Extremely interesting topic. You just inadvertently talked about Democracy, and the difference between Direct Democracy and Representative Democracy.

At some point in history, players became involved in a game's creation process. Before that point it was substantially easier - the developer developed the game, released it, got feedback through market and media, got back to developing with more experience and more feedback. The developers could impress upon the game their style, their brand, their views and ideas. For some reason, this process was not good enough, and it was decided that both minor and some of the major developers had to receive direct feedback from their users directly, at all time, at every phase of the creative process. That's where things get messy, because you either decide to listen to everyone - and I mean read every comment on every platform - or you decide to listen to the closest thing to a representative - streamers, curators, famous gamers. So it became sort of a democracy. Streamers are not really elected, but are chosen according to their following. Their followers choose them not because of their competence and experience, but because of their charisma and entertainment capacity - much like in real politics. And so it starts.

I agree with you in the end. I think games should get back to reflecting the ideas of the developers. If I think about the games that have changed history, I think "what would have happened if they had changed this crucial element, this innovative action, this plot turning point mid-way just because some players didn't like them?"