These days there were rumors that said that a new photorealistic virtual worlds platform was coming. This has generated a double controversy: whether virtual worlds do need to be realist, and how much the intellectual rights of content developers are respected. The reason: the promotional video of this product.
Copyright Violation?
TechCrunch posted a video that was shown as promotional video of LivePlace, and was retired from their website for some reason.
You can see that portions of this video come from a 3D artist portfolio located here. It is not clear why they retired the video, and it is not clear if this artist works for LivePlace or not, or if he/she allowed them to do this or not.
The comment at TechCrunch, that revealed this, says that this video portions were "stolen".
As you may suppose, the limitations are bandwidth and server power. The server power can be improved with enormous quantities of money, as these images are generated not by a single server but by an huge army of servers.
The bandwidth is the real limit, and not only the server bandwidth. The client bandwidth is the key. Yes, you will receive superb images but your mobile phone or PC will need to be fast enough to download and display them at speed of light (well... much less, but you know what I mean). Otherwise, you'll suffer a big lag.
In the future, this may be more viable. Now, it's utopian.
Having said this, if you take some time watching the video, you'll see that there is a strange mix of the excellent content of the video by the 3D digital artist, and real world images.
There's also some images of some very basic 3D sceneries that don't look realist at all.
You can see some lights that seem to move at render time. But lights can be simulated by simply using transparent images attached as textures to primitives. Also, things like buildings that seem to be highly realist often are just boxes with high quality textures, and no real complex geometry.
In most of the length of the video, there's a lot of blur and movement that distracts the eyes.
These 2 resources, movement and blur, make your mind imagine what you don't actually see.
So don't trust promotional videos like this, that show things in a frenetic movement and blur.
ConclusionI see an special emphasis in trying to get photorealistic worlds in the last times, and it's something I just can't understand.
It's not the quality of graphics, but the expression they give, what makes virtual worlds immersive.
If users want a virtual world that seems totally real, why not just go out and meet the real world? What users want is a virtual world that can trigger their imagination, their taste for mystery, wonder, or adventure.
Realism is good for a while, but a virtual world that makes its users feel special, keeps them forever.