Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: How is the “metaverse” concept different from the Second Life boom?

news.ycombinator.com

291–300 of 381 posts

Re: Ask HN: How is the “metaverse” concept different from the Second Life boom?

#291

XR is the unavoidable future, whether we want it or not. It is mind blowing to be able to dance with life-sized 3D models. Imagine when we cannot tell the difference between what’s in the headset and what isn’t. Not too far away.

I personally believe that the gap to a life-like virtual experience will be closed with the use of neural networks generating the experience. I also believe that's a long way off.

Reminds me a bit of 'photorealistic cg'. The gap between close and indistinguishable has an exponential curve of effort required. I remember when Final Fantasy the Spirits Within was released in 2001[1], and it was said to be extremely photorealistic. It was good for it's time, but you wouldn't think it was anywhere close to believable by today's standard. That was 20 years ago and still I don't think I've seen a full CG movie that I thought was real.

So my take is that, without the help of AI filling in the exponential curve in ways we've not yet seen, it's longer than we think.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaI7ZPA9I1c

Re: Ask HN: How is the “metaverse” concept different from the Second Life boom?

#292
post #89
post #33

Conceptually speaking, the difference with AR/VR is that you can have a truly immersive experience, which really does give you more possibilities than just Second Life, which was always just a 3D game world on a 2D screen. The pitch from Meta and with AR/VR is that with the ability to use 3D space, you can actually turn Second Life-style virtual worlds into something useful with actual tangible benefits. For example,…

To me, the problem is finding situations where immersiveness actually adds value. I think for a lot of social interactions, it doesn't, or it offers rapidly diminishing value. This conversation would not be meaningfully better as a virtual/augmented reality 3D live chat. The Google Hangouts (or whatever it's called this week) meetings with my team at work would not be better either. I'm not even sure it would beat pl…

You don’t need to spend billions. Generating 3d models from stitching images together is possible and with some automation and focused products it will become much easier

Re: Ask HN: How is the “metaverse” concept different from the Second Life boom?

#294
post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But digital is a realm of infinite copying, and where true ownership of bits means that you can never show them off (like Shkreli and that A Tribe Called Quest album). NFT 'ownership' is an additional layer on top of the data that can easily be stripped away, as the exclusivity only exists in the minds of those gullible enough to actually value it. I am very tired of watching humans constantly try to impose real-worl…

People who want to create works that can be infinitely copied, will. People who want to create works that have various kinds of cultural norms imposing scarcity, will. There is no “fight”, it’s just saying that you’d prefer less options for people to choose how to expend their creative energy. Nobody is stopping a person from turning the knob all the way to “infinite free copies,” but the idea here is to make a knob…

While they permit infinite copies, the ownership bit strips away potential egalitarianism. Scarcity needs to be stripped and not an option. There shouldn't be a knob that allows one to select 'infinite copies', that should be the default. And ownership should either be collective or none at all.

Permitting ownership enables an unnecessary layer of stratification that humanity is best without, in a rare environment that actually allows for the lack of it.

Re: Ask HN: How is the “metaverse” concept different from the Second Life boom?

#295
I don't think you are off entirely here. The 3D creator community is growing very quickly with new tools, lowering the barrier of entry to 3D design, emerging consistently. That provides the content. Hardware, to your point, is getting better, cheaper and more accessible to more content consumers. The last component, as I have been thinking about it, is then the network that brings users together. As other posters have already mentioned - the user experience is an improvement vs the original Second Life.. which may be enough, over time, to become a new inflection point.

I do think there is more hype than substance right now around the metaverse, but I don't have to squint too hard to see a world where this becomes real relatively soon.

Re: Ask HN: How is the “metaverse” concept different from the Second Life boom?

#296
post #33

Conceptually speaking, the difference with AR/VR is that you can have a truly immersive experience, which really does give you more possibilities than just Second Life, which was always just a 3D game world on a 2D screen. The pitch from Meta and with AR/VR is that with the ability to use 3D space, you can actually turn Second Life-style virtual worlds into something useful with actual tangible benefits. For example,…

I'm pretty skeptical it'll ever take off. Having tried to hang around in the Oculus Go spaces early on, it was pretty clear no one really had a great reason for being there. You'd sit around a badly rendered bonfire and hear people talking, sometimes interestingly, but it had about the same level of interest as getting on a CB and talking to strangers. There are two kinds of people you can meet in VR: Friends and str…

This sounds like Krugman's fax machine prediction

Re: Ask HN: How is the “metaverse” concept different from the Second Life boom?

#297
post #89
post #33

Conceptually speaking, the difference with AR/VR is that you can have a truly immersive experience, which really does give you more possibilities than just Second Life, which was always just a 3D game world on a 2D screen. The pitch from Meta and with AR/VR is that with the ability to use 3D space, you can actually turn Second Life-style virtual worlds into something useful with actual tangible benefits. For example,…

To me, the problem is finding situations where immersiveness actually adds value. I think for a lot of social interactions, it doesn't, or it offers rapidly diminishing value. This conversation would not be meaningfully better as a virtual/augmented reality 3D live chat. The Google Hangouts (or whatever it's called this week) meetings with my team at work would not be better either. I'm not even sure it would beat pl…

>What confuses me on point 2 is that I think we're going to have to basically invent new paradigms for "window management". The thing I'm picturing is doing a PowerPoint presentation in VR. We'd have people jostling for the best view, and whatever "immersive" metaphor for presenting is likely to be clunkier than a classic Zoom call where the slides are just walked through on one big window.

As someone who has given a couple presentations in VR (and spent ~400 hours coding/working in VR), there's a lot to be done here. Some very basic examples of value-adds are:

- You (or your audience) can manipulate the presentation "viewport" to any size and/or replicate it wherever each viewer prefers in their own space (e.g. you can sit down on your couch and watch the presentation on a big screen, or have it as a "second monitor" next to something else, or treat it Hololens-pinned style and have the screen follow you around in your vision while you're working on something with your hands). IME, it's much nicer than effectively giving yourself a limited vertical screen monitor when you split screen a meeting/presentation on Zoom.

- Streaming a replicated presentation video (like a powerpoint) to each individual person instead of streaming a singular one over a Zoom call lets viewers refer back to / rewind to previous slides without disturbing others' views.

- Having a large view of a presentation yourself means you can also take notes directly on that presentation in real time, circle/underline text, draw arrows between concepts, whatever you need to help yourself remember what the speaker said later. I helped beta an app (that unfortunately shut down) for taking notes in the margins of videos in VR which would probably be a perfect use-case for things like presentations/classes. You could play back or scrub through the video later to see your notes in time.

- Obvious, but any presentation about a 3D _thing_ will benefit from being displayed in a 3D space. I'd much rather see a new Tesla in front of me than look at a 2D image of it, or see the scale of a new roller coaster, statue, building plan, etc. In "physical presense" situations like this, there's also a value-add over the real thing because you don't have to "jostle for the best view" -- you can just phase through (or not even see) other viewers and always have a front-row seat (and teleport around if you want more angles). For smaller objects, being able to manipulate the scale of the object (especially without also affecting the scale other people are seeing it at) is a nice QoL, too.

- For meetings and things with audience participation, it's way more intuitive in a 3D space to split up into groups (and e.g. only be able to see/hear people near you) by just... walking over to a group and joining in. I can't imagine doing something like small group icebreakers in a company's Zoom presentation.

There's probably a lot of new paradigms and workflows to emerge when the VR space is a little more mature, as well. I've been out of it for a few months now (moved and haven't re-set-up base stations) and I tried to limit my value-adds to just presentations, but I'm excited to see where it goes in the productivity realm.

Re: Ask HN: How is the “metaverse” concept different from the Second Life boom?

#298
post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I can understand the vision. I guess the more salient "why?" question is the one that still feels lacking to me. Current easy money aside, it's not clear why society as a whole would be willing to cast aside the last 250 years of physical ownership and financial infrastructure in exchange for digital ownership(?) and immutable ledgers with irrecoverable error conditions.

Possibly last man standing phenomenon after a few decades of turmoil unwinding present day nation states.

Sounds like the same fallacy as preppers getting ripped off buying Krugerrands at a premium to keep value safe after a complete collapse of all civilization. When it is like putting platforms on the boughs of a tree to stay safe when the trunk is cut and felled. It fundamentally misunderstands the order of dependencies.

Re: Ask HN: How is the “metaverse” concept different from the Second Life boom?

#299
post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laughable - that's like saying "this cake has 80% of the required ingredients, we're almost there with the exception of flour and sugar". The uncanny valley on the raw capabilities of these current products is a grand canyon. Holodeck it ain't.

Not really, I’d imagine if you ran the same trial today with face and eye tracking HMDs you would match f2f social presence scores. Wouldn’t surprise me if the study has already been done. You’re confusing graphics quality and realism with just the subset of what is needed to hit face to face social presence. That bar is much lower: high resolution, low latency, good tracking. The actual GPU power beyond that doesn’t…

It feels like you're just moving goalposts by defining some arbitrary metric of "f2f social presence scores". It doesn't really matter how much any individual test does against these "scores" if your average person walks away feeling "That felt nothing like a face to face meeting I'm used to having with actual, live humans."

Re: Ask HN: How is the “metaverse” concept different from the Second Life boom?

#300
People just don't want these embodied experiences outside of extremely narrow and controlled circumstances (e.g. games). 3D is just fundamentally not an efficient way of conveying information. Almost all useful information in the world (especially at work) is [hyper]text. Sometimes it's speech, which is just slow, inefficient text. I am absolutely baffled by this movement. Surely nobody actually wants any of this 3D stuff?

There is a genuinely interesting conversation to be had about the metaverse. I think lots of conversations around identity are interesting: what is durable, what is opt-in/opt-out, how do we mediate a la carte personal identity with community standards etc. That's a hugely important conversation the outcomes of which we are feeling right now. This is _much more_ important than what fucking 3D fox avatar you walk around with.

I think there are even interesting conversations to be had around AR, and smart glasses etc. But that have to be predicated on the fact that the technology just _isn't there_. Even if you had amazing smart glasses that weren't massive shitty headsets (that even if some people can tolerate, are worthless for work or on the bus), you'd still have the problem that the UIs are useless. Until we have way, way better AI assistants, you just can't have AR/VR UIs. Because you _need_ high bandwidth text interfaces. In the absence of keyboards that means voice, except the idea of using crappy voice recognition at work, or walking around, is deeply painful. So we'll need really good subvocalisation tech, and that doesn't exist. We'll need really good AI agents (and I genuinely believe the biggest concern of the metaverse is going to be how machines interface with it, not humans), but they don't exist. But that's fine, cos the headsets are crap so none of this is a pressing concern and I am _utterly baffled_ why this conversation is important in 2021. It's all years off.

So I do think this will all one day be relevant, but not now. But even when it is, I think the _absolute least interesting_ bit of it is embodied 3D spaces. Basically nobody has ever wanted that, they don't want it now, they will never want it. It's just a crappy way to do business. It's a fun way to play games, but you know what, 3D on a 2D screen is still fine.

The longer this conversation continues, the more money gets sunk into it, the crazier I feel. Nobody wants to go to work in Minecraft. Nobody wants to go to the pub in Roblox. They're just games that kids enjoy. You cannot build a trillion dollar investment hypothesis off the back of games kids enjoy.

I dunno, this all sounds a bit grumpy, I'm sorry, but part of that is that I genuinely do think there is interesting stuff to discuss here. Maybe 3D worlds are dead on arrival. But making internet spaces ubiquitous and ambient? Interesting. How can I as a human, with privacy needs but a lust for reputation, inhabit these spaces? Interesting. We're just concentrating on the stupidest possible parts of the mataverse right now and there's going to be a spectacular metaverse Winter if we don't dial down the hype.

Post reply on HN