Movement Economy Layer

[lkngtn]

The idea of artificially commoditizing abundant virtual space in order to create a network effect around land adjacency is really powerful, however, I think the economics need to be thought about in relationship to how people will move around throughout the space.

There are many options for movement, you could be limited to simply walking around, or on the other extreme you may be able to press a button, bring up a map, and teleport to anywhere you want to in seconds. In a VR environment where you can only walk, there is a huge benefit to land adjacency as choosing to go somewhere close saves you time and effort. If, instead, you can teleport anywhere in the world with virtually no opportunity cost then you will generally spend time at the places you find most interesting and are significantly less likely to pick something just because it is nearby.

In the latter case the value of land adjacency is low, there may be some benefit to visibility from adjacent spaces and you may see billboards pop up nearby popular spots, but content creators would be better off investing money creating interesting and unique experiences rather than paying for premium land placement. Adjacency may also help with discovery, but an external curation service of some sort would probably be a far more reliable mechanism to finding interesting content.

If we commoditize movement in the same way we commoditized land we can create a far richer user experience and more realistic and nuanced virtual land market.

We can consider modes of transportation based on how quickly they can move people from one point in the world to another. The slowest end would be personal locomotion (walking or running). The fastest end would be point-to-point teleportation. In between, you might have things like bikes, cars, trains, planes, even spaceships. If usage of faster forms of travel incurred an opportunity cost (perhaps in MANA), we can create a world where there are complex tradeoffs between exploring your local area or going somewhere much further.

Certain locations might be connected to in virtual space but exist outside the land grid (for example a virtual chatroom where people can join and mingle irrespective of their location on the land grid). Perhaps there are bars with doors in many different districts/areas on the map, that when entered all lead to the same virtual space enabling people to meet without actually traveling, but when they leave they are once again back where they were on the grid.

This artificial limitation will create a more compelling virtual space, because often the destination itself is not as important as the journey and challenge it takes to get there. For example, many people climb mountains because it is challenging and exotic. In a world where you can travel anywhere instantly for free, no location can possibly be challenging to reach or particularly exotic.

This mechanism will have an incredible impact both on the planning and expansion of land in decentraland, as it creates a compelling case for sparsely populated or barren environments, that would not otherwise exist, while creating a much more compelling reason for creators and investors to develop complementary virtual environments in close proximity and pay a premium for adjacent land tiles.

I have not fully thought out the details of how different speeds of movement should be priced, however, the goal should be to balance the awesome ability of VR to enable users to experience novel worlds and landscapes, while retaining some economic tradeoffs that make choosing where to go at any given time an interesting decision.

[aninaser]

I quite like this. The addition of opportunity cost for different modes of transportation does lend some greater complexity to the entire system, out of which a lot of creativity can arise. I am formulating a proposal on transportation diversity and design, which the core concept of which is your proposal.

[devrandom]

It doesn't seem possible to enforce any movement limits, because the position of the avatar is controlled by the client software.

[lkngtn]

It doesn't seem possible to enforce any movement limits, because the position of the avatar is controlled by the client software.

That's really unfortunate, I think that some sort rules that dictate how users move and interact with the world is really really important.

[m3mnoch]

If, instead, you can teleport anywhere in the world with virtually no opportunity cost then you will generally spend time at the places you find most interesting and are significantly less likely to pick something just because it is nearby.

a few things.

this strikes me as a comment from someone who has never played an mmo with fast travel and seen the population of the starter city compared to the rest of the world. a plurality of people in a virtual world at any one time are novices and first-timers. they all have to start somewhere. they will all wander and gawk because they don't know where the best places to teleport are yet.

because of this, all the best places for "early game" users will be large, central population centers catching people fresh off the boat. these places will attract the largest number of eyeballs. these places will attract the most money and the most high-quality content. which, in turn, will make it an attractive destination for teleport.

you're discounting the spectrum and lifecycle of users, replacing it with your own fast-forwarded vision of the end-game. so, basically, while adjacency surely isn't the only thing in a teleporting world, it's still going to be the most important thing at the high end of the quality content curve.

think of it like the web -- you can "teleport" anywhere, but people still cluster in social places where they are bombarded with opportunities to teleport to those off-the-path places. your adjacency becomes where in the facebook/twitter/google/ama timeline an opportunity shows up and how that affects its discoverability.

as a final side-note, you're also discounting a lot of interesting governance issues. for example, harassment. contiguous areas where the consequences of bad behavior are higher (because expensive, high-end content providers will be willing to pay extra for it) can highly affect aspects of adjacency.

[lkngtn]

this strikes me as a comment from someone who has never played an mmo with fast travel and seen the population of the starter city compared to the rest of the world. a plurality of people in a virtual world at any one time are novices and first-timers. they all have to start somewhere. they will all wander and gawk because they don't know where the best places to teleport are yet.

The notion that they have to start somewhere is sort of what this proposal is discussing. The reality is that you can't strictly enforce that people start in a specific spot. From a UX perspective clients may follow their friends and join them where they are are, or pick from a list of locations when spawning based on popularity.

In an MMO there is a gamification element where you are stuck in the beginning for a number of reasons (1) areas of the game become unlocked based on achievements, (2) areas are inhospitable due to level and ability, (3) fast-travel is limited especially for new players. The point is that in an MMO the effect of spawn locations being the busiest is directly related to the fact that in a traditional MMO there ARE restrictions to where and how players move throughout the world.

think of it like the web -- you can "teleport" anywhere, but people still cluster in social places where they are bombarded with opportunities to teleport to those off-the-path places. your adjacency becomes where in the facebook/twitter/google/ama timeline an opportunity shows up and how that affects its discoverability.

This is totally correct, but social hubs will be based on compelling and popular content first (which could be located anywhere). Its certainly possible that compelling content will be clustered together, but if you have a budget of X to produce compelling content allocating a large portion of that to securing more expense land tiles may not be worthwhile under the assumption that the barrier to teleport to your compelling content is small.

as a final side-note, you're also discounting a lot of interesting governance issues. for example, harassment. contiguous areas where the consequences of bad behavior are higher (because expensive, high-end content providers will be willing to pay extra for it) can highly affect aspects of adjacency.

I'm not discounting this, I think this is critical. I could see areas of land teaming together to form meta jurisdictions that subscribe to various rules around interaction. In other words rather than trying to enforce the movement economy globally on a technical level, it could simply be a social/governance layer that clients and land owners choose to adopt.

[m3mnoch]

The notion that they have to start somewhere is sort of what this proposal is discussing. The reality is that you can't strictly enforce that people start in a specific spot. From a UX perspective clients may follow their friends and join them where they are are, or pick from a list of locations when spawning based on popularity.

i never said it would be forced. but, yes, you still have to start somewhere. and that somewhere will probably be wherever the client you are using drops you.

you don't have to use google for your start page, but that's where chrome starts you off by default.

default client. default starting location. even default in-world directional facing. lots of opportunities for defaults. lots of opportunities for driving eyeballs. lots of opportunities for influencing valuation.

adjacency matters.

which means the content quality network effect coming from most people entering near a certain neighborhood matters.

just like if you go look at your website stats (assuming you have one) -- most people probably don't come in through your homepage, however, it's a strong plurality of people that do. the value of that location is high and there's a fast-dropping long-tail leading off from there.

because there's a reason website homepages have blocks of links exclaiming "most popular stories" and such. it's the adjacency of the entry point and the value proposition associated with driving eyeballs from there to quality content -- those things matter. and they matter a lot.

In an MMO there is a gamification element where you are stuck in the beginning for a number of reasons (1) areas of the game become unlocked based on achievements, (2) areas are inhospitable due to level and ability, (3) fast-travel is limited especially for new players. The point is that in an MMO the effect of spawn locations being the busiest is directly related to the fact that in a traditional MMO there ARE restrictions to where and how players move throughout the world.

i may be wrong, but it sounds like you're trying to tell me cities contain nobody but noobs. and only because they're artificially restricted to that area.

just wondering. have you ever actually played an mmo? ever "gone back to town"? ever wonder why that's a thing? especially in a game that's heavily instanced?

it's because activity matters. activity happens at disproportional levels in cities because adjacency matters.

sure, you could teleport from one parcel of land to its adjacent one, but the ux transaction cost is just less to walk. and walk to the one beyond that. and then the next one. it's why you scroll through your twitter feed instead of just jumping straight to the users you know you already like.

again. adjacency isn't the only thing that matters, but it's the single thing that matters most.

but if you have a budget of X to produce compelling content allocating a large portion of that to securing more expense land tiles may not be worthwhile under the assumption that the barrier to teleport to your compelling content is small.

i'll flip that around.

if you have a budget of x, and it's within that budget to secure an extremely expensive parcel of land, wouldn't the natural assumption be you also have plenty of budget remaining from that original x to create some amazing content on your new, expensive parcel?

I could see areas of land teaming together to form meta jurisdictions that subscribe to various rules around interaction.

aka, adjacency matters.

[m3mnoch]

It doesn't seem possible to enforce any movement limits, because the position of the avatar is controlled by the client software.

That's really unfortunate, I think that some sort rules that dictate how users move and interact with the world is really really important.

oh! and i just realized -- this is another thing.

decentraland is decentralized.

meaning, no one company controls the rules for your parcel of land. which means your rules (aka, movement speeds) may be different from the next parcel's.

some areas may be recreations of ftl and others might look like dragon age while others might be ecco the dolphin.

[lkngtn]

I'm not arguing that adjacency does not matter, just that it matter less if the dominate form of movement is teleportation.

i may be wrong, but it sounds like you're trying to tell me cities contain nobody but noobs. and only because they're artificially restricted to that area.

I'm saying that because noobs are artificially restricted to that area there is more activity compared to other places, and therefore there is a reason for users which are not as restricted in their movements to also go there. It becomes a Schelling point and players of all levels and up spending time there, markets form, etc.

I'm not suggesting that the only factor is movement, just that it is a factor in the value of adjacency.

it's because activity matters. activity happens at disproportional levels in cities because adjacency matters.

I agree. I would just say that its less about adjacency based on location and more adjacency based on content and other users.

default client. default starting location. even default in-world directional facing. lots of opportunities for defaults. lots of opportunities for driving eyeballs. lots of opportunities for influencing valuation.

Absolutely! Defaults definitely matter, but defaults do not result in a captive audience, if google's search engine stopped producing relevant results, or had crazy popups, users would be far more likely to change the default to something else.

It seems highly likely that users will want to set their default starting location or perhaps more likely start in the same location they left off, choosing to interact with the world based on their preferences.

meaning, no one company controls the rules for your parcel of land. which means your rules (aka, movement speeds) may be different from the next parcel's.

Right this would be ideal, but as I understand it there is no movement layer right now that allows LAND to indicates the types or cost of forms of movement within an area. Or even how that could be enforced in a decentralized context.

And I can imagine lots of experiences that would be so much more interesting if that were the case. Going back to the MMO example, imagine you are trying to create a dungeon where you have to move through a series of traps or solve puzzles to unlock new content or achievements. Perhaps you want to create a remote zone that is not accessible via teleport for "Role Play" purposes, so that you can have unique content at the end of the zone that users can show off.

There has been lots of talk about non-fungibles or digital collectibles. Imagine creating a Pokemon style experience where you capture and collect digital items but they only spawn in certain locations and some locations are more difficult to reach than others.

The point is that some mechanism for content that restricts or creates some economic cost for movement makes for more rich and interesting experiences. Enforcing this in a decentralized manner is much more complex than in a centralized service but perhaps there is some consensus layer built into clients that refuses to talk to clients which do not comply, or perhaps content unlock (like non fungible digital assets) only for users running whitelisted client software.

[the-Turkey-hole]

I'm still catching up on the greater conversation, but I do agree with your basic premise. I actually brought this up a while ago, well before the land auction, when the idea of teleportation as a mechanic was brought up and the developers confirmed it. I think a movement economy would be great and serve as another way to make the world profitable and give it a bustling feel.

However, the big problem is actually imposing perimeters on this artificial limitation. If we were to make teleportation require two plots, for example, being linked together, it would allow people to charge a nominal fee to move between two points. That'd be cool. But here's the thing, what's going to set the price of that service? There's no upkeep or operational cost (in the real world, it's stuff like fuel, expertise of operation staff, materials required, upkeep) to most of the movement. Everyone and their mom would have a teleporter on their land and they'd all be trying to undercut each other and, in the end, big land holders would just build them as a free service, as the free teleporter would just encourage people to come and shop at their stores and experiences.

So, I guess my point is, without some sort of limiting factor, it won't really work.

That said, I do think that with free teleportation, we'll see a wider diffusion of foot traffic, but we'll also have less actual foot traffic if that makes sense. People will never just be strolling past a place a place and discover it, they'll have to intentionally go out and search for new stuff.

[nicholasbulka]

I think it's important to consider the different audiences that DCL will hopefully attract. Non techy friends of parcel holders, hacker news and reddit readers on a macbook pro, google cardboarders, all the way up to LAND owners building with heavy VR gear. Transportation is a subset of exposure which will need to be rolled into a PR strategy.

[m3mnoch]

I'm not arguing that adjacency does not matter, just that it matter less if the dominate form of movement is teleportation.

aha! i see now. sorry if i'm a bit dense. i think we are agreeing on most of this. maybe it's just a difference of degree?

because, for sure, teleportation detracts from the overall power of adjacency, but i feel like that's only for the property that's not already a hub. if you're 30 parcels from city center, your value is pretty much the same as being 130 away.

it makes me wonder how the auction results will play out. for example, i think the owner of parcel (30,2) who paid 14,569 mana for his plot won't see significantly more foot traffic than the person who paid 1625 mana for parcel (135,1). that's a 9x difference in price, but probably won't have 9x the foot traffic.

however (13,8), which is on the center ring and about 9x the price of (30,2), will probably see far, far, far more foot traffic than 9x the number of people who trek out only 17 parcels further east.

does that make sense?

anyway . . .

it feels like the core of where the two of us diverge boils down to this statement:

I would just say that its less about adjacency based on location and more adjacency based on content and other users.

i see content driving the value of adjacency just like you do.

the difference, from what i can tell, is that i believe the network effect from the out-of-the-gate default locations will be strong enough to drive the surrounding content quality, which in-turn reinforces the adjacency.

sure, other pockets of coolness will eventually evolve, but yo -- lower manhattan will still be lower manhattan.

[nicholasbulka]

We're not totally unbiased because we know which parcels went for the most MANA. Is there a designated spawn point in the center or is that still up in the air? I agree that content will be best where LAND was expensive, but I'm not sure how that is conveyed to the average user.

[lkngtn]

@m3mnoch I think I generally agree with you even to the extent of the out of the gate default being highly valued. I'm more interested in how content creators can enforce restrictions on movement to create more compelling experiences, and my concern is that there currently is no mechanism for that type of use case.

I don't think the movement stuff needs to be global, but there currently isn't any mechanism for clients and content providers to agree on the rules of interaction essentially.

[the-Turkey-hole]

I can see your point. I had a thought that'd make everyone happy, I think. I'll write up a little thing later toady.