I actually think tons of people want virtual experiences. Concerts seem to be a great use case for VR. Exercise is a great use case. Meetings probably are too, certainly better than zoom.
Is it the limitless resolution, and great venue acoustics and sound system?
Is it about the fact you're meeting up with your friends?
Is it about the atmosphere and energy of the crowd? The dancing, the fighting, the mingling?
Is it about the fact that if the performer tells you to make some noise, doing that at home to a video stream would be absurd?
Is it about the fact you might meet an attractive stranger, and go home with them?
Is it the fact you can buy drinks?
Is it about the intrinsic authenticity of a performance by a human, not a recording played by a machine or a copy of a copy of a copy?
Is it about being a singular moment, having experiences that can't be paused or replayed and are all the more real for it?
Is it about getting out of the house, and not being a shut-in?
Is it the cultural cachet and the fact you can post pictures on social media so other people will know you're cool?
Some of these a metaverse concert might be able to provide - you could produce a very high quality video stream with good sound, and an ability to talk with your friends.
Others the metaverse will never provide.
Cars in the US and the destruction of passenger trains is a good past example. Cars gave consumers more freedom but at a much greater price and thus role in economic growth. We made great investments into highway systems to subsidize the automobile industry. This came at the expense of passenger trains (among other things) which was a direct competitor to the personal car, but operated more efficiently.
Tying back to the original comment, if there is a way to monetize walking that can only be done in VR, incentives will flow towards promoting that VR system to succeed. Those incentives will necessarily undermine the free alternative of actually walking. This is all done in the name of economic growth.
Cars didn't become more popular (measured by usage per person) than trains because of the vast infrastructure that was built. Cars became more popular because they were more appealing and useful than trains (for the reason you mentioned - sense of freedom). Cars CREATED the industries you mentioned (highways, gas stations, dealerships, car insurance, etc) because consumers wanted Cars. The demand for Cars increased, new industries were created from the demand, and the combination of all of the above moved the auto industry forward, displacing trains. This isn't a sacrifice, it's the better product winning.
VR will succeed when VR is 'better' than the current non-VR options. People will use VR more, demand will increase, and current or new businesses will start building for VR. Lowering (or raising) the price of a VR headset, releasing new versions of low adoption headsets, or asserting that VR is the future, isn't going to increase demand. Usefulness increases demand.