> _“Floors don’t have to be swept in the #metaverse unless they’re designed to need sweeping.”_
https://paulbutler.org/2021/play-to-earn-and-bullshit-jobs/
I made precisely this point with some acquaintances recently: a metaverse where one has to pay for (or work somehow to) gain access to stuff that is inherently infinite and free in a #virtual world (real estate, raw materials, voxels, floors on a building, a more central location, IDs, communication channels) is a stupid, contradictory proposition. There is no scarcity in the metaverse.
Entering a metaverse with artificial scarcity in it is like boarding a plane that is designed to fly directly over motorways only.
@tripu
Who says the Metaverse can't have microtransactions?
@PsychoCod3r I don't understand.
@tripu
Microtransactions are in-game purchases where you buy digital items. They're theoretically unlimited, but the company still charges money for them, not because of scarcity, but because they can.
@PsychoCod3r
Of course, I understand transactions — micro- or otherwise. I didn't understand your comment on the context of my toot.
I expect people to pay to be in the #metaverse, yes. Either flat rate subscriptions, billing per time spent online, whatever. Development and infrastructure cost money. Plus, “free” alternatives (surveillance, ads) seem worse.
Apart from that (basic usage) my point is that it makes sense to charge for stuff that is inherently scarce only.
Valid examples: a brand name (unique and valuable as IRL); a ticket to meet some celebrity at an event (that person simply can't interact with an unlimited number of fans); special game items, like weapons etc (a game might not work as well if everyone had access to everything).
Absurd cases: surface, volume, height, transportation, cleanliness, beauty, rooms, location, colour…
