Re: storing visiblity info. in VRML (fwd)
Jon Holdsworth (jon@melb.alexia.net.au)
Sun, 3 Sep 1995 12:13:58 +1000 (EST)
>
> From: unitcirc@netcom.com (Kevin Goldsmith)
> Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 11:45:34 -0700 (PDT)
> X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Length: 941
> Sender: owner-vworlds-list@netcom.com
> Precedence: list
> Reply-To: vworlds-list@netcom.com
>
> Brandon sez:
> > I offer the following conjecture: the entire concept of "virtual real
> > estate" may very well fall flat on its butt. The whole concept is
> > predicated around the notion that users are actually willing to wander
> > around a virtual world on foot when the neighborhood is commercial.
> > On-foot traversals are tedious, and it's very unlikely that people
> > will waste their time going out of their way to see commercials.
> >
> There are reasons to make people walk though. Randy Farmer and
> Chip Morningstar had some good points in their paper on Habitat in the
> Benedikt Cyberspace book. One of them was that it was good to make
> people walk. It lets them meet their neighbors and feel a sense of
> attachment to their "virtual" community.
>
> Of course these "virtual" communities are competing against real life
> communities with live, fleshy human beings - which is sort of my
> point. In general, people aren't likely to do things in "virtual
> life" which are cheap, slow simulacra of things they can do, or have
> to avoid, in real life.
>
> Does this mean that we're headed for a VR universe of people who
> really don't get along with their neighbors in real life, and seek VR
> as their primary means of escape?
>
> I agree though that the idea of
> "Virtual Real Estate" is questionable. Although, I think that the idea
> of Condominiums is also questionable, so you have to temper my opinions.
>
> I've never really thought about Condominiums in quite that way
> before.... :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Brandon
>
>