Grand Unified MMOG Theory

[Krakrok]

Still interested in why you don't think SecondLife constitutes a 3D web, HaemishM.

---

I would also point out that cell phones have shitty input devices and the three big graphics chip makers have all come out with 3D chips for cell phones.

[HaemishM]

I'm still trying to figure out what you think actually makes Second Life a 3d web.

It's a 3d chat room, with some other nice features (streaming audio/video) etc. thrown in. The two are greatly dissimilar. I'd compare a 3d web to an actual library before I'd compare it to a game-ish environment like Second Life.

And I'll repeat. I think a 3d interface to the web while still keeping the web on a 2d output device like a monitor is just adding an ill-fitting interface of obstruction.

[Telemediocrity]

I would also point out that cell phones have shitty input devices and the three big graphics chip makers have all come out with 3D chips for cell phones.

My cell phone has a 3D chip.  It uses the 3D for localized applets, most notably games.  I have a snowboarding game on my phone that's in some ways akin to a stripped-down 1080 Snowboarding.

[Krakrok]

It's a 3d chat room, with some other nice features (streaming audio/video) etc. thrown in. The two are greatly dissimilar. I'd compare a 3d web to an actual library before I'd compare it to a game-ish environment like Second Life.

The technological back end is basically a web server. Dynamic content is streamed to the client in real time. It has hyperlinks. It has it's own internal DNS system. Everything above that is a facade.

[HaemishM]

Except that Second Life is not meant as a content delivery system, it's meant as a socializing mechanism. It's more like a message board than the entire web. The fact that its backend can stream content doesn't make it a 3d web. I don't jump on Second Life to browse pr0n, though I might browse pr0n while on Second Life.

[Krakrok]

Except that Second Life is not meant as a content delivery system

If that were true you wouldn't be able to build (and 'sell') your own content and write your own scripts.

it's meant as a socializing mechanism.  It's more like a message board than the entire web.

The web is a socializing mechanism. SL only appears that way because it is a closed system. If the client/server protocol was an open standard it would no longer be a closed system (which I've already stated).

The fact that its backend can stream content doesn't make it a 3d web.

I would agrue that hyperlink embedded content is the web. Everything else is a facade.

[Telemediocrity]

The web is a socializing mechanism.

Some of it is.  What about Google Scholar?

I would agrue that hyperlink embedded content is the web. Everything else is a facade.

Hyperlinks have to be presented in a useful format, though.  I don't see what wikipedia gains by going 3D, but I see what it'd lose.

[HaemishM]

Except that Second Life is not meant as a content delivery system

If that were true you wouldn't be able to build (and 'sell') your own content and write your own scripts.

That is not it's primary function, that is a feature of the socializing mechanism which IS its primary feature.

it's meant as a socializing mechanism.  It's more like a message board than the entire web.

The web is a socializing mechanism. SL only appears that way because it is a closed system. If the client/server protocol was an open standard it would no longer be a closed system (which I've already stated).

Ok, so you can add your own content to Second Life, yet its a closed system just because the client/server protocol isn't an open standard? MEH? You still haven't told me why its the exact same as a 3D web.

A 3D web would add travel time to the otherwise easily traversed 2D web. What good would that do? About the only "benefit" I can see of a 3D web would be the illusion of "window shopping" or the return of browsing at random from 1995. That's not that interesting, based on the "99% of all creative is crap" rule. Frankly, the web works better with the current 2D input/output paradigm of the monitor/mouse with one click browsing than it would with walking around in some faux 3D world.

A 3D web would raise the profit margins for 3D card manufacturers. For everyone else, it'd just be a waste of time until we have actual 3D holographic displays.

[Krakrok]

Ok, so you can add your own content to Second Life, yet its a closed system just because the client/server protocol isn't an open standard? MEH? You still haven't told me why its the exact same as a 3D web.

It is a closed system because I can't run my own server and I can't create a hyperlink from my server to your server. I can't write my own server software and I can't write my own client based on an open 'SL' protocol. A single company owns the server side and there is no room for change or innovation in the ruleset or technology of said server and client. SecondLife is like the AOL or Prodigy or Compuserves of the 90s.

A 3D web would add travel time to the otherwise easily traversed 2D web.

Travel time is an artificial construct of current MMOGs. There is no reason to force users to 'walk' from website to website. The same instantanious transfer that happens now when you click a hyperlink can continue to happen. SL allows direct teleports though they may have it artifically limited to give credence to their 'land' constructs. Additionally, if I am on website A which is being served by company A and I click over to website B which is being served by company B I am now accessing company B's server which can and does have an entirely different ruleset than company A. When you run the server you can make the rules be whatever you want in your own 3D space (as previously stated in regards to the NWN server vs client saved characters).

Frankly, the web works better with the current 2D input/output paradigm of the monitor/mouse with one click browsing than it would with walking around in some faux 3D world.

No one is advocating ditching the current 2D web interface. In software such as Croquet (see screenshot) 2D content is co-oped into the 3D interface via 'portals' or whatever. SL is currently implimenting FireFox into SL as well. Why it takes them a year to do this I have no idea.


What I am saying is that at some point there is going to emerge a widely accepted/deployed 3D web architecture which will allow the use of 3D crap without the need of other proprietary hard to use third party crap in a 'web browser'. It very well could be that Microsoft will impliment some form of sandboxed DirectX into Internet Explorer, or Adobe will open the Macromedia Shockwave 3D protocol/server/client, or SecondLife, or someone entirely different (like Spore). Additionally, the mobile market is a prime target for such an application because of the lack of a usable interface.

[HaemishM]

Travel time is an artificial construct of current MMOGs. There is no reason to force users to 'walk' from website to website. The same instantanious transfer that happens now when you click a hyperlink can continue to happen. SL allows direct teleports though they may have it artifically limited to give credence to their 'land' constructs. Additionally, if I am on website A which is being served by company A and I click over to website B which is being served by company B I am now accessing company B's server which can and does have an entirely different ruleset than company A. When you run the server you can make the rules be whatever you want in your own 3D space (as previously stated in regards to the NWN server vs client saved characters).

If you can teleport directly from one content point to another, what exactly is the point of having a 3D interface on top of the web? Seriously, I cannot fathom why you think that's somehow important or even needed. Is it so you can browse two pieces of content in the same viewing port? Is there some grand idea that suddenly makes that idea make sense or am I just too dense to get it.

Unless the 3D functions around me (holographic display), I see nothing a 3D interface would add onto the web worthwhile.

[Krakrok]

I can't help you there then because I can't even count all the ways where it would be useful.

[HaemishM]

That's not a convincing argument. That doesn't even tell me you know any of them.

Come on, just one way.

[Krakrok]

I already listed two in regards to porn. But another example might be Google Earth in the browser instead of Google Maps. With real time traffic/weather. You know Google purchased Sketchup right?

[Margalis]

GoogleEarth has actual 3D data in it. 99.9% of websites content does not.

Websites are mostly information browsing - really online catalogs. Those don't benefit from being in 3D.

Are there some specific applications for 3D on the web? Sure. If you are shopping for something online how about a nice 3D view of the item that you can rotate, zoom, etc? Sounds good to me. (A lot of websites already have this functionality) But that would still be on a 2D website.

Look at the picture you linked to. It's just a 2D site pasted onto a 3D block off-angle so it's hard to read and doesn't take up the full screen.

When you open a document in word it doesn't create some snazzy 3D book that you can rotate. Because text+image is best served out as a simple orthographic projection and most data is text+image.

The vast majority of websites have nothing interesting to offer in 3D and certainly the navigation/interface itself is much better suited for 2D display. Just as the UI on a 3D game is still essentially 2D.

[HaemishM]

I already listed two in regards to porn. But another example might be Google Earth in the browser instead of Google Maps. With real time traffic/weather. You know Google purchased Sketchup right?

Still not seeing what a 3D interface on the web would do for me. Do I get to Google up my location on Earth and get a 3D representation of the rain all around me? Just like going outside, only not?

As an adjunct to the web, sure 3D things like Sketchup can help. Virtual tours of houses and buildings and future projects. None of which needs a 3D interface on the web.

Pr0n? 3D pr0n? Great, I can see the money shot in bullet time. SO WHAT?

[tkinnun0]

If your version of 3D Web (displaying 2D pages with a 3D card) was any good, it would be already in use. No need to slam it any more, yes, it sucks.

When I start from a news aggregator site, I sometimes have to go thru a site or two to get to the real story. I would like to see this path visualized before me before I click the first link. If the path ventures to the pus-filled pit, aka blogosphere, I'd like to skip right to the end. Imagine, if you will, the starmap of Eve, and a journey from empire-controlled space to another empire's space thru 0.0 security systems.

[bhodi]

If your version of 3D Web (displaying 2D pages with a 3D card) was any good, it would be already in use. No need to slam it any more, yes, it sucks.

When I start from a news aggregator site, I sometimes have to go thru a site or two to get to the real story. I would like to see this path visualized before me before I click the first link. If the path ventures to the pus-filled pit, aka blogosphere, I'd like to skip right to the end. Imagine, if you will, the starmap of Eve, and a journey from empire-controlled space to another empire's space thru 0.0 security systems.

ah, but see, that muddies the water - let's imagine for a minute you get what you want - and behind that main page you see.. what's this? 30 pages? that's right, most pages have dozens of hyperlinks on them, and the computer's not going to know what you want to look at.. if you want to do 3 or 4 deep you quickly get buried. Theoretically goggle could step in, maybe, and look for similiarities and key words between the first and second, but there are bound to be flaws... in the end, it's likely no faster or better than what we've got now.

[Krakrok]

99.9% of websites content does not.

I'll be sure to remember that when MySpace impliments personal 3D spaces for their ~60 million users instead of a single 2D webpage.

SO WHAT?

And here I thought my apathy was strong at 60%.

If your version of 3D Web (displaying 2D pages with a 3D card) was any good, it would be already in use.

No. Currently available open 3D software/content is expensive, kludgy, and not widely deployed. Shockwave 3D has 55% browser penetration and I don't know of anything with a higher penetration. And only now is broadband reaching critical mass in the US.

[Telemediocrity]

No. Currently available open 3D software/content is expensive, kludgy, and not widely deployed. Shockwave 3D has 55% browser penetration and I don't know of anything with a higher penetration. And only now is broadband reaching critical mass in the US.

If this were the Next Big Thing, there'd be so much research money pumped into it by the likes of MS and others it wouldn't be funny, and it'd be well and ready to go long before broadband penetration hit, so content creators would be getting a head start.

The fact that you're having to wonder if Second Life will be the savior of the interweb suggests otherwise.

[Krakrok]

look at me look at me

Pro Tip: Don't quit your day job at the soup kitchen.

[Telemediocrity]

look at me look at me

Pro Tip: Don't quit your day job at the soup kitchen.

I haven't worked there since high school, thank god. Also, you failed to respond to my point, which is that your predictive powers do not likely outstrip those of, say, Microsoft or Google.

[Margalis]

I've yet to hear how the 3D web is useful at all.

Let's take some websites I visit regularly:

ESPN
Yahoo Fantasy Baseball
f13

Why do I want these in 3D again? Again let me point out, the web is mostly about browsing information and most information is in the form of text + images.

That's awesome that myspace is going to have "3D personal spaces" or whatever but I don't think the MySpace main website is going to be 3D anytime soon.

It has little to do with penetration. The problem is 3D in a web browser is trying to force a square peg into a round hole most of the time. Right now I'm posting this in a text area. How would that be better in 3D? Let's not forget that HTML is not a 3D markup language...

3D renders of things make sense for objects that have volume. Text does not have volume. Baseball stats don't have volume.

[WindupAtheist]

[1996]Someday cyberspace will be virtual reality![/1996]

[Lantyssa]

I've yet to hear how the 3D web is useful at all.

Imagine Clint's gun popping out from the screen in glorious 3D!

[Krakrok]

Why do I want these in 3D again? Again let me point out, the web is mostly about browsing information and most information is in the form of text + images.

I already addressed this when I said a 3D web probably isn't going to replace a 2D web. A smart '3D browser' would simply co-op 2D and 3D into one application. And as I already pointed out a sandboxed DirectX in Internet Explorer which reads from a 3D markup language would do the trick nicely.

That's awesome that myspace is going to have "3D personal spaces" or whatever but I don't think the MySpace main website is going to be 3D anytime soon.

I didn't say it was going to. Someone wanted examples of 3D uses and MySpace adding personal 3D instances would be one example. They may do it. They may not. Or someone else may do it. I have no idea. However, it torpedoes your '99% of the web doesn't need 3D' in my opinion.

We won't know all the ways one billion internet users can think up to do with a 3D web until it happens.

[1996]Someday cyberspace will be virtual reality![/1996]

They tried it. It was called VRML. It never received wide enough market penetration. No one had 3D cards. No one had broadband. Game over.

[HaemishM]

VRML was also slow as shit, required actual knowledge of 3D rendering and such. Oh and it DIDN'T provide anything useful to the web. There were a lot of reasons it died, but that was the biggest one.