I'll say it again, the Internet is not the Gibsonian Cyberspace — but, the Internet certainly could support Cyberspace. Over the course of the past 30 years of various evolutions of the Internet, there have been many phenomena that partially approximate the Metaverse, and I'll attempt to point out some highlights, how they fit, and how they missed the mark, according to the criteria I laid out in my previous blog post.
Note: I've added links to some articles that dive deeper into some of these concepts, mostly from The Digital Antiquarian. Jimmy is more of a historian than I am — I'm just here to give you the most valuable thing of all: my Opinion — so I strongly recommend you check out his work for the rich historical details! Think of this as an undergraduate survey, and Jimmy's work as a graduate course that's slightly less opinionated.
Lecture
BBSs
While the Internet was still a small system open only to some university and government workers, there was a thriving community of Bulletin Board Systems. These were a precursor to the open Internet, where the phone lines were the network, and visiting a site meant calling a number, and using up the line. Though they were limited to text, with a few exceptions, they often used menus, ASCII art, and ANSI colors to liven things up.
BBSs were Virtual entities, can't deny that, but they were not in any way a simulation of real life. They consisted mainly of menus and message boards. 5/10
BBSs were supremely Decentralized, unless you count the monopoly of the phone company. They ran on people's personal computers in their very homes, with little practical regulation. 10/10
They were also Shared. The whole purpose was to connect to other people. The namesake, "bulletin board" is itself a way to communicate, though BBSs more closely resembled Internet forums of today. Often they were not shared in real time, though. Phone lines weren't cheap, and if someone was dialed in on one line, they were the only ones who could use it. So users had to log on, read, post, and log off. There were some multiline BBSs, but that was expensive enough to operate that they often had subscription fees. 7/10
They were not Tangible at all, what with the limitations of scrolling text. 1/10
BBSs were fairly Interchangeable, in limited aspects. Images, programs, books, and other files were exchanged in file sharing areas on most systems. Additionally message boards were synced across multiple BBSs through batch processes. This meant you could reply to messages on one local BBS that were posted on another BBS that would normally be long-distance. 7/10
BBSs were largely not Relevant, mostly hosting a self contained world of messaging and some games. Compuserve — a huge commercial subscription BBS — had partnerships with newspapers and other real world entities to let users accomplish actual tasks. That was definitely the exception, though, not the rule. 3/10
Total: 33/60 = 55%
MUDs
Around the same time as hobbyists were running BBSs at home, on the actual Internet, university students built something called a Multi-User Dungeon. Another purely text-based interface, they very much resembled Zork, but with other people. Pretty soon this one phenomenon became a class of experience, as the ideas were replicated and expanded on.
MUDs are Virtual, just as BBSs were, but additionally they are simulational. They modeled objects and people and users interacted with their environment in complex ways. The interface was extremely limited in that it was limited to textual descriptions of everything that was there or that happened, and the only input was typing in kinda-sentences. This was a big advantage, though, as anyone could add content if they spoke the language and were willing to learn a little bit of programming. No art or animations required. 7/10
MUDs were Decentralized in aggregate. Each MUD was run by some specific administrators, and they had total control over their MUD, but the MUDs themselves were independent of each other. These generally ran on university hardware, though, so could be subject to local authority from both the government and the university administrations. Often, like BBSs, they flew under the radar by being a relatively niche activity. 9/10
MUDs were Shared in a way most BBSs could not complete with, by being real-time simultaneous multi-user systems. Communication was central to the purpose of a MUD, and there were facilities for chatting and "emoting," expressing non-verbal actions. Again, the text-only interface allowed for accesible expressiveness that is currently unparalleled, at the cost of being severely low-fidelity. 10/10
Within the confines of the MUD's world, they were quite Tangible. Not only did they simulate objects as mentioned above, but almost everything in the system was represented by a tangible object. All programs were objects and had to exist somewhere, though often system programs were in a special "nowhere." Wizards could theoretically take, say, the login program and move it around in the MUD, give it to someone, destroy it, etc. This aspect varied based on technology stack of the MUD; not all MUDs worked the same. 8/10
MUDs were only mildly Interchangeable. There was no taking an object from one MUD to another. The best they had was inter-MUD mail and chat. Which is not nothing, but it's not much. 2/10
And, where most of these systems fall down, MUDs were entirely not Relevant. A closed game, only for entertainment purposes, users could not buy things, do real work, or anything of the sort. 1/10
Total: 37/60 = 62%
Chat Rooms
Chat rooms have been around as both part of multi-line BBSs and the Internet since either existed. I mainly want to call them out as another form of communication platform which was vastly more accessible to people, but they only represent a subset of capabilities of both MUDs and BBSs.
For brevity, I won't do a breakdown, but it's got a lower score than BBSs.
MMOs
Following along in a mostly chronological order, we have commercial massively multiplayer online role-playing games, or "MMORPGs," or, most commonly now, "MMOs." There were lots of smaller players trying to do this in the early days, but I'm going to single out Ultima Online (UO, 1997) as the first one that was a big phenomenon, followed by EverQuest (EQ, 1999). Sadly, I don't have much experience with either, though I had early beta access to UO. I think I was killed by a rabbit. I played a demo of EQ on the floor of the Game Developers' Conference (GDC). I think I killed a bat. Despite dipping a toe in, I'll have to rely mostly on contemporaneous first-hand accounts. I have played later MMOs, mostly EQ2, and a few other fads like City of Heroes and Dungeons and Dragons Online. I would also include non-RPGs like Fortnite and PUBG in this category.
An MMO is a simultaneous multiplayer game that takes place in a shared world. It's almost exactly like a MUD, but it's represented graphically. Almost. UO was represented with isometric top-down 2D perspective, and EQ was a first-person 3D view. The connectivity revolution happened at the same time as the 3D revolution in personal computing, so everything was up in the air!
MMOs are all Virtual simulations, but the scope of that simulation is actually a bit limited. The only things that are simulated are what is needed for that game to function. So lots of detail on combat and walking around, but trading is generally menu based, and practically nothing in the way of physics. 8/10
MMOs are Decentralized, in that there are multiple of them, controlled by discrete corporate entries. But, I'm going to take away points because there are WAY fewer of them than MUDs or BBSs, and they are all run by medium-to-large corporations, and there's no authorship capabilities for users beyond a limited character creation tool. 6/10
Like MUDs and Chat Rooms, a defining characteristic of MMOs is that they are Shared. 10/10
While there are objects in MMOs, and there's some potential for them to represent more than just bundles of statistics, the tight control over MMO content means that they aren't very Tangible. Yes, there are objects, you can pick them up, I know. But those objects are generally just pieces of equipment that can be used in only a very specific way in the game. 5/10
MMOs are even less Interchangeable than their counterparts. The game aspect of MMOs is already fragile, so interchangeability with other games would only serve to weaken the precarious balance. Also, since MMOs are commercial, not hobbyist, endeavors, they are incented to lock-in passing customers. So, no inter-MMO features like we saw on BBSs and MUDs. 1/10
MMOs are also less Relevant than their counterparts. Again, due to their corporate game nature. You can't refinance your home loan inside EverQuest, that would just dilute the experience. I won't say it's nothing, though, because there are phenomena like gold farming that have real world consequences, however minor. 2/10
Total: 32/60 = 53%
Web
MMOs came about during the connectivity revolution of the late 90's, so in the beginning they straddled the Internet and providing local numbers to call into directly. At the same time, the World-Wide Web was evolving and coming into prominence. Surprise, it's how you are reading this right now! I won't go into detail about what the Web is because you know it, you live it.
The Web is somewhat Virtual, about as virtual as BBSs. Although not inherently simulational, the Web these days does provide an abitrary platform for execution, and 3D APIs, so you could build a simulation that ran in a browser. But just because it is flexible shouldn't really count for much, since it doesn't facilitate simulation in any way. 6/10
The Web is remarkably Decentralized, almost to an ideal. Just like a BBS, if you want to host a website, you need to get an internet connection and a computer and do it yourself. Now cloud computing makes it even easier to do really whatever you want. The cost of phone lines and computers back in the BBS days makes it probably more expensive than hosting a simple website. 10/10
The Web is not inherently Shared, even though there are web sites that provide communication channels. But the Web itself operates in a client-to-server model; one-to-one. So, you can build shared experiences with it, just like you can build simulations with it, but the Web doesn't provide any specific infrastructure to make those things easier than using any other platform. 2/10
The Web isn't particularly Tangible. The metaphor is really a book and the navigational primitives are links from words or images to other pages. You could think of clicking a link as sightly Tangible, or scrolling a page like a scroll. But, overall, not really. 1/10
So, the Web doesn't seem very Interchangeable, but it is a bit. It's rare to take things from one website and use them on another, but it's also rare to take things from a website at all. The things you do take, files, are all pretty interchangeable because they are all based on agreed upon standard file formats. Pretty much the same story as for BBSs. 7/10
Unlike BBSs, the Web has become startlingly Relevant. Internet commerce is a common way of life, and the ubiquity of Web-enabled phones has only multiplied the effect. Anyone can put up a service or storefront on the Web much easier and cheaper than it would need to do the same thing in the real world. I say "anyone" but there's still some barriers to entry in the technical knowledge area. At this point, if I have to physically go anywhere for any reason, or even talk on the phone, I get upset, and it seems antiquated. 10/10
Total: 36/60 = 60%
Second Life
Second Life (2003) is the first real attempt to create a Metaverse for its own sake. It has property and economy. People can make objects, avatars, and other things and sell them for in-game currency. There is even an exchange that converts in-game currency to real money, or vice-versa, at some rate. There are no underlying game mechanics as there are in MMOs.
I have to admit I have very little experience with Second Life. I remember when it came out, and a similar offering called There came out roughly the same time. Let me tell you, "There" is hard to Google.
Part of why I dithered so long on this entry is that I felt I had to explore Second Life to do it justice. And a significant portion of me was just not that interested. Despite being interested in the topic and the future of the Metaverse, SL seemed like a washed-up, has-been attempt. And, it is.
But, I have to admit that — architecturally — I think they did a surprisingly good job. I'll get into the technical details in my next post, but they adopted a very web-like metaphor, using URLs in their client to represent locations.
I tried to explore SL sufficiently well to comment on it, but I'm sure I really just scratched the surface without a guided tour. If anyone wants to give me a tour, or just tell me where I'm wrong, I'd be happy to revise this section.
Second Life is pretty darn Virtual. More so than a typical MMO. You can interact with objects in a fairly arbitrary way, as long as those objects have been programmed to, for example, allow you to sit on them. I'm somewhat loathe to max out my scale here, but I think the flexibility is there. 10/10
As a completely contained universe, Second Life scores poorly on Decentralization. Everything is controlled by Linden Labs. If Linden goes under — which doesn't seem too unlikely — no more Second Life. That's the first test of Decentralization. That said, I was surprised to learn that there were third party clients for SL. That means the protocols are at least partially available to the world, if not approved by a standards committee. Those protocols are still owned by Linden Labs, and so themselves are not under Decentralized control. 3/10
With my limited imagination, I can't imagine anything more Shared than what Second Life provides. It even supports local sounds, so sounds that are only played at avatars within a certain range. 10/10
Also, Second Life seems pretty Tangible. I am not sure to what extent because I didn't find much to interact with or do. I think the main thing to do in SL is be social, which wasn't exactly my purpose at this time. Another thing that's more Tangible is to create content. Mostly that's making models or textures, but there is the ability to make interactive content using LSL, the Linden Scripting Language. 8/10
I'd say Second Life is not particularly Interchangeable. Yes, you can share music at least, and possibly more, but the expectations are higher for a fully virtual, simulated world. You are living in the Linden Bubble. The data formats are at least public. 4/10
Finally, as far as I can tell, Second Life is largely not Relevant. In fact, while exploring, I found that there was nothing much to do but explore. There was a lot of music being broadcast. People had created some interesting buildings. There was nothing to prevent me from entering them and wander around. But also nothing to do there. 3/10
Total: 38/60 = 63%
Roblox/Core
I haven't spent too much time on Roblox, but I have played around a fair amount with Core, so I'll use that experience as a proxy for both. Both Roblox and Core are considered "Metaverse plays," and both were around before the hype. Roblox is geared toward younger kids, and Core towards older kids. They are both centered around game development, providing a simplified front end to a game engine, with a library of assets like textures, meshes, sounds, and music.
Core basically provides the infrastructure to define a game, transmit the necessary assets and code to the client and server, and host the game on a server. Multiplayer is built into the infrastructure, so it has fairly strict limits on, for example, how many objects can live at one time. When a player wants to play a game, it allocates a virtual server and installs the needed game definition. If a server is already available, it will direct the user to that existing server. Some games are completely single-player, but they still need to allocate a server.
Since the games are mostly user-generated content, it's kind of a crap-shoot. Most games are some form of idle game, like what you see on mobile, with in-app purchases for power-ups. Core (aka Manticore) has seeded the pot with some games of their own. And users are building and sharing frameworks and libraries for building games. Cute, but altogether a bit small.
Like Second Life, Core and Roblox are Virtual. Not only do they allow creators to make arbitrary interactions, they can simulate physics. 10/10
And, like most other explicit attempts at a Metaverse, Roblox and Core are not Decentralized. They own and operate all the infrastructure, and the protocols are proprietary. They have good authoring tools for users to participate with, but also the limitation of only using pre-approved assets is stifling. No third-party clients, AFAIK. 2/10
While mostly a Shared experience, there are pretty strict limits on how many players can be in a game at one time. In Core, it's a max of 16 players per instance, and it can be lower, depending on the zone/game. 8/10
Core seems the most potentially Tangible, but not in any kind of consistent way. Zone authors can implement arbitrarily interactive objects that can represent arbitrary concepts. But, it's almost entirely up to the zone. Each zone can have intricate interactive logic, or can be purely static scenery. There are probably some libraries/components for an inventory system, but they aren't primitives of the platform. 7/10
Additionally, Core is not very Interchangeable. The only thing that goes with the player between zones is their avatar, which isn't particularly customizable. Even then, some zones replace the player's avatar, or hide it completely. This is even within their walled garden. I did not find a way to exchange files or other non-Core data, probably largely as a way of limiting abuse. You can create portals to other zones, and I believe you can share state between zones by the same author. 2/10
Finally, Core and Roblox are both entirely not Relevant. Wherever I've said "zones," I've really meant "games." There are some zones that are mostly or entirely just scenery, but almost everything in actual use are just games. 1/10
Total: 30/60 = 50%
Meta's Horizon Worlds
Horizon Worlds is still evolving, and I haven't been able to play with it, so I'll save that analysis for some future date. Based on what I know, I think it is going to score similarly to Second Life. It may be able to improve its Relevance, but by how much without being Decentralized? I remain fairly skeptical, both of Horizon Worlds' bonafides as a Metaverse, but also of its ultimate success as a platform.
Conclusion
They say the Metaverse is coming whether you like it or not. I don't believe that. Billions of dollars of investment won't make something that people fundamentally don't want or need into something everyone has. History is laden with examples, just sift through the remains of the Dot-Com Era. I'm not saying the Metaverse is definitely not coming — I'm saying it is not inevitable. Every platform needs at least one killer app to hook enough people to achieve critical mass. What is the killer app for the Metaverse?