In the June issue of MISQ Executive, Mary Lacity, Jeffrey K. Mullins and Le Kuai reflect on the evolution of Metaverse. The paper, which takes the form of an interview, is entitled “Evolution of the Metaverse”, and can be found here.
Since last summer, I have been doing some work about the metaverse, with Ben Keegan, Jan Kietzmann and Ian McCarthy, which culminated in a conference paper, plus a journal paper that is now under review. One of things that we spent a long time discussing was the terminology to use: Is it the metaverse (like the Internet) or the metaverses (like social media)?
After much back and forth, we settled on the plural understanding of metaverse. After all, unlike the Internet, which is globally understood to be a global network of interconnected computers that communicate with each other, there isn’t one uniformly defined metaverse. Rather there are, at least, two very different types. In their paper, Lacity et all (2023) use the terminology Web 2 vs Web 3 to distinguish these two types. Ben, Ian, Jan and I used the term close vs open, but the idea is the same.
Lacity and colleagues present a useful discussion of the differences between the two types (see pages 168-169 of the paper). Based on that, I assembled the table below.
| Type of MV realm | Closed /Web 2 | Open / Web 3 |
| Example | Meta’s Horizon Worlds, Roblox | Decentraland, The Sandbox, Somnium, Cryptovoxels |
| Governance | Centralised; by platform owner | Decentralised; maintained by communities or decentralized autonomous organisation (DAOs) |
| Control of digital assets (e.g., virtual plots of land, virtual goods and services, digital art, event access passes, …) | Assets are held by platform owner | Assets are owned by users and may be sold to others |
| Business model – users | Platform providerharvests and monetizes users’ data in exchange for free or low-cost services | Users have more control and autonomy over identity, behavioural data and digital assets |
| Business model – developers | Platform provider controls type of apps offered in ecosystem, and retains large percentage of app revenues (e.g., Meta keeps 47.5% of developer revenues for Horizon Worlds; Steam and Google Play keep 30%; Roblox keeps nearly 75%) | Users have more autonomy over apps developed, and retain higher share of revenues |
| Capabilities (e.g., integration with VR headsets, haptic hardware …) | Advanced and quickly developing, due to large capital investments made by platform owner | Limited and slow to develop, due to lack of capital investment |
When we look at metaverses this way, we can see a tension emerging. Centralised models will offer a much better user experience. However, decentralised models are likely to be better for users’ privacy and for their ability to monetise the digital assets that they create on the platform.
The journal paper that is now under review unpacks what the different approaches discussed above mean for how individual users and businesses engage with these platforms.
In turn, the conference paper examines the potential of metaverse realms as sources of customer insight and as “labs” for new product development. We will be presenting that paper, on July 12th, at 9 am, at the Academy of Marketing Science’s World Marketing Congress, which takes place at the University of Kent. If you are around, come to our presentation and help us make sense of this new technology.
Ana Canhoto 
One thought on “Implications of open vs closed metaverses for users and developers”