The term ‘metaverse’ has taken center stage in discussions around the future of gaming, but experts are divided on whether it’s a viable concept or a passing trend.
At a recent gaming conference titled “The Future of Gaming,” attendees expressed skepticism about the metaverse, often using it in a pejorative sense. They suggested that the term symbolized the media’s tendency to chase after the latest shiny object rather than a genuine innovation driven by gamers’ demand.
Gaming journalist Shay Thompson, speaking at the conference, noted that she was never enthusiastic about the metaverse. She argued that what is now commonly referred to as the metaverse in media was, in reality, already present in forms like Second Life. She found the hype surrounding it somewhat unwarranted and questioned the need to label experiences like Fortnite and Roblox as “the metaverse.” Thompson also highlighted the need for significant improvements in user experience, particularly related to virtual reality (VR) headsets, which often cause discomfort.
A panel of gaming experts at the same conference held varying opinions on the metaverse’s future. Laura Ballesteros, the head of agency sales strategy at gaming adtech company Venatus, vehemently disagreed with the notion that the metaverse is dead. She pointed to the immense popularity and profitability of gaming metaverse platforms like Roblox and Fortnite. In-game purchases of cosmetic items in these platforms reportedly generated $5.8 billion in revenue for Epic Games in 2021, surpassing the revenue of well-known fashion brands.
Cecilia Dones, an adjunct assistant professor at Columbia Business School, acknowledged the metaverse’s potential but cautioned that there is a conflation between Mark Zuckerberg’s vision of Web 3.0 through virtual reality and the more prevalent Web 2.0 experiences found in platforms like Roblox and Fortnite. She advised brands to experiment within the more mature environment of Web 2.0 games before fully embracing augmented reality, which she deemed “the next fringe area” of technological development.
Phil Rowley, Omnicom Media Group’s head of futures, noted the confusion surrounding the term ‘metaverse.’ He suggested that it may require redefinition or reframing, given its ambiguous usage. He likened the situation to the confusion between different parts of a tree, emphasizing that the current iteration of the metaverse may not be as successful as initially hoped. He also cautioned against equating the metaverse with gaming in general, as this could lead marketers to miss out on the vast gaming audience due to misperceptions.
Amy Meikle, head of Wavemaker Play, shared Rowley’s concerns and expressed the need to move past the term “the metaverse.” She argued that the word’s broad and varied definitions had made it confusing for marketers. Additionally, she highlighted the safety concerns associated with the metaverse, which had discouraged some brands from investing in gaming. Meikle pointed to a Channel 4 documentary that had raised concerns about the safety of the metaverse for both brands and users.
In conclusion, the metaverse remains a divisive topic in the gaming industry, with some experts seeing it as a thriving and profitable concept, while others believe it needs to be redefined or buried altogether due to its ambiguity and potential safety issues.
