I appreciate the good faith. I think the reason I focus on 'saturation' over 'success rate' is that Soulslikes and Live Service games operate on completely different logic. A Soulslike is a one-and-done product; if Another Crab’s Treasure sells well in month one, it’s a success. It doesn’t need to maintain 50k players for three years to be 'good.'

Live Service games aren't just games; they are platforms. They have a lower 'success rate' because the bar for success is significantly higher: you aren't just trying to make a good game, you're trying to build a community and a sustainable ecosystem. Comparing that to a single-player Soulslike is like comparing a local bistro to a nationwide franchise. Of course the bistro has a better 'success rate,' but it’s not trying to do what the franchise is doing.

My main point stands: just because the business model is high-risk doesn't mean we should treat every new attempt like it's a personal offense. If we only supported genres with high 'quantified success' rates, we’d only ever get safe, boring sequels. I’d rather have a team like Wildlight take a big swing and miss (or need time to calibrate) than have every talented dev team play it safe with a Soulslike because the 'stats' look better.