Virtual worlds offer a compelling creative question: what would you build if a shared space did not have to follow the limits of a physical venue? That possibility is worth exploring. It is also easy to turn it into claims that no existing platform can deliver.
This article began as an early metaverse-era exploration generated with an NLP tool. The original did not record an exact generator here. I have retained that disclosure and revised claims that confused an ambitious vision with established capabilities.
A term with several meanings
“Metaverse” is used for visions of persistent shared digital worlds and for particular platforms that offer some of those features. People may meet through avatars, create objects, attend events or trade permitted digital goods. Persistence, device support, moderation and ownership rules vary.
A single interoperable world connecting every platform is a vision, not something this article establishes as already achieved. An experience available on a phone and a headset may offer different controls, viewpoints and activities. Cross-device access does not mean the interactions are identical.
Open standards and open source are different
An open standard can help systems exchange information. Open-source software permits access and reuse under its licence. A platform can support a standard while remaining proprietary, and an open-source application can still have limited interoperability with another service.
My earlier text incorrectly described Unity as open source and suggested proprietary applications had to run on an open-source platform. Unity’s editor is licensed under its own software terms. Virtual worlds can use proprietary or open-source technology; neither choice by itself guarantees portability or user control.
Business models need a particular customer problem
Virtual events can bring remote participants into a shared setting, but the relevant comparison may be a video meeting rather than a physical conference. A prototype should show what spatial presence contributes: perhaps a collaborative demonstration or a task requiring people to inspect the same 3D object.
Retail experiences need a similar test. A customer might benefit from inspecting a product model, while a conventional product page may remain faster for checking price, specifications and delivery. Count the effort of joining the platform as part of the experience, not as a problem the customer must solve for the brand.
Creators may sell permitted virtual goods or services, and platforms may use subscriptions, purchases or advertising. The viable options depend on platform rules, audience demand and the rights attached to the content. I would not assume that a digital item can move freely between worlds or retain its value.
Creativity is not a market-size estimate
Tilt Brush is a useful example of making art in a spatial medium. Google released its source code in January 2021. The original article’s specific claims about transactions and creator revenue were not supported here, so they have been removed. The existence of an expressive tool does not establish a marketplace or a profitable business.
What I would test first
Choose one audience, one task and a baseline experience. Measure whether participants complete the task, return, collaborate effectively or make a purchase they otherwise would not have made. Include production, support and moderation costs. Check accessibility and provide another route for people who cannot use the immersive experience.
That leaves plenty of room for imagination. It simply gives an experiment a question it can answer. See virtual-world business experiments for applications and three fictional worlds for different ways to think about control, ownership and escape.