I don't think that's true. Game developer company culture is heavily oriented towards making and selling products to consumers. They know how to make games people will pay for, and the entire business and culture revolves around that.
With Meta and other ad-driven companies, the people aren't the consumers, they're the product. The whole incentive structure and architecture of the company is fundamentally different. Think about how a company like Facebook or Google has an entire army of sales people and enormous apps like AdWords and Facebook Ads Manager that are how the company actually makes money. Game companies don't have that kind of stuff.
What they have is a bunch of programmers who know 3D rendering and networking. But Meta can simply hire those people—and game devs are used to bouncing around every couple of years—and they are. Several of my old EA coworkers are at Meta know working on it.
I cant understand why people think a consumer-hostile company would be able to improve the experience enough to reach broader audiences.
People will try it for an hour or two when they boot up their oculus. Realize being in a room of shouting tweens is not fun, and then never try it again.
I'd like to take advantage of this moment to share furries making fun of Metaverse, on VRChat (1m 30s): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGmlhHvm-Tc
Game companies haven't been stuck in the 2000s. Nowadays they are legitimate media businesses. Just look at what Riot did with Arcane, or Epic with Travis Scott's Fortnite concert. That actually felt metaverse-ish compared to the geriatric experience of Facebook's VR games.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYeFAlVC8qU)
If you look at China its even more clear that game companies are way beyond just making games. Moving into ads isn't that hard, delivering actual content and really understanding young people very much is.
FB is really noncommittal about what a metaverse product would even be, which can be interpreted either as secrecy... or they just don't know themselves. From the little we've seen (notable that it's 100% CGI concept reels and 0% anything concrete) it really does seem like just social spaces.
One thing the game studios have figured out is that simple chat is insufficient - Roblox, Minecraft, Fortnite have all developed genuine social spaces that center around some activity. FB's metaverse concept seems to have no unifying purpose and lacks some compelling purpose that the games do. To the extent these necessary unifying activities are discussed it's usually hand-waved away as something users themselves will concoct.
More generally, it seems that FB wants to be the substrate of a new social network - but it's not clear to me that that's what anyone wants? What's the role of FB as a platform when "VR socialization" can just be apps on a device - in which case FB's role is solely that of a device/OS vendor, which clearly is insufficient for their ambitions? What does FB bring to the table that Roblox, Fortnite, Minecraft, etc, would care about?
If socializing in VR is going to be a thing (big if, but let's assume for a second), why would I go to FB? Why would I not directly go to any number of apps and vendors who have created focused products? I don't need a single unifying platform when I can just... install a number of different ones?
1. Identity management 2. Network management
But then realistically, are these really pain points?
This isn't a project that benefits from any of Facebooks strengths - game development companies are much better positioned to make compelling social VR experiences like this.
"Metaverses" in general are a cool 80s sci-fi novel concept. But they're just video game environments with better-than-typical communication features - hyping them up with piles of marketing and betting the farm on your specific one being successful seems like an incredibly poor business move.