Since cavemen watched birds fly overhead, humanity has dreamt of vast worlds where we can escape the bounds of our reality. A hundred millennia later, Keanu Reeves captivated us with his portrayal of Neo in The Matrix. And now, with the advent of virtual reality goggles and amazing 3D worlds, we are getting closer to the possibility of living out this dream.
My first virtual world experience was playing Colossal Cave Adventure on our Apple IIe; one of the first text-based adventure games.
My first virtual world experience was playing Colossal Cave Adventure on our Apple IIe; one of the first text-based adventure games.
After text-based adventure games, Multi-User Dungeons (MUDs) became popular followed by a series of historical events, all points on a path toward a digital future some call the Metaverse, as depicted by McKinsey & Company in their “Value creation in the metaverse” report.
History of the Metaverse – McKinsey & Company
https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/growth-marketing-and-sales/our-insights/value-creation-in-the-metaverse
https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/growth-marketing-and-sales/our-insights/value-creation-in-the-metaverse
MMOs
After text-based adventure games and MUDs, massively-multiplayer online (MMO) games hit the ether. They represented the first wave of graphical virtual worlds.
There are different types of MMOs including MMO Role-Playing Games (MMORPG) and MMO First-Person Shooters (MMOFPS) among others. A role-playing game is where the player takes on a character in the game like a hero or wizard. A first-person shooter game is where the game camera is from the player’s perspective, oftentimes with a ballistic weapon of some sort. Call of Duty is probably the most recognized example of an FPS game. For the purposes of this post, I’m going to lump them all into the MMO category as their differences are not material to this article.
One distinctive feature of an MMO is the world persists online 24/7. This significantly increases the cost to develop the game but also adds ongoing maintenance costs of the servers hosting the world and its virtual inhabitants.
The first so-called “big three” MMOs were:
While there were many MMOs before, these ones eventually became host to many, many online players ushering in a new era of online play for gamers around the world.
After text-based adventure games and MUDs, massively-multiplayer online (MMO) games hit the ether. They represented the first wave of graphical virtual worlds.
There are different types of MMOs including MMO Role-Playing Games (MMORPG) and MMO First-Person Shooters (MMOFPS) among others. A role-playing game is where the player takes on a character in the game like a hero or wizard. A first-person shooter game is where the game camera is from the player’s perspective, oftentimes with a ballistic weapon of some sort. Call of Duty is probably the most recognized example of an FPS game. For the purposes of this post, I’m going to lump them all into the MMO category as their differences are not material to this article.
One distinctive feature of an MMO is the world persists online 24/7. This significantly increases the cost to develop the game but also adds ongoing maintenance costs of the servers hosting the world and its virtual inhabitants.
The first so-called “big three” MMOs were:
- Ultima Online – released in Sept 1997
- EverQuest – released in March 1999
- Asheron’s Call – released in November 1999
While there were many MMOs before, these ones eventually became host to many, many online players ushering in a new era of online play for gamers around the world.
Along with these new games came new business models. In addition to buying the game box at a retail outlet (now referred to as buy-to-play or B2P), users had to pay a monthly subscription fee. This is known as pay-to-play (P2P). As sales numbers showed, the variety and interactions with other human players (as opposed to playing a game on your own) provided enough entertainment value to justify this new cost to gamers.
Since the success of early MMOs, game developers scrambled together teams to develop the next big MMO in hopes of capitalizing on this newly unlocked revenue stream. A list of popular MMOs from the early 2000s onwards are listed below with their release dates.
Since the success of early MMOs, game developers scrambled together teams to develop the next big MMO in hopes of capitalizing on this newly unlocked revenue stream. A list of popular MMOs from the early 2000s onwards are listed below with their release dates.
- Entropia Universe – May 2002
- Final Fantasy XI – November 2002
- EVE Online – May 2003
- World of Warcraft – November 2004
- Club Penguin – October 2005
- Guild Wars 2 – August 2012
- Elder Scrolls Online – April 2014
- Final Fantasy XIV – August 2013
- Black Desert Online – July 2015
Most of these MMOs followed their predecessors and charged their users a monthly subscription fee… except for Entropia Universe.
Entropia Universe, which I am the least familiar with and only just recently heard about from someone on X, employed a model where their primary revenue stream came from users paying real money in exchange for in-game currency known as Project Entropia Dollars (PED). Users would then use this currency to purchase virtual items that other users had created, establishing one of the first virtual economies.
This model from Entropia Universe’s developer, MindArk, is a form of business model known as microtransactions. Microtransactions involve users purchasing virtual goods for small sums of money. This model is often employed with free-to-play games: the game is free to download and fully functional to play but additional content can be purchased in-game.
The free-to-play model was exemplified by the kids MMO Club Penguin. Young people (including my own kids) could join the online Flash game for free, create their own penguin character and interact with other user-controlled penguins playing games right away, competing in riddles and even earning in-game coins (which were quite *ahem* flashy). Users were offered additional content like larger home igloos, access to parties, and the ability to adopt these cute little pets known as Puffles, by paying a monthly fee. (Or rather, their parents paying a monthly fee.) Club Penguin went on to pull in $40 million per year at its peak, quite a success story for a few Canadian game developers.
I’ve introduced several terms and business models, here's a quick summary:
Entropia Universe, which I am the least familiar with and only just recently heard about from someone on X, employed a model where their primary revenue stream came from users paying real money in exchange for in-game currency known as Project Entropia Dollars (PED). Users would then use this currency to purchase virtual items that other users had created, establishing one of the first virtual economies.
This model from Entropia Universe’s developer, MindArk, is a form of business model known as microtransactions. Microtransactions involve users purchasing virtual goods for small sums of money. This model is often employed with free-to-play games: the game is free to download and fully functional to play but additional content can be purchased in-game.
The free-to-play model was exemplified by the kids MMO Club Penguin. Young people (including my own kids) could join the online Flash game for free, create their own penguin character and interact with other user-controlled penguins playing games right away, competing in riddles and even earning in-game coins (which were quite *ahem* flashy). Users were offered additional content like larger home igloos, access to parties, and the ability to adopt these cute little pets known as Puffles, by paying a monthly fee. (Or rather, their parents paying a monthly fee.) Club Penguin went on to pull in $40 million per year at its peak, quite a success story for a few Canadian game developers.
I’ve introduced several terms and business models, here's a quick summary:
MMO Business Models
Virtual Worlds
Parallel to MMO games are virtual worlds. The general difference between the two is games, in general, have a goal. The player sets out to achieve something, defeat an enemy or what have you. In contrast, virtual worlds are “open worlds” where there are no specific tasks; the user is free to roam the environment as they please. Below is a list of prominent virtual worlds shown with their release dates.
Note I intentionally included Entropia Universe on both lists. It does appear to meet the criteria of both an MMO and a virtual world. One could argue the same for Fortnite but the world doesn’t persist 24/7 like an MMO. In Fortnite, environments are spawned when a group of users launches a session. Having said that, if I put on some fuzzy glasses, I could (and do) call MMOs virtual worlds, in the general sense. An online environment.
When it comes to the business model of virtual worlds, we can imagine it’s a bit different from games. After all, for the average gamer (who is male), heading out on an adventure to make a conquest and “win” something is built into their DNA. In an open world, what is the value the young male gamer receives from doing… nothing? This is where things get interesting.
Let’s take Second Life, for example. Its creator, Linden Lab, provides free access to its virtual world making it a free-to-play business model. However, Linden Lab doesn’t ask its users to pay a monthly subscription fee either. (Though some monthly subscriptions may be available for premium access.) So how do they make money? They do so by enabling users to create items in-world and sell them using Linden’s own virtual currency known as the Linden Dollar (L$). Users can purchase Linden Dollars using US dollars on the LindeX exchange thus enabling a completely user-driven virtual economy. This is special. It somewhat removes Linden Lab from direct control over its business and leaves it in the hands of its users, who are quite entrepreneurial btw. From Wikipedia: “In 2009, the total size of the Second Life economy grew 65% to US$567 million, about 25% of the entire U.S. virtual goods market. Gross resident earnings are US$55 million in 2009 – 11% growth over 2008.”
One can make the argument that Second Life pioneered the user-generated content business model.
Parallel to MMO games are virtual worlds. The general difference between the two is games, in general, have a goal. The player sets out to achieve something, defeat an enemy or what have you. In contrast, virtual worlds are “open worlds” where there are no specific tasks; the user is free to roam the environment as they please. Below is a list of prominent virtual worlds shown with their release dates.
- Active Worlds – June 1995
- Habbo – August 2000
- Entropia Universe – May 2002
- Second Life – June 2003
- IMVU – April 2004
- Roblox – September 2006
- Minecraft – November 2011
- VRChat – January 2014
- Fortnite – July 2017
- Decentraland – February 2020
Note I intentionally included Entropia Universe on both lists. It does appear to meet the criteria of both an MMO and a virtual world. One could argue the same for Fortnite but the world doesn’t persist 24/7 like an MMO. In Fortnite, environments are spawned when a group of users launches a session. Having said that, if I put on some fuzzy glasses, I could (and do) call MMOs virtual worlds, in the general sense. An online environment.
When it comes to the business model of virtual worlds, we can imagine it’s a bit different from games. After all, for the average gamer (who is male), heading out on an adventure to make a conquest and “win” something is built into their DNA. In an open world, what is the value the young male gamer receives from doing… nothing? This is where things get interesting.
Let’s take Second Life, for example. Its creator, Linden Lab, provides free access to its virtual world making it a free-to-play business model. However, Linden Lab doesn’t ask its users to pay a monthly subscription fee either. (Though some monthly subscriptions may be available for premium access.) So how do they make money? They do so by enabling users to create items in-world and sell them using Linden’s own virtual currency known as the Linden Dollar (L$). Users can purchase Linden Dollars using US dollars on the LindeX exchange thus enabling a completely user-driven virtual economy. This is special. It somewhat removes Linden Lab from direct control over its business and leaves it in the hands of its users, who are quite entrepreneurial btw. From Wikipedia: “In 2009, the total size of the Second Life economy grew 65% to US$567 million, about 25% of the entire U.S. virtual goods market. Gross resident earnings are US$55 million in 2009 – 11% growth over 2008.”
One can make the argument that Second Life pioneered the user-generated content business model.
Virtual Currency
While Second Life created their own virtual currency, the Linden Dollar (L$), we’ve since seen the rise of cryptocurrencies and blockchains like Bitcoin and Ethereum. If the crypto tech bros have their way, all future virtual worlds will use a cryptocurrency as opposed to a corporately managed virtual currency in hopes of increasing its adoption. As a business owner, I wouldn’t want to tie the success of my virtual world business directly to a crypto stock that is subject to mass speculation. (“Casino culture” as Chris Dixon says in “Read Write Own.”) So what do today’s virtual world developers do?
One answer might be for companies to create their own cryptocurrency on a blockchain like Ethereum. This is what Decentraland has done with their virtual currency, represented by the crypto token MANA. MANA is used to purchase virtual goods, avatars as well as purchasing virtual land.
While Second Life created their own virtual currency, the Linden Dollar (L$), we’ve since seen the rise of cryptocurrencies and blockchains like Bitcoin and Ethereum. If the crypto tech bros have their way, all future virtual worlds will use a cryptocurrency as opposed to a corporately managed virtual currency in hopes of increasing its adoption. As a business owner, I wouldn’t want to tie the success of my virtual world business directly to a crypto stock that is subject to mass speculation. (“Casino culture” as Chris Dixon says in “Read Write Own.”) So what do today’s virtual world developers do?
One answer might be for companies to create their own cryptocurrency on a blockchain like Ethereum. This is what Decentraland has done with their virtual currency, represented by the crypto token MANA. MANA is used to purchase virtual goods, avatars as well as purchasing virtual land.
The technological and societal phenomenon that is cryptocurrencies and blockchains is still unfolding at time of writing. Time will tell where the chips *er* tokens will fall.
Virtual Land
Part of Second Life’s success was the concept of owning virtual land. Your own plot of virtual dirt to build on as you see fit. This was quite attractive to the residents of Second Life as it gave them freedom of expression to share with the rest of the Second Life community. This became so popular that even corporations started hopping onto the band wagon to develop in-world spaces known as islands. This fueled the idea that virtual land will one day be scarce and thus hold tremendous value. This belief is still held today with companies like Earth2.io selling plots of land that they parceled out across a map of the real world. The problem is the value of this land is based on scarcity, and scarcity could easily disappear if a competing virtual world is developed.
Take mirror worlds, for example. If there are multiple mirror worlds, and others could be developed at any time, how will the virtual land continue to be scarce? I believe the answer lies in the fact that there is only one real Earth. By extension, in the long run, there will only be one mirror world. Don’t get me wrong though, until then there will be versions of mirror worlds that provide different capabilities. For example, one world may allow you to alter reality and fly anywhere you wish around the globe, play with magic in real-world settings, etc., while another mirror world may enforce the laws of physics to make it as realistic to our physical existence as possible.
This might seem like the position being taken here is that land in the mirror world will ultimately be scarce because there will eventually only be one mirror world. This is not the case. We need to explore mirror worlds further to fully understand the forces at play.
Mirror Worlds
As I laid out in my first blog post, “Hello Again, World,” my passion for mirror worlds runs deep. At Bending Time, I am tackling the technological challenges to deliver an accessible mirror world to the masses. However, ‘mirror world’ is still too general a term, which is why I wrote my article “Through the Mirror World.” There I divide mirror world into three categories:
Read the article but, in short:
Let’s look at a brief history of the [mirror] universe:
This brief history is intended to present the rough order of events in the history of mirror worlds. It is not intended to make a particular claim of exactly what happened and when. To be clear, I am in no way affiliated with any of the parties mentioned above.
You’ll also note there is no mention of William Gibson’s “Neuromancer,” Neal Stephenson’s “Snow Crash” or Ernest Cline’s “Ready Player One” because none of these novels describe mirror worlds. They all represent fictitious virtual worlds. This is a key point. Mirror worlds have not received the same attention as fictitious worlds. Some may argue, yes, they have because there is overlap like avatars, voice chat, multi-player, etc., but the fact remains we still can’t drive down a lifelike representation of the Amalfi coast in our virtual convertible, for example.
Let’s return to the question hanging in the air: why won’t virtual land in the mirror world become scarce and thus valuable? The answer is openness. The force for openness will ensure mirror worlds and, ultimately, our online digital presence is not controlled by a corporation. And if it's not controlled by a corporation, there won't be a single entity controlling and doling out virtual land parcels for a profit.
Force for openness? This might sound like an airy-fairy concept but it’s real. The internet and web emerged as open [protocol] networks as Chris Dixon espouses in his “Read Write Own.” Open-source software powers our digital economy. HTML 5 won over Adobe’s Flash. And more apropos of mirror worlds, the openness force is pushing on maps.
What’s next for mirror worlds? When will we get to drive the virtual Amalfi coast? I don’t have a crystal ball, but I can point out some reasons why they haven’t arrived yet.
For the augmented world, the simple answer is wide field-of-view, sunglass-like AR glasses are not technically possible yet. And while walking around with your phone in your hand catching Pokémon was novel at the time, it’s just too dorky for most people. Until the technology is there to provide people with a comfortable, appealing experience, Niantic must continue to find niche ways to make money.
Virtual Land
Part of Second Life’s success was the concept of owning virtual land. Your own plot of virtual dirt to build on as you see fit. This was quite attractive to the residents of Second Life as it gave them freedom of expression to share with the rest of the Second Life community. This became so popular that even corporations started hopping onto the band wagon to develop in-world spaces known as islands. This fueled the idea that virtual land will one day be scarce and thus hold tremendous value. This belief is still held today with companies like Earth2.io selling plots of land that they parceled out across a map of the real world. The problem is the value of this land is based on scarcity, and scarcity could easily disappear if a competing virtual world is developed.
Take mirror worlds, for example. If there are multiple mirror worlds, and others could be developed at any time, how will the virtual land continue to be scarce? I believe the answer lies in the fact that there is only one real Earth. By extension, in the long run, there will only be one mirror world. Don’t get me wrong though, until then there will be versions of mirror worlds that provide different capabilities. For example, one world may allow you to alter reality and fly anywhere you wish around the globe, play with magic in real-world settings, etc., while another mirror world may enforce the laws of physics to make it as realistic to our physical existence as possible.
This might seem like the position being taken here is that land in the mirror world will ultimately be scarce because there will eventually only be one mirror world. This is not the case. We need to explore mirror worlds further to fully understand the forces at play.
Mirror Worlds
As I laid out in my first blog post, “Hello Again, World,” my passion for mirror worlds runs deep. At Bending Time, I am tackling the technological challenges to deliver an accessible mirror world to the masses. However, ‘mirror world’ is still too general a term, which is why I wrote my article “Through the Mirror World.” There I divide mirror world into three categories:
- Augmented World
- Digital Twin
- Lifelike Virtual World
Read the article but, in short:
- The augmented world will be seen through augmented reality (AR) glasses, which consumer adoption is still a long way off
- Digital twins have limited value in the broader scope of mirror worlds (except for grand visions like predicting climate and weather like NVIDIA’s Earth-2 project) – but they can be valuable for monitoring and improving complex and important systems
- The lifelike virtual world can provide entertainment value, which will lead to learning and training opportunities (among many more in years to come)
Let’s look at a brief history of the [mirror] universe:
- 1970: NASA uses the first digital twin to help the Apollo 13 astronauts return home safely from their lunar mission
- 1991: The term “mirror world” was coined by Yale professor, David Gelernter, in his “Mirror Worlds” book
- 1993: ART+COM developed a streaming 3D globe called TerraVision
- Late 1990s: Intrinsic Graphics developed a spinning, zoomable 3D globe
- 1999: Keyhole, Inc. was spun off from Intrinsic to continue development of the 3D globe
- 2003: NASA releases WorldWind virtual globe
- 2004: Google acquires Keyhole
- 2004: OpenStreetMap is launched
- 2005: Google releases a re-branded version of the Keyhole 3D globe called Google Earth
- 2010: John Hanke and Google start Niantic Labs as an internal startup
- 2011: Analytical Graphics Inc. (AGI) develops web-based 3D globe, Cesium
- 2015: Sean Treleaven founds Bending Time Technologies Inc. to develop a lifelike virtual world 😉
- 2015: Niantic Labs spun off from new parent, Alphabet Inc.
- 2016: Pokémon Go is released and was well received across the globe
- 2017: Ori Inbar outlines the concept of the AR Cloud
- 2018: Google de-prioritizes development of Google Earth
- 2019: AGI spins off Cesium as independent company
- 2019: Kevin Kelly writes and publishes “Mirrorworld” in Wired magazine
- 2024: Bentley Systems acquires Cesium
This brief history is intended to present the rough order of events in the history of mirror worlds. It is not intended to make a particular claim of exactly what happened and when. To be clear, I am in no way affiliated with any of the parties mentioned above.
You’ll also note there is no mention of William Gibson’s “Neuromancer,” Neal Stephenson’s “Snow Crash” or Ernest Cline’s “Ready Player One” because none of these novels describe mirror worlds. They all represent fictitious virtual worlds. This is a key point. Mirror worlds have not received the same attention as fictitious worlds. Some may argue, yes, they have because there is overlap like avatars, voice chat, multi-player, etc., but the fact remains we still can’t drive down a lifelike representation of the Amalfi coast in our virtual convertible, for example.
Let’s return to the question hanging in the air: why won’t virtual land in the mirror world become scarce and thus valuable? The answer is openness. The force for openness will ensure mirror worlds and, ultimately, our online digital presence is not controlled by a corporation. And if it's not controlled by a corporation, there won't be a single entity controlling and doling out virtual land parcels for a profit.
Force for openness? This might sound like an airy-fairy concept but it’s real. The internet and web emerged as open [protocol] networks as Chris Dixon espouses in his “Read Write Own.” Open-source software powers our digital economy. HTML 5 won over Adobe’s Flash. And more apropos of mirror worlds, the openness force is pushing on maps.
What’s next for mirror worlds? When will we get to drive the virtual Amalfi coast? I don’t have a crystal ball, but I can point out some reasons why they haven’t arrived yet.
For the augmented world, the simple answer is wide field-of-view, sunglass-like AR glasses are not technically possible yet. And while walking around with your phone in your hand catching Pokémon was novel at the time, it’s just too dorky for most people. Until the technology is there to provide people with a comfortable, appealing experience, Niantic must continue to find niche ways to make money.
Regarding digital twins, on a global scale, the only thing worth noting here is NVIDIA’s Earth-2 project. I suspect other digital twins will be more localized to particular systems/products, where organization’s try to reduce costs in one form or another.
This brings us to lifelike virtual worlds, which really started with 3D globes. Regardless of who invented the 3D globe, Google Earth was the eventual winner, seeing mass adoption in geospatial communities across the world. Michael Jones even claimed Google Earth had 400 million users during his keynote speech at GeoWeb 2008. RIP Michael. While this number is certainly debatable, we’ll just say millions of people use Google Earth on a regular basis.
For the past 10 years or so, there haven’t been a lot of updates to 3D globes. Cesium was spun off from AGI and was recently acquired by Bentley Systems to put more focus on Architecture, Engineering, Construction, and Operations (AECO). Earth2.io was launched in 2020 and continues to dupe young people into putting their money into virtual land parcels. And meanwhile, military training simulations continue to plod along, developing their products and tools to satisfy their sugar daddy’s whims (aka the DoD).
Seems ripe for the pickin’. Why hasn’t someone or some company jumped at the opportunity? Simply put, it’s hard. Not just technically but, maybe more so, commercially. It requires the technical AND financial cooperation of people across multiple industries including maps, games and simulations.
Seems ripe for the pickin’. Why hasn’t someone or some company jumped at the opportunity? Simply put, it’s hard. Not just technically but, maybe more so, commercially. It requires the technical AND financial cooperation of people across multiple industries including maps, games and simulations.
Lifelike virtual worlds – the gap between maps, games and simulations
There are other factors to the slow adoption of a lifelike virtual world. For instance, true-scale games are not attractive to most gamers. If it takes a gamer an hour to drive somewhere (like it would in real life), they will give up before they ever reach the destination. Today’s attention spans are too short to wait for the gratifying end. However, there is a smaller market of more patient users, and that is simulation games.
Thanks to Microsoft’s investment over the past few years, one of the best depictions of a lifelike virtual world today is the reincarnation of their Flight Simulator game. The screenshots and videos from the game are truly amazing. Will Microsoft then be the one to capture the entire lifelike virtual world market? Maybe. But I continue to push forward on Bending Time for two primary reasons: 1) Microsoft is a large corporation, and large corporations move slow, and 2) the omnipresent force of openness will continue to push corporations aside.
Thanks to Microsoft’s investment over the past few years, one of the best depictions of a lifelike virtual world today is the reincarnation of their Flight Simulator game. The screenshots and videos from the game are truly amazing. Will Microsoft then be the one to capture the entire lifelike virtual world market? Maybe. But I continue to push forward on Bending Time for two primary reasons: 1) Microsoft is a large corporation, and large corporations move slow, and 2) the omnipresent force of openness will continue to push corporations aside.
The other main reason for the slow adoption of a planet-wide lifelike virtual world is pretty much all virtual activities/experiences can be developed on a local scale. If you want to develop a virtual African safari, just build a relatively small virtual environment in Kenya somewhere and populate it with zebra, tigers and the lot. Want to make a virtual tour of a hotel in Bali? Set up your development environment with some Bali maps and away you go.
People have been making these sorts of mashups for some time now. The friction comes in when you incur the same costs each time you set up the development environment for a new location.
On top of that, as I discussed in my “Our [Digital] Planet” article, accessibility goes a long way toward adoption. For example, when I first played MSFS, I had to install a fairly large initial download, and then follow-on patches, area content, etc., which was not a great first impression.
An accessible, planet-wide, lifelike virtual world using open data will be the first mainstream mirror world.
Metaverse
Speaking of mainstream, I haven’t really gotten into the discussion of the other ‘M’ word. After all, how could you talk about the business of virtual worlds without talking about The Metaverse? One of the reasons is mirror worlds do not typically come up in metaverse conversations. People naturally gravitate towards Stephenson’s version of the metaverse as he depicts in “Snow Crash.” Wagner James Au, an embedded reporter and author writing about Second Life, heavily leans into Stephenson’s metaverse, as I suspect Second Life’s creator, Philip Rosedale, also does. It makes for better fan fiction to think about magical powers and fantastical avatar outfits/skins. The reality of the situation tells a different story.
Residents in Second Life rarely use their real identities as I think they typically are escaping their real life and wanting to enjoy something new and fresh. (Citation needed.) In contrast, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg insisted on requiring its users to use real identities as Wagner James Au discusses in his “Making a Metaverse that Matters” book. With Facebook’s climb to Silicon Valley royalty, and Second Life’s decline to yesterday’s newspaper, I can confidently say that real life identities are associated with “mainstream” a lot more than false identities. It adds a level of responsibility and accountability on the user’s part.
Circling back to mirror worlds, the social aspect remains a relatively untouched subject. Wade Roush, a writer on new technologies, wrote “Second Earth” back in 2007 where he says “… many computer professionals think the idea of a “Second Earth" [a mashup between Second Life and Google Earth] is so cool that it’s inevitable...” He's right but the challenge of combining a persistent 24/7 virtual world host to thousands of simultaneous users with a 3D rich lifelike virtual world with cars driving down the virtual highways is too big to tackle all at once.
People have been making these sorts of mashups for some time now. The friction comes in when you incur the same costs each time you set up the development environment for a new location.
On top of that, as I discussed in my “Our [Digital] Planet” article, accessibility goes a long way toward adoption. For example, when I first played MSFS, I had to install a fairly large initial download, and then follow-on patches, area content, etc., which was not a great first impression.
An accessible, planet-wide, lifelike virtual world using open data will be the first mainstream mirror world.
Metaverse
Speaking of mainstream, I haven’t really gotten into the discussion of the other ‘M’ word. After all, how could you talk about the business of virtual worlds without talking about The Metaverse? One of the reasons is mirror worlds do not typically come up in metaverse conversations. People naturally gravitate towards Stephenson’s version of the metaverse as he depicts in “Snow Crash.” Wagner James Au, an embedded reporter and author writing about Second Life, heavily leans into Stephenson’s metaverse, as I suspect Second Life’s creator, Philip Rosedale, also does. It makes for better fan fiction to think about magical powers and fantastical avatar outfits/skins. The reality of the situation tells a different story.
Residents in Second Life rarely use their real identities as I think they typically are escaping their real life and wanting to enjoy something new and fresh. (Citation needed.) In contrast, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg insisted on requiring its users to use real identities as Wagner James Au discusses in his “Making a Metaverse that Matters” book. With Facebook’s climb to Silicon Valley royalty, and Second Life’s decline to yesterday’s newspaper, I can confidently say that real life identities are associated with “mainstream” a lot more than false identities. It adds a level of responsibility and accountability on the user’s part.
Circling back to mirror worlds, the social aspect remains a relatively untouched subject. Wade Roush, a writer on new technologies, wrote “Second Earth” back in 2007 where he says “… many computer professionals think the idea of a “Second Earth" [a mashup between Second Life and Google Earth] is so cool that it’s inevitable...” He's right but the challenge of combining a persistent 24/7 virtual world host to thousands of simultaneous users with a 3D rich lifelike virtual world with cars driving down the virtual highways is too big to tackle all at once.
There are different groups pursuing different paths on what they hope will be the road to the promised land of the metaverse. I am not really any different, but my interests remain at building a lifelike virtual world.
These paths are on different levels, creating/leveraging different technologies, all part of what one could consider a metaverse stack, if you will. McKinsey came up with a “10 layers” diagram that at least provides a bit of structure, which enables us to discuss different levels and technologies of the metaverse with some sort of common understanding.
These paths are on different levels, creating/leveraging different technologies, all part of what one could consider a metaverse stack, if you will. McKinsey came up with a “10 layers” diagram that at least provides a bit of structure, which enables us to discuss different levels and technologies of the metaverse with some sort of common understanding.
10 layers of the metaverse – McKinsey & Company
https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/growth-marketing-and-sales/our-insights/value-creation-in-the-metaverse
https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/growth-marketing-and-sales/our-insights/value-creation-in-the-metaverse
Each layer in this diagram above could be considered industries unto themselves. That’s how big of a concept the metaverse is. To get down to brass tacks, I think of current metaverse activities as falling into two categories: front end and back end.
The front end is in the top category in McKinsey’s diagram above but, more specifically, I think of it as the technology behind rendering a 3D virtual world. The game engine, the shaders, and all the rest of the stuff that goes into rendering a real-time game environment. This grossly over-simplifies McKinsey's representation.
The back end spans the latter three categories. It consists of blockchains used for identity, cryptocurrencies, cloud networks to host maps, virtual world servers, and a plethora of other server-side technologies that are needed to make virtual worlds run.
A main thrust in the back end today is massively multi-user. Following on the heels of MMOs and games like Fortnite, companies are working hard to develop a generic platform to host thousands and thousands of players online at the same time. A front-runner here is the super-funded startup Improbable, who recently launched their MSquared (m^2) metaverse platform.
The front end is in the top category in McKinsey’s diagram above but, more specifically, I think of it as the technology behind rendering a 3D virtual world. The game engine, the shaders, and all the rest of the stuff that goes into rendering a real-time game environment. This grossly over-simplifies McKinsey's representation.
The back end spans the latter three categories. It consists of blockchains used for identity, cryptocurrencies, cloud networks to host maps, virtual world servers, and a plethora of other server-side technologies that are needed to make virtual worlds run.
A main thrust in the back end today is massively multi-user. Following on the heels of MMOs and games like Fortnite, companies are working hard to develop a generic platform to host thousands and thousands of players online at the same time. A front-runner here is the super-funded startup Improbable, who recently launched their MSquared (m^2) metaverse platform.
Improbable’s MSquared (m^2) – Platform
https://www.msquared.io/
https://www.msquared.io/
In parallel, Neal Stephenson has teamed up with some of Silicon Valley’s cryptocurrency leaders and launched Lamina1, a metaverse platform with heavy focus on blockchain, user-generated content and interoperability.
Both these platforms would appear to be aimed at fictitious virtual worlds and not lifelike virtual worlds. Although I’m sure Herman Narula of Improbable would argue his platform is generic and supports mirror worlds, too, and the proof is in the pudding with their Virtual Ballpark project. I could speculatively argue that MSquared is not architected with native geodetic coordinates, but he can really talk so I’ll pass.
Conclusion
Virtual worlds are a lucrative business. Key players have staked out key areas. But there are still opportunities if you look where others have not.
> n
You have entered a vast cave.
> e
There is a large rock in front of you with a bag of gold tucked behind it.
> get gold
Carpe diem.
-- Sean
Afterword
You probably noticed the near complete omission of virtual reality from this blog post. This was intentional as using VR goggles to immerse yourself in a virtual world arguably has little bearing on the development and business of the world.
I'm a big fan of VR and really look forward to launching VR capabilities in Bending Time's lifelike virtual world. But ultimately, I believe the value is in the world itself, not the device you use to join it.
Conclusion
Virtual worlds are a lucrative business. Key players have staked out key areas. But there are still opportunities if you look where others have not.
> n
You have entered a vast cave.
> e
There is a large rock in front of you with a bag of gold tucked behind it.
> get gold
Carpe diem.
-- Sean
Afterword
You probably noticed the near complete omission of virtual reality from this blog post. This was intentional as using VR goggles to immerse yourself in a virtual world arguably has little bearing on the development and business of the world.
I'm a big fan of VR and really look forward to launching VR capabilities in Bending Time's lifelike virtual world. But ultimately, I believe the value is in the world itself, not the device you use to join it.
RSS Feed