coderedfox wrote:I just did some research on this subject for my company, in short its a fad that will pass. The number one reason is it not "like a smoke break". You have to boot it up, log-in, and play.
Take a look at Myspace. It was really big because you could quickly login at work/school and check it out. This is the main reason the internet will stay about the same it is. Too much immersion, too much time, too much effort. The internet now is very "passive" meaning it just sits there waiting for you to do something.
The future Internet will most likely be in 3D environments only.
Haven’t created an account so I need to know if Myspace is in 2D or 3D in order to compare second life with Myspace?
From the outside Myspace looks like 2D only and very individual and traditional in its use.
And yes, today the user still has to boot up, log in and play, but that doesn’t mean that this entry path (if you can say so in English) won’t change in the future?
These entry tools are just cold facts of present day tool accessibility, nothing else. And to me that’s just traditional rational converging thinking when purely used in an argument concerning the future.
Where is the fantasy? Where is the hope to be found in such an argument? Did the developer team behind first version of http://secondlife.com/ only use traditional rationality to shape their creation? Or did they include fantasy and hope also?
My point is if you only focus on using present day tools to evaluate future Internet and/or Project Reality related questions, you reduce your chance of finding the significant beneficial answers.
Futuristic research and development can be done in many ways, either step by step where you only move …I don’t know …maybe between 1 and 5 steps, or floor by floor where you move between 1 and 5 floors!
The battlefield game concept was a floor move. No doubt about it. How many floors? Don’t know.
Regards/cheers
Mike
