How do you feel about the Metaverse concept?

[MiniPocketWorld]

Upon first glance The Sandbox looked actually kinda cool but then I scrolled down and saw "NFTs" I'd rather shop in virtual Walmart than have to look at NFTs honestly!

yeah but from what I understand, it was NFTs for basically game assets and skins. The NFT will allow you to transfer that stuff to another platform in the Metaverse if you so choose, or at least that is what is advertised when it comes to things you buy in the Metaverse. And the money to use on the NFT you can technically earn on there so you don't have to take stuff out of your pocket even though the money you earn on there can be put in your real pocket for bills or whatever.
Unless I'm not understanding NFTs, which I could be misunderstanding, on this platform it is literally no different than a game developer buying some game assets and sprites to use in their commercial game.

 

[_Donut_]

I think it could help in certain situations or fields but I'm not getting too excited over it, most of these company announcements are just fancy CGI trailers of something futuristic (kinda like how countries or cities make these super futuristic renders of new buildings or areas but in reality they don't look like that).

I think for now it will be mostly limited to what we know already as VR but actual full Virtual reality worlds where we can go in like sword art online or ready player one movies/series...nah. There are just too many issues with that concept, one big one that comes to my mind is safety/moderation. How on earth are they going to moderate this metaverse and avoid bad people with bad intentions from using it? It's already clear at this moment how difficult it is to just get all that stuff off facebook and still so many things leak through. In a metaverse with avatars you would have to monitor everyone & everything, even the text on clothing for avatars for example. And how willingly are countries (politics) going to let facebook implement the metaverse, there are already so many companies banned in regions due to laws & politics.

I've recently seen a video on why exactly facebook is coming up with this "metaverse" which was really interesting. I think we all agree that the world is moving more towards a digital space and VR is going to get only bigger. With that in mind, facebook as only a social media platform is at a big disadvantage for the future because if those VR companies are coming up with their own platforms to chat, keep in touch & share content then there will be no more use for a website like facebook, that's why they are now already heavily investing in the virtual world. So, I don't see it as something that will be ready as the thing they told us about in the upcoming years but more a future investement from FB and message to their competitors.

 

[.: Meri :.]

Unless I'm not understanding NFTs, which I could be misunderstanding, on this platform it is literally no different than a game developer buying some game assets and sprites to use in their commercial game.

I'm definitely not the best person to explain this myself, but the assets themselves aren't exactly the whole NFT. What makes it an NFT is the unique token generated to mark the buyer as the "owner" of that asset (which also usually doesn't indicate any sort of actual copyright ownership), and those tokens take an exorbitant amount of energy to generate. This article explains it a lot better than I can. ^^;

New technology has shifted the balance yet again, allowing creators to establish the same scarcity for digital files as for physical objects by making them uniquely identifiable. Non-fungible tokens (NFTs, or “niftys”) are pieces of digital media with essentially a permanent, non-transferable sticky note attached by whoever creates, or “mints” it. Anybody with a digital platform — which these days is almost everybody — can mint one, authenticate it themselves, and cash in.

NFTs are minted on the Ethereum blockchain, the second most popular after Bitcoin. One analysis found the energy footprint of the average transaction on this network is roughly 35 kWh — about the same as powering a refrigerator for a month. But NFT transactions also involve minting, bidding, selling and transferring a digital token. All these actions are costly, adding up to an average of 369 kWh — over 10 times as much energy. One researcher calculated that a certain artist selling two pieces of artwork used over 175 MWh, creating the greenhouse gas emissions of 21 years of a U.S. household’s electricity use.

 

[Mr.Fox]

I kinda hope it turns out like this.. awkward and chaotic

https://twitter.com/x/status/1478094074909540354

Thanks for posting this...it was probably (unintentionally) one of the funniest things I've seen lately.

 

[MiniPocketWorld]

I'm definitely not the best person to explain this myself, but the assets themselves aren't exactly the whole NFT. What makes it an NFT is the unique token generated to mark the buyer as the "owner" of that asset (which also usually doesn't indicate any sort of actual copyright ownership), and those tokens take an exorbitant amount of energy to generate. This article explains it a lot better than I can. ^^;

Oh wow so basically the token assigned to a digital piece and data to keep track of it switching hands basically takes up a bunch of energy. That's crazy.
They better come up with a better way to track if they are wanting people into buying digital goods.

Wish I understood NFTs a bit more, but that article helped. I figured the tracking wouldn't be much different than a game server or the servers facebook uses or something. Not that I know how much energy those consume but.. hmm I guess I never really put much thought into it. I wonder how they compare. Or I am still waayy off in understanding.

But with NFTs consuming so much energy, do you think one reason why it isn't seen as a green concern is because of the increase in green energy we have been producing?
Like, one of the things Zuckerberg was talking about in his pitch is that having digital goods is way less of a carbon footprint that physically having something. The example was a car and various items in a house. Of course the Metaverse stuff relies on a person putting its value equal or even above reality. From my understanding, all digital goods in the Metaverse will be NFTs because they have to be tracked. Each platform in the Metaverse will have its own currency you can put in your real pocket or use to buy digital goods and the goods can be transfered to another platform in the metaverse.

I mean I can understand why NFTs could just be a quick fad and something most people don't care about, but NFTs existing now with the Metaverse talk it seems to explain why NFTs exist and how their concept probably won't disappear.

 

[.: Meri :.]

-snip-

Hmm... I'm not sure. A lot of the opposition I see to NFTs is because of their environmental impact, but that could just be the circles I'm in. I don't know how well that concept has reached the mainstream perception of them.
I'd certainly hope that the Metaverse would use ownership tracking that's more akin to online game servers vs. NFTs, because the energy consumption the latter would use on the scale they're talking is... scary to think about. This being Zuckerberg, though, I don't have much faith. That being said, I'm still thinking that the Metaverse either won't come to fruition, or will flop massively if it does get released. There seem to be a lot of people who really don't like the concept (myself included), and I think a heavy reliance on NFTs will probably just serve to alienate people further.

 

[maria110]

I think it's gross and creepy and it makes me want to go back to analog days. I'm kidding but also kind of not kidding.

 

[MiniPocketWorld]

Hmm... I'm not sure. A lot of the opposition I see to NFTs is because of their environmental impact, but that could just be the circles I'm in. I don't know how well that concept has reached the mainstream perception of them.
I'd certainly hope that the Metaverse would use ownership tracking that's more akin to online game servers vs. NFTs, because the energy consumption the latter would use on the scale they're talking is... scary to think about. This being Zuckerberg, though, I don't have much faith. That being said, I'm still thinking that the Metaverse either won't come to fruition, or will flop massively if it does get released. There seem to be a lot of people who really don't like the concept (myself included), and I think a heavy reliance on NFTs will probably just serve to alienate people further.

I was watching a video today and someone kinda made a point with NFTs. So basically if someone creates something on someone else's platform, if thier assets are NFTs then the assets is Thiers regardless of what a platform owner does.
NFTs can be more than just jpegs and game models but also music, basically any digital item.
An example was brought up with Facebook and Farmville. Farmville was doing immensely well but Facebook wasn't seeing profits and had a problem with it. Or articles on Google's platform showing or not showing in the Google search engine when they should have. These situations ended up in court. I guess NFTs kinda would take care of some of this I guess. It's a balance of ownership, creating, freedom, and control.
Multiple platforms are suppose to make the Metaverse or web3. They are providing content and allow for the creation of content. NFTs allow someone to buy and own "a plot of land" in a platform to create or they can go on a platform and create and the assets are NFTs whether they bought them or created them and turned them into nfts. Point being, the NFTs are to insure the creator is owner without a platform they are on interfering. A goal is to encourage people to make more content, diverse content, and expand business opportunities.
Of course NFTs don't have to cost thousands but that is just how some people are using them right now probably because they are so new. Kinda reminds me of how scalpers are with new trendy products.

 

[amemome]

Honestly I still don't really get the point of Metaverse. It just looks like VRChat to me, except with NFTs (yuck)...

I'm also wary about it being built by Zuckerberg & Co., especially after Facebook ran studies on users without their informed consent. I don't think anything significant has changed regulations-wise since then, and can't imagine what other breaches of privacy would come with a VR platform.

 

[Lythienne]

Somehow I was only exposed to the metaverse concept like, a week ago, despite being chronically online.

Something about the way the word and concept seems to be marketed and pushed "top-down" (by which I mean, big corporations desperately trying to make it be a thing) seems vaguely sinister. At best its a supremely cringy marketing scheme, but honestly I think its another setup for big investors to get money for nothing. Virtual "items" cost nothing to produce, so demand for them has to be manufactured (yes I am deeply aware of the extreme irony of saying this on a game board dedicated in part to buying and trading virtual objects).

 

[Misha]

I only like it in Persona 5.

 

[-Blue-]

Just watched that Walmart clip. Looks like Bootleg Matrix. Except instead of an arsenal of weapons coming your way, it's a cooler of glitchy milk. This just looks unnecessarily complicated and time consuming.

 

[MiniPocketWorld]

Somehow I was only exposed to the metaverse concept like, a week ago, despite being chronically online.

Something about the way the word and concept seems to be marketed and pushed "top-down" (by which I mean, big corporations desperately trying to make it be a thing) seems vaguely sinister. At best its a supremely cringy marketing scheme, but honestly I think its another setup for big investors to get money for nothing. Virtual "items" cost nothing to produce, so demand for them has to be manufactured (yes I am deeply aware of the extreme irony of saying this on a game board dedicated in part to buying and trading virtual objects).

I totally agree but I have to admit, that is one reason why I am so interested in it and how it works because I want to know the why which I probably won't be able to figure out until "it is too late" and it is already here. I am also curious about how life works if they end up be successful. I think because multiple companies are coming together and spending billions on the project, I think they will probably succeed.
Actually earlier today I was learning and discovering just how many games are releasing this year that is built for the metaverse and are play to earn instead of the common phrase we hear, pay to win. They do use NFTs, probably because in many of them you can make assets yourself. A couple of games actually look interesting and fun. I just don't know "how scam-y" they would actually be. But then again, I also feel like pay wall games that do not allow any progression at all until you drop some money are scam-y but some people wouldn't categorize them that way.
Anywho, the two games I find interesting are Illuvium which is a pokemon like game and Blankos Block Party. Both are active now because they released eariler this month. I think they are both early access but unsure. I know Blankos is early access. They have some interesting features in them beyond the fact of owning whatever you buy. Value is increased by ranking up your armor or characters or whatever. Blankos, the characters can be combined to make special colors or patterns that could be "one of a kind". The markets to buy sell and trade are internal.
It seems crypto currency wise, not native game currencies, Ethereum seems to be the most common with gaming. I don't know much about the currency itself, but I did learn today that some currencies leave a bigger carbon foot print than others, for those who are concerned about the amount of electricity used per currency.

 

[MasterM64]

As someone who is more old fashioned in thinking, but progressive in numerous other ways, I do not think it is good for humanity's long term interests to become more dependent on computing technology in all aspects of life. There has to be a separation of the true reality around us (nature) and the realities we create to remain in touch with our true selves and the people around us. I personally find that being outside with nature helps my soul find peace. Another thing to keep in mind too is how much power this will give the governments around the world having access to so much insight of our lives when their own accountability is becoming increasingly less common when we need it more than ever to preserves the rights and privileges we all take for granted.

 

[Lythienne]

I totally agree but I have to admit, that is one reason why I am so interested in it and how it works because I want to know the why which I probably won't be able to figure out until "it is too late" and it is already here. I am also curious about how life works if they end up be successful. I think because multiple companies are coming together and spending billions on the project, I think they will probably succeed.
Actually earlier today I was learning and discovering just how many games are releasing this year that is built for the metaverse and are play to earn instead of the common phrase we hear, pay to win. They do use NFTs, probably because in many of them you can make assets yourself. A couple of games actually look interesting and fun. I just don't know "how scam-y" they would actually be. But then again, I also feel like pay wall games that do not allow any progression at all until you drop some money are scam-y but some people wouldn't categorize them that way.
Anywho, the two games I find interesting are Illuvium which is a pokemon like game and Blankos Block Party. Both are active now because they released eariler this month. I think they are both early access but unsure. I know Blankos is early access. They have some interesting features in them beyond the fact of owning whatever you buy. Value is increased by ranking up your armor or characters or whatever. Blankos, the characters can be combined to make special colors or patterns that could be "one of a kind". The markets to buy sell and trade are internal.
It seems crypto currency wise, not native game currencies, Ethereum seems to be the most common with gaming. I don't know much about the currency itself, but I did learn today that some currencies leave a bigger carbon foot print than others, for those who are concerned about the amount of electricity used per currency.

So, I guess a couple things here.

The idea of some cryptocurrencies having "less" of a carbon footprint than other cryptocurrencies smacks smacks of that old "clean coal" canard to me - whatever distinction there might be is almost meaningless. If any smaller crypto gets large enough for its early adopters to make a significant amount of money, then it would have to grow big enough to run in to the same problems that the larger currencies do when it comes to data mining. Besides, its not really "this individual currency is better/worse than that other currency", the entire infrastructure of cryptocurrency shares the foundational flaws that make it so bad for the environment.

Another thing about crypto/NFTs is that there's even less regulation than the bigger corporations are used to, so scams are EVERYWHERE, and even the things that don't start out as scams often become them through sheer incompetence, as things like "game development" or "handling people's money" turn out to be much more involved, specialized skills than the average cryprobro anticipates. A lot of people in NFTS and crypto believe that they are extremely clever, and try to do extremely clever things that they think no one ever thought of before which are, in fact, illegal in any stable financial institution for good reason. Also, there have already been a few NFT games that have collapsed under their own weight and ran off with people's money, and a few more are being started by known scam artists. Again there is no regulation or accountability for any of these people.

As for this "play to earn" model I find it completely grotesque on every level. Bad enough our worth as people is generally based off how much we can "produce" now we're expected to produce for big corporations as part of our vanishing leisure time. Why should they have to put the time/effort/money into making a "game" that people "want to play" when they can cobble together a rickety skeletal impression of the game and tell the masses to fill in the blanks, and also make them money while they do it! We've already seen that model with things like Roblox, which blatantly exploits children in order to make money off the content they create. "Pay to win" was bad enough - it is scammy and psychologically exploitive, no matter what some people categorize them as - but this is somehow an even more bald-faced attempt to make more money while providing even less of value.

Maybe one of those games or others in the future will turn out to be actual functional games rather than thinly veiled attempts to scam people out of money before the NFT bubble bursts, but even if it does as far as I can tell they're all fruit of the poisoned tree and we'd be much better off sticking to the regularly vaguely exploitative games we've been enjoying for years.

Also, I figure I'll drop some sources, since I've been spending so much time ranting:

1. Behind the ******** is probably my favorite podcast, and they have a great two part series about cryptocurrency
Part 1, Part 2
2. A Death in Cryptoland is an absolutely wild tale about one particular company that highlights a lot of pitfalls inherit in cryptocurrencies
3. James Stephanie Sterling of the Jimquisition has long been the Cassandra of the insidious ways exploitative mechanics have been creeping in to videogames for decades. They did a specific video about how pay to win mechanics exploit the vulnerable, the general badness of NFT's, and recently had a great big rant about this whole metaverse thing
4. I named dropped the Roblox so here's a two parter about How Roblox is Exploiting Young Game Developers and then after roblox tried to make them delete that how they dug in deeper and found how much worse it was than they thought

Also, might be a good idea to look into beanie babies in the nineties. Seems somewhat relevant.