Everywhere - by Build A Rocket Boy

[Jason]

Second Life is basically what developers are actually talking about when they mean "metaverse", and not in the broad sense that includes MMO's and stuff. A social and creative space where players make the content and real world brands sell you virtual versions of their stuff.

 

Facebook has their own version already going but it's sh*te. VR Chat is probably the best example of a true "metaverse" game right now, and is honestly just straight up the best example of what's possible with VR technology in games we've ever had - and also the worst, cause my god is there some dodgy sh*t as well lol.

[Commander S]

Doesn't help that there isn't really an agreed definition of "metaverse" among various folks trying to make it happen, or lay claim to bits of it - right now, you've got maybe four broad camps:

 

1. "Metaverse" = a single, virtual construct, similar to the internet in function, but where you interact with it more like an actual, physical space. That's the original, fictional version from Snow Crash, or the Oasis from Ready Player One (or also the Matrix, the Grid from Tron, Questworld, etc.), and the least feasible IRL. That said, one gets the impression that many of the bigger players really would like the metaverse as a singular thing, because that'd necessitate one of the many in-development platforms to win out and be that singular thing (you can already see that with Mark Zuckerberg renaming Facebook to "Meta", or Tim Sweeney's interest and investment in anything "metaverse").

 

2. "Metaverse" = a series of interconnected virtual reality platforms, where you have some continuity of identity between them, but they're not just the one thing - i.e., if the platforms are like planets, then the "metaverse" is solar system formed by collecting them together. Crypto evangelists want to use blockchain tech to mint NFTs to correspond to digital items, so that things from one platform can be transferred to other platforms in the larger metaverse - something that doesn't actually need NFTs to do it, and is generally unwieldy either way. Plus it'd require platform holders to cooperate a lot more than they currently are, instead of having a bunch of competing 'walled gardens', which is wishful thinking, IMO.

 

3. "Metaverse" = less describing them as being actually interconnected, and more just describing the paradigm of having people interact in virtual worlds. The metaverse isn't a concrete thing, but rather just describing the larger ecosystem of virtual platforms, in the same way that people describe the proliferation of social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.) on the internet as "Web 2.0". Some crypto/NFT advocates see this as the best use of NFTs, almost like passes that grant owners access across a range of virtual platforms (which basically describes a virtual ID card system, but with all the eye-opening security vulnerabilities that come with crypto - fun times!).

 

4. "Metaverses" = this is largely just bandwagon-jumping from companies making live-service games, and ...not actually accurate. You can't call GTAO a "metaverse", or Fortnite a "metaverse" - again, like you can't call a single planet a "galaxy" or a "solar system". But some folks on the business side of things are, just to sell their existing MMO-like GaaS platforms on the back of the "metaverse" trend.

[Jason]

It's the numpties trying to cash in on the "metaverse" that have muddied the waters on it's definition. Initially it was quite obvious that it was essentially a modern Second Life/VR Chat and this exactly what Facebook are trying to build with Oculus. But then people started rushing into the craze without any actual plan and just said broad stuff that then started to resemble just a general online game. Then we had the even bigger numpties with literally no understanding of the games industry or what gamers want, who then started proposing stuff like this utter garbage:

 

 

 

The actual initial idea of the metaverse is an inevitability, and once someone nails it, a wild success especially once the barrier into VR falls.

 

The rest of the ideas that have latched onto the metaverse stuff are a bunch of randos who have latched onto NFTs/blockchain/web3/crypto because they think it'll make them (m/b/z)illionaires.

[Commander S]

Well, the original definition comes straight from Snow Crash, and it's similar to the RPO Oasis, being that 'internet, but navigate with a VR headset like it's a physical place, and you're actually there' - which is funny as a thing for tech companies to pursue in the modern internet era, because Neal Stephenson was basically trying to imagine an internet before the internet (and communicate it to a not-tech-savvy general audience in a way they could grok), and so just treated it like a virtual 'place', rather than people communicating via a bunch of connected data input terminals (which is ...how we actually interact using the modern internet!).

 

What makes me laugh is how in Snow Crash, it's meant to contribute to the dystopian tone of the book's setting, with the real world being so depressing and people so robbed of any real agency, they retreat into virtual fantasyland in order to just escape from it all. Except a bunch of tech nerds read that book, and their only takeaway was "wouldn't it be cool to escape into a cool computer world?" - which is how you also get RPO, where you do have a dystopian future, but also ...isn't the Oasis (which is full of Those Nerd Culture References You Like™) just, like, the coolest thing?

 

I'm reminded of this gem:

 

 

 

I get the feeling that the most recent push towards a Snow Crash-inspired dystopia the "metaverse" comes from the string of mass lockdowns, and people making more use of things like Zoom - you can see how someone already interested in VR would see that and think "what if we could create VR spaces where we could hang out with each other again, but from the safety of our own homes?". And also to no small degree, "...and what if we made people do that via a proprietary platform that we own, and therefore have the monopoly over the whole shebang?" - which means that stuff like this shouldn't have really come as a surprise to anyone:

 

 

[Yannerrins]

Why all these "social interaction space" games turns out to be a scam (like Identity) or crypto-bros oriented NFT filled garbage (like this case)? 

[motomami]

41 minutes ago, Yannerrins said:

Why all these "social interaction space" games turns out to be a scam (like Identity) or crypto-bros oriented NFT filled garbage (like this case)? 

I guess because there's a lot money to made there if done right but no one actually has the resources to pull it off.

[Jason]

These games are essentially MMO's with creation/social aspects and MMO's are the most expensive genre of games to make. Plus the the NFT/crypto craze, truthfully, has nothing to do with people genuinely thinking the technology is the future and everything to do with people trying to make money and trying to get into this early to get well established for when the money starts flowing in.

 

Except none of them have the budget or talent to make an MMO so all these NFT games look and play like actual garbage, and they're all stuffed with NFT crap because they've fooled themselves so hard on the idea that people will love this sh*t.

 

People don't love that sh*t.

[Commander S]

It's the same reason why so many 'asset flip'/shovelware things on places like Steam, or the millions of low-effort mobile games clogging up app stores, are so laughably bad: if you're coming at a game project with "how do we make easy money from a current trend, for the lowest effort possible?" as your principle concern, then you're going to end up making something that's only good enough to get gullible people to accidentally buy it, and no better.

 

...which does concern me about Everywhere: BaRB have hired actual. senior devs with past experience at the likes of DICE, Rockstar, Ubisoft, etc., and the project predates the whole tangle of the NFT bubble, the recent "metaverse" push, increasing efforts to push cryptocurrency into gaming and "pay-to-earn" schemes, etc., so it'd be both puzzling and a waste if the end product winds up no better than something that was cobbled together by a bunch of crypto bros with no actual gamedev experience in order to make a quick buck off those trends. Granted, there's nothing saying that the game hasn't been in development hell for so long that by the time Galaxy Digital came knocking in 2020, the project was still up in the air enough that Everywhere might as well be just another recent crypto-gaming cash-grab. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Frabbi 01]

Definitely not a fan of all these companies trying to create the "metaverse." The actual metaverse is upwards of 30 years away.

You'll pretty much have nanobots that paralyze your body, and take control of all your senses, sending you into a universal virtual "Matrix" of some sort.

What will it be like? No one today probably even has a remote idea. Could be one universe, maybe others within it.

There might be an even more advanced technology by then, allowing us to connect in a way even more ridiculous than what I described.

[éX-Driver]

On 6/29/2022 at 4:45 PM, Jason said:

It's the numpties trying to cash in on the "metaverse" that have muddied the waters on it's definition. Initially it was quite obvious that it was essentially a modern Second Life/VR Chat and this exactly what Facebook are trying to build with Oculus. But then people started rushing into the craze without any actual plan and just said broad stuff that then started to resemble just a general online game. Then we had the even bigger numpties with literally no understanding of the games industry or what gamers want, who then started proposing stuff like this utter garbage:

 

 

 

The actual initial idea of the metaverse is an inevitability, and once someone nails it, a wild success especially once the barrier into VR falls.

 

The rest of the ideas that have latched onto the metaverse stuff are a bunch of randos who have latched onto NFTs/blockchain/web3/crypto because they think it'll make them (m/b/z)illionaires.

That image sounds like a gaming dystopia. Meaningless skinnerboxes that emulate a dayjob, but without any real-world payout

[Jason]

7 minutes ago, éX-Driver said:

That image sounds like a gaming dystopia. Meaningless skinnerboxes that emulate a dayjob, but without any real-world payout

 

Yea like I said, it's all people with literally no understanding of the industry or just gaming in general. Games are an escape, and people typically have only 1-3 games max in their regular rotation, with one off titles (like say single player stuff) popping in here and there. No one wants these experiences to interact because, well, that kinda defeats the point of buying a new game - you want something new and fresh.

[GRANDHEIST]

Let's see what happens

Edited July 1 by GRANDHEIST

[Zello]

Leslie Benzies probably started listening to one of the worst guys on the internet Gary Vee.

[Catsooey]

On 6/30/2022 at 7:39 PM, éX-Driver said:

That image sounds like a gaming dystopia. Meaningless skinnerboxes that emulate a dayjob, but without any real-world payout

And not even the slightest chance of realistic steak.

[MightyMax]

 

 

Edited July 9 by MightyMax

[Ondr4H]

If we can do heists and kill some gangster in these planets we good. Its gta killer, yes?

[MightyMax]

21 hours ago, Ondr4H said:

If we can do heists and kill some gangster in these planets we good. Its gta killer, yes?

This is Oasis version real life (Ready Player One) don't you think can be gta killer.

Edited July 12 by MightyMax

[MightyMax]

https://earlygame.com/es/gaming/everywhere-juego

 

https://earlygame.com/gaming/everywhere-game

Edited July 13 by MightyMax

[Commander S]

4 hours ago, MightyMax said:

https://earlygame.com/es/gaming/everywhere-juego

 

https://earlygame.com/gaming/everywhere-game

 

 

Sorry, but those sites are just recycled clickbait, trawling through all the leaks and speculation people have already posted - and a lot of it's just flat-out laughably wrong!

 

Look at their ...coverage (that's being generous! ) of GTA VI:

 

Rockstar's Site Goes Dark: GTA 6 Announcement Imminent - that's just them recycling the baseless speculation when Rockstar's site had a brief blip last month.

Finally: GTA 6 Trailer Coming Next Week - that was two months ago, so "next week" (that'd have been mid-May) was clearly BS.

Leak: GTA 6 Will Be Set in 1998 - this one's the best one: remember how some random dude saw a license plate in the "E&E" trailer with 61SAL890 on it, and instead of just realising that's just a regular random GTA V plate, jumped to the conclusion that it was actually a coded hint, "Six is a Late '90s"? Yep, EarlyGame described that as a "leak", and saw fit to put out another article on that absolute nothingburger.

 

There's so little info out there, that even the stuff like the supposed screenshot leaks could be nothing, until more details corroborate anything. But sites like the above? Pure clickbait, and nothing of substance - not even worth taking with a pinch of salt, just straight-up ignore them.

[Jason]

People genuinely don't understand just how big R* are in terms of developers and resources to think that a start up is going to match them in their games scale.

 

A few devs are now trying to use "AAAA" seriously like Ubisoft and one or two others, but the only studio who can justify the tag is R*. Thousands of developers and as much time as they need with virtually no budget concerns. Start ups aint matching that lol.

[motomami]

Yeah I feel like calling it a GTA Killer is purposely setting it up to fail. Giving people expectations that it will never meet. There's no game that's going to all of a sudden kill a franchise of best sellers for literal decades, let alone a start-up.

 

How big is Build A Rocket Boy anyway? Are they considered an Indie studio?

[Jason]

Them being an indie would depend on what their ownership situation is, which I'm not entirely sure of my self as they've received investments from various groups so I'm not sure what their status is there.

 

But head count wise they have 222 employees on LinkedIn and their official page classes them in the 51-200 range but I doubt that's a 100% accurate count, they probably have a few hundred overall at this point if I had to guess?

[NestorSite]

23 hours ago, Jason said:

Them being an indie would depend on what their ownership situation is, which I'm not entirely sure of my self as they've received investments from various groups so I'm not sure what their status is there.

 

But head count wise they have 222 employees on LinkedIn and their official page classes them in the 51-200 range but I doubt that's a 100% accurate count, they probably have a few hundred overall at this point if I had to guess?

 

 

It's more than 400 as far as I know, but I'm not sure about the exact number 

[OysterBarron]

I can't beleive I've been clicking on this topic for approaching 6 years now and still have no real clue as to what this will be.

[Zello]

If this flops Benzies was carried by the Housers all these years

[Emmi]

On 7/14/2022 at 12:26 AM, Jason said:

People genuinely don't understand just how big R* are in terms of developers and resources to think that a start up is going to match them in their games scale.

 

A few devs are now trying to use "AAAA" seriously like Ubisoft and one or two others, but the only studio who can justify the tag is R*. Thousands of developers and as much time as they need with virtually no budget concerns. Start ups aint matching that lol.

Yes but apparently they are still not big enough to be able to develop two games simultaniously and on top of that it takes them between 7 and 10 years (these days) to release a new game at all. That's the cost of their insane obsession to level of detail, animation work, voice-over work, etc. in all of their games (I'm not complaining at all because I love that and it is one of the reasons why Rockstar games are the best!). My biggest fear however is that we are left with Red Dead and Grand Theft Auto releases and their "smaller" franchises like Bully, Midnight Club, Table Tennis and whatnot will never see new games. I feel like someone at Take Two or maybe even inside Rockstar doesn't want for other franchises to have a chance to become their third big IP. What made Rockstar great in its early days was the insane diversity in their games' line-up after all ... from GTA to Midnight Club to Manhunt to Bully to L.A. Noire to The Warriors to Table Tennis to Red Dead and even more ... that's insane and it makes me sad that only two IP's seem to have made it into the 4K/HD-era.

Yes, finish up GTA VI now and make it the best GTA to date but after that ... please Rockstar, do yourself a favor and give your other franchises their chance to shine and become the next 30+ million seller.

[Xtra510]

I know not a lot of people will care but here’s my everywhere news twitter account lol  https://mobile.twitter.com/News4Everywhere 

 

[MightyMax]

On 7/14/2022 at 2:24 AM, Jason said:

Them being an indie would depend on what their ownership situation is, which I'm not entirely sure of my self as they've received investments from various groups so I'm not sure what their status is there.

 

But head count wise they have 222 employees on LinkedIn and their official page classes them in the 51-200 range but I doubt that's a 100% accurate count, they probably have a few hundred overall at this point if I had to guess?

not all people use linkedin, few people use linkedin in the world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MightyMax]

we hope soon info of Everywhere

https://twitter.com/EverywhereNet/status/1557385507520266241

 

Edited August 14 by MightyMax

[Commander S]

Hmm... Wonder if it's just another recruitment/PR thing as part of the more 'trade show' side of Gamescom, or if this might actually be when they start revealing details about the game in earnest.

 

Also, does being at Gamescom automatically equate to being showcased as part of Geoff Keighley's "Opening Night Live" event? Because if Everywhere's still set to be a crypto-gaming thing, then either it won't, or Geoff's relaxed his "no NFTs" position - unless there's been a change of plan, and the whole 'Etherium blockchain integration' aspect's been dropped...

 

On 7/16/2022 at 6:56 AM, Zello said:

If this flops Benzies was carried by the Housers all these years

 

 

That's not how that works, though - you're comparing Executive Producer (Sam), Lead Writer (Dan) and Game Design Director (Leslie), with the latter being the only one with any hands-on programming know-how. One of the main issues is that being a good game designer doesn't make you a good businessman - that's been Sam Houser's bread and butter since before he even moved into games, whereas Benzies might have led development teams, but never had to found a company, or wrangle any of that side of things. It'd be like a sniper being asked to drive a tank, doing a poor job, and people snarking "so much for the legendary sniper, eh?" - spot the canyon-sized gap in that logic!

 

Doesn't help that Benzies is seemingly trying to speedrun the whole process (whereas Rockstar, like Rome, very much wasn't built in a day) - and in a day and age where game development is a long, costly, risky venture, compared to the early 2000s. And you can't necessarily just hire good individuals, and hope a workable studio coalesces out of the whole thing - Microsoft's new venture The Initiative was supposed to work like that, and it's apparently been a messy process as a result. I get a similar impression from BaRB, going by the amount of turnover, especially in senior positions - like how roughly a year after that first interview with the BaRB founders, both Entwistle and Smith had left the company (not to mention the more recent string of departures). I can't help but wonder what the corporate culture is like over at BaRB, particularly compared to the notorious reputation Rockstar used to have, and the reports on how Rockstar has made significant improvements in recent years.