One of the most bizarre things to this day for me (that perfectly sums up the 'metaverse') is still the footage of the VR presentation in the ruins of Puerto Rico, which to me seemed like something that people would come up with who would want to make a low-budget dystopian sci-fi film. Yet FB put this out voluntarily
What in the world was going on?
First, there looked like there was an explosion around the tent scene, where one person blew up.
Then the final cartoon strip on the closing section, was completely incomprehensible. I saw something. But definitely not what I want to see, or expected to see. Too crude to even describe.
What, was the purpose of that clip?
Who made it? Edited it? Approved it.
Confusion reigns!
It's also a really weird definition of VR. I thought the idea was to make things look immersive -- as if you were really walking through an environment. This just looked like some video footage of Puerto Rico behind some cartoon characters (which it was, I assume).
As a relentless enemy of freedom, Zuck keeps inventing new ways to take whatever freedom is still left, even though his wealth allows him to not work for next thousand years. I dont know, maybe thinking about how some people still have some tiny bits of privacy left, inflicts physical pain on him - I cant explain his drive otherwise.
Infinite growth. Facebook is getting looked at for Ads and such, he needs a new way to keep the line moving up and to the right. Metaverse is the next play.
There's something to this. The real beautiful moments in a Tech company happen due to growth. Not being big, just getting bigger. Like if a natural disaster erased most of their market cap, like a fire in a redwood forest, they wouldn't praise the disaster of course but it would make their lives much better for a decade.
But now web3, whatever it is, is fully entangled with metaverse? I have heard that before, but I did not know this was the common definition. If this is the case, it would mean that the metaverse world-database and all action on it would have to be decentralized right? Otherwise, if Zuck pulls the plug on a world (let's say some nazi playground or whatever), nothing works; aka all nfts etc from that part would be instantly gone. How does that work? As far as I know we cannot even run trivial things on the blockchain efficiently, so how is a complete 'gameworld' going to be implemented ?
Maybe these are dumb questions and it is common knowledge, but I have seen web3, including in this article, seem mixed with vr when it comes to in game buys and ownership. That is pretty worthless
to have decentralized if the game company can kill that game overnight because the servers were too expensive to keep going for only 100.000 players.
it isn't. there was a recent Wall Street journal video on YouTube that tries to make a case for it. But it's just cryptocurrency shills trying to associate with the metaverse to sell useless plots of "virtual land" in a game no one will play. Instead of development efforts going into fun gameplay, the value prop comes from Ponzi scheming.
Fuck Mark. No one asked for this..i don't want to be part of this meta verse. I will lose my mind if I have to attend meetings wearing a fucking headset. This is where a draw the line. I'm done.
Yeah, if at any point I had to do any kind of remote meeting in the metaverse I'm totally okay just moving to a rural area and not doing tech things for the rest of my life.
I feel like, Meta is just a project to gobble more money. I mean in the virtual world offer people a house for $50, cars for $10 and of-course put up billboards for Ads. I don’t know why people are getting so fussed about? Like we don’t have the Sims franchise already, Minecraft? We have adults actually spending money on games. Is this any different than a game? Just because its FB do people really think corporates would give up their influence in real world and move to meta and start buying BS there? What am I missing?
19 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 44.7 ms ] threadhttps://youtu.be/N-MkduVh0wM
Maybe these are dumb questions and it is common knowledge, but I have seen web3, including in this article, seem mixed with vr when it comes to in game buys and ownership. That is pretty worthless to have decentralized if the game company can kill that game overnight because the servers were too expensive to keep going for only 100.000 players.