What was the cause of the metaverse's failure?

The biggest reason the metaverse stalled is that "demand was not established, not the technology." In other words,

1. they built what they could build

2. but there was no reason for people to use it daily

This is the essence.

Organizing the premises

Meta Platforms made huge investments and positioned the metaverse as the next-generation main battlefield. However, in reality,

• failure in user retention

• stagnation in monetization

occurred, leading to a review of their strategy.

Cause of failure 1: There is nothing to do

This is the most fatal. What you can do in the metaverse was limited to

• chatting

• events

• simple games

However, these are already sufficiently satisfied by

• existing social media

• existing games

As a result,

there was no reason to go out of one's way to do it in the metaverse

Cause of failure 2: The cost is too high

The metaverse

• VR equipment

• high-performance PCs

• communication environments

often requires these, making the barrier to entry high. On the other hand, the experience gained is not that dramatic, so

the value does not match the cost

Failure factor 3: The experience is inconvenient

Real-world social media

• can be opened immediately

• can be posted to immediately

whereas the metaverse has

• logins

• avatar manipulation

• movement

and other such hassles. In other words,

it is not suitable for daily use

Failure factor 4: The business model is weak

In the metaverse,

• land sales

• item sales

• Advertising

and other methods were tested, but they are weak as sustainable revenue models. This is because the users themselves are not sticking around.

Reason for failure 5: Excessive expectations

"The next internet"
"It will become the center of life"

and other excessive expectations took the lead. However, in reality, it remained a

service with limited use cases

. This gap has intensified the sense of failure.

Reason for failure 6: The competition was too strong

In reality,

• SNS

• games

• video streaming

and other existing services are extremely powerful. The metaverse could not offer enough value to replace them.

Essence

To put it in one line:

"The technology existed, but there was no reason to change habits"

Summary

The reasons for the metaverse's failure were

• nothing to do

• high costs

• Difficult to use

• Cannot be monetized

These are complex factors, but the most important one is the lack of a necessity for daily use.

It is essentially quite similar. However,

the philosophy is the same, but the scale and expectations were orders of magnitude larger

This is the decisive difference.

What is the same?

Ameba Pigg and the so-called metaverse share almost the same core structure.

• Acting through an avatar

• Gathering in a virtual space

• Interacting with others

• Expressing oneself through items

In other words,

'another living space in the digital world'

is the same concept.

Actually, Ameba Pigg was already complete

This is the important part. Ameba Pigg was

• lightweight

• easy to enter

• simple to operate

• integrated into daily life

in its design. Therefore, it was a service that

actually functioned as a 'place to be'

.

Differences from the metaverse

There are mainly three differences.

1 Too heavy

Because the metaverse was based on

• 3D

• VR

• high load

it had the problems of

• not being easy to enter

• not being sustainable

.

2 Vague purpose

Ameba Pigg had

• chat

• games

• events

as clear use cases. On the other hand, the metaverse tried to do

• work

• play

• daily life

all at once, and as a result, it became unclear what the space was for

3 Excessive expectations

Ameba Pigg was a single community service, but the metaverse was

talked about as the "next internet."

Because of this, the gap with reality became fatal

Essential differences

This is the most important point.

Ameba Pigg
→ Established itself as entertainment

Metaverse
→ Failed by trying to become infrastructure

A paradoxical perspective

This is a quite important viewpoint, but

It could be said that the metaverse wasn't new, but rather an attempt to "excessively expand on things that have existed for a long time."

Summary

Conclusion

As you pointed out, the essence is almost the same. The difference boils down to one point:

• whether it was established as a lightweight and practical service

• or whether it was too heavy and chased ideals too much.

This is what it all comes down to.

The direction is sound, and it is more likely to succeed realistically than a "full metaverse." However,

there is almost no value in "being metaverse-like" in itself; everything depends on whether it makes work easier.

Why is this direction easier to establish?

Tools like Zoom already have

• a clear purpose,

• daily demand,

• and a low learning curve.

Here,

• Lightweight avatar representation

• Spatial arrangement

• Expression of gaze and distance

Adding these isan 'extension' rather than a 'replacement', so they are easily accepted.

Elements that are actually easy to evaluate

When things go well, the following points are appreciated:

• It is easy to tell who is talking to whom

• Casual chat and meetings can be separated

• Conversations among multiple people branch off naturally

This is in the direction of compensating for the weaknesses of conventional video conferencing. In other words, the value is'communication improvement' rather than metaverse elements.

Why did the conventional metaverse fail? (Re-organized)

The conventional type was based on the idea of

• replacing everything

• creating a new living space

However, this had the problems of

• high learning costs

• weak reasons for use

.

Reasons why it is still difficult

Even in this direction, it is not easy.

1 Unnecessary operations are disliked

• Avatar control

• Movement

• Changing viewpoints

When these increase, it just becomes more troublesome than Zoom.

2 Cameras provide more information

• Facial expressions

• Atmosphere

• Vibe

are overwhelmingly stronger in real-life video. Therefore, turning into an avatar can sometimes lead to degradation

3 If it leans toward "play," it won't be used for work

Even if it looks fun, if work efficiency drops, it will be cut immediately.

Conditions for success

For this to work in this direction, there are quite severe conditions.

• Fast startup

• Almost no operation required

• As efficient as or better than existing tools

• Easy to introduce

In other words,

• if it is easier than Zoom, it will be adopted

• If it's even slightly troublesome, it will be discarded

Summary

The direction of "making Zoom metaverse-like" is,

• more realistic and makes more sense than traditional metaverses

• However, the conditions for success are extremely strict

is the positioning. Ultimately, what matters is not whether it is a metaverse, but only "whether it makes work faster."only.

[PR] Tales of Berseria Remaster - PS5

AI-generated, for reference only.