> Why isn't the game industry moving to it then?

The most obvious answer is that requires official support from the platform manufacturers.

> Why isn't the game industry moving to it then? Bc it just cannot compete at volubility with C++, among other things.

I have no opinion regarding rust suitability as a game language, but your answer doesn't sound right.

The actual reason is much simpler. The industry is built on a handful of game engines. Those engines are extended or scripted in C++ or C#. Thus the vast, vast majority of the work force will only have experience with those languages and the entirety of game studios' tooling is built around those. The end.

Why isn't the game industry moving to rust?

Someone in that industry can perhaps speak to it, but I have two cents of perspective...

I have helped a young person with gamedev interests try to learn rust (on Windows). They've learned some rust, but the graphics+Windows libraries and primitives to work with are not very good nor straightforward, even with AI assistance. Besides weakness in the gaming/rendering domain, there seemed to be some very real versioning/dependency hell that also didn't help.

It's massively easier to make progress on even just a 2D game with something like GDScript-based Godot (or Unity or...).

I work in gamedev. Here is a simple answer: proprietary gaming platforms have no plans to support Rust.

I don't think "volubility" means what you think it means. The usual meaning of "voluble" is "talkative" (gesprächig if your username is accurate). I'm not quite sure what you're going for here or in an earlier comment, but suspect it's something more like "ergonomic", i.e. the language being easy/natural to write and not getting in your way.