Game Devs Remain Skeptical About Metaverse and Blockchain Projects (venturebeat.com) 38
Game developers are more skeptical of metaverse and blockchain projects, according to a new survey by the Game Developers Conference. From a report: "So much happened during 2022 for ups and downs, and I know crypto had a lot of issues mid year as well," said Alissa McAloon, publisher of Gamedeveloper.com, in an interview with GamesBeat. She noted it's not surprising to see the hype die down. In that respect, the skeptical view of the metaverse and blockchain is not so different from the view of virtual reality, after skepticism set in after a few years of hype. "A lot of developing technologies have ebbs and flows and then we see where things settle after the fact. VR is a good indicator of that," McAloon said.
McAloon helped figure out the questions for this year's survey to make sure that the report zeroed in on key questions. She said some of the questions were open-ended so that developers could offer more nuanced answers. She said that blockchain technology appeared to be highlighted as having some use, but exactly what that is isn't clear. Developers pointed to Fortnite as likely metaverse winner, though many remain skeptical that there will be a metaverse at all. [...] When asked which company is best positioned to deliver on the promise of the metaverse, Epic Games/Fortnite earned 14% of the vote, the highest of any individual company.
Next was Meta/Horizon Worlds and Microsoft/Minecraft (at 7% each), Roblox (5%) and Google and Apple (3% each), with VRChat and Nvidia also receiving some mentions. However, developers remain wary. Nearly half (45%) of respondents didn't select any companies/ platforms, instead stating that the metaverse concept will never deliver on its promise. This number is up from 33% in 2022, with many of the responses from this year specifically citing the unclear definition of the concept, the lack of substantial interactivity and the high cost of hardware (VR headsets in particular) as barriers towards sustainable metaverse experiences.
McAloon helped figure out the questions for this year's survey to make sure that the report zeroed in on key questions. She said some of the questions were open-ended so that developers could offer more nuanced answers. She said that blockchain technology appeared to be highlighted as having some use, but exactly what that is isn't clear. Developers pointed to Fortnite as likely metaverse winner, though many remain skeptical that there will be a metaverse at all. [...] When asked which company is best positioned to deliver on the promise of the metaverse, Epic Games/Fortnite earned 14% of the vote, the highest of any individual company.
Next was Meta/Horizon Worlds and Microsoft/Minecraft (at 7% each), Roblox (5%) and Google and Apple (3% each), with VRChat and Nvidia also receiving some mentions. However, developers remain wary. Nearly half (45%) of respondents didn't select any companies/ platforms, instead stating that the metaverse concept will never deliver on its promise. This number is up from 33% in 2022, with many of the responses from this year specifically citing the unclear definition of the concept, the lack of substantial interactivity and the high cost of hardware (VR headsets in particular) as barriers towards sustainable metaverse experiences.
Apple will help jump start it (Score:2)
Apple could get people to wear watches again, it can make them wear "AR" headsets too (VR with camera).
Apple doesn't really do social media though (too much PR damage for too little income without 3rd party advertising, which is another thing they do) so on the software side they will create a lot of opportunity. Even if only a small percentage of people is interested social VR, the massive flood of VR hardware Apple will create opportunity.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No. They won't. Because it's not going to ever actually get started.
Re: (Score:2)
You think Apple AR headset won't sell?
Re: (Score:3)
People don't want headsets. Find another way.
Re: (Score:2)
One that is locked into the shitty Apple ecosystem? Correct. They would sell more than one, but nowhere near even half as close to just the watch by itself.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple could get people to wear watches again, it can make them wear "AR" headsets too (VR with camera).
Nobody is going to get the masses to wear AR headsets until they can make them lightweight, not totally stupid looking, and which doesn't make half the users sick in VR mode. (If it does AR, it had better damned well do VR too.) Oh yeah, it also has to be affordable, and it has to not be difficult to get porn on it. Does any of this sound like Apple to you?
Blockchain (Score:5, Funny)
It's a pity blockchain is not finally coming to games, because it would allow us to buy and sell in-game items to other players in exchange for real-world money. Something that has never happened.
Re:Blockchain (Score:4)
What? People are very easily able to buy and sell in-game items without involving Blockchain. I play a really old game (Dungeons and Dragons Online) that has an in-game auction house and it works just fine absent blockchain.
Even the real world stock market is able to process however many millions of stock transactions per second without the blockchain just fine, right?
The whole concept of having a distributed ledger is a solution in search a problem. We've had non-distributed ledgers probably the beginning of civilization without requiring a small European country's worth of wasted electricity to power it.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are dealing with in game items in a video game, the video game publisher has the only centralized database that matters - the one containing the actual in game items in each account.
So you can buy and sell and document whatever you want on any decentralized leger you can imagine, it doesn't matter. The "overlords" can add, remove items from the in game account at will, or delete the account entirely.
blockchain applied to in game items as a means to assert control over what is yours is a joke.
Re: (Score:2)
No, because of the way copyright works, it does have to be that way. No game developer want their copyrighted IP associated with whatever trash game some dipshit edgelord wants to write. Yeah, sure, you can put Mickey Mouse in your loli-rape game. LOL, never going to happen, and you are dumb for thinking it's a good thing.
NO game company is going to let some other IP into their games. And very few games would benefit even from letting in the companies own IP, from other series. As a gamer, I do not want to
Re: Blockchain (Score:2)
"Or pokemon that can not only be traded and sold, but also used in different games."
Awsome. I use the Airquake mod to fly attack choppers *inside* medieval castles that were meant for an entirely different Quake mod for the lulz.
Having Pikachu hop around inside Super Mario World does not require blockchain, or any kind of middle man gatekeeper who demands a toll for passage into this wacky world.
Re: (Score:2)
Your game that plays on a server? Idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
it would allow us to buy and sell in-game items to other players in exchange for real-world money. Something that has never happened.
You must be confused. A blockchain is completely unnecessary, as evidenced by the fact that game players have been selling each other in-game items in exchange for real-world money for ages. eBay even banned the selling of virtual crap on their platform way back in 2007.
I'm not even sure what value you think a blockchain would add. It seems like a pointless waste to me.
Re: (Score:1)
This is sarcasm, right? I assumed this was sarcasm but nobody else seems to have caught that.
Re: Blockchain (Score:2)
World class sarcasm
Re: (Score:2)
Yes! Thanks for pointing it out XD. I have just seen the answers and they are hilarious (given it's sarcasm).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I wish somebody would tell Square-Enix that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
SE either a. want to be bought out by sony - which would be a travesty.
or.
Want to make all game power wash simulator or some other dumb pile of crap.
Wah Wah we don't want to pay to make decent games and just want 1 billion billion for shit.
DIAF (and hopefullty asell your remaining decent franchises off first).
Re: who are these game devs (Score:4, Funny)
Thats right. These gamedevs are just arguing for buggy whips and carriages, while Zuck is the real visionary.
Crypto in games has valid uses beyond grift. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Do tell! I'd love to hear of a beneficial use of crypto in the real world that isn't about grift or illegal transactions.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it doesn't. There is absolutely ZERO uses for crypto/blockchain in a game. It provides no benefits. You are stupid and have absolutely no knowledge on the subject if you think otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
So what exactly does blockchain bring to the table that hasn't been done easier and better already? We're after all talking about a commodity that is LITERALLY owned by a single entity.
In short... (Score:3)
The search continues for problems that would be addressed by introducing crypto currencies and blockchain into games.
The sooner this fad dies the better.
Seeing a definite pattern here (Score:2)
Who wants all this crap? MBA's, managers, who see a Christmas bonus for laying off
There is no "metaverse" (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's call a spade a spade and come right out with it. Nobody gives half a fuck about "the metaverse". Yes, some people like VR games, but even these people don't view the "metaverse" as something they're interested in. They want their game, they want their VRChat, they want whatever their friends are playing, they don't give a fuck about some maybe-kinda-sorta-hopefully-soon crap.
Ponder for a moment what gets most people to join Facebook in the first place: That their friends are there. Later, they stay for the other stuff that is there. In short, they stay for the content created by the millions of people. Who in turn do this because they have an audience. One of the reason people stay around in Facebook (and the many other distractions from reality that exist in the antisocial media cloud) is that they can pretend that it's only 5 minutes. I just check it for 5 minutes and do something productive in a bit.
That premise goes out of the window when you first have to build up and then put on some convoluted overpriced 3D viewing tool.
And for what gain? So they can be seen as their "avatar"? If you didn't get the hint, people don't give a fuck about seeing someone, be it themselves or their avatar. If they did, video phones would have taken off a long, long time ago. Guess what: They haven't.
What you have here is a niche product. There is exactly two groups of people who actually want to present their avatar, their "virtual self" to the world: Furries and cosplayers. And both for the same reason, they can finally pretend to be someone (or something) they ain't. That's it. That's your target audience. And both are already firmly taken over by VRChat. Because that's where all the other Furries and cosplayers are. Dislodging them could be tricky.
Twice so because the three terms "Furry", "Cosplayers" and "Family friendly and advertisers friendly" don't mix.
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at the stats right now, there's 44,815 people in Second Life.
Yeah, still. And I know you think it sucks.
Other than not having to wear a face hugger, it's as metaversal as anyone has gotten so far.
Theme park games where you buy things to wear in the gift shop, and run around in Big World don't count.
Maybe it's just 44,000 tonight, but most of them have had avatars for a long time.
They know the ups and outs of navigating a user-constructed world.
Instead of just going to a virtual store, there's thousa
Re: (Score:2)
there's 44,815 people in Second Life.
Yeah, still. And I know you think it sucks.
44,815 users isn't even worth doing a study to see if it's worth doing. Someone did the research [engadget.com], it's called Second Life, and it does suck. The interface is bad and the documentation is worse. When you join as a newbie you get dumped into a total shitstorm. It's all scroll and confusion. Maybe the goal is to scare off new users? If so, it worked.
The usual groupthink... (Score:1)