Just received an email from someone claiming to be Christopher Scully who says they’re representing IAVRT (see my previous post for all the details – reLink). I don’t know if this is the same Christopher Scully with whom C|Net corresponded, or even if this is maybe just someone who made up an email account this morning; they’re using an “official” Hotmail email address. Consequently I’ll treat this communication rather casually. I think it’s reasonable to expect that the real Scully would at least use a more official email address if everything was legit.

So for entertainment value I’m posting that email in it’s entirety here. If it’s someone actually associated with IAVRT, please come out into the light and let everyone know just exactly who you are and explain/answer some of the things raised (that gives you what most of us would call “Credibility”). Continue reading →

There’s a bit of press (hype?) making the rounds on something called Neuronet (Link or maybe this Link), a supposed plan for a fiber optic-based, virtual reality-centric network intended to be separate from what we now call the Internet. It would, according to the website, supposedly be “the first network designed from the ground up specifically for the transmission of real-time virtual reality data.” Considering that I’ve argued that the future of online Metaverse-style technology isn’t just 3D but a mashup of both 2D (websites) and 3D (virtual worlds), the exclusion of the current Internet rang alarm bells in my head. This doesn’t make sense to me, so I did a bit of digging.

The obvious first step was to take a look at their site… actually sites. The first thing I noticed is a lack of substance to not just some, but all of the claims. There’s plenty of handwaving, but nothing that I couldn’t make up and post in a fictitious site in a day or two. It is, as the saying goes, a lot of talk with nothing to show (except the pretty website itself).

Let’s examine some of what that talk is: Continue reading →

Nice article on Gamasutra (Link) discussing an Intel team’s attempts to turn Google Earth into a videogame called “Mars Sucks”. This is one of those things that I imagine a lot of people are interested in seeing develop, along with multi-user/player interactivity. The question that comes to my mind is: with all that gaming horsepower in their corporate stable, what is Microsoft intending to do with Virtual Earth (besides billboards)? Sometimes they don’t seem to be following the Metaverse Plan (reLink).

The article includes links to the sourcecode for those interested in replicating their work and perhaps building on it.

And while you’re there, check out another article, “Researchers: Deeper Emotions Keep Gamers Playing” (Link). From that piece:

The research found that games can provide opportunities for achievement, freedom, and even a connection to other players. Those benefits trumped a shallow sense of fun, which doesn’t keep players as interested.

“We think there’s a deeper theory than the fun of playing,” says Richard M. Ryan, a motivational psychologist at the University and lead investigator in the four new studies about gaming.

Sounds similar to something I recently said about virtual worlds (reLink). I suspect that bit of research will get some review.

via Blue’s News

{Image source: Gamasutra}

I’m just now getting to an article over on the Washington Post, “Where Real Money Meets Virtual Reality, The Jury Is Still Out” (Link), that’s worth a read. It’s not an especially good article ; it makes the standard MSM mistakes regarding Second Life and doesn’t do a particularly good job discussing copyright and intellectual property. It does, however, finish strong with some related commentary on issues that Microsoft’s Virtual Earth is facing. From the article:

Microsoft plans to make money by selling advertising billboards in this virtual depiction of urban America.

But the company’s lawyers and advertising executives are still grappling with the question of whether those who own the property depicted in Microsoft’s 3-D images have any control over how their depicted property is used online.

That last part alone is worth the read, especially the example they give. It’ll be fun to see how this plays out.

Happened to surf through Matt Mihaly’s blog and caught an interview with Multiverse co-founder Corey Bridges (Link) that’s very much worth a read. A few excerpts to whet your appetite:

We figured that the best way to lessen the cost of content to developers is to increase the supply. Specifically, we intend to enable 3D modelers to sell their services (and indeed, their pre-created content, if they wish) to indie dev teams.

– Continue reading →