already have.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diem_(digital_currency)

Is it possible to make something without a crypto?

Of course it is if Zuckerberg is going to be shaping the vision.