Re: VRE, the Sandbox paradigm, and transportation issues
Jon Holdsworth (jon@melb.alexia.net.au)
Sat, 9 Sep 1995 12:14:15 +1000 (EST)
>
>
> >Now that's a question of Orwellian import. Let's forget the standard
> >answers of "if they like the VR enough, they'll put up with a few
> >ads." Let's go beyond that, into a more sinister realm.
> >Psychologically speaking, can a mass market audience actually be
> >lured, trained, and socially conditioned to participate in degrading
> >VR experiences, despite their complete freedom to do otherwise?
>
> All things are possible. They might allow the degradation simply because
> they know that it's not *real*.
>
> Now there's a concept! People living out degrading, escapist
> fantasies of guilt that they can't deal with in real life, precisely
> because VR isn't real life... and the advertizers take advantage of
> it... I'd like to think this is more the subject of a kinky work of
> fiction, rather than anything people will get around to in real life.
>
> Then again, what if you feel guilty about not being beautiful enough?
> Cool enough? Sexy enough? Talented enough? VR is the escape, the
> advertizers provide the means....
>
> Advertizers are not above preying upon people's fears.
>
> >Now if economically speaking hundreds of small VR service providers
> >can survive in the marketplace, then consumers will really get a
> >choice, and "no ads" may indeed become so common that ad-based
> >approaches won't work. The question is how to ensure their survival.
> >What's to stop a Microsoft or an MCI from "cyborg-ing" them, and
> >creating a more monolithic playing field?
>
> you seem to be in an Orwellian funk today;
>
> Well, it's sparking conversation, so why not. :-)
>
> the only thing stopping the monolith is us, the content providers who are
> already here.
>
> Right, and there's danger on the horizion for VR providers everywhere.
> Shakeouts. Consolidations. But I suppose this is a topic for the
> vbiz list, not here.
>
> Again, I shoulda explained my meaning here a little more. In America, TV
> advertising consumes nearly 1/3 of all broadcast time for shows. and the
> images pop up at any point during the program. This is the paradigm that
> can't and won't translate.
>
> It could translate if there's a sufficient carrot added. Consumers
> would have to be "bought" somehow - either with cheap online rates, or
> fascinating content, or something.
>
> Also, there's the paradigm of the "fast food strip," with billboards
> everywhere the eye can see. I'm afraid the translation for this kind
> of environment is all too obvious. It's what people are trying
> already, with "virtual shopping malls" and all.
>
> Also, once the net and VR and up to our wildest
> expectations (10, 15 or 20 years?) with viewers being able to choose from
> thousands and millions of things and advertisers being able to niche market
> more, won't we look back at our previous infomercials and shiver?
>
> This is where I caution us not to assume that the VR technology will
> simply march forward and solve all these problems. Over the past 25
> years, VR has _not_ marched forwards. It has made relatively little
> progress compared to most other aspects of computerdom, because after
> all, VR is really hard to do. The reason we talk about "VR hype" is
> because it's just that - hype.
>
> In computerdom we tend to assume that everything advances at breakneck
> speed. In reality, only basic hardware advances at breakneck speed.
> Look at DOS - we're only now just starting to get rid of it. Our
> current widely-accepted computer language / programming technology is
> merely C++. And I fear that the VR "technology track" may be even
> slower than either of these.
>
> When you've got that kind of technological sloth at work, you have to
> start looking at how the social factors are going to affect the
> technology development. It is not out of the realm of possibilty that
> VR will completely stagnate, and become "the AI of the 90's." I think
> this means we have to ask some hard questions about how to push VR
> forwards, both socially and artistically. The technology ain't gonna
> get there on it's own.
>
> Cheers,
> Brandon
>