Metaverse Myths - Part 2
The next edition of the metaverse myths I came across in my practice, this time addressing concerns related to technology innovation process, digital selves and spatial typology of virtual spaces. You can view the first edition here.
1. “Metaverse will arrive sometime in the future.”
While the term ‘metaverse’ originated in Neal Stephenson’s sci-fi novel Snow Crash in 1992, the concept of a parallel world interoperable with physical reality started to appear in various essays and reports in the early 20th century. The term ‘Virtual Reality’ firstly appeared in Artaud’s essay The Theater of Cruelty in 1932. Metaverse is not on the way, it is very much present and has been around for a long time. It is only now that it started to hit the general public due to its applied functionality. Active virtual worlds started to appear around the new millennium, firstly adopted by gaming communities. What arrives in the future is a widespread adoption of the metaverse in the global population, not the concept itself.
2. “Metaverse will eventually replace the real world.”
This is dependent on what we mean by ‘replacement’. If replacement means transcending the matter completely and establish in informational realities only, we would look at millions, if not billions of years of human evolution. If by replacement is meant replacement of experiences (physical vs. virtual), it is a matter of human ability to cope with various realities that are experienced and assuming responsibility for their creation.
3. “The seating in the metaverse is not needed, because the avatar doesn’t get tired from standing.”
Human perception and following behavioral patterns are rooted in habits. If there is a long-standing use of the navigation system within the spatial reality, it wires the brain for specific actions and bodily movements. The sole purpose of sitting is not just resting – it is an activity that is performed within a three-dimensional space based on three-point coordinates, which localizes the person. Space is ultimately organized and has a system that serves as a foundation for activities and movements – and some are performed in sitting as a result of a habit performed in the physical reality (e.g. watching TV). These habits are transported to the digital realm.
Gradually, by spending more time in the digital realm, people will develop new habits and a new navigation system, for instance by getting collectively used to teleportation systems, which will result in new design and spatial typology. But at this point, we are only starting to transfer the physicality, so we use the habits we have already adopted.
4. “Building a virtual city with streets is redundant.”
On a similar note as in the previous point – a city is a spatially organized entity with a complex hierarchy of spaces. These spaces serve various functions, which are not just transit and getting from A to B. Although the metaverse is not limited physically and ‘technically’ does not need to contain dimensions dedicated to transit, cognitively they are used to maintain the habits of transit and movement – and thus navigation in the city. Urban design consists of scales and typologies that are subconsciously known to people and determine what these spaces are for, which includes for example various public life activities. Metaverse companies ultimately want to create thriving virtual communities and therefore they must follow the spatial scheme that fosters public life.
5. “Metaverse is not being widely adopted due to delays in technological innovation.”
Innovation in the field of metaverse technology has been skyrocketing in terms of hardware. When it comes to software, there have been great shifts in graphics and interface, but there are huge delays in engine development. A powerful metaverse engine capable of supporting an open creation ecosystem with real-time simulation is not available yet. There are companies currently developing it, but it has not been released. Without this technology, metaverse is unlikely to become widely used and established for everyone, because it would require a tremendous amount of work using currently available engines (Unreal and Unity are not metaverse engines, they are game engines), which are based on prescription of content and without high-powered real-time reality rendering. So yes, there are delays and missing innovation in some aspects of the technological development. It is not concerning the hardware and the quality of interface (upper layers of the ecosystem), it is concerning the engine (lower/foundational layer of the ecosystem).
6. “The term metaverse can be used to name any digital collaborative environment.”
Metaverse can be considered to be a collaborative environment if the following criteria are met:
(1) Users are represented as their 3D digital selves within a 3D interactive realm — They can be represented by a digital twin or another stylized 3D avatar, but they must be located in the three-dimensional collaborative virtual space. Two-dimensional avatars in 2D collaborative spaces (Zoom, Skype, Microsoft Teams etc.) belong to Web2 and don’t qualify as a metaverse.
(2) There must be a real-time social component to collaboration — If the interaction does not happen in real time via real-time presence, the platform cannot be considered a metaverse. Chat (voice or text) and email interactions can be a part of the metaverse as integrations, but as standalone functionalities they do not suffice to supply real-time rendered continuous interaction.
7. “Any Virtual or Augmented Reality applications are the metaverse.”
VR and AR are metaverse components, but as sole functionalities they are not the metaverse itself. Both VR and AR are applied in simulated environments. But many, especially AR applications, are not real-time interactive and serve as informational reality overlay only. VR games with prescribed content without real-time components are also not a metaverse. Same applies as in the previous point — three-dimensionality and real-time interaction criteria must be met.
8. “Digital twin is not the real self and may cause asynchronicity if self-perception.”
Digital twin is not the physical self, but it is operated by it. Two-dimensional avatars of for example Web2 forum users are also digital representations of selves. In everyday life, everyone uses self-representation tools for expression. Visual, linguistic, motor-performatory and other tools fall into this category. A digital twin is yet another tool for expression combining these elements and allowing interaction in the 3D digital realm. There is a psychological component to creating ‘fantasy selves’ for public showcasing, which is not exclusive to digital twins and touches all forms of self-expression — digital or physical.
Title: G1ft3d