Multiverse in context

  10 Responses to “Multiverse in context”

1. MikeRozak says:

   October 23, 2006 at 9:19 pm

   Having worked at Microsoft (but not any more), my take is different, and has to do with OS’s, not 3D-webs.

   1) FPSs, CRPGs, MMORPGs, Adventure games, and platformers are all fundamentally the same. You have an avatar running around a world doing stuff. (I’ve been calling them “avatar games”.)

   2) At some point, there will be a MONOLITHIC toolset and engine that lets 3rd parties create their own PROFESSIONAL avatar games. This engine will have to be good enough that other large companies (not just hobbyists) will produce content for it.

   3) The company with the monolithic toolset/engine can make money by selling the razors (tools, and licenses to developers) or the razor blades (end-user sales of the client, or ad-based client).

   4) A toolset/engine developer that takes the razor-blade approach has just created an operating system, just like Mac OS, Linux, Windows and Microsoft Office. (Yes, Microsoft Office is an OS.) It has APIs. It’s the same business model. It has the same propensity to turn into a natural monopoly.

   5) Natural monopolies are well known for their reliable and copious revenue streams. Games, on the other hand, are known for their hit-based (aka: unreliable) revenue streams. 3D-ness has nothing to do with it.
2. MikeRozak says:

   October 23, 2006 at 9:30 pm

   Forgot to add:

   6) Yes, MMORPGs traditionally have had reliable $15/month revenue streams, but (a) for every WoW, there are probably nine MMORPGs that are break evens or losses, and (b) I don’t see casual players paying $15/month for one MMORPG.
3. Faith says:

   October 24, 2006 at 2:56 am

   […] Comments […]
4. Cael says:

   October 24, 2006 at 3:10 am

   Oh man, there is so much wrong with that article that i can’t even begin to know where to start.

   Even the history is wrong!
5. Raph says:

   October 24, 2006 at 7:58 am

   Well, pick a spot to start with a roll of the dice, if need be, and tell us why! 🙂
6. Steven "PlayNoEvil" Davis says:

   October 24, 2006 at 8:40 am

   This obsession with the “3D Web” should inspire a good drinking game or two.

   3D environments are very limited when we view them through a 2D screen. The author’s example of a virtual office is perfect… except that you are viewing it through a 17″ porthole and your ability to interact with the environment is limited to two 2D tools: keyboards and mice.

   The “state of the art” worlds like World of Warcraft show the problem perfectly. These games have terribly limited interaction options constrained because of the available control tools. Computer games almost have to be “hack and slash” adventures because you can’t animate or control richer interactions.

   Until there is a revolution in 3D displays and control, this whole “3D Web” thing is going to remain a fantasy or a failure.

   Not to mention that the power of the web is from its hyperlink structure, not some virtual 3D geography (which works great for books and movies for a hyperlink illiterate audience which is what Gibson and Stephenson had when they wrote their books).

   Drink!
7. JuJutsu says:

   October 24, 2006 at 8:45 am

   This is where the dice took me…

   The online world prior to Netscape Navigator consisted of two groups. On one hand was the Internet of relatively sophisticated users exploiting the open system created by the Department of Defense ARPAnet. On the other hand were the balkanized ghettos such as AOL and Compuserve where content was mostly controlled and supplied by the service providers.

   As an academic I had access to ARPAnet but I actually found Bitnet to be more useful

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitnet

   On the leisure side BBSs occupied a lot of my ‘online’ time and so Fidonet was fun to explore

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FidoNet

   I did my graduate work in the Bay area so I’m not surprised at the author’s geographic blinders but his brazen company fluffing was very impressive.

   Roll the dice Cael….
8. Nabeel Hyatt says:

   October 29, 2006 at 6:38 pm

   Jujutsu, the writers characterization of what “online” was like prior to Netscape Navigator may be horribly simplified (leaving out BBSes should be a crime) but his core point is valid, prior to Netscape the “online world” was divided into many cantons, the World Wide Web ended up effectively marginalizing or outright destroying all of the others (including even the longest holdout, AOL).

   If I were to take a critical look at Multiverse and its ilk – attempting to latch on the hope of creative an alternative “3D web” is a bit dubious. Virtually every R&D project, from Parc to Microsoft, of user interfaces and information reading done in 3d space has gone poorly.

   2D is better for straight information retrieval and submission… and so Netscape was solving a key problem. A cannonized information retrieval/submittal system that needs to be unified.

   The Multiverse guys will do well to help foster the types of environments that will actually benefit from 3D, not try to be Web 3.0. Thankfully, from the demos I’ve seen so far it looks like they have, but the comparison should be streched too far.
9. Charles Ellis says:

   October 30, 2006 at 12:54 pm

   It’s almost unfortunate that the walled-garden style internet access like that provided by Prodigy and Compuserve, was replaced by the vast open nature of the world wide web. I’m not in favor of completely closed off systems, the ability to interact with anyone else using the internet or the web is one of its most important features.

   I am, however, saddened that the web lacks nearly any kind of structure. You end up with little awareness of the space that is represented, and with large collections of redundancy. Things are getting better as large systems are built (first-gen would be search engines, second-gen would probably be things like Wikipedia), that centralize content to reduce redundancy and confusion. Still, it would be best if (and this is assuming at some point the web is redesigned) the next version had more thought put towards structure.
10. Out to Pasture » Blog Archive » TCS on Multiverse says:

    October 30, 2006 at 2:43 pm

    […] Raph points out an interesting article on TCS taking a look at Netscape and comparing that to Multiverse, which is a very interesting company we at the Sheep follow closely. Multiverse is building an MMO toolkit and interface that can be used across worlds.  There’s also an interesting back and forth in the comments of Raph’s post. […]

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.