Wired Misses the Point (Again): Metaverse Identity Crisis, Part 3

So, I got around to reading my tree-killing edition of Wired over the weekend, and found an article "The New Reality" by Stephen Levy. Here's the less-tree-killing version . I applaud Steven for recognizing and praising trends in gaming and digital interface as they permeate slowly through our society. However, it became clear to me that while Levy understands fundamentally and clearly what's happening in our culture with technology, he exhibits a intermediate grasp on the technology and uses his last paragraph to, in the ongoing spirit of Wired Magazine, take a shot at virtual worlds.

The irony is that while his grasp of the technology is a bit less than stellar, he seems to grasp the nature of The Metaverse being a continuous technological space perfectly. He just names it "digital world". It's funny to me how anyone could miss how nearly literally identical these two terms are, but I digress.

In the article, Levy focuses on three products: iPhone, Wii, and Guitar Hero. He notes that they are huge in 2008. Levy comes out and says early in the article that what they have in common is that they, "integrate the digital world into the physical world in a straightforward way." It's an astute observation, considering that 99% of America has a mental divide between game-space (Wii, Guitar Hero, and the like) and communication-space. (iPhone, PDAs, other similar tech) And indeed, near the middle of his article, he is right when he states:

"[It] Turns out [that] you don't need total immersion immersion to interact naturally with a digital world"

He describes how the Wii makes you do the same actions as your avatars. Unfortunately, he fails to use the word "avatar", which might explain why by the end of the article he hasn't made the connection that virtual worlds are a happy, valid part of this "digital world"-space. His last paragraph contrasts the three technologies with virtual worlds:

"We once talked about cyberspace as a distant cosmos, a digital outland that left the physical world behind."

I have written previously that virtual worlds such as "Second Life" and "There" have really bad names, for this reason. It continues to propagate this belief that virtual worlds are some sort of other, rather than some sort of extension to, reality. It goes back to "Virtual Reality". I mean, why did computer scientists decide to make that distinction in the first place? Why not just call them digital worlds, or realms, etc? Well, in fact, some did, as well, but "Virtual Reality" was attached to the commercially available products. So, just like "Second Life", bad naming in advertising strikes again.

Author Levy finishes his article with a continuation of the previous thought:

"21st-century reality is a blend of the digital and physical, with a borderline so blurred it's not really a line at all."

Yes! Precisely! And yet, just two sentences earlier was that same line-drawing he's speaking out against, when he draws the distinction between the Wii, Guitar Hero, and iPhones, with virtual worlds.

The Tech: It's All Been Done

Let me back up a second, though. I did note that Levy's Knowles of the technology wasn't so hot. I need to back this up:

Yes, Levy acknowledges that all three of the products he talks about "were released earlier" but "in 2008 they dominated the zeitgeist". Well, at least the techy zeitgeist. The overwhelming majority of Americans own none of the three, but at least chances are most Americans will have heard of all three. But, even acknowledging that they "were released earlier" kind of ignores the significance of the tech he's talking about.

As I quoted before, Levy cites Guitar Hero and Wii's innovative controllers as forms of virtual reality without headsets. He then elaborates:

"The games of Wii Sports allow you to perform the same actions you do in the athletics they simulate."

Except this is neither a new phenomenon, nor limited to Guitar Hero.

Guitar Hero was originally Guitar Freaks by the illustrious Konami. It came out first in 1998. (In Japan, naturally.) But let's think about this ... how many games can you, readers, think of whose controllers simulate the same actions?

- Guns (countless games)
- Boxing Gloves (various premium arcade games)
- Steering Wheels (countless games)
- A full cockpit of a spaceship / sit on motorbike (countless games)
- Golf clubs (premium arcade simulations)
- Bongos (Donkey Congo, a Gamecube title)

These are all pretty common things in the video game industry, which has been pretty popular since the 80s. Why is a guitar controller, or a remote, any different? They aren't. they're just the next iteration. Even Atari home consoles had controllers with wheels in which to play certain games, like Night Driver.

What's innovative about the Wii and Guitar Hero has so much less to do with "new technology", and more about the fact that CPU time has come to a place where the visual are good enough to make you feel like you're in the game. And this is *precisely* the same thing that has slowed down virtual worlds. So, no real difference, here.

Then there's the iPhone. I know I may get hate mail or angry comments for saying this, but the iPhone? Not all that technologically innovative. Touch-screens have been out forever. Instant Messaging and pictures on phones have been out forever. Apple did a fantastic job making it user-friendly, and sexy-looking, but advancing the technology? Eh, not so much. It's about user-interface being made easier, not being made entirely different. Which, again, is the same issue that we currently have with virtual worlds; we need a sexy iPhone version of virtual worlds that will sell.

See, the thing is, Wired Magazine is a trend-spotter. They spot trends, they write about trends, and they are content with trends. But, when it comes to technology, things are moving at such a break-neck pace that by the time some technology is a trend, it's already second or third generation of that technology. The real cutting-edge stuff rarely makes it to the pages of national magazines. I could venture a guess and say it's because the cutting-edge stuff isn't quite ready for mass-market consumerism, and that magazines like Wired cater to Yuppies and Hipsters with too much money to spend on gadgets, and the advertisers who want to sell those gadgets.

But I digress.

The point is that Levy's right, and he misses the point nonetheless. He's totally right that The Metaverse - what he calls "the digital world" - is a conglomoration of all sorts of communication and digital worlds, from gaming to cellular communication. He aptly identifies why things are good, and why they are all part of this same space. And. Yet. The. Dig. Against. Virtual worlds.