The AAA game industry is extremely risk averse - if you are using something it either has to be successfully used before or you need to make a demo that proves its viability.
For graphics or physics it's easy to make a demo - you render a spinning buddha or simulate a hundred balls, show how much CPU and GPU it takes and everyone can extrapolate this to the full game. I don't know what could be a sufficient prove of Ocaml viability other than a full game written in Ocaml.
I am not familiar with indies or mobile but I imagine, they are even less likely to risk as their chance for success is already pretty low and it would be rather reckless to add more unknowns from an untested technology.
For graphics or physics it's easy to make a demo - you render a spinning buddha or simulate a hundred balls, show how much CPU and GPU it takes and everyone can extrapolate this to the full game. I don't know what could be a sufficient prove of Ocaml viability other than a full game written in Ocaml.
I am not familiar with indies or mobile but I imagine, they are even less likely to risk as their chance for success is already pretty low and it would be rather reckless to add more unknowns from an untested technology.