In this episode, we discuss Microsoft's acquisition of Activision-Blizzard and the effect it will have on the metaverse, how Bobby Kotick and Satya Nadella talk about the metaverse, a study showing that 56% of people want to earn NFTs while playing video games, the NBA's Brooklyn Nets becoming the first professional sports team to join the metaverse, and so much more!

Episode 9 Keywords: Microsoft, Activision-Blizzard, Bobby Kotick, Satya Nadella, Interpret, in-game NFT, NBA, Brooklyn Nets, Netaverse

Welcome to the metaphysics podcast. The Metaverse and web three are bringing about the

biggest revolution since the internet itself. With your hosts Paul the prophet Dawalibi And Jeff the

juice Cohen. We will be bringing you the latest Metaverse, business news and insight into what it

all means. The meta business podcast starts now.

From the boardroom to the metaverse. This is the meta business podcast. I am

Paul Dawalibi. I'm joined today by my friend and co host, Jeff, the juice Cohen. For those of you

who are new to the meta business podcast. What we do here is we cover all the biggest and most

pressing, Metaverse, news and topics of the week. But we look at all of it through a business and C

suite lens, we dissect, we analyze the business implications of everything happening in this

Metaverse industry. For those of you who are new to the podcast, welcome. If you love the content,

please share it with your friends, please leave a five star rating and review. If you're a regular

listener and you love the content. Do the same leave a five star rating and review share it with

your friends tell other people about the podcast. That's how we grow this show. We also appreciate

all your feedback. If you guys are loving it, not loving it, whatever you think we should be doing

different or covering, you know, send us topics send us new send us things that you'd love to see

on the show guests even. And I'm sure we will, we will get to it. So, Jeff, how you doing this week?

I'm doing great. Feels like it's a massive week. You know, last week we had the

biggest acquisition gaming pretty much to date. And you know, Mike, Phil Spencer basically said

hold my beer and buy, you know, 5x So, um, you know, we're gonna cover this ad nauseum, but huge

week, so excited to talk about the Activision acquisition of course. And yeah, that's it. Yeah.

I

mean, just so you guys know, you know, our sister podcast business of esports. If

you came from there, then you know, you know, we covered the Microsoft Activision Blizzard

acquisition there on our live stream slash weekly news show at length. And so if you're looking for,

you know, the business of gaming kind of analysis of that, definitely tune into that go check that

out. I want to focus this conversation because Jeff, it's a huge story, right. And just the two

seconds of context here. Microsoft is paying because the deal technically hasn't closed, it may

it may take a year to close because of antitrust sort of concerns. But Microsoft is paying

essentially almost $70 billion to go and acquire Activision Blizzard, one of the largest if not the

largest game development company in the world, makers of Call of Duty World of Warcraft,

Overwatch, you know, Diablo all these huge franchises. And, and I think what what I want to

focus on and I think the reason why, you know, we both thought this was a good idea to bring up on

this show, is because a lot of the discussion around the announcement both from Phil Spencer and

Bobbie codec and Sachin Adela, like from all sides, whether it's the CEO of Microsoft, the head

of gaming at Microsoft, or the head of Activision Blizzard, all of them had something to say at some

point about the metaverse in the context of this transaction. And so I think the first let's start

with sort of the buyer here, right, let's start with Microsoft, and Sachin Adela, who's the CEO of

Microsoft. And I'm pulling this directly from the transcript of the announcement. So this is Sachin

Adela, that was speaking, I guess to shareholders, investors, etc. And I'll put it on the screen.

It's just text. So there's not much to see if you're listening to the podcast. You're not.

You're not missing anything here. But I've pulled out where there's discussion around the metaverse.

Okay. And and let me start with the first part here where Satya Nadella says, when we think about

our future for our vision for what a Metaverse can be, we believe there won't be a single centralized

Metaverse, and there shouldn't be, we need to support many Metaverse, platforms, as well as a

robust ecosystem of content, commerce and applications in gaming. We see the metaverse as a

collection of communities and individual entities anchored in strong content franchises, accessible

on every device. And bringing fantastic entertainment together with new technologies,

communities and business models is exactly what this transaction is about. I'm curious what you

think just stopping there. Jeff, what you feel about that definition of the metaverse, or at

least that view of it.

Can you pull it back on the screen? Sorry, just want to give context as I'm kind of

going through it. I mean, I think it's interesting. It certainly doesn't fit with sort of

the definition of kind of the metaverse, the capital T capital and Metaverse that we've sort of

been espousing on this podcast but I struggle with this because I don't necessarily disagree with the

fact that this is probably what a Metaverse will be for the very, I would even say medium term

future. If not, you know, for quite some time, mostly because I just think that there are so many

big tech companies and so many different entities trying to build different meta versus that it will

be hard for us to get to one. So I do think this view of that there won't be a single central as

Metaverse is probably very correct, at least for a significant period of time. It also is interesting

to juxtapose this versus kind of Facebook's vision, or a metas vision of the metaverse because

I do think that they are kind of looking at it more as we are going to own sort of the single

centralized metaphors. So it's interesting to think about that verse. And maybe it gets back to

what kind of Microsoft's history has been in terms of building apps, building operating systems that

lives on other devices. And they've never tried to kind of own the entire stack. They try to own the

application layer and the software layer and work with other kind of pieces of software to integrate

and make people's lives easier through through software. So maybe it's not surprising because

this has always been Satya Nadella isn't Microsoft's Mo is to kind of build these these

open platforms, these clouds and these services for people. But I do think it's interesting to

juxtapose versus versus Facebook and what's your kind of first initial reaction? You know,

there's a saying to a worm in mud to the world is mud, right? And I feel like

Metaverse definitions are 100% dependent on whoever's delivering that definition. Right. And,

and there are a lot of good reasons for this transaction. Right. There's a lot of good business

ideas behind it, and we cover them on business of esports ad nauseum. You know, we spent an hour on

the live show about it. I think, what troubles me here a little bit is, you know, we're trying to

conform the definition of a Metaverse to justify this acquisition in some ways, right. And so it's

so that it fits. And while I don't disagree, because I do agree that there won't be a single

centralized Metaverse in the sense that many people will build onto the metaverse on some kind

of common standards or infrastructure. And I do agree that that is where Microsoft plays best,

right? That at its heart, that's what Windows is. It's a common platform that allows other people to

build on top of but but where I fundamentally disagree with this definition, and where I'm

really bothered by it, is this sentence of where he says in and I really like Sachin Adela. I love

what he's done at Microsoft. I think he's truly been a visionary for the company. He has taken the

company to another level. And he says, But he says something here I fundamentally disagree with which

is in gaming. He says we see the metaverse as a collection of communities and individual

identities anchored in strong content franchises. And I asked the question, why does it have to be

anchored anchored in some content franchise? Like, why does it have to be about Call of Duty or about

readly? Why can't it be anchored in some general interest? Because I think that's more likely

what's going to happen, not a specific owned and operated IP content franchise by some mega Corp.

Fundamentally, I think these meta versus if you if you want to call them that will be organized

around interests, much more generalized interests. And, and again, it feels like a little bit too,

too warm in mud. The world is mud like, well, we just bought some really strong content franchises.

So now we have to say the metaverse is all about being anchored in strong content franchises don't

really well, I agree the acquisition could add a lot of technology, a lot of smart people to help

Microsoft build out their their vision for the metaverse. I don't think owning Call of Duty gets

them any one step closer to that vision.

100% agree I mean, them owning strong content franchises is an incredible gaming

strategy. To your point, it really is not. It's almost the antithesis of a metaphor strike. Not

only does it is it not necessary. I would almost go as far as to say that it is it is harmful to

having a Metaverse strategy because I don't think the metaverse should be built on any one IP or

franchise. It almost has to be just people going living their life entertaining themselves. And I

think if you're limiting it to one entertainment IP, it is by definition, not a Metaverse because

it's not all encompassing. But it just gets a little bit to the point of just where we are in

the metaverse hype cycle where it's not surprising Microsoft support big company, they're doing a

massive acquisition. They're wanting to pitch it to their shareholders, the investment community

and the media at large. Metaverse is a massive buzzword and I think for 99 point 99% of people

when they think the metaverse they think gaming when they think gaming, they're now starting to

think the metaverse so those two are almost almost a ceiling almost shouldn't be. They should

definitely be linked. And I think the gaming is a massive on ramp to the metaverse. Um, you know,

same way. Same way, social media was an on ramp to the internet or to the mobile internet or you can

use that's probably not a great example. The internet was around for a long time before but

gaming is a massive on ramp to the metaverse, but it is not the metaverse and I think people are

using it as synonyms. And to investors. I think it's an easy way to pitch it as a story because

there's a lot more nuance that frankly, investors aren't aware of yet or don't care about yet. But

it is it is the way that it's being pitched now in the media and the business community, generally at

large gaming equals Metaverse, Metaverse equals gaming.

But I truly believe and this analogy maybe is makes more sense to me is

Gaming's the engine of the metaverse, right? It powers what the metaverse fundamentally is at a at

a that underlying level. And this is where I think Sachin Adela is kind of a visionary because let me

just read the next quote out of this transcript here. He says when we first discussed the chance

to merge our incredible talent, extraordinary franchises or shared commitment to the very best

workplaces, and access to Microsoft's best resources, it gave me confidence that we would

have a far better chance to succeed in the increasingly competitive race for leadership. As

gaming through the metaverse evolves. That's Bobby's. Is that Bobby? No, yeah, sorry. That's

Bobby. And but I think this is a great recognition, whether it's Bobby or Sacha doesn't

matter, the combined entity, right? That in some ways, what really matters here is there's a race

for talent, right? As as, as as the metaverse evolves, even if we don't have all the questions

answered, there is going to be a massive demand for talent that can help build that can build

these things that can envision these things create these things. That is the race that they're

they're in, whether it was Activision alone or Microsoft alone, or both together. And I think

that's the smart part of why this makes sense, right? In the context of Metaverse, there's 100.

There's 100 gaming reasons, right, which are separate. But I think in the metaverse context, I

buy that you buy the people argument. Oh,

I 100% do and we just talked a couple episodes ago about how there's only something like

10,000 web three developers total, you know, on the on the planet currently, and just how scarce

of resource that is and how valuable that skill sets going to be. So I 100% buy into you know,

gaming talent is really scarce. And when you kind of amplify it even further to call it like

Metaverse gaming town, which I think is a different and more nuanced skill set. Yeah, is

incredibly challenging. But does that scare you a little bit the fact that Activision Blizzard $70

billion company widely, you know, really the biggest independent game company on the planet is

essentially saying, whether this is true or not, they're saying the reason why we sold ourselves is

because we don't think we can compete in what is necessary to create the future of video games.

Allah, aka the metaverse do a by that statement and be is that scary? Because if that's the case,

then there's only three companies or four companies on the planet that can build this

future.

I think. No question. That's true in my mind, in the sense that we're talking about

a revolution that on the scale of the advent of the Internet, of, you know, the invention of the

wheel, like we're talking about a real transformation of life as we know it, and how we

spend our time, whether it's leisure time, or work time, etc. So no question that it's going to

require vast resources, huge numbers of people all working on solving the technology problems and

building out whatever the shared infrastructure looks like. I think only the very largest

companies can do that. And I don't think Activision Blizzard was big enough, like, I think

it's truly the metas the, you know, Amazons, the Google's the Microsoft's these are the players who

are going to build out those standards that that infrastructure. That's not to say that there isn't

room for 1000 or 100,000 other small companies that build pieces of the puzzle pieces of

technology, content, whatever like like, all of its going to come together through the work of

hundreds of 1000s got millions of people. But I think you need the backing of the very biggest

tech companies for this for the the metaverse, again, capital T capital M to happen. And and so I

think Bobby was right there to recognize that Activision Blizzard alone probably could not have

done it. And I don't think that scares me, Jeff, I think that excites me. Right? There's a

recognition that this is massive on a scale that everyone is under estimating. Really everyone's

underestimated. We're talking about an industry that will be worth multiple trillions, trillions

and trillions of dollars. And, and the recognition that as a $70 billion company, we can't do this

alone should excite you not scare you that there's a massive thing, a massive change coming a little

bit, but it also, you know, they're acknowledging that it doesn't give me a ton of

confidence in some of these smaller startups that are trying to build the metaverse or or, you know,

create games within it. Like it just it's a little troubling that he gave that that response. I mean,

it's almost like if they can't do it, why is anyone trying to do it?

They're gonna be inspired by them, right? Like, they know they're going to get

swallowed by some bigger play. Metaverse play, at some point, that you have to build some technology

or some user base or something of value that then gets swallowed by someone else that has more

resources to put the whole puzzle together, right? It's puzzle pieces. That's the way I look at it.

So if you are a VC that or you're someone looking at this space, should you be

looking at kind of smaller plays, let me phrase this correctly, please, with smaller ambition,

like if someone came to you and said, I'm going to create, you know, something like the sandbox or

decentraland like I am creating the metaverse. In my mind, if given what you just said, the response

would be well, you'll never do that. So I'm not investing in you. But if someone came and said,

Hey, I'm willing to create a digital shoe brand, because I know the metaverse is gonna be popular,

and I'm going to be the Nike of digital shoes, then you would say, okay, that that seems

plausible to me that could actually work. Is that fair? Is that a fair statement? That's how I

interpret what you're saying?

It's a good question. I don't think it's a fair question. Because there's, there's too

many variables, right, that go into answering that, like, if someone came along, and I believe

they were the next, you know, Mark Zuckerberg or the next Elon Musk, and they have a huge idea. And

I think they could they actually because of who they are, could make that a reality. I mean,

that's part of what being a VC is, right? It's swinging for the fences, I think the more cautious

or risk averse VCs are gonna want to see some path to liquidity some path to an exit, and will invest

in companies where, you know, they know it's a, it's an easy roll up into some bigger platform

that exists already, or where they know, you know, they're building core technology that meta is

going to need or that Microsoft is going to need at some point. But I don't think I would ever

dissuade an investor from staying away from a big idea, just because that future requires a lot of

resources to make it happen, right? Because it's like saying, you know, Google's the biggest search

engine, they have whatever 90% of the market. I mean, the investors in Yahoo still made a lot of

money, the investors in, you know, ask Alfred, whatever still made a lot of money, because the

either a roll up typically a roll up happens in these kinds of situations. And so if I create a

legitimate competitor to a decentraland, and I have 200,000 users on the platform, or people who

bought a whole bunch of land, or whatever, you know, this play is, I mean, that doesn't mean that

at some point decentraland Can't come and acquire me if they're 100 times the size or 10 times the

size down the road. Your questions tough because there's no like one size fits all answer here of

just because the the problem is hard, and requires a lot of resources to make the whole puzzle that

investors should stay away from anyone trying to achieve kind of the big vision and should only

invest in very small kind of, you know, core tech or infrastructure pieces of the puzzle. I don't

think that's a fair assumption to make. I also think it depends on the investor, right? If I'm a

super early stage investor with a $25 million fund, I'm probably not going to invest in the play

that may need $500 million of capital over its lifetime because I know I'm going to get diluted

to nothing over time. But if I'm a you know, $3 billion late stage venture fund, that may be a

much a much more, you know, palatable play for me and maybe more in line with the kind of risk

return profile I'm looking for where I need the huge exit. I need to be swinging for the fences,

because I need to return this massive fun. So It's a unfortunately an it depends answer. I think

there's no, there's no one good answer there. You know, there was this other article from

VentureBeat, the interview they did with Bobby, you know, he reiterated, I think a lot of the same

thoughts. In fact, he used a lot of the same language that Sacha did in terms of, you know,

what's the metaphor? So I'll just, I'll bring this up because he used the exact same language like

they were really on the same. You know, they were they were briefed by the same PR firm, I guess, or

communications firm. He says, I think players are going to be the defining characteristic of the

metaverse. It's a community of players anchored in a franchise, and then those communities anchored

in some bigger virtual experience that allows you to have either access to your friends or access to

other content. At the beginning, he says, what really is the metaverse? It's not like Neil

Stevenson Snow Crash Division. He says that specifically. Um, so what do you think

I'm so conflicted about this quote, because I, like fundamentally disagree with him on

the metal gun, his definition of the metaverse, but I also think that what he just described is an

incredibly smart and savvy business strategy for a gaming company and has worked the last 10 years

and probably will work the next. I'll call it five to 10 years. But it's not a good definition of the

metaverse. I don't I can't get over that.

But this has always been Bobby in a nutshell to me, right? You got to give him credit

for the value who created with Activision Blizzard. But this is not a visionary. This is not

a human being who sees the future whatsoever, right. And, and I think he's just totally wrong

here completely wrong. What he's described is fundamentally like a VR lobby, before you go play

Call of Duty, where you can interact with your friends in a VR community is literally like a

lobby. And I think that is a very, very, very narrow view of this war of this future that suits

his narrative. I just think it's hilarious how it's parroting Sachi, his comments. almost word

for word. Right. And, and, you know, for again, we're business podcast, you have to admire the

fact how quickly both of these teams have got on the same page, at least from a messaging

standpoint, right? There's clearly no discord from a messaging standpoint.

Bobby's got a couple billion reasons to stay in line to keep himself on brand on point.

That's true.

One last thing on this, Jeff, before we move on, do you think a year from now,

when the deal is closed when this is not about hype? And this is not about messaging? And this is

not about shareholders? Like what once all the sort of the big news and big hype has subsided? Do

you think we will hear either from Bobby or Phil or Satya about Metaverse in the context of

Activision Blizzard under Microsoft?

It's a tough question. I think we will continue here. I mean, Microsoft will definitely

have a Metaverse strategy this, this acquisition alongside just generally what they've done in

gaming. And they actually can credibly be a Metaverse or execute metamer strategy. They're

going to have something will it be this franchise driven Activision Blizzard First Call of Duty

style metaverse? No, I doubt it. I think this you know, from a near term three to five year

perspective, I think this acquisition was very much about Game Pass, getting content winning the

console war, all that stuff that, you know, we just covered for an hour just before this on the

business of esports. So if you're interested in that whole discussion, please check that out. We

we covered that. So well. Like that was one of my favorite live streams we've done. So I think near

term. That's what this acquisition is about. But don't make that don't make that comment as Miss me

saying. Microsoft's not going to be a player here. I think they are now the player here. They're the

leader. They've overtaken meta in terms of who is credibly creating the metaverse.

It'll be interesting to watch Jeff and I agree that this is a catalyst for a much a

much more holistic Metaverse strategy at Microsoft because, you know, meta slash like Facebook has

put their stake in the ground. There's a clear sort of vision from Zuckerberg in terms of what he

wants to do there. Microsoft has clearly put a stake in the ground in the gaming space, but a lot

of the messaging is metaverse. I would love to see that articulated more clearly in terms of tangibly

what This is gonna look like and what they think they're going to do.

If I if I can make one more hot take I think Microsoft's biggest asset in the metaverse

is Minecraft. I mean, I think Tron is with a great point there their Metaverse strategy then then

this acquisition

I mean I could argue wow, I could argue right like there's there's definitely MMO

kind of pedigree at Blizzard that could lead to metaphors like bows to

Laos to niche to end to to out there to be like a you know, a contender for Metaverse

right like wow is a great gaming you could have thought where my mind is gonna go hang out online.

True but you could have virtual worlds inspired by Activision Blizzard IP right?

There's more of a fantasy world area that is wow inspired while lore. Right this

is exactly what you said wasn't the answer. This is literally their strategy. This is

the just hating on meditating on that strategy, and then we came full circle. Now we love it.

It's not a virtual law. It's not a VR lobby to go play COD. Okay. Let's, let's move

on. I have we have a couple other fun stories here. This one that headline I think is very

interesting. very eye catching it says interpret study says 56% of gamers are interested in earning

NF T's in games. You know, the study polled 1500 console and PC gamers 56% of them are interested

in learning NF Ts. And it's interesting in the context of you know, Ubisoft and all the backlash

there were basically they backpedaled Sega saying, you know, we're gonna take it slow and cautious

because we've seen the backlash to NF T's. How do you reconcile that with this study? Jeff that says

56% potentially want to earn NF T's while they're gaming.

It's interesting. I mean, I wanna kudos to them for doing this study, I feel like we

you know, for the last six weeks, we've been calling like saying someone, someone needs to go

out and do a survey on this and kind of figure out where people's actual motivations are, and kind of

what people are thinking so so that's good to have some data. Finally, 55% sounds like a lot. But

also, it's kind of not, because if you flip it the other way, that means 45% don't want NF T's and

games. And it's entirely possible that this data is exactly right. And just the 45% are super

vocal. So, you know, we're hearing that vocal minority. So that's potentially option one. Option

two is there could be something, you know, in the question that sort of skewing where it's like

people want to earn, they want to earn FTEs, but they don't want to pay for them. And, you know,

maybe the problem is an implementation and sort of the way that these things, you know, have been

kind of put in put into the game so far. But yeah, I'm a little surprised the numbers 55%. But at the

same time, that's that's decently low, still,

you thought it would be lower, you thought it would be higher,

based on the public purpose of what we've seen in the in the big negative backlash, I

would have thought it would have been lower. Now, having said that, I would be interested to see

like if they pulled microtransactions or something like I want to be able to buy in game items, like,

Where would that fall? Because if that's like 90% of people want microtransactions that I'd be like,

Okay, now that now that kind of numbers in a different context. You see what I'm saying?

Yeah, there's a couple other stats that came out of the study, which I think are

interesting. It says interpret also said that NF T's could play a major role in retention, as over

45% indicated that being able to earn NF T's through gaming would increase their current

engagement levels of games. I thought that was interesting. And it says additionally, over 53%

indicated that earning NF T's is the primary driver compared and they differentiate here. It's

subtle compared to being able to sell trade, NF T's and the idea of building an NF T collection.

The quote here says building a collection is not the major motivator right now, gamers are not yet

viewing NF TS as they would Pokemon cards are collecting a complete set of similar items. Gamers

just want to be able to participate in this new business and engagement model currently becoming

an NF T owner is a cumbersome process. With numerous steps across multiple systems and

programmers and programs. Gamers are likely looking to the industry to help create a more

streamlined process towards NFT ownership and participation.

But I think that last part is 100% Spot on. I mean they when I think this isn't a

remotely hot take at all, but I think that there needs to be numerous different companies probably

built that their sole purpose is making it easier for people to interact with NF T's within Games,

how to trade them, how to own them, how to easily buy them with Fiat, like, many different like it

should be as easy as buying a gemstone and Candy Crush. And currently it is it is not that it is

significantly significantly harder. So that is a massive hole in the industry right now that I

think everyone is aware of, and there's probably 50 companies out there trying to fix it. But I

definitely agree with that statement.

Yeah. Are you surprised that earning NF T's is the primary driver, not like the

idea of building a collection or selling and trading? Like, it feels like the interest is not

necessarily in the NF T's themselves. It's like, just the thought that I'm getting something from

my gaming, right? Like there's some Psychology here at play. That's not really dependent. Like

if, if I

make money versus the motivation is to like, Hey, I got a cool thing.

Know that says that earning NF T's is the primary driver, as opposed to being able to

sell trade NF T's and the idea of building an NF T collection meaning or what is

what is earn an NF t mean just like own it for like getting it.

But this is my point. It's like I could replace that with like, I don't know,

a badge or something. Yeah, like a PlayStation Becker's? Yeah, I don't know that

that's, that is surprising to me.

That it doesn't seem it's about the utility and it doesn't seem it's about the money.

But it's just the idea that I'm earning something seems to be the primary driver. I'm just getting

something that doesn't matter what it is. And I don't care to collect it or sell or trade it.

i Yeah, that doesn't make sense to me. I feel like that is that would be that is very

surprising. Because to me, the whole motivation, I think, is to get something a monetary value with

us. But I guess maybe that's me putting my lens on it. So the date is what the date is.

The data is what the data is. Let's move on. We have one last story here. And this is

kind of a fun one. And just because I think we I think we have to talk about it in the context,

especially of the definition of the metaverse, which seems to be a recurring theme also here. But

the headline here is Brooklyn Nets, become the first professional sports team in America to join

the metaverse. Like first of all that headline given what's the content of the article, I think

the headlines totally misleading, but the sub headline says Welcome to the metaverse and this is

this is about the Brooklyn Nets which is a NBA basketball team. They've officially become the

first professional sports team to enter the metaverse it says dubbed the metaverse, the NBA

team debuted a new innovative video system over the weekend that develops 3d lifelike renderings

in a matter of seconds. Just without all the details, basically, you can watch their game in a

360 like full VR experience. And it's all digital versions of the players. But they're they're

taking it from real life, right. So they're digitizing what's going on in real life. And

they're turning it into a VR experience, or a VR sort of show that you can experience will live

essentially. I'm curious, Jeff, what what do you think we like, again? Is this the right use of the

word Metaverse here in your mind? Oh,

no, not really. I mean, but it is really cool. I mean, it's a it's a cool, immersive

experience. And I think we've gotten to the point in the hype cycle where anything that is gaming

immersion, VR, pretty much all of these things are just gonna get lumped in and called a Metaverse

because it gets your story picked up by different outlets. So is it a metaverse? No. Is it

interesting technology that could actually have an application to gaming and to the metaverse? Yeah,

I mean, I think it's I was pretty impressed with the video that I watched, just in terms of what

these cameras are able to do and kind of the real time 3d rendering, which I think is something

that's actually super important, like foundational technology for the metaverse.

Yeah, it's definitely an interesting sort of digitization of real life,

which I think is is a and we've talked about this before. I do think that's like an intermediary

step to the eventual Metaverse and I could see something like this an experience like this a

technology like this being part of call it some other Metaverse infrastructure, right, where I'm

in some virtual world, some virtual land. I go over to the virtual stadium, and I can watch the

virtual Mets game in a way that's more native to that virtual world than just sort of a screen with

the real life. You know, play There's so like I could see how this is an intermediary step. Maybe

it fits into a metaverse. I think calling it a Metaverse on its own is a stretch. Again, I

understand why this is being done. It's to capitalize on the hype cycle. But I'm not sure I

buy long term because long term truly is. If if these players are not playing on a court in real

life, you know, if they're sitting in their living rooms playing basketball, in some true Metaverse,

that, to me, that's the that's when we've, you know, reached capital T capital M. But this feels

like an intermediary step. An interesting one, but I think a headline that maybe went a little bit

too far.

Absolutely, I think it is, it is nice to have different. Remember, there's gonna be so

many different on ramps, I think the more we can be introducing people who aren't gamers and aren't

immersed in this world into these kinds of experiences, the quicker the adoption of capital T

capital and the metaphor we had, we had to just start calling a capital T capital and people know

what we're talking about. But the quicker the adoption will be of that ultimate world because

it's going to be very jarring. And it's I think we've talked about this many times, it's not going

to be like a faint Oh snap. And all of a sudden we're all living in the metaverse, I think there

are going to be all of these different pseudo meta verses and small experiences and slightly

immersive things and baby steps. And the more we can get people dipping their toes in and kind of

figuring this stuff out, the better. So to bring in an audience of, you know, basketball fans or

people sitting in Brooklyn that don't, that aren't exposed to this. That's, that's good for the

industry. In my opinion, at least.

Jeff, I love finishing on that thought it's such a good one. Guys, if you love

the podcast, definitely go leave that review on Apple podcasts on Spotify on Google Play. Make

sure you hit subscribe so you get notified or follow on whatever platform you get this. So you

get notifications of when new episodes come out. We do these once a week. They come out every

Monday. We love doing them. We welcome your feedback. Jeff, thank you as always, you're

amazing. Thank you guys for listening for tuning in. We appreciate you guys and we'll see you all

next week. Thanks for

joining us here on meta business. Make sure to subscribe to this podcast everywhere you

get your podcasts, leave a five star review and tell your friends, family and colleagues all about

us. Also, make sure to follow metta TV on all socials to get more of the best Metaverse content

anywhere. Tune in every week for another episode of meta business