Virtual Reality: As If One Wardrobe Wasn't Enough

These days, virtual reality is viewed differently than when the idea was conceived in the 70s and 80s. Instead of gloves and goggles, a more simple approach to virtual interaction is accepted, and the resulting 'virtual chatrooms' have a decent number of users. The most well-known of these virtual chat programs is Linden Labs' Second Life, which has used framework similar to that of an MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Roleplaying Game, the best example of which is probably World of Warcraft) to give users environments to interact with, as well as a lot of freedom to make their own zones within the program. Recently, Google has released their own virtual chat program, Lively. Like in Second Life and others, users create an avatar with which they project themselves in the program and interact with others. However, unlike Second Life, Lively has a series of independent rooms, instead of one continuous area. Users can make their own rooms, and link directly to them from their personal websites. Though this format is slightly different, the overall purpose is the same: provide an environment for virtual interaction.

Programs like this are direct descendants of virtual reality as it was initially imagined, though one may not think of it at first. Science Fiction authors of the 80s spoke of 'The Net', a separate plane of existence where one would interact with computer networks, artificial intelligences, and other 'console cowboys'. William Gibson spoke at length about this type of interaction in his novel Neuromancer, as well as several others. What Gibson envisioned, as well as others, was that a direct connection to the human brain would be the most efficient way to interface with a computer. This direct brain interface idea persisted through science fiction, and into popular culture through such movies as The Matrix.

In short, direct brain interfaces don't exist. This is at least part of the reason that virtual reality in its literal form never caught on; the gloves and goggles interfaces were clumsy, expensive, and didn't add anything to the experience. This does leave the question: why do we feel the need to project ourselves into a network? What is wrong with standard forms of communication?

I believe that the move toward virtual chat, when it started, made some assumptions about online anonymity that did not turn out to be true, or at least were not true across larger demographics. Though there are people that want to protect their identity online, I don't believe there are as many who will actively try to make an alternate online identity. Social Networking sites like Myspace and Facebook seem to show that, to the contrary, most people online are willing to share who they are, even to a much larger degree than a neutral observer would think is prudent.

The sort of anonymity provided by an online chat program is easy to get for free, and therefore hard to justify paying for, whether that's in money for Linden dollars, or time it would take to customize a Lively room, or even just run a program like Second Life. The type of people who use these programs are those who take advantage of having a 3d environment. Unfortunately for developers of virtual chat programs, these people are mostly those who like to roleplay online: either gamers, who are well taken care of by actual games like World of Warcraft, or people who use the environment for sex roleplaying, which does not cast the best light on the userbase as a whole.

Virtual reality in its current form has been developed quite heavily, often alongside the computer gaming industry. However, with the ubiquity of text chat, and the seeming lack of value proposition in virtual chatting, I don't think it's going to be a killer app anytime soon. Companies like Google and Linden Labs are going to have to figure out a way to create a demand for the product before they can make any real money off of it. My personal opinion is that it'll be hard to create demand for something no one needs.