[0] Or ActiveWorlds, or the metric buttload of VRML chat services before that...
It's also a great example of a hype cycle - it was going to be the future, it was going to be everything, corporates had offices in there, universities had campuses, there were virtual music events and art galleries, there were real-dollar millionaires made from virtual real-estate.
When the hype died down and the smoke cleared, there were still people wanting to use it, but not that many, and not in the way we were all told to expect, and the corporates realised they didn't need a bank branch or an SL office full of virtual meeting rooms in there after all. Neat sandbox with interesting ongoing uses, not the new centre of all our online lives.
What will be the real "VR metaverse" for most consumers is the one that maps to reality. The AR metaverse. Being able to visit people in real life in real locations, virtually: augmented reality. Where the virtual reality part of that is a small extra side bit for the dedicated people.
While there used to always be soft pressure to structure your life in the real world, with work and school online, folks who otherwise would be pressured to interact offline might now find interaction online to be just as fulfilling. Or at least equally fulfilling for things like work while saving quality, offline time for friends.
I know there are headsets now, maybe it will go differently. Maybe not.
But having seen virtual worlds come and go multiple times, I'm going to assume that it's another hype cycle until there's compelling evidence to the contrary.
You might as well not be a person if you live in a virtual world...necessities like money and basic human needs mean people outgrow their fantasy world, and their fantasy games. Moves like this cause fragmentation, such that there is no one virtual world.
As your userbase gradually dwindles to nothing...they grow up and have lives. Or don't, and are usually characterized by low paying jobs, poor health.
Ofc not every low paid worker is there by choice, and some are born disabled, but on average these games are a cause of their plight.
Every time I see news about the "Metaverse", I remember the articles Shamus Young (RIP) wrote about ActiveWorlds and the DotCom bubble crash:
https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=35399
The metaverse doesn't seem quite that bad (Facebook's people seem to have an understanding of the medium they want to operate in), but the basic "we're going to make the user experience worse by replicating the limitations of the real world for the sake of realism" mentality is still there.
As for the metaverse, people need to realize that it's not for everyone . Maybe in 10-20 years or so
Isn’t this is what most teenagers use Fortnite and Minecraft as.
I'd say, Roblox is more sticky, as there's a built in friend list and chat/messages without being in game.
Fortnite and Minecraft do have chat features in them, but those are features tacked-on as a last resort. In the case of Minecraft you don't even have voice chat. In the olden days of the Xbox 360's heyday[0], all we had were one-on-one voice channels or in-game chat, the latter of which would be an absolutely toxic nightmare of getting shouted and screamed at.
Furthermore, Fortnite and Minecraft are games whose camera and movement controls are optimized for the specific game mechanics they feature. If you want to create a generic 3D world, then you have to also create a generic set of controls to move and look around that world; and those controls are always going to be awkward and difficult to use.
Maybe you built a regular house, in which case Sims-style point-and-click-to-move and a fixed camera angle would be your best control option. Or maybe you built a racetrack with cars, which means you want WASD-steering with a car-locked third-person camera. Your FPS level wants first-person or over-the-shoulder third-person.
Second Life tried to do all of the above, so they gave you a default behind-the-head camera that vaguely works in open spaces, but you have to use Maya-style camera orbit controls to look at specific things. You can scroll to zoom to first person, but you can't use any of the builder controls in that view because of mouselook. And all of this was complicated enough that Linden Labs felt it was necessary to add "easy" movement and camera controls driven by UI buttons, but not to add click-to-move for third-person mode.
The thing is, when I look back at Second Life I can't really think of a way that it could have been done better. I can think of features that it's missing, but that wouldn't fix the clunkiness of the controls. Anything I could think of to fix camera movement would bias in the direction of a particular 'genre'; and making people switch between "FPS mode", "car mode", and "hanging out mode" would be a total pain.
This isn't even getting into the other problems these projects have, like the fact that 3D worlds are really expensive to build, or that the copyright maximalists will have a field day suing you over all the pirated content that your users will inevitably port in.
[0] As in, "blades dash" era 360
My biggest concern is that I've yet to find a VR headset that I can use for more than about ten minutes before feeling nauseated from motion sickness. I'm told this is somewhat/mostly solved and I've used higher end gear but it's been the same result for me every time.
Sometimes I see these issues being brought but and I always wonder if they are associated with experiencing applications that make your virtual body move artificially without actually moving in real life, instead of staying intact like in Beat Saber or jumping by teleportation like Half Life: Alyx allows?
It seems a popular mistake for VR newcomers is to get in—or be put in—a rollercoaster or drive a car where these kind of problems are very visibile.