Wagner James Au / New World Notes

Scrambling in response to much Internet snark, Mark Zuckerberg recently updated his Keane-eyed Horizon Worlds avatar that he posted to Facebook last week (above left) with a much more detailed and realistic version (above right).  Writing:

I know the photo I posted earlier this week was pretty basic — it was taken very quickly to celebrate a launch. The graphics in Horizon are capable of much more — even on headsets — and Horizon is improving very quickly.

It’s a mystery why his first version was so basic — both the avatar and the user-made Eiffel tower in the background — but even stranger to me is what it implies about Meta’s underlying conception for metaverse platform avatars. Apparently, it includes the premise that avatars should be a mixed reality variation of the real world user, and that consumers even want this.

For newcomers to metaverse platforms, this is a common assumption — probably because the mainstream press devotes so much coverage to one-off mixed reality events where it makes sense for avatars to somewhat resemble their real owners. In other words, celebrity appearances. For instance, Travis Scott in Fortnite, Lil Nas X in Roblox, or more locally, Matthew Ball in Breakroom. 

But this is actually the exception. Overwhelmingly, metaverse platform users do not prefer avatars based on their real life appearance, even when the internal tools to customize them that way exist. 

This is an important distinction to understand, because it reflects both the market preference and the underlying psychological needs which drive it:

First to the market. The very most popular platforms which fit the broad definition of a metaverse have default avatars which are not designed to resemble real life individuals at all — Minecraft and Roblox, in particular. But that’s also the case with VR-facing platforms like Rec Room. (Which probably not coincidentally, has many more active users on Meta’s Quest headsets than Meta’s own Horizon Worlds.) The avatars on these platforms, for the most part, are blocky and cartoonish, resembling humanoid figurines, where customization is more about clothing choices, than the avatar itself.

This reflects the internal motivations for people who most enjoy metaverse platforms, especially the very young, who comprise their core user base: They are in virtual worlds where they can explore and create and experiment with identity, which they are still developing and shaping in their own lives. Metaverse platforms offer kids and teens a medium that’s free from the expectations (and judgements) that they face on social media sites like TikTok and Instagram, let alone in their daily offline life.

This also plays out with older people in metaverse platforms, even when they have the options to create realistic, mixed reality avatars. At launch, VRChat offered realistic human avatars by default, but the user base has overwhelmingly opted for fantastic, humanoid avatars, especially of the anime variety and, of course,  furries. This is even true for Second Life, where the majority of users are older Millennials and Gen X. Thanks to mesh, Second Life avatars typically skew ultra-realistic, but overwhelmingly, they are not customized to mirror their real life owners. There, the motivation is more a “Barbie but for adults” fashion sim playspace, where any resemblance to the real user at the keyboard is idealized and aspirational.

It reportedly took Meta’s 3D artist forty attempts to get the realistic version of Mark’s avatar approved, suggesting it very much reflects his (and therefore Meta’s) vision for the Metaverse. Despite little evidence that anyone who already is in a metaverse platform wants it — and scant proof (in terms of new users) that any market for mirror world avatars exists.