I am failing to see a separate niche here. There are only so many ways you can break down office productivity focus and still have a market to support you. Your team should accept the facts and stop trying to wiggle out of competing with your--frankly--main rival in this space. It doesn't do any justice to avoid this truth. Honestly, I'd be shocked if you weren't already closely monitoring their work and its reaction in the market.

I think Meta's strategy was the right one. The only execs who would even consider adopting a virtual work model would be gamers who are already familiar with the tool. Gaming was their way to get in the minds of their potential next phase enterprise customers.

Based on comments in this thread, SimulaVR thinks of itself the same way Microsoft did when they made Windows phone.

I totally disagree with this. Early gaming consoles (~70s) took off roughly a decade before early PCs (~80s). Yet many of the people who bought the latter had little interest in the former. They were two completely distinct markets (with some, but clearly not extensive overlap).

We've had many people tell us (often on Hacker News actually) that they're not super interested in VR gaming, but are very interested in VR computing.

(I myself am one of these people BTW; despite working in VR for half a decade now, I have almost no interest in VR gaming, and wouldn't be interested in the field were it not for its enormous potential as a new thinking tool).

Little interest or had they just grown up?

My point is that interest in sci-fi technologies and having some interest (prior or current) in gaming are highly overlapping demographics. Many games explore interactions with future technologies.

Additionally, from a technical perspective of an executive who is looking into VR, "if a headset can provide the fidelity to play games then that would mean it can likely do X and Y complex things my business does"