World is bonkers... can someone elaborate what is happening @ FB and other Silicon Valley companies where people seemingly went crazy? There are a handful of contenders in the video game entertainment industry who are really capable of creating a metaverse like thing with stunning detail, but this?
The direct technical explanation for the fidelity gap here, as has been stated elsewhere in the comments here, is that Meta's metaverse VR tech runs off of a smartphone chip. Performance is thus very limited. Further compounding this limitation is the fact that since it is VR, the application has to render the world twice every frame - so rendering capability is ostensibly cut in half. The result is bland, low-detail, flat-looking (and in this case jittery and glitchy) graphics.
I think this gap could easily have a hand in preventing the Facebook metaverse from reaching mainstream appeal. We've had gorgeous graphics in games and virtual worlds for quite a long time now - just look at what Crysis achieved fifteen years ago. To the average consumer who doesn't care about the technical limitations and issues behind the product, this is like rewinding the clock twenty years.
As far as why Zuckerberg is so hyped on it - your guess is as good as mine. Just seems like a really misguided attempt at creating a new platform/ecosystem that they control entirely and can monetize.
> There are a handful of contenders in the video game entertainment industry who are really capable of creating a metaverse like thing with stunning detail, but this?
John Carmack is spent.
Richard Garfield also created Artifact.
Niantic also created Wizards Unite.
Markus Persson made some videos of some kind of Stargate Universe spaceship game with a programmable 16 bit computer. It sounded cool, but people hated it before it was even released.
There are 100 billionaire 35-45 yo men with fond memories of Civilization, Diablo, Halo trying to make video games hiring the top game designers. And they get flops!
> are a handful of contenders in the video game entertainment industry who are really capable of creating
It's just super really fucking risky. It's not this, VC thing where you are just putting out winners over and over again.
There are no Marc Lore types in gaming. There's no exit strategy for Marc Lores of gaming. And if you don't have any idea what I'm saying or talking about at this point, if you're like, who the fuck is Marc Lore, you are not comprehending how far you are from understanding the challenge of making these games with huge audiences that last for years.
You are just as likely to get a hit from an extremely talented and lucky unknown as you are from Richard fucking Garfield. A title that cost its developer $1 to make can become a #1 App Store game at roughly the same a-priori likelihood as a game with a $100m budget.
The mistake wasn't taking a risk. Better Zucc make video games than a payment system or a crypto trading platform or a spare room rental company. The mistake is that John Carmack is a dick.
> It sounded cool, but people hated it before it was even released.
My recollection was that a bunch of people were really excited, a bunch of people were like, "What is this?", and then Notch basically just lost interest and wandered off. I think he's one of those people that needs externally imposed structure and doesn't know what to do with himself now that he's super rich.
---"
There are 100 billionaire 35-45 yo men with fond memories of Civilization, Diablo, Halo trying to make video games hiring the top game designers. And they get flops!
---"
Examples of these big flops please.
Creating a big title is a team effort. You can shove your top designer if he doesn't have a proper team. Ex blizzard guys, almost all of them failed, why? Because they jumped out, believed they were hotshots, but their team/general game idea was lacking. Also look what happened to David Jaffe without Sony's backing...
If you have the money, but don't know jackshit about games, and you don't have a Steve Eisman quality bullshit detector, what are you expecting? Btw there are a lot of excellent indie titles that trump big titles while made by a few individuals, but only a fraction of gamers know about them, because they don't have the money plus marketing machine needed to bring them to a wider audience. Pour your zillions there or hire me, give me a shitton of money, power to kick people in the balls and you'll get your 10x return, lol.
Plus how is this relevant? All I'm saying that the tech is ready, can be made, there are perfect VG examples that can be used as a VR/MV setting, but what Meta showcased is a letdown.
> You are just as likely to get a hit from an extremely talented and lucky unknown as you are from Richard fucking Garfield. A title that cost its developer $1 to make can become a #1 App Store game at roughly the same a-priori likelihood as a game with a $100m budget.
Given this, where is the YCombinator for games? Why isn't someone funding 100,000 ConcernedApes and ToadyOnes in an attempt to cash in on the next Stardew Valley? Serious question.
The "Ycombinator of Games" was Kickstarter at one point, but there have been few major successes from that. Unreal Grants, Steam, Patreon, and itch.io are today's best analogues.
Personally, I don't think a Ycombinator model for games would be appropriate unless you think MMOs/GaaS are the only things worth playing.
* Entire economy is right now controlled by FED and mega funds like Blackrock. What Engineers or public think is at the moment is unimportant, entire shift to Metaverse is directed by these mega funds / mega investors.
* So, people that control the economy desperately want Metaverse to happen.
* The reason is that they believe Metaverse will give much needed bread circuses to citizens and keep them happy during the incoming calamities like climate change.
* Moreover, they can easily forcefully strap low income workers to VR/AR glasses and control them more effectively during the work.
* Though there are couple of major problem with this plan.
* Most of the companies working in this area is just interested in suckering the investments. This is very similar to blockchain startups.
* Public won’t be very interested in AR tech, and forcing AR top down will actually create genuine social issues.
I am not going to disagree with any of this, really appreciate this angle. I'll add that from Stratechery type concepts, Warren Buffet wisdom and the like, companies need a moat and in these platform providers its all about the walled garden. If the metaverse were to be the next big thing for sure, you'd want to be the one to capture it. I wonder if FB consulted with the Big 4 or BCG ilk to have the greenlight to go down this road, I'd find it humorous.
Hell, it's hard to believe/digest. Anyway, it seems forced, that's for sure. The 3D glasses/TV madness had similar traits back then. If this turns out to be true, then I'm wondering what will the company who succeeds creating a compelling Metaverse will get in return. :O
