>>717550152
>Because the stuff you like is still there
until they stop producing it because they've shifted to the broader market. in vidya, this manifests as whole genres or subcategorizations of genres going extinct, prominent examples including anything with "real-time" in the title from the whole RTS genre to RTWP rpgs. this can go the other way, too, with turn-based games abandoning their formula to appeal to the action combat broader market. so no, the stuff i like has no guarantee to continue to be produced.
>if they make new stuff because of this surge of new fans, and it ends up being good
this has literally never happened (for me) and i'm an old man with gray hair. it turns out that i know what i like and i'm not waiting for someone to swoop in from on high and inform me that a better version exists.
>if it's bad, just don't interface with it in any way, stick to the old stuff
that's.. an option, but it doesn't address how my old stuff going extinct benefits me personally. it's like saying that fossils are a positive substitute for living animals.
>If it stays obscure, there's never hope of getting more
false, plenty of obscure shit nobody cares about gets updated every day.
>It breaking into mainstream at the very least gives it a chance to be something else but a forgotten work.
the only works being forgotten are the ones that laid the foundation for the mass market versions.
i propose a question to you that approaches the issue from a different direction:
why are niches a bad thing? (for the user) why is the expected or proposed end-state of all hobbies mass market penetration? (for the user) i can understand how it benefits a business that wants to make money. i don't understand why any end-user would support the erosion of niches they like in favor of a generalized version designed to appeal to you, your grandma, and your adolescent kids simultaneously.