In today’s Finshots, we take a look at why the metaverse fell short of its promise and what it tells us about the future of this technology.

But before we begin, if you love keeping up with the buzz in business and finance, make sure to subscribe and join the Finshots club, loved by over 5 lakh readers.

Already a subscriber or reading this on the app? You’re all set. Go ahead and enjoy the story!

The story

There’s an old Greek story about a courtier named Damocles.

He once told King Dionysius that ruling the Kingdom must be a life of pure luxury. So the king offered to switch places for a day. Damocles gladly accepted, sat on the throne, and began enjoying the riches around him. But there was one catch.

Hanging above his head was a sharp sword, suspended by a single strand of horsehair.

The message was simple. What looks glamorous from a distance often carries risks that aren’t immediately visible. And that same idea followed one of the earliest breakthroughs in virtual reality.

You see, in the 1960s, computer scientists Ivan Sutherland and David Evans built what is widely considered the first virtual reality system. It was so heavy it had to be suspended from the ceiling, earning it the nickname “The Sword of Damocles”. Their goal was not gaming or entertainment. But it was something more ambitious: To merge digital information with physical space.

Over the decades, that idea kept resurfacing in different forms. Flight simulators used immersive environments to train pilots. Video games experimented with 3D worlds. And augmented reality found its way into industrial design and military applications. 

Each wave pushed forward the same underlying concept that computing should not just sit on a screen, but exist around us.

The Metaverse is merely the most ambitious iteration of that vision yet.

Instead of isolated use cases, Meta promised a digital universe where work, social life, and commerce could all happen in immersive environments. And for a moment, it felt like we were finally close.

Companies reorganised entire strategies around it (Well, one company). Venture capital funds flowed into virtual worlds. And Meta went all in, pouring billions of dollars into its Reality Labs division, believing that immersive digital environments would eventually replace how we work, socialise, and interact online.

The pitch was simple and ambitious at the same time. Instead of scrolling through apps or attending video calls, you would enter persistent virtual spaces. You could meet colleagues in digital offices, attend concerts without leaving home, shop in virtual stores, and spend time with friends as avatars in shared environments.

It sounded like a natural evolution of the internet. Back in 2021, Mark Zuckerberg laid out an ambitious vision for the metaverse, talking about reaching hundreds of millions, and eventually billions, of users over time. 

However, 5 years later, the reality has been far more modest. Meta’s flagship platform, Horizon Worlds, struggled to cross even 300,000 monthly active users. As a result, Meta has announced it will shut down its Reality Labs division in June, after cumulative losses exceeding $83 billion.

To put that into perspective, the division’s economics never really worked.

In 2025, Reality Labs generated just $2.2 billion in revenue, while posting an operating loss of over $19 billion. And this isn’t a one-off. Since 2020, the division has generated roughly $12 billion in total revenue against more than $83 billion in cumulative losses.

In other words, for every dollar it made, Meta was spending around $7 trying to build this future.

Now, the immediate takeaway is that the metaverse failed. But that is only partially true.

You see, those billions weren’t just spent on Horizon Worlds.

In fact, we can say that most of that money went into building the entire XR (extended reality) ecosystem from scratch. Meta invested heavily in VR headsets like the Quest series, smart glasses like the Ray-Ban Meta glasses, and advanced AR prototypes like Orion. A large chunk also went into developing custom chips, next-generation optics, neural interfaces that detect hand movements via muscle signals, and even AI systems that enable devices to understand and interact with the real world. 

Meta’s Reality Labs wasn’t just building a virtual world. It was trying to build the hardware, software, and infrastructure required for a completely new computing platform. So, one could say that this kind of investment is justified. 

And this idea itself was not fundamentally flawed. But the problem was that much like electric cars in the 2000s, the ecosystem required to support the Metaverse was just nowhere near ready.

The first constraint was hardware. For the metaverse to work at scale, virtual reality devices needed to become as seamless and ubiquitous as smartphones. Instead, VR headsets remained bulky, expensive, and physically uncomfortable for extended use. So, until the hardware becomes lighter, cheaper, and more integrated into everyday life, widespread adoption will be difficult.

The second issue was the absence of a compelling use case. You see, the metaverse tried to replicate existing activities such as meetings, social interactions, and entertainment within a virtual environment. But in most cases, it did not offer a meaningful improvement over existing alternatives. A video call is simpler than putting on a headset. Meeting someone in person is still far more natural than interacting through avatars without legs.

Even outside Meta’s ecosystem, similar limitations appeared. Devices like Apple’s Vision Pro demonstrated impressive technology but struggled to answer a basic question. Why would an average user spend significant time in these environments on a daily basis?

There were pockets where virtual reality worked well. Gaming communities embraced immersive experiences. Training simulations in aviation, healthcare, and industrial settings delivered real value. But these were specific, well-defined use cases that did not justify the scale of investment required to build a parallel digital universe, which brings us to the economics of it all.

Building immersive virtual environments is both capital-intensive and computationally demanding. It requires continuous investment in hardware, software, infrastructure, and content creation. Without a large and engaged user base, it becomes difficult to monetise that investment.

And that is where the model started to break down. Unlike social media or search, where value scales quickly with user growth, the metaverse needed heavy upfront investment before any meaningful adoption could even begin. Every new user required better hardware, richer environments, and more computing power. But without those users, there was no revenue to justify the spending in the first place.

It became a classic chicken-and-egg problem. The ecosystem needed scale to sustain itself, but it needed massive capital to even reach that scale. And in a world where capital had better, faster-returning alternatives, that equation simply didn’t hold.

And unlike virtual reality, artificial intelligence began delivering immediate, tangible value. Generative AI tools could improve productivity, automate tasks, and integrate seamlessly into existing workflows without requiring users to significantly change their behaviour or adopt new hardware. Compared to that, the metaverse looked like a long-term bet with uncertain returns, and Meta chose not to buy the proverbial dip anymore.

That said, this shift in priorities did not kill virtual reality. What has changed is the narrative.

Instead of positioning VR and AR as replacements for the real world, companies are now treating them as specialised tools. In gaming, immersive environments enhance engagement. In healthcare, they assist with surgical training and patient care. And in design and manufacturing, they allow engineers to visualise complex systems before building them.

Here, VR adds value because it solves a specific problem and does not need to replace the world to justify its existence.

But let’s take a step back for a moment and say the metaverse actually worked.

Millions of people log in every day. They worked in virtual offices, attended concerts, socialised with friends, and spent hours inside these digital environments.

What would that world really look like?

Because building something like that isn’t just about technology, but also about privacy.

You see, a fully immersive virtual world would require collecting far more intimate data than anything we’ve seen before. Not just what you click or search for. But how you move, where you look, how long your gaze lingers, how your body reacts, and even how your surroundings are mapped in real time.

In other words, the platform wouldn’t just understand your preferences. It would understand your behaviour in three-dimensional space. Now imagine all of that data sitting with a company whose core business model revolves around monetising your personal data.

Suddenly, the conversation shifts. 

And this brings us right back to where we started.

The story of the Sword of Damocles wasn’t just about danger. It was about perspective. What looks exciting and powerful from a distance can carry invisible risks when you’re sitting right under it.

The metaverse promised a new digital world. But hanging above it were questions about privacy, control, and ones we hadn’t fully grappled with yet.

For now, that sword hasn’t fallen. But maybe it’s a good thing we stepped away before it did.

Until then…

If you liked this story on the rise and reality check of the metaverse, share this with your friends, family or even strangers on WhatsApp, LinkedIn or X.

🚨Three insurers are revising their term premiums!

Three prominent insurers are set to revise their term insurance premiums. Policies issued after the revision will reflect the updated pricing. If you have already generated a quote, the premiums may change once the revision comes in.

Here’s why this matters: When you purchase a term life insurance policy, you pay a premium or a small fee each year to protect against financial risks. In the unfortunate event of your passing, the insurance company pays out a substantial sum to your family or loved ones.

If you've been considering a term plan, now is the perfect time to act. To assist you in the process, our advisory team at Ditto is here to help. Click on the link here to book a FREE call with our IRDAI-certified advisors.