Tim Sweeney: More 3D Engines Means Multiple Metaverses -- But Interoperability Might Still Be Possible

Here's a really interesting "Economy of the Metaverse" conversation with Epic's Tim Sweeney and game exec Joseph Kim. A lot of its focus, of course, is on how Epic's Fortnite might be a future model for the metaverse. But much of it is actually about the current platform ecosystem (Apple's App Store, Google Play, Amazon, etc.), which Sweeney finds too closed and prohibitive to birth the metaverse:

I think the most plausible way the Metaverse is going to rise isn’t from one company even Epic building this thing and forcing everybody to use it. It’s going to be from more and more companies and brands connecting their products and services until you have a much, much more open thing that everybody participates in... I think interconnecting systems is a great way to to to move forward with this. I think, you know, a lot of the big game companies and even many of the ecosystem companies have come to the realization that they’re never going to be the one monopoly that dominates the whole thing. And so it’s in everybody’s interest to really interconnect and standardize over time. And to build this more connected world and to all benefit from it side by side with no one company dominating. 

Which is a great vision, but while reading this interview (actually a transcript, video the actual video below), I kept thinking about the biggest barrier to building THE Metaverse -- a coming competition between the 3D engines required to build it. Sweeney more or less alludes to this:

If you want an engine, you can choose Unity, with a one business model. It’s based on a per seat license cost. Or you can choose Epic, which is free to use but carries a royalty on profit or you can use like the Godot Engine, which is free and open source. And you can use it for anything you want, not pay a penny, and you can contribute your changes back to the community. So you have great, great competition in the engine sphere and then you have online services.

But great competition means there will be competing metaverses built on competing 3D engines, right? And therefore, no one unifying metaverse we are all able to share?

I put this question to Sweeney on Twitter by asking:

"[I wonder if you think that] 3D engines need to avoid another browser war to make THE metaverse possible. Or is it better to have many separate competing metaverses for Unreal, Godot, Unity, etc?"

Sweeney's answer:

"More engines means more exploration of the possibilities. The variety is a good thing."

However, even if there are many metaverses, we might still get interoperability between them, at least on a limited level. Me again, asking Sweeney:

"Do you see interoperability between different metaverses happening? Say on a 3D model/rigging/scripting level with some shared standards? Unity-borne monsters playing nice in Unreal-based worlds and vice versa?"

Sweeney's reply: "Someday! It might be that there are different server side programming environments but a common client networking protocol and scene format. That is easier than standardizing the whole stack at once."

Much more here, including a side conversation with Adam Frisby on the programming resources needed to actually get a metaverse to run.

Good stuff! I wonder what @TimSweeneyEpic thinks if 3D engines need to avoid another browser war to make THE metaverse possible. Or is it better to have many separate competing metaverses for Unreal, Godot, Unity, etc?

— Wagner James Au (@slhamlet) August 4, 2020

Comments

[Medhue]

Great interview!!!! Seeing it made me remember that I made a post on the UE forums many years ago, when Epic opened it's Marketplace for content creators. The revenue split was 30% and I was so disappointed they took the same line as everyone else. Here is my post. https://gyazo.com/549bac4824ad11c7fc38499bcfcac146

[Medhue]

Although there are issues with interoptibility I don't think it is as big as you imagine Wagner. It's all about asset formats, and convertibility. Things are more standard then they have ever been in 3D. A mesh is a mesh, a rig is a rig, animation is animation. An fbx carries all these, as does some other immerging formats, and all exported from free software like Blender. Even if everyone didn't want to use the exact same rig, it is just a convertor away from sticking that rig to another rig. So, even avatar could be converted with limited problems.

[Medhue]

Probably the biggest hurdle to interoptibility, is content theft, and how you make an economy on a system where anything can be copied or stolen for free. Many platforms hide, or convert things like meshes, rigs, textures and animation, to their own proprietary formats, to counter content theft. If everything is interoptible, then that means they are super easy to steal.

[Alicia]

People in SL do it all the time via copybotting.

[Joey1058]

I want to echo Medhue's thoughts. IP theft is the bottom line. And with Apple shying away from open standards in the name of privacy, I can't see a quick solution leading to a "Grand Round Table of the Metaverse".

[irihapeti]

i think the Metaverse is about a unique identifier (uuid) for the user across all the providers

a uuid and name issued by a central authority which when combined makes this unique to each user. I.e. 1000-Hamlet Au, is not the same person as 1001-Hamlet Au

a central authority which also acts as (issues licenses for) a micro-currency clearing house settling metaverse transactions. User-to-user, user-to-provider, provider-to-provider

a authority which also facilitates (issues licenses for) the conversion of metaverse micro-currencies into RL fiat currencies and vice versa

a authority which issues licenses to providers to connect their game/world/experience to the Metaverse

without such an authority then there is no Metaverse. There is what we have now - the Indyverse. Lots of individuals doing their own thing

i think asset compatibility across providers is secondary, even a little immaterial, to identity compatibility