The metaverse is a technological promise, as one emerges regularly. Even if GAFAM’s marketing blurs the lines a bit, the failures of the past have rather been those of temporality: the Apple Newton of the 90s took ten more years to emerge until a Palm Pilot in early 2000 that turned into a smartphone in 2007; Google’s augmented reality glasses of 2014 should gradually give way to augmented reality tools of the same kind.
So what about the metaverse?
It’s being heralded as the revolution of Web3, especially in terms of user experience; so I went through the main virtual worlds available to the general public to form an opinion and to project myself towards possible new uses for museums and cultural mediation.
A social network 2.0!
There are many metaverse: Decentraland, Meta Horizons, The sandbox, Roblox…
I have tried the experience on Meta Horizon, Decentraland and The sandbox.
First observation: not so much changes compared to Second Life, which is almost 20 years old and which had its glory days before falling dramatically.
Second observation: There is not much to do except discovering the proposed universes, which can be a handicap on the long term; but this issue was quite similar at the beginning of the Internet. So we have to project ourselves into the future by finding the strengths of these virtual worlds to understand how the public can find an interest in them.
And it’s in the social network field that I find the most striking innovation. In Meta Horizon, each user creates an avatar and then navigates the virtual worlds with their microphone open by default. As you approach a group in the middle of a discussion, you hear the conversation and are usually invited to join in.
Therefore, relationships are formed spontaneously and this is the main revolution of virtual worlds, in my opinion.
Digital clone
Graphically speaking, the virtual worlds are rather poor, even downright rudimentary (this is the case for META horizons); thus, one cannot assimilate the metaverse to a digital clone of existing places, but rather to that of a video game imaginary.
This is also due to the will of some editors to simplify the creation of universes to remove the technological barrier to entry for the general public wanting to invest in new places.
Most virtual worlds are based on property that is for sale on the platforms and whose owner has a unique NFT certification.
The real estate market on the metaverse is particularly speculative and can collapse overnight.
And what about the cultural sector and museums?
The reproduction of digital clones is not very interesting because of the rusticity of the graphic renderings and the difficulty, at this stage, to attract the public durably. I have seen some experiences in the heritage domain such as the visit of the Westminster Abbey or virtual museums with 3D collections; the result is a bit terrifying to see…
It is in the event area that I think there are the most opportunities.
Events combine the power of social networking with real immersive videos. The audience can interact and the offered experience brings a real added value compared to reality.
One can imagine interpretation centers offering interactive workshops that, even if rudimentary, can create a real collaborative experience. In this regard, the metaverse is promising and brings a dimension of real-time exchange that brings a veritable added value compared to Second Life for example.
The audience will be there if the contents are worthy and the contents will exist only if there is an audience in these virtual worlds… That’s the dilemma. Hence, to be carefully monitored…
