>>719156743
Souls kind of "hard games" weren't popular before DS1 became mainstream.
Undertale kind of indie games weren't that popular either. It launched the whole "Earthbound inspired indie game about depression" thing.
That is the biggest problem with vidya, the fact that these days people latch on anything that happens to be popular to make their own version. From indie side it's most likely because people use the format to tell their own story and ideas. On the mainstream side it's just money.
When DS1 came out, people wished there were "more games like it". Now people are tired of it. It has been same with mascot platformers and such as well in past.

>>719157052
If you unironically think that first books and movies were made to sell as much as possible to build up brands and franchises with merchandising as well as with hard study on market research, advertisement firms, and social engineering then you must be, no offense, bit silly.
Especially if you think oldest books and stories were written to make money.
The industry has changed of course these days(Marvel/DC/Disney/Dreamworks etc.) but still there is that long legacy appreciation of *good* movies without brand attachment, and that not everything needs to be a movie that sells more than the currently most popular movie.
Vidya industry on the other hand has been surrounded by market research, advertisement firms, and such from almost day one, at least from Atari if you want to be as generous as possible. And it has gotten worse and worse as the interactivity has been turned into a way to make money. DLC/Lootbox/Battlepass/MTX and different game versions. You didn't see that kind of stuff with Citizen Kane(that came around 40 years after "A Trip to the Moon") for example. That should be a good perspective on the age of films as a medium.
Meanwhile 40 years after Atari 2600 is 2016 when we had stuff like Overwatch(which is unplayable now) with it's lootboxes.

I hope that clears up what I mean.