Computer Networks 56 (2012) 3879–3885

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computer Networks

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate/comnet

Virtual worlds, augmented reality, blended reality

Ian HughesMetaverse Evangelist, Feeding Edge Ltd., United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Available online 4 October 2012

Keywords:Virtual worldsAugmented realityBlended reality

1389-1286/$ - see front matter � 2012 Elsevier B.Vhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2012.09.016

E-mail address: epredator@btinternet.com

The internet could be considered just another collection of digital tools, but it has had amore profound impact on how we live, work and play than most people would have pre-dicted. The internet makes everywhere local. For the exchange of ideas and data, it does notmatter where you are on the planet. For an industrialized society, or for one forming toemulate existing ones, this creates an interesting situation. If people can work and commu-nicate at any distance the current organization of corporations, cities and even countrieschanges. However, the legacy set of tools available to communicate at distance miss manyof the vital elements we use as humans. Telephones, email and web pages filter out muchof who we are. It is very easy, therefore, to dismiss any new technology as more of the sameand to stick with the legacy tools. We lose the notion of space, location, size, physical pres-ence and nonverbal communication in the ‘‘traditional’’ internet tools. This tensionbetween what we currently do and what we need to do acts as a flashpoint that causesnew inventions to emerge.

The internet helps spread these inventions, and acts as the expression of them. Theseevolutionary steps in our communication are not restricted to the keyboard and screen,so not only challenge our organizations they also challenge our ideas of what the normis for computing. Looking at the components of some already exciting technologies andcombining them with a changing society becoming well versed in freedom the internetcan offer, leads us to a very close future, etc. One with a blended reality where digitaland physical mixes in combinations that suit us as people. The future is already here wejust have to join it.

� 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

We have always had virtual worlds, from cave paintingsto novels, from theatre plays to cinema. Some of theseworlds have been pure entertainment, others ways to con-vey information. The human race has continued to createnew technology to support these expressions of thought.Novel toolsets in any field create a ripple of dissent fromthose skilled in the art of using the existing tools. Overtime, early adopters exploit the tools to even greater effectand before you know it everyone is using the novel toolset.At the same time an even more advanced set is being in-vented. The cycle continues.

. All rights reserved.

Asynchronous communication, taking turns to commu-nicate whilst not being there, is one simple way we operateas people. In the past we painted on walls, we wrote lettersand posted them. Later we hung paintings in galleries, cre-ated sculptures and also took photographs. This form ofcommunication made a great deal of sense given the tech-nology available at each stage. Snapshots of ideas, just asyou are reading here now.

Being able to communicate at distance, synchronously –that is at the same time as one another – has its challenges.As humans we have our voices, our bodies and the thingsaround us to use as props to explain and communicate topeople within range. Someone’s ears can hear our voice,their eyes can see our body language. The advent of elec-tronic communication meant that some of those individualexpressions were able to be projected further. Our voices

3880 I. Hughes / Computer Networks 56 (2012) 3879–3885

are captured and passed electronically along telephonelines. TV technology delivers moving images directly toour homes.

Then along came the internet.Communication via the internet initially replicated

asynchronous communication. Instead of letters we digi-tally delivered text in emails. We left pictures of productson websites inviting people to come and browse at theirleisure. It was still disembodied asynchronous communi-cation. This form of communication does have its place.In a task-based world writing something down and leavingit for someone to deal with later is very effective.

Digital communication though has the added propertythat it can also be synchronous, it can happen now. Deliv-ery of information can be two way and instant. It is alsoagnostic about the data that flows. A digital network careslittle if the signal is a voice, a picture or the latest sales fig-ures. It delivers it now from end to end, and also stores itfor asynchronous consumption too.

Expressions of that data are no longer restricted to texton a screen and to keyboard inputs to respond. How weinteract and express our thoughts has undergone a hugetechnology revolution but it has also been underpinnedby an equally huge social revolution. Having a way to com-municate is one thing, being willing to use it is another.

This paper will examine ways in which we communi-cate in current virtual worlds and then explores how thatextends into our physical environments with blended real-ity. It lays out a roadmap of complimentary technologiesand points to a relatively close future.

2. Logging into a virtual world – they can see me?

It is into this environment, of new tools and a willing-ness to use them, that some expressions of communicationbetween people at distance have evolved. The tools are byno means complete, and like all technology and socialchange they are bedding in, becoming the norm. This iswhilst even more things are being invented to replacethem. This is where virtual worlds or metaverses becomerelevant.

It is not the aim of this paper to define all the types andsubtle differences of current metaverses, but there aresome defining features of this generation of virtual worlds.Virtual worlds tend to be synchronous environments thatusers connect to. As part of that connection the user hasan avatar, a digital representation of the fact they arelogged in. The avatar provides a proxy for the human inthe digital environment. Moving around in the environ-ment gives the user a different view of the virtual world,that movement is visible to others. The environment istypically a representation of three dimensional space ona computer screen. It is populated by avatars of all the peo-ple logged into that space with the ability to move around,be seen to move around and also be aware of the presenceof others doing the same.

Just pause there to consider what that means. Alreadythere are some unusual dynamics challenging us as hu-mans. The technology itself is not trivial, keeping eachuser’s screen updated with the information about the

location of others, working as a peer to peer or client toserver architecture and maintaining the connection alltakes work. However, it is not the difficult part for a userof the system. The users now know that people can seetheir avatar representative. They have chosen to arrive ata place, to move to a location in that digital scene. Theywill also have decided what digital representation of them-selves to use, how they look and what they wear. (Not allvirtual worlds rely on human shapes and clothing.) Thecommunication with others in the virtual world at this le-vel is all implied. To make a physical analogy, people haveturned up for a meeting, not yet been introduced and arelooking at one another or people have all arrived at a partyworried if the invite did really say fancy dress or not.

We are using a world completely created and deliveredwith via electronic means. Yet this digital world is dealingdirectly with human expressions of feelings, emotions andideas. It is doing this in real time. It is very different froman email or a webpage. Virtual worlds are about people,and how they feel.

3. Now I’m logged in – they can hear me too?

As mentioned previously, people are already in implicitcommunication the moment they arrive in a virtual envi-ronment. Location, timing and presence are all importantindicators. In addition, most virtual worlds encourage ava-tar customization, this may be through commerciallybased virtual goods and clothing or simply through differ-ent templates and shapes to choose from. The key is thatpeople can see you and that you can see them. Exceptyou can’t! As a user of the system you are engaged insomething that goes beyond the pixels on the screen. It isnot a video conference. In a video conference you have tosit in front of a camera and face forward to talk. The videoattempts to represent your physical form. Avatars are help-fully one step removed from your physical position and de-meanor. They allow you to express and play with theexpression of you in the context of the gathering you areattending. It lets social bonds be formed and strengthened.People choose to blend in or stand out, be part of a group ortribe, or be an individual, just as in the physical world. Peo-ple attend soccer games at stadiums wearing their teamcolors. showing their support and affinity. Those team col-ors may look strange in another context, so people changeclothes all the time. In a virtual environment, appearancecan be changed at the click of a button. It can even evolveover the course of an event. It is a very powerful mask asmuch as it is a very powerful tool of personal expression.

Having touched on the nonverbal communication im-plied by the mere presence and appearance of your avatar,we can consider some other forms of human communica-tion. We want to be able to talk to people. Many virtualenvironments support voice chat. Voice chat is just thesame as a telephone conference call but permanently opento those in the general online vicinity. It has the advantagethat whoever is speaking at a particular time can be indi-cated visually in the environment, letting the user associatean avatar with a voice. It has the disadvantage that in largegatherings one voice can dominate. That phenomenon can

I. Hughes / Computer Networks 56 (2012) 3879–3885 3881

be observed in real world physical gathering where somepeople hog the conversation and others are unable to con-tribute. Being a digital communication channel, and notcaring if it is delivering voice, pictures or text though, thevirtual environments tend to provide additional ways tocommunicate, for example, through text. Users are able tosend text messages either directly to one another in a pri-vate direct message or via a more general message availableto everyone in their avatar’s vicinity. This passing of mes-sages, whilst other things are going on, does provide somecultural friction. In a physical environment, whilst someoneis talking, if people listening start passing notes to one an-other it is likely to cause offense, are they paying attention?It is however becoming acceptable even in physical envi-ronments: Technology in the physical world allows us tohave text conversations via instant messaging and servicessuch as Twitter without interrupting or distracting themain conversation. Virtual world text messages providethe same dynamic. Also, the public text chat in a virtualworld works well as it provides a history of questions andcomments that do not to stop the flow of any other verbalconversation. Points made in text by anyone can then beaddressed at an appropriate later time.

A typical example is when giving a presentation, eitherin a virtual world or at a physical meeting. Sometimes it isbetter for a presenter to deliver her points and maintainher flow. An audience member may have a question thatoccurs to him. With text based systems he can ask thequestion publicly (which helps the others with a similarquestion notice a kindred spirit). The presenter can thengo back to that question later or even work the answer inwhilst presenting without stopping her flow. A mixed sys-tem of voice, visuals and back channel communication isvery efficient and also enjoyable most of the time.

Virtual worlds provide us with many more modes ofcommunication than the previous forms of interaction. Itdoes not mean all of them have to be used at the sametime. It does mean that individuals and groups use whatworks best for them.

4. Immersed in ideas – changing the world around us

Many people are nowadays familiar with the concept ofa shared editing space powered by the web. Wikis allow arange of users, either in a controlled manner or in a freeand open way, to work together on web pages and docu-ments. Many of the new collaboration services that usethe cloud as a concept follow this model of a shared net-worked resource. All changes are recorded but the mostcurrent version of the document online is taken as the cor-rect one. It was the original concept of the world wide web:to be able to work together on documents and papers.Holding a central, up-to-date version of a document ratherthan disparate versions emailed around as attachments iskey.

Many collaborative virtual worlds are in fact giant visualwikis. They allow users to upload, create and model thingswithin the environment. Some of these environments allowlive editing. The world and the things in it can be changedwhilst people are logged in and experiencing it. This gives

the opportunity for people skilled in the use of the creationtools, or armed with suitable sets of ready made spacial clipart, to explain concepts as an immersive experience. This isdeeper than just a diagram on a white board: People areplaced inside the idea. This process can be as simple asviewing and interacting with a model of a product thatfunctions and looks like the physical equivalent – for exam-ple, a model of a car with working dashboard, lights and en-gine sounds. It does not have to be to scale though. Peoplecan be immersed in the detail of a chemical reaction at anatomic level, seeing the neutrons and protons up ‘‘firsthand’’. The laws of physics can be modeled and obeyed,but they can also be changed or ignored in dynamic digitalvirtual worlds.

A good example of the immersive quality of virtualworlds is that of airline pilots. They have all logged manyhours of real flying but they have also been immersed inthe virtual world of a simulator. The simulator is controlledfrom outside the experience by an instructor. The instruc-tor creates sudden changes and situations from a controlpanel that alters the virtual experience the pilots are hav-ing. He can make engines fail, alter weather conditions andcreate other emergency situations for the pilots to experi-ence, adapt and learn within. The situations created aregenerally at the extreme end of teaching and are usuallysituations that would be fatal to try in the physical worldand not get right the first time. The pattern of immersionin a world, in an idea and have that environment and itsconditions change around you dynamically, is a major con-stituent of a virtual world. It is the part that makes it di-verge from the physical world – even if the virtualenvironment is seeking to mimic a real place. It is the hard-est concept for many people to come to terms with and themost powerful tool for sharing ideas and concepts.

In a culture used to a single projector and slide showpresentation format, where ideas are delivered by a speak-er or teacher and the audience is sat passively in a meetingroom or classroom a dynamic collaborative environmenthas a cultural mountain to climb to gain acceptance. It, likethe cave painting and slide shows before it, has a wealth ofnew symbolism and representations to evolve. A commonlanguage of visual, audio and interaction models is slowlydeveloping as groups interact in virtual environments. Itbrings us a step closer to being synchronously immersedin one another’s minds.

4.1. What is holding virtual worlds back?

People using virtual worlds can see one another, get asense of presence and location. They can hear and commu-nicate with voice and text. They are immersed in an everchanging world that helps express and augment the ideasbeing shared. The technology is inexpensive, unlike physi-cally traveling to be together. Everything can be minuted,recorded and played back. So what is stopping widespreadmass adoption of virtual worlds?

Corporate culture started to take a serious interest invirtual worlds from about 2006. A wave of people begandiscovering the benefits, exploring the possibilities. Itwas a very positive time. It was a technology boom. Like

3882 I. Hughes / Computer Networks 56 (2012) 3879–3885

all technology booms it may have seem to have faded alittle?

If we place virtual worlds on a spectrum of human com-munication they are further along in the depth of commu-nication than some of the more text and image based socialmedia. Back in 2006 culturally many people were still ofthe opinion they did not want to really share online.Why on earth would they want to use Twitter? Facebookwas for show offs and so forth. Virtual worlds had the com-munication attributes of sharing and to some degree show-ing off. They also had the challenges of having a digitalpersona, of needing to choose a look, to dress the part.There is the possibility to create content, 3d models, fillthem with computer programs too. So if you start withthe first premise – ‘‘I don’t really want to share online’’ –and then layer on extra levels of communication skills, cul-ture and technical ability it will put a lot of people off.

For virtual worlds to succeed we needed the world to bewilling to share and work together on the web first. Hence,it was not technology but an entrenched culture that washolding people back.

Unusually though, for a technology wave, it was ad-dressed as a fear of the technology when in fact it was afear of what happens when people start talking and shar-ing. Imagine being a corporate middle manager: Your rea-son for existing is to act as a conduit between the chains ofmanagement to own information and disseminate it. Veryoften your ability to convince and sell to stakeholders hasgot you to that position. Your skills of communicationand persuasion, your ability to do a slide deck or a spread-sheet have become your cherished toolset.

Along comes a technology that let’s anyone talk to any-one. It let’s projects help themselves by finding like mindedpeople anywhere in the world. It brings new forms of com-munication that may help the more introverted membersof society lead and take a role. It relies on building reputa-tions again from scratch. Now imagine that you are also incharge of some of the IT policy and direction: You areincented, paid, to control information flow. How can humannature allow you to do anything other than protect your po-sition? It does not sit well with a command and controlstructure that people are blogging, starting to tweet, shar-ing things on Facebook and are realizing that they can com-municate both socially and professionally and good thingsare happening for them. We have been seeing a battle andbacklash against this sort of communication – and thisbacklash is not just observable with virtual worlds, it ap-plies to the ongoing social media revolution as well.

Now throw on top of this a virtual environment with allthose capabilities and social implications and add colorfulgraphics and sound. Those environments look like theyare games. How can you possibly support this withoutbreaking ranks and risking your position in the manage-ment chain?

The issue is that this technology wave is about people.People are complicated. They are way more complicatedthan version 2.84 of application X.

The positive news is that that backlash is short lived, itis a generational issue. It will change because of the expo-sure to social interaction online that the current generationenjoys.

A person in our assumed control position who realizesthat their personal skills and influence do translate wellinto these virtual environments, a person who is up forthe challenge on the other hand will also thrive. Virtualenvironment technologies are disruptive not destructive.

5. Sharing ideas, games, history

People suddenly faced with the digital age tend to havea reticence to sharing online [1]. Guarding ideas, dealing ona need to know basis, privacy concerns or simply the ques-tion ‘‘why would would anyone be interested?’’ are all veryvalid points that are voiced. These points do however maskthe benefits we can gain from virtual environments. If peo-ple are aware you know something, or if you are stuck andhave a problem and you ask publicly for help, someone islikely to step up and assist.

If you have an idea and you are not sure what to do withit, why not share it? Writing it down in a private notebooktakes just as long as putting it out there on Twitter.

Once shared it may never come to anything, but it maybe seen by someone. Serendipity may lead to a meeting ofminds. It may not be the actual idea that suddenly comesto life, but instead the connection with the person whounderstood it. You may even gather a crowd.

All open source projects have grown from this mental-ity. It does not mean that every idea is successful, nor thatevery connection becomes a lifelong friend or mentor. It isalso not restricted to sharing just text, pictures and video.We now have the opportunity to share our time online inall sorts of digital environments. Some are passive virtualworlds, others are more focused task based environments.

Over the past 40 years video games have evolved agreat deal. As a mass market they started as a shared socialexperience in amusement arcades. Whilst many gameswere a single player experience, the location of the gamecabinet in a shared space made it a social experience tobe a gamer. The ability to spectate (look over someone’sshoulder) and leaving a high score on the leader boardmade games a very social affair. The rise of the home con-sole and the PC in the 1980s, pre-internet, meant gamesbecame a more insular experience or were limited to 2–4players playing at home. There is still a place for singleplayer experiences but the wide spectrum of gaming hasnow expanded with internet connectivity.

The very word ‘‘game’’ causes many people to feel thereis something less serious or worthy going on and, thus,many traditional virtual worlds avoided any relationshipto games. Many virtual world platforms are not in factgames. They use game technology and people do playgames within them, but it is the open ended nature of themas places for people to interact online that is important.

Many online games use the term virtual world nowthough, which indicates that the game environmentincreasingly is going to be one where people both playand interact: Many of the attributes of messaging, ofshared tasks and a place to be online exist within this typeof game.

Other games simply state they are multi-player onlinegames. A first person shooter which involves short bursts

I. Hughes / Computer Networks 56 (2012) 3879–3885 3883

of capture the flag with 16 people, either friends or anon-ymous players, is still a virtual world but distilled into amore focused experience.

Whether a free form virtual world with user creation ora crafted story driven multi-player experience, they all al-low us to interact with real people behind those gamecharacters, avatars or digital pets. We all get to simply en-joy the experiences at face value. However we also get toexplore who we are by how we interact and play, and learnabout others. Plato said you learn more about a person inan hour of play than a year of conversation. Just as withthe flight simulator example of training we get to experi-ence situations and try things out that we might not havebeen able to try out otherwise. We try these things to-gether with other people. Social norms develop, trendsand fashions emerge. People try out different ways ofinteracting. The bonds and social groupings that formaround virtual experiences are very real [2–5].

6. Not locked away – data in and out, moving toAugmented Reality (AR)

We used to assume that data in a computer was lockedaway, file formats where part of a particular application.You only accessed functions through a specific application.That is how the computer industry started. As the industrydeveloped it started to create certain file formats and datainterchange protocols. Import and export of data became anorm. With the rise of the internet, the connected nature ofapplications evolved and the application programminginterface (API) emerged into a wider domain. As program-mers we often had class libraries and common functionsbuilt into API layers but APIs as a service, a deliberateexposing of function to other clients, became essential.

For the average user of a system an API is of little impor-tance. However with the increasing amount of our owndata we try to manage the ability to move and adjust ourphotos, documents and profiles becomes more reliant onAPIs and services. How and where we access informationhas changed too. We are no longer tied to a green screenterminal or a desktop PC. We have a multitude of devicesthat have access to data where ever we are. These newpads, handheld consoles and smartphones are not onlyconnected but have cameras, GPS and gyroscopes to deter-mine orientation and they have rich visual and audiocapability.

So combine the ability to access data, repackage it andvisualize it in a number of ways and view it on a devicethat is portable, and it is natural that Augmented Reality(AR) applications appear. Augmented reality can be consid-ered as using the physical world as an API and merging dig-ital and physical data together in a single representation.

There are many forms of AR. The most typical is a singleoverlay onto a camera view of the world, where a markeror a known object is replaced with digital information ora 3d model. The device acts as a ‘‘magic lens’’: you viewthe world with the digital overlay through the cameraand screen of the device.

Once you consider the ability to merge real and virtualdata in this way you can start to see that augmented reality

does not simply apply to one piece of information layeredonto one physical view of the world. AR can be multiplevirtual sources, API services from many applicationsmerged together to provide a meaningful experience. ARtypically relies on location or space in the physical worldto merge that information with. Being in a virtual world,where there is already space and location, is often over-looked as a place to augment with other data. Virtualworlds are often considered locked away, primarily asthe users are experiencing immersion and feel they aresomewhere else. In reality though the most useful of themetaverse (another word for a virtual world) applicationsallow API interaction, both to provide data to other servicesand also to absorb data from elsewhere, the physical worldand other virtual environments.

It does not have to be purely about the import or exportof 3d models and code but about live interaction with ser-vices. These combinations of services start to get us to-wards a more blended reality.

7. Blended reality – toys showing the way

Blended reality, or a different way to expand upon tra-ditional augmented reality may seem a long way off aspeople are only just coming to terms with the basic adver-tising applications that AR is currently used for. In manyways this is mirroring the evolution of the web, too. Thefirst mass adoption is one of consumption. Brands usingthe technology and their content induce us to point oursmartphones at their posters to see a film character cometo life.

However, there is already commercial use of BlendedReality and it is turning what is already traditional AR in-side out. The major examples are in mass produced toysand games.

The first is Activision’s multi platform game Skylanders(tm). This game is based around physical toys interactingwith a console or PC. The game comes with a piece of hard-ware called the Portal of Power. This plugs into whicheverconsole the game is to be played on. On starting the game,in order to select the characters to play, one of the actualphysical character collectibles from the Skylanders rangehas to be placed on the Portal of Power. The portal recog-nizes the character selected and the digital version of thatcharacter will appear on screen and be controllable. Thisform of initiation of character selection has been done ina number of ways before to link the physical and the vir-tual. In many previous attempts a barcode or visual shapewas recognized and used to activate or unlock the gamecharacter. Skylanders differs though, in that the toy figureis actually not simply a passive tag. It is an active digitaldevice. As you play the game and earn extra abilities forthe character through successful play (known ‘‘levellingthe character up’’), its statistics are sent back to the figure.The portal is a NFCs (Near Field Communications) reader/writer and the toys have an active NFC chip in them. Thetoy stores data about its time in the game. Unlike a mem-ory stick, though, these toys are collectible toys, designedto be played with outside the game. They can also beplaced on a friend’s version of the game on their console:

3884 I. Hughes / Computer Networks 56 (2012) 3879–3885

put it on their Portal of Power and you seamlessly get yourcharacter, with their powers gained and stats available.The game is aimed at 5–12 year olds and it is clear theblend of physical and virtual engages them. The tactile nat-ure of a real toy and the excitement and magic of a videogame combine. What currently does not happen with thesetoys, yet, is that they do not change physically: If you earnnew armor you cannot see it on the toy.

There are examples of more physical adjustments fromvirtual interaction. A radio controlled set of robots calledMechatars (tm) shows us another blended reality scenario.The Mechatars are controlled in games of laser tag, themore a child plays with the toy the more powers the toygains. In this case it may be as simple as more shots withthe gun, or faster firing rate. Physical play levels up thecapabilities of the toy. The Mechatars can also be dockedwith a massively multi-player game online. The stats fromthe current physical toy are transferred to the digital ver-sion. As games are played online more powers are earned.These are then transferred back to the physical toy.

A final example of some very advanced blended realityis that of Lego George. This is a puzzle building applicationfor the iPhone and iPad. It relies on the use of real physicalLego bricks to construct shapes and pictures. The applica-tion will challenge the user with a picture of somethingto build; for example, a small red guitar with a yellowstreak. The clock then starts running as the player attemptsto build the picture using real Lego bricks. Once built theLego construction is placed on a play card. The camera ofthe iPhone or iPad device is then aimed at the construction.The application detects, or scans in, the model and com-pares it to the digital model. if they match a scoring timeis given. These puzzles are not limited to the provided puz-zles. Any user is able to create their own Lego model, scanit with the camera and the application will turn that into adigital description, an actual digital model rather than aphoto. This model can then be sent via social media tofriends to challenge them to build that model. It is a verysubtle blended reality, combining many ideas on commer-cially available devices.

8. Getting physical – 3d printing digital delivery

Having discussed virtual environments, moving digitaldata from one place to another and displaying that dataon screens and showing it in toys’ behavior, we are startingto scratch the surface of a very exciting future.

We have the ability to create and construct digital mod-els in virtual environments. We can distribute those mod-els digitally to others experiencing the virtual world withus, or through APIs and augmented reality applications.

We have toys that are starting to alter their physicalbehavior based on digital experiences.

The next step then, is to actually adjust the physicalworld based on virtual constructs.

Rapid fabrication devices, or 3d printers as they are bet-ter known, take digital data and create physical represen-tations of that data. They literally print a solid object.There are many ways they achieve this, but the simplestuse stepper motors to move a nozzle delivering a thin layer

of hot plastic onto a surface. As the plastic hardens on onelayer, it then becomes the base for the next layer of plastic.Taken in isolation this technology is already very interest-ing. In high end design very expensive devices can manu-facture very precise models, including moving parts, cogs,gears and so forth. At the lower end homebrew devices likethe RepRap can be built with about £400 of pieces. What isinteresting is that the RepRap project is an open source de-sign for a 3d printer whose aim is to make a printer thatcan print the parts for another printer.

The power of the ability to manufacture locally, eitherin the home or at a local 3d print shop is amplified whencombined with the technology and social changes broughtabout by the internet. In a virtual environment we canmake things. Some of those things are there to be fanciful,for sharing of ideas and concepts. Some of them can bemodels of actual things, parts of physical products, aug-mentations and improvements. Once created, by anyone,anywhere, they can be distributed live in a virtual world,on an API service or as a shared file to anyone anywhere.

With 3d printers people anywhere can then manufac-ture the item from that model.

As the technology advances we are seeing a combina-tion of ideas that will have a seismic impact on the globaleconomy and a potentially very positive ecological impact.Currently we have mass produced items created at a verygreat distance from the consumer. Items are packagedand shipped around the world, burning carbon. They arethen stored until sold in warehouses. Once purchased theprotective packaging is thrown away. If the item can bepurchased online, distributed digitally and printed locallypackaging and transportation costs are drastically reduced,as is the packaging waste.

Additionally, things can be designed by anyone. Gooddesign, interesting things, no longer have to be poweredby large corporations with the resources to perform prod-uct development. There is still a place for that but peoplegathering online around a subject can bring to bear a greatdeal of knowledge and skill. Physical objects start to moveinto the same realm of open source sharing and onlinegrowth as information has over the past few years. Virtualproducts become physical and viral.

9. Maker culture

Maker culture is the current emerging wave that tiesmany of the elements I have mentioned so far togetherand it is where blended reality becomes more concrete.Maker culture is about an open source mentality to almosteverything. If something is not working in a maker’s life orfor their friends, family or colleagues they fix it. ‘‘Fixing it’’means taking something that is already there and adjust-ing or hacking a solution. Typically this solution is sharedwith the world via the internet, social media, wikis andso forth. It relies on the willingness to share design ideas,to adjust and improve for the common good by communi-cating with anyone and everyone interested in the samesubject.

Maker culture ties together physical manufacturing andcrafting skills with the higher end technical skills of

I. Hughes / Computer Networks 56 (2012) 3879–3885 3885

hardware construction and software programming. I havealready mentioned the RepRap open source 3d printer. Itis a typical example of all the elements of Maker culturecoming together: It starts with a core of people sharingan idea, making an interesting piece of technology, 3dprinting, accessible to many more people. The ideas andthe initial designs get shared and anyone can take the de-sign and work with it, but more importantly provide feed-back and adjust it.

This leads to groups of enthusiastic makers gatheringtogether to crowdfund purchasing their components andworking together to help one another construct theirown 3d printers. The major parts for each of those printersare being built by an existing RepRap printer whose designmodel files are made available online.

Putting together a RepRap [6] involves spanners, boltsand metal rods, 3d printed parts and electronic compo-nents to solder together or adding an open source pieceof hardware such as an Arduino [7]. The constructed devicethen needs software to drive it and interpret the digitalmodels. Again the internet becomes the source for this.

A group of makers will typically be a varied team withsome people more skilled in hardware work than softwarecreation and vice versa. They all learn and work collabora-tively to achieve one another’s goals.

Once a 3d printer is complete, it moves from an engi-neering challenge to a usable device. A maker armed witha 3d printer will then make new components for other pro-jects and other makers. A new case for a mobile phone canbe designed online with other designers in a virtual world,distributed freely online to other people with 3d printersand a new product is then appearing wherever peoplechoose to print it out.

Our reality gets blended and adjusted as digital thingsbecome physical. Those physical things will also alter thedigital environment as they are captured and scanned intoother systems and these new products are used. These willthen be taken by other makers and adjusted further eitherdigitally or physically.

This whole process may sound like an anarchic free forall; how this adjusts itself in a social and business contextis yet to be determined. What is clear is that a combinationof connectivity, a willingness to cooperate online, digitalcreation, experiences and distribution with the ability tomanufacture locally is having and will have a significantimpact on all our lives.

Science fiction books introduced us to the internet,metaverses and virtual worlds, Neuromancer [8] and

Snowcrash [9], so other books Diamond Age [10] and Makers[11] show us a future that is already forming with blendedreality, 3d printing and cultural changes.

References

[1] J. Suler, CyberPsychology and Behavior 7 (2004) 321–326. <http://www.users.rider.edu/�suler/psycyber/disinhibit.html#selfboundary>.

[2] N. Yee, Befriending Ogres and Wood Elves – Under-standingRelationship Formation in MMORPGs, 2002. <http://www.nickyee.com/hub/relationships/relationships.pdf>.

[3] J.N. Bailenson, A.C. Beall, J. Loomis, J. Blascovich, M. Turk,Transformed social interaction: decoupling representation frombehavior and form in collaborative virtual environments,PRESENCE: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 13 (4) (2004)428–441.

[4] N. Yee, J.N. Bailenson, The Proteus Effect: Self Transformations inVirtual Reality. Human Communication Research 33 (3) (2007)271–290.

[5] Aleksandra K. Krotoski, Social influence in Second Life: SocialNetwork and Social Psychological Processes in the Diffusion ofBelief and Behaviour on the Web. PhD Dissertation, University ofSurrey, Department of Psychology, School of Human Sciences, 2009.

[6] RepRap. <http://www.reprap.com/wiki/Main_Page>.[7] Arduino. <http://www.arduino.cc/>.[8] Neuromancer – William Gibson, 1984. <http://en.wikipedia.org/

wiki/Neuromancer>.[9] Snowcrash – Neal Stephenson, 1992. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Snow_Crash>.[10] Diamond Age – Neal Stephenson, 1995. <http://en.wikipedia.org/

wiki/Snow_Crash>.[11] Makers – Cory Doctorow, 2009. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Makers_(Cory_Doctorow_novel)>.

Ian Hughes a.k.a. epredator when online, is aMetaverse Evangelist and founder of FeedingEdge Ltd. – Taking a bite out of technology soyou don’t have to. http://www.feeding-edge.co.uk/. In 2006, whilst at IBM, he ledthousands of colleagues into virtual worldslike Second Life with projects such as Wimb-ledon. He has shown that leadership can bedriven by the digital native and innovatorscan gather together regardless of geographyor organization. Using creative expressiononline leads him to no longer be the pro-

grammer he grew up as. He presents an emerging technology slot on theUK ITV kids show ‘‘The Cool Stuff Collective’’ as resident super geek,which has run for three series. http://www.feedingedge.co.uk/blog/tv-

showreel/. On the show he has brought many types of technology aimedat gaining the interest of kids and adults alike in science and technol-ogy. . .. from open source physical computing to 3d printing, augmentedreality to graphene.Ian is the chair of the BCS Animation and Games industry Group. If youdiscover anything else about Ian feel free to update http://en.wikipe-dia.org/wiki/Ian_Hughes_(epredator).