In this episode, Ubisoft Quartz platform allows users to earn NFTs in AAA games, negative feedback causes Ubisoft to delist its Ubisoft Quartz announcement video, weddings and other life events move to the metaverse, uninformed journalists question the metaverse, and so much more!

From the boardroom to the metaverse, this is the meta business podcast. I Paul Dawalibi. The

master of the metaverse will lead you through the biggest business stories in the metaverse. Join us

as we break down the news and trends from the C suite lens, bringing you insights, analysis and

discussion that you can't find anywhere else. Every single week. Welcome to metta business.

Welcome to episode three of the metta business podcast. I am Paul Dawalibi, Master of the

metaverse I'm joined today by my friend, my co host, Jeff the juice Cohen. Jeff, how's it going?

How you doing this week? Hey, Paul. I'm doing well. I'm excited to get in here week three, you

know, we're getting the kinks out. I think we're hitting the ground running. I'm excited to jump

in. well oiled machine.

Yeah. I apologize for my very, my very kind of kitschy backdrop green screen. Here I am I am not

in our studio. I'm not at home even. And so this is this is as good and as Metaverse see as you're

going to get right. You're going to have to deal with this very Metaverse the background, although

I don't know why neon blue and pink is like metaphor. Would you say it almost feels like we're

in the metaverse currently, you know this. This might be the metaverse this. Well, at least the

folks that PC Gamer might agree with you which we will get to because there was an interesting

article that they wrote calling the metaverse bullshit,

which I don't agree with. And I'm pretty sure you don't agree with but you calling this this call

here. Metaverse might agree. We'll get into that one. But I I don't clearly don't agree with it. I

think I would get thrown off the podcast here if I did. But I think he makes some good points wrapped

around a lot of bluster and and click Beatty language, but I think we'll get into donner, if

that's the first topic but we can get into that one later. Now let's start with which I think is

the big kind of business. Metaverse news this week, because it was it was one of the biggest

gaming companies in the world, sort of making a pretty big announcement here. And I'll put this up

on screen here so you can see it the headline is, and this was the directly from the press release

from Ubisoft, it says introducing Ubisoft courts, the first platform for playable and energy

efficient NF T's in triple A games. Now, the article goes on to say that

Ubisoft quartz is a new platform for players to acquire digits. The first NF T's playable in a

triple A game running on energy efficient technology. They're going to launch in beta with

Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon breakpoint. And digits will be released as part of limited editions, each

composed of a fixed number of cosmetic items.

Now the press release goes on to explain how digits create sort of more value because they're

unique. They're unique collectible that feature their own serial number that can be seen in game.

They're playable. So there's active utility value. And each digit comes with a certificate of

ownership stored on blockchain

independent from Ubisoft, and so it's not bound to your game inventory. They can put it according to

this press release players can be put these items for sale on third party platforms outside of the

Ubisoft ecosystem. So Ubisoft sort of following through here. Right. Right, Jeff, like on what

they said they were gonna do. I will say Yeah, before we dive into what we think about the Yeah,

this it's we do have to give a lot of credit to Ubisoft. I mean, I think a lot of companies on

their recent earnings calls, give lip service to NF T's in games, especially the triple A

publishers kind of were like, well, that sounds like an interesting idea that we're looking at,

but Ubisoft said that and then kind of follow through very quickly, so I have to give them a ton

of credit. Clearly they had been kind of having this in the works for a while. And I would know

you know, this isn't the first time Ubisoft has been pretty forward thinking in terms of adopting

new platforms, new technology, they were early to the switch they were early to stadia recipes. You

know, they they early on subscription so that this is kind of a trend with Ubisoft that they do kind

of try to adopt new technologies. So So kudos to them, kind of just wanted to throw that out there

first. No, it's a good point, right? That because literally every gaming company said they were

going to do something Metaverse related, right. Literally every single one.

Ubisoft here sort of really following through in a very tangible way. Right. This is something that

they're launching. They've named a specific game. They have a specific date. It's December 9. So by

the time you guys listen to this or watch this, it'll already be out.

Actually, depending where you are, because it comes out later in some countries but fundamental

they're putting their money where their mouth is here. And they're working, by the way with tezos

worth mentioning

for their proof of stake network, and you know, this is this is the tech the blockchain underlying

it. Right. So, which I thought was interesting. It's not one you typically hear. It's not one of

the more the most common ones. I don't think, well, pessoa says a company, I would say has had a

pretty big, you know, has made a big splash. They sponsor f1. Now, right, like, yeah, they're

they're definitely making waves in the space. I guess the question is, do you like this? Right? Is

this enough from Ubisoft? To back up what they said they were gonna do? Is this a good first

step? You know, do you see business advantages here? Like, will they make more money on top on

Ghost Recon? I think it's a good start. I mean, the question that I was going to kind of put I

hate to answer a question with a question. But I'm curious what your thoughts are, that they started

with a game that's already out there that already has a player base? I think I kind of went back and

forth. I think it probably is good. Because one of the critiques we've always had with Blockchain

games so far is that they kind of put the blockchain part before the games part and they

don't make a game. That's fun. Now, people who follow Ubisoft or played Ghost Recon breakpoint

might make a joke that well, Ghost Recon breakpoint wasn't very fun to begin with. But at

least it's a game that they're adding NF T's to which I kind of commend them for that. But then,

does that alienate the fan base? And does it kind of like, are you risking throwing this in too late

to kind of an economy that's already working?

You know, would it have been better to start with a new experience that something that's unique to

the blockchain, rather than just throwing this into a game that already exists? I don't know if

you have any thoughts on that?

I mean, doesn't it kind of prove the short term point? I think that I and I think you also have

been making, which is blockchain and NF T's as they intersect gaming can't just be for the sake

of calling it a blockchain game or an NFT game, right? There has to be some improvement or benefit

to the game and gamer in some way. For this to be really interesting in my mind, what I what I like

here is what I like about them using an existing game is it sort of forces them to think about how

does this make the game better, right? Because it's not just enough to say, we're launching an

NFT game and it could be the crappiest most unfun game ever. Right? But but because, you know, it's

uh, they're calling it an NFT game or a blockchain based game, like, it'll get a bunch of attention

here. They're taking an existing game, whether you like the game or not, you think the game is good

or not, is not sort of material in my mind, right? And saying, Look, we can make it better by

fill in the blank. Now where I'm unclear is did they fill in the blank there? Well enough to make

this a compelling value proposition for the gamer and therefore I think this is going to make money.

Right? Are people going to buy more cosmetics in Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon as a consequence of this

announcement? And like if you were the analyst covering Ubisoft, do you? Do you increase your

projections for this game for this title? Do you you know, like no, I don't think so. I mean, one

I'd be curious to know how big that player base is now cuz I know had a very, very tough launch. I do

think this is very much them just doing a test and kind of getting some data so I'm not I don't think

it's gonna have a very material business impact on Ubisoft but I do think it's a good idea for them

to be trying to things that I think are interesting that I kind of noted. One maybe not as

surprising as the other first that these are cosmetic only, which maybe that's not shocking,

because they're basically microtransactions but I do think with with played earn it, a lot of these

things can become play to win.

Or pay to win. Sorry, just given one of the benefits, times with these things is kind of the

uniqueness. I think if there's a power element to it, like, Hey, I got the best gun in the game, and

there's only five of them, and I can now be better because I have this gun. I think that adds a lot

of value. So I think that creates creates a lot of problems as well. But I do think that's probably

where things will eventually head where there will be some power power element to these things. I

don't know if you did too little and not interesting in your mind. It's too little. It's

interesting, but too little. The other thing I was gonna mention the mentally it's no different than

just a microtransaction and a cosmetic right other than the fact that you could potentially go sell

it on a third party site which doesn't really exist yet. Right? And there's no it's Are they

not? Is it not on any exchanges yet? I don't actually I don't know. But I don't I don't I guess

the question is like, is there going to be resale value in these cosmetics? Well, no, that was one

thing I was saying when I was looking at the announcement I was like What should I almost was

looking at buying like the tezos coins cuz I was like something here. This is this is a first right

this is a unique first in a triple A I was like

Maybe you do want to buy one of these because, again, there's only one first ever. So there could

be some value in owning the first sort of triple A, you know, NFT. Same way there's, you know, you

made the first NFT and esports. And now that's worth, you know, millions.

I just I want to I want to introduce here the second story, which is totally right. before we,

before I mentioned that wanted to get your opinion, I noticed they made it 18 Enough. So you

could only buy this if you're 18 and up. I don't Is that the same thing? And XE and other

blockchain games? Is that because of some gambling, like, Why do you make? Why do you think

that is the case? And is that going to be the case moving forward for all blockchain games? Because

that clearly limits the TAM, you know, if you're, if you're kind of saying, hey, only teen up can

purchase these things. Now, I know xe infinity does have an 18 plus age rating. I don't know if

they like if they age check you though, right? Like, what do you have to declare? To say I am 18?

But let's do that. Right? It does limit some people if they don't want to lie. The reality is

it's all self. Right? Like, no one's asking, as far as I know, not actually infinity not anywhere

yet is asking you to give your driver's license or like birth certificate or something. So there's no

age verification, there's a self reported age check. And at that point, like, is it really

limiting anyone? It feels more like all these companies, mostly just covering, covering their

behinds from a legal liability standpoint? Right. Like, well, they reported a team. So it's not our

issue. It's not our problem.

But yeah, it's a good point. And and I think as as regulation, or potentially comes into the space,

potentially, right, those become bigger and bigger issues. And I think how companies act early on,

will have some bearing on on the longer term sort of viability of these platforms. Now, I think what

was most interesting about this story and you're the one that picked up on this and I love this is

one day after, literally one day after that press release came out. This story came up and and I'll

read the headline here. Ubisoft built the lists its NFT announcement, as YouTube dislikes top

22,000 Fewer than 5% of viewers like the video explaining the Ubisoft courts platform. That's the

name of the platform we just discussed. And it says here Ubisoft has de listed its announced

trailer for its Ubisoft courts platform, following overwhelming backlash that saw it receiving a

dislike to like ratio of around 22.

To 800, word likes 15,466 dislikes. It was delisted

and and so the reaction from call it fans or people who follow Ubisoft

I mean, Jeff, is it safe to say that the reaction was overwhelmingly negative, overwhelming,

negative and very surprised, like I don't know, if you feel the same way as I do like this, to me,

was incredibly surprising. And maybe this is a moment where we need to like take a step back, you

know, see the forest from the trees or whatever that the expression is, you know, and recognize

that the the portion of people who are diving really deep into these blockchain games and even

just crypto it's still so early where it's such a small percentage of people and a lot of the

broader gaming community in the broader you know, world looks at these still as sort of scammy kind

of the stuff we talked about in the last episode with with Phil Spencer, kind of still looks at

these and says, Hey, this is a cash grab. I'm I'm maybe getting scammed in some way. And part of

that might be Ubisoft's reputation a little bit and kind of this game specific reputation with

some microtransactions issues when it first came out. But I do think I am a little bit surprised

that it seems the community viewed this as as a little bit of a cash grab and maybe just them

throwing in this this buzzword or this mechanic for no reason, though, I am surprised because I

would have thought that there would have been more intersection between gamers and kind of people who

are crypto enthusiast and I would have thought the community of this game would have gotten excited

being the first kind of triple A game to implement this. So this this one is a surprise to me. And

this is what you know i I'm curious like the some of the theories you've got I think the one you

mentioned around Ubisoft, you know, on our sister podcast, you're on the business of esports live

stream we had a discussion around there was this poll done and Ubisoft was the most hated gaming

brand on Twitter or whatever right like Ubisoft has challenges with their brand as it relates to

gamers. I don't know why so much hate around this announcement though, right? Like, fundamentally it

doesn't. It has no bearing or effect on players of the game really right. Like they lose nothing. And

so you don't want to participate. It's not like it became pay to win like, you know, God forbid they

had done that.

like I had mentioned before they then they really would have gotten backlash, like, you don't have

to participate this in this at all. It's like if you want to buy this cosmetic buy, if not, don't

say I'm surprised. This is why I don't I don't fully understand the backlash. And, and so as I'm,

you know, thinking about this, one of the theories is it just, is it already fatigue around the

buzzword, right? Like, is it? Is it feeling like Ubisoft? Or do players feel like Ubisoft is trying

to cash in in some way? And they don't spend the time to sort of understand what, what Ubisoft

actually doing here? Is it that Ubisoft didn't communicate this well, in terms of the benefits to

the player and how it's basically optional, or, you know, what I mean? Like, where's the failure,

the business failure here, it's, it's actually it's 100% fascinating because it this kind of

visceral sort of dislike, this isn't neutral. This is, you know, 9520 to one disliked to like, you

don't see that often.

Don't be fascinated to see some market research. Like, I do wonder if maybe blockchain gaming has

gotten this stigma from the broader gaming community, like, hey, these guys aren't

kind of approaching it the right way, almost like when I hate the I know, you're gonna kill me by

bringing this up, but kind of the authenticity word that gets thrown around in esports. A lot

like when a sponsor or even in gaming more broadly, if a sponsor or an entity comes into the

ecosystem, and isn't authentic or seem to be sort of paying their dues or kind of approach in the

right way. They get ostracized, like Have we gotten to the point maybe where the broader gaming

community views blockchain gaming and crypto as that as sort of like, well, that's not gaming.

They're the outsiders. They're just trying to scam us. I don't that's a really broad sweeping

statement. I don't think we should feel comfortable making just this. But it would be

fascinating if someone like a YouGov would would would do some sort of consumer insight around kind

of gamers just perception of blockchain and and kind of these these gaming experiences. You know,

I'm curious if you're at Activision Blizzard. And you see this happened, right? Or you're at EA and

you see this happen? Do you? Do you become a little gun shy in terms of your own? Blockchain

slash NFT, slash sort of Metaverse related announcements, like, do you sort of step back and

go? Maybe we should wait. Maybe we should see how this plays out a bit more? Or do you go hey, this

is just Ubisoft. No one likes Ubisoft. Like, we're still going to go ahead with our plans. Right.

Like, yeah, I mean, I think it's definitely a data point that you would look at, I don't think you

scrape, you know, scrap your plans. Just on this one data point. There's a clear clear that bigger

picture and a lot more data to look at. But I do think it's something that you take pause. Because

if the reaction is this negative, you the worst thing you want to do in one of these games, that

you have a large active player base that you're effectively monetizing really well for the long

term is alienate them and get people to leave the game because you introduced a new mechanic that

they didn't want. So I do think particularly for a game, you know, if we're talking about a game like

Feefo, or Grand Theft Auto, things that are Call of Duty games that are literally billion dollar

cash cows, yeah, you're going to think long and hard if now you you know, you're seeing this kind

of visceral negative reaction, for sure.

Yeah, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out, right? Because the person who takes the first

step sometimes takes the most risk, right? Like, I never try and read into this too much. Because

anytime you're breaking new ground, you're gonna have haters, you're gonna have people who just

don't like change of any kind, right? Like, to me, I think that's a big part of this. And you

compound that with Ubisoft, sort of, not so great reputation, and you get this perfect storm of

dislikes on YouTube. I also understand I guess why YouTube wants to remove the dislike button

for moments like this. But anyways, let's let's move on. I want to I want to touch on a different

story here, Jeff. And that is, and this one's a definitely a rabbit hole that I'm sure we will go

down over and over on this podcast, but it's a great way to sort of introduce the idea. And and

this is from the New York Times, so definitely mainstream media here, which I love. They're

talking about the metaverse and the headline here is getting married in the metaverse. The sub

headline says one couples recent nuptials, in the virtual world known as the metaverse showcase the

possibilities of having a wedding unfettered by the bounds of reality. The that goes on to say

that, you know, people are having zoom weddings, people are getting married and have always, for a

while now been getting married in games like World of Warcraft, Animal Crossing, etc. But one

particular section here I really liked they talked about how one company creates digital planning

tools for weddings. They're investing in the metaverse by creating virtual versions of real

world event spaces like the Plaza Hotel in New York.

So if you want to do something like crazy and wild in the metaverse, you can write you can go have

the crazy over the top wedding at the Plaza Hotel, which I think is interesting.

The big question I have for you is, you know, how quickly do you think we'll see, right? The wedding

business is huge, multi billion dollar industry, right? People spend lots of money on their

weddings. How quickly do you think we'll see traditional industry sort of move into the

metaverse in some way? Transition, you know, into more digital offerings? And what do you think the

reception will be from customers? Like, are we going to see 1% of weddings? For example, go into

the metaverse are we going to see 20%? Probably 1% of 1%. You know, it will take time just like with

any adoption of technology. I mean, I'm just I'm kind of laughing because I'm imagining like

grandparents and great grandparents like trying to figure out how to get into the metaverse. Like,

that's a problem that eventually is going to have to get fixed. But it might get fixed by literally

us aging up to be those grandparents and great grandparents because, you know, it's it's a hard

barrier to imagine them having to figure it out. They can't even figure out FaceTime like it's

gonna be hard for them to figure out Roblox and or whatever Metaverse you're talking about. But from

a broader picture. You know, zooming up the wedding industry, I do think you know, you're

seeing a large set and you are going to continue to see large sections of the economy that is

currently in the the IRL world shift into the digital world. And you'll have kind of

representations of similar things like, clearly there's been a lot of talk recently about concerts

in the metaverse that he just recently, for a couple years now, concerts in digital spaces, and

a lot of artists have had a lot of success with that. So just having these events in digital

worlds, I think you're going to see big swaths of different industries move in their weddings is an

interesting one. I mean, part of me thinks like that would be something like that might be unless

you're an early adopter, like one of the later things to move just because your wedding is such a

special day for people.

You know, I'll say myself included, oh, my wife, oh, go away. But you know, so it's one of those

things where I imagine that's the thing where you're gonna want people to come together sort of

in in real life.

But you know, but there are also limitations to the real life where we saw clearly during COVID,

like, that was the only way you could get married. If you're spread out or costs, it's a lot more

cost effective. So I can see, you can convince me of a lot of the positives of a virtual wedding. I

just think it's gonna take some time to get significant adoption. I'm curious what you think

of the following thesis. And this is totally off the cuff. I actually didn't I didn't think about

this before. But like, will we see sort of cannibalization of industries and sort of real

life? Things right by the metaverse in areas where the price tags are the highest like, but part of

me thinks that where you have very high price tags, this is maybe the most ripe for sort of a

Metaverse equivalent, right, like sim racing is one. I had a great conversation today with someone

about sim racing, right? where not everyone can afford to race a Ferrari, right. But a lot of

people can afford to have a SIM rig and a VR headset and get you know, 90% of the experience.

Not everyone can afford to get married at the Plaza Hotel. But the cost of doing that in the

metaverse once you've built that, you know, Plaza model to be able to put you know, people into it

is not that costly, right? So in some ways it it democratizes these very high end kind of out of

reach experiences. And I don't know if you think like so the thesis I want to put forward is maybe

the most expensive things are the first that will get sort of Metaverse, equivalents do so I think

that's a really interesting thought and could very well be right. My only pushback is is more from an

economic standpoint than a Metaverse and gaming standpoint, where it's like, a lot of these

experiences and events are probably, you know, sought after because they're expensive, right.

They like the term Veblen good like it's like almost like, it's it has, there's more demand for

because it's expensive, like everyone wants to get married at the Plaza because only like 50 people a

year can get married at the Plaza. It's just the building. Like it's not that special, you know,

other than the fact that you can't get married there unless you are a billionaire guy. So that's

my only question of have to kind of push back on Earth thesis is like, are those experiences so

special and sought after? Because they're, they're sort of scarce? And by putting them into the

metaverse, like if you could get married at the virtual Plaza or like the virtual, I don't know.

Something even more crazy like you're floating through space like that would probably be

interesting.

The bounding ourselves by real life experiences may not be the best business model

Yeah.

All right. Let's look, I think it's fascinating. I want to I want it to be a topic we revisit

regularly like, the effect of the metaverse on other industries, right? Because to me, that's,

that's the exciting piece of this whole thing, which is, as the as the metaverse sort of industry

grows, what are what is it swallowing? Right, like what is getting converted to digital experiences

versus real life? And it'll be interesting to see which industries fall first, right? Is it?

Is it it's a great point. And it's also really important for investors, you know, people who are

listening to this kind of thinking about where, you know, maybe to make money investing in this

space. Obviously, there's some pretty clear Metaverse plays that we've talked about, and we

will talk about all the time on this podcast, but kind of those second derivative, hey, well, who is

the metaverse gonna hurt? sort of thing? Or? Or maybe who is a Jason that you wouldn't think of as

a Metaverse play, but kind of touches it because of some tangential reason. I think that's actually

really interesting to come back to. So I want to I want to end You know, we have we have we have a

bunch of stuff. But I want to end this episode, Jeff on on the article we teased at the beginning

here, and that's from PC gamer. And the headline here was total clickbait right. But just for the

record, I think this author is completely wrong. I think they don't know what they're talking about.

I'm happy to debate them at any time.

But but they're totally wrong about this. This is total clickbait. The headline here is the meta

versus bullshit. And the sub headline says you're not losing your mind. It really does just sound

like a worse version of the internet. And and he makes some points. I'll I don't know if you wanted

to touch on specific ones here, Jeff. But I'll just mention some of them. You can mention there's

a couple that I wanted to say where I thought were actually decent criticisms of and one in

particular, and then really,

I don't know if you scroll down. Well, let me just mention this one. So he said you should because it

already exists, and it's called the internet. That's his first argument. The second argument is

the metaverse is bullshit, because tech moguls miss the part where Cyberpunk is dystopian. And

the third. The third criticism he has is the metaverse is bullshit, because it's promised cross

compatibility doesn't actually work. And then fourth, he says the metaverse is bullshit, because

no one can actually explain why it's better. So those are the four points he makes. And I'm

curious where you thought some of them had merit and where you thought some of them? Yeah, so the

one and I think those headlines don't, those are a little bit click Beatty, I think there's a couple

more nuanced points that he makes, sort of throughout that were maybe a little bit better.

But the one that I think is the best point that I want to probably dive into the most is really the

the issue of interoperability. Were kind of the metaverse and what the metaverse is today were

kind of melds with Blockchain is this concept where you get ownership of the items you have in

game, and then the blockchain allows you to buy and sell them. So you own it, you could sell it.

Once, you know, let's say you were playing the game, you decided to stop playing the game, you

could sell your item, which is positive, there's definitely a benefit. But what sort of the promise

of the future is this interoperability where it's Hey, I bought a gun in Call of Duty, I want to go

play Battlefield, I can bring my gun because I spent all this money in Call of Duty upgrading it,

buying it building it, I can go bring it to Battlefield. That feud. That world does not exist

currently. And I think there are a lot of challenges to how that world will exist in the

future given. You know, they're separate companies built on separate engines. very foundational

thing. So I think that is an interesting point that he makes that it's important to sort of

figure out

Yeah, I can guarantee you the author here was born

after you know, after the year 2000, most likely or like mid to late 90s. Because fundamentally, I

think he doesn't understand how the Internet itself evolved, right? He he says all the it's no

Metaverse is no different than the internet. Well, the reality is I think for even for the metaverse,

as exciting as it is, there are still technology hurdles that haven't been solved, right. So he

says it's bullshit, because it's promised cross compatibility doesn't actually work. Well, I mean,

how can you say that right? And literally, no one has yet proposed any kind of standards, right?

It's like saying in, you know, the 1970s that the Internet doesn't work because there's no cross

compatibility? Well, that's not fair. Because at some point, people got together and agreed that

you know, TCP IP and HTML and some of these standards, were going to be the foundations and

and built on top of that, and I think as this industry evolves, similar things are going to

happen. So like, to me that's that's such a weak argument that just because it doesn't exist today,

doesn't mean it won't exist ever. Right? I think for this to for the promise of the metaverse to

come true.

Cross compatibility will have to be a thing. And I believe we will solve it because it's to

everyone's benefit to your point, right? Yeah. You know, the argument he makes about tech moguls miss

the part where Cyberpunk is dystopian I mean, that's such a fluff argument, right? Like, in some

ways the metaverse is going to be dystopian, because Cyberpunk is dystopian, like, I could

easily point to Star Trek, where holodecks are as close to a Metaverse as anyone I think has come to

portraying them. And Star Trek, totally utopian that dystopian. And so you know, he's, he's wrong

on that point. There's where you gonna jump in? Yeah. Well, there's a piece that I wanted to bring

up where Tim, he talked, it's talking about advertising. And basically, the premise is

essentially like, is the metaverse just going to become advertising thrown at you in your face? And

really just like an immersive ad, essentially. And there's a quote from Tim Sweeney, so I'm curious

to kind of get if we can find it. It's somewhere in the article. I mean, my response to that is

where where do people go today where it's not being thrown in your face, right? Like, is the

reality.

It says, in September 2021, Washington Post's interview Tim Sweeney, imagine the future of

advertising says a carmaker who wants to make a presence in the metaverse isn't going to run ads.

They're going to drop their car into the world in real time, and you'll be able to drive it around.

And they're going to work with lots of content creators with different experiences to ensure

their cars playable here and there, and then receiving the attention it deserves. And I think

Tim's totally right there. Right? I think that's a fantastic point of how the metaverse is

fundamentally better than the internet or the next evolution of it. And, and the kinds of experiences

that can drive for users, for advertisers for everybody is really compelling. I don't know if he

had thoughts on that. No, that's that's, that's fair. I you know, I just think, I think his points

around advertising are interesting ones and ones we've kind of talked about a little bit on prior

episodes where it's like, having brands come into the metaverse does it kind of just become this

dystopian shopping mall where you just have brands shoving virtual things in your face. Now, as I'm

saying that I realized you could basically describe the internet or social media as that, to

some extent, very much so. But it's just something that I think we'll probably continue to talk

about. But the last kind of interesting quote that I pulled up when I was reading, it really actually

does a lot with what we were just saying, and I want to hear your thoughts on it. He goes, so much

development on the metaverse is focusing on recreating worse versions of things we already

have in the real world. And I can't help but think about the virtual wedding as is that just a worse

version of the real better? It's way better, you could get wasted in a virtual wedding. And it has

no impact on the next day, right? You know, to your point, you can do the wedding in space where

how can you do that in the real world like untethered from your, your, your meat body, right,

your limbs and your what you can do in a Metaverse the risks you can take the things you can like

experience to me, far exceeds what is possible in real life. This is like the next I would argue the

next step in human evolution even right, it's the digitization of our of our being, you know rakers

we'll call this the singularity where, you know, soul and and digital meat. And I think it's

exciting. You know, this author that is totally out to lunch doesn't understand the opportunity

here, or why it's exciting. So, on that note, I think that wraps up this episode of the meta

business podcast, Jeff, thank you. As always, to our listeners, make sure you guys if you liked the

show, send this feedback. Subscribe. It's available everywhere now. Took a bit to get us on,

you know, Apple podcast, Google Play Spotify, Stitcher, literally everywhere you get your

podcast content, we also put the videos up on YouTube, if you prefer to watch. So make sure you

check it out everywhere. We really would appreciate any feedback and tell your friends

about the show. If you're in working in or around the metaverse or gaming or crypto.

We really, really would love your feedback. And on that note, Jeff, thank you. We will see all of you

guys next week. Thank you all. Thanks for watching this episode of meta business. Make sure to

subscribe to the podcast on Apple podcast, Spotify, Google Play, YouTube or wherever you get

your podcasts. Also make sure to leave a review if you love the content. This is a meta TV series The

world's first and only media platform focused on Metaverse content and themes. So make sure to

follow all of the other meta TV social channels for more shows just like this