What, they're not mentioning "Metaverse" and "NFT", and they don't have a blockchain? They're missing the hype train.
Right now, there's a huge boom in "blockchain metaverses". Search for "metaverse" in News for info.
The idea is to have a virtual world in which you can buy scarce land and maybe scarce objects. There are at least a dozen of these things. As virtual worlds, they're awful. The graphics are bad, the worlds are tiny, you can't do much, and nobody goes there. It's all about selling land and "rares". There are at least two such things where they skipped building the virtual world and just sell land on a map. On top of this fluff, there's now a virtual land real estate investment trust.
I want to see a good big "metaverse". Right now, 19 year old Second Life is still the best recreational virtual world, despite a lack of forward progress in the last few years from Linden Lab. Roblox is getting steadily better, moving past their blocky origins. IMVU is trying harder. Epic keeps talking up the "metaverse", but all they have shown so far is a level editor for Fortnite.
Improbable [1] raised US$400 million to build a back-end system for really big virtual worlds. It even works, more or less. But you have to host on their servers (Google's, actually) and the thing is so expensive to run that the three indy games that used it all went broke.
Since they raised too much money, they now have two in-house game studios, which have shipped nothing.
You don't need to scroll all the way down to a couple random comments mentioning NFT to see the project is a scam. It's very obvious just by watching the video or reading the first paragraph, it's just ridiculous.
Well, the good part about these metaverses is that they can actually create an income for people who own this virtual land/resources. I personally know people who earn a substantial income from owning land in games like MegaCryptopolis.
I understand the skepticism, but to me, it seems like a better model than you paying a video game developer for virtual resources and getting nothing in return. With these metaverses, you at least get to own the resource and perhaps even make money off of it.
If you can trade it, keep it in your own wallet, transfer it across accounts, that’s ownership. These are all ERC-721 tokens so they are under your control at all times. The servers can die but you can always still interact with the smart contracts and sell it on any marketplace.
Happened with a lot of older NFTs like Cryptokitties and CurioCards. The old servers died but you could still recover the tokens through smart contracts.
Right now, there's a huge boom in "blockchain metaverses". Search for "metaverse" in News for info. The idea is to have a virtual world in which you can buy scarce land and maybe scarce objects. There are at least a dozen of these things. As virtual worlds, they're awful. The graphics are bad, the worlds are tiny, you can't do much, and nobody goes there. It's all about selling land and "rares". There are at least two such things where they skipped building the virtual world and just sell land on a map. On top of this fluff, there's now a virtual land real estate investment trust.
I want to see a good big "metaverse". Right now, 19 year old Second Life is still the best recreational virtual world, despite a lack of forward progress in the last few years from Linden Lab. Roblox is getting steadily better, moving past their blocky origins. IMVU is trying harder. Epic keeps talking up the "metaverse", but all they have shown so far is a level editor for Fortnite.
Improbable [1] raised US$400 million to build a back-end system for really big virtual worlds. It even works, more or less. But you have to host on their servers (Google's, actually) and the thing is so expensive to run that the three indy games that used it all went broke. Since they raised too much money, they now have two in-house game studios, which have shipped nothing.
[1] https://www.improbable.io