Tags
future, radio, second life, technology, television, virtual worlds
On New World Notes today, Hamlet Au throws out this challenge: can anyone come up with a convincing reason that immersive virtual environments will replace the web? He said,
“Over the next few years, virtual worlds of all kinds will become an integral part of the Net; I have no doubt about that. User-created, realistic 3D worlds like Second Life will become an important niche platform; I have no doubt about that either. But where’s the evidence that they’re on track to become even more than that, eventually replacing the web itself? So far as I can tell, there is none.”
Well, I don’t think that virtual environments will replace the web, any more than the web has replaced books or television has replaced radio. I do think, though, that eventually virtual worlds will become very important in business, entertainment, and daily life – maybe more important than the web. And I can prove it! Sort of. Here I go:
We all know that virtual worlds are very young and rough right now. Second Life, the cream of the virtual world crop, is difficult to learn, confusing, often unrewarding (think of those ghost town malls scattered throughout the world), sometimes glitchy, and limited. But most people seem to agree that over time, virtual worlds will get better: it will be easier to use them, and they’ll be able to do more things. When someone can sit down at a computer, put on a helmet, and find themselves in the middle of a good historical recreation of the Battle of the Bulge or a live football game or an acting class, without spending hours upon hours or even days upon days learning the ropes and getting outfitted, then virtual worlds will have arrived, and their benefits will far outweigh their inconveniences. Not that we don’t have a long, long way to go!
But virtual worlds won’t replace the web. Why? Because some things are just as good – or better! – on a flat screen than in 3-D. For instance, let’s say you want to look at pictures of a friend’s vacation with your husband or wife. Is there any real advantage to doing that in a virtual world? Not really. If you do it in First Life, you can sit down together in front of a screen – or when electric paper comes along, just sit on your couch with that! – and look at it. The same goes for reading blogs, look up reference information, viewing calendars, composing letters, and anything else that works perfectly well in 2-D.
But some things are definitely better in 3-D! If you want to look at a hotel before you book a room, 3-D is much better. The same if you want to view a sports game or a dance performance, have a virtual meeting, recreate a historical event, socialize with friends, discuss a new design, act, explore…I won’t go on. These things are better in 3-D, just like movies, plays, documentaries, painting demonstrations, and those kinds of things are better on televisions than on the radio.
Which leads to the proving part. People don’t think of virtual worlds as having any precedent in history, but they do for *this* purpose, and that precedent is television. When television came on, it offered a more immersive form of broadcast sharing than radio. Radio offered just sound, television offered sight and sound. An immersive, virtual broadcast would offer sight and sound too, but in a 3-D environment where you could look around. People will adopt more immersive environments when they’re better suited to the task (like telling a story through a movie rather than a radio play) even if they’re more expensive (like television) and less convenient (like having to sit down in front of the television rather than move around freely while listening to the radio).
We’re not there yet, and I don’t know when we’ll get there, but sooner or later, the things that virtual environments are good at will start happening more and more on virtual environments. Like radio, books, and other simpler technologies, the web isn’t going anywhere, but it’s going to decline in importance compared to virtual worlds, just as radio did compared to television.
How’d I do, Hamlet?
^^^\ Kate /^^^
Anonymous said:
Generalizing slightly
Nicely thought out! I would generalize it a little; virtual environments have the potential to displace things other than the web (just as television didn’t displace only radio, but to some extent movies and theater and I don’t know even book-reading). Might virtual environments displace some television (since in a way it’s like TV only interactive), some (more) movie-watching and book-reading? And we all expect it will displace some physical RL interactions (starting with business meetings in distant places, extending to perhaps other stuff).
I know that wasn’t Hamlet’s challenge 🙂 but it’s what sprang to my mind…
— Dale Innis
LikeLike
kateamdahl said:
Re: Generalizing slightly
Oh, good points, Dale! I think we tend to think of fresh technologies as the new version of something-or-other, when really one new technology can impact a wide range of older ones, I imagine … which I think is what you just said, but sometimes it takes saying something for me to really get it. 🙂
^^^\ Kate /^^^
LikeLike
gemblue said:
More immersive
What is needed to get us there is to make the virtual world a lot more immersive than it is with our current SL experience. Think about those Virtual Reality interfaces that are so klunky and kludgy, like the devices shown on this Google image search. That kind of immersion would greatly improve the virtual resident’s experience and make the environment more compelling.
But few people will want to suit-up with all of the gadgets and such like this that would be required for this immersion (if they could even afford them), so a break-through is needed in providing a more immersive experience, probably using system components already at hand (monitors, headphones, pointing devices). Hopefully LL or someone else is working on this!
I share your optimism that this will come eventually — but it may take quite a while yet.
LikeLike
kateamdahl said:
Re: More immersive
That’s true…and I think that the world itself needs to feel more immersive, for instance with the ability to move and make expressions freely instead of in the very limited way we can now. I’m beginning to see how young and unready this technology really is! Although I still think it’s wonderful. 🙂
^^^\ Kate /^^^
LikeLike
Anonymous said:
Immersability, reliability, “truth”…
Kate dear. Sure, the technology advances, and sure, it’s all gonna be wonderful and fabulous and immersive and all that good stuff… but I still think, as I’ve always thought, that a LOT of attention needs to be paid to the hows and whys of real people and their psyches interacting with what “appears” to be “reality” in the virtual space. I suspect many people really *don’t* want to know why they’re driven to take up residence virtually… yet I think it’s irresponsible on the part of the socially aware to ignore the very real hazards, which I suspect are only going to increase as the tech gets better. What’s your thought on this, sweetie?
LikeLike
kateamdahl said:
Re: Immersability, reliability, "truth"…
Hmm, I’m not sure whether to try to apply the television analogy to that question or not. Television does have hazards that radio doesn’t, like making it hard to feel all right about one’s body if one isn’t slim and perfect-looking like many television celebrities, or TV addiction (I never heard of anyone “listening to too much radio”!).
But are we talking about the social hazards instead, things like dishonesty and bad treatment? Because I’m realizing that one big difference between television and virtual worlds (since I’m making that analogy) is that virtual worlds are social and television isn’t.
OK, so: general technology dangers or social dangers?
^^^\ Kate /^^^
LikeLike
Anonymous said:
Oh duh 🙂
Above comment, from Eveline 🙂
LikeLike