The problem I have with Tim Sweeney’s definition of the Metaverse is not that I disagree with it. In fact, I think it’s a good working definition.
Rather, the problem I have is that it is missing important parts of the story. It’s talking about the “how”, but not the “what” or “why”.
By analogy, imagine somebody is describing a restaurant. There are many things you might want to know about a restaurant. What sorts of food do they serve? How is it prepared? What does the theme of the decor?
Of course in order for a restaurant to function, it also has more basic needs. A very partial list might include walls, a roof, plumbing, electricity, various means to cook food or to keep food cold, and probably a way to lock the door when the restaurant is closed for business.
But none of those things, though essential for a restaurant to function, tell you anything about what kind of restaurant it is. Which means that many of the essential questions are being left out.
Why are people going to this restaurant? How do they feel about the experience? Will they become regulars? Will they recommend it to their friends?
Sweeney’s definition of the Metaverse gets at the plumbing level, but leaves out the essential human element. Why are people in the Metaverse at all? What exactly is happening there that is meaningful to them, to their life experience, to their various connections with family, friends and community?
I don’t have any problem at all with trying to define mechanical and operational layers. That is clearly a necessary task for any endeavor.
But I am hoping for a deeper dive into the higher layer questions — the cultural, social and psychological questions. Those are the questions that make it all interesting.
It might be that it’s too early to discuss such things. But I think it’s worth a try, even if only by analogy with genres and purposes in more established media.