The idea of integration with real places is ok but just a gameplay mechanic and not really a compelling or fun one I think. I think most of the popularity of Pokémon go comes from it being Pokémon. It's really just Ingress with some Pokémon skin and a mini-game slapped on.
I think we shouldn't think of Niantic as a "leader" in the AR realm. What they're doing is not pushing the envelope. They're just exploring the fringe inside it.
That isn't what I was referring to. Layering user interactions on real-life locations is more akin to the metaverse in my mind than any kind of VR derivative. Whether the game was fun or not is also irrelevant, the metaverse won't be a "game."
I was also clear I was speaking of a hypothetical future with perfect AR.
But hardware has to come first. None of this is possible while we're still in the "magic window" step having to look through our phone screens.
Things like QR codes on posters being highlighted, "hologram" store mascots that everyone walking by can see with AR glasses, answering an "AR" phone call while still being able to see around you (and not having to hold your phone up to your face as in video calling - early versions of this could use iOS Memoji before consumer face-scanning tech gets good), virtual computer screens to do programming or other work *anywhere* without monitors (while still being able to respond to external stimuli), etc. Maybe you could even portray yourself as a custom avatar (instead of your actual body) to those with AR glasses.
IMO an early prototype of the metaverse is already here: Ingress/Pokemon Go. These games don't use fantasy-land maps, they use the Earth and real-life locations. Data and user-interactions are layered on top of that.
On the other hand, any kind of VR metaverse will likely be a poor-man's Second Life, just prettier and with far more restrictions. I'm sure there's a market for that, but it's not really civilization-defining.