Asklemmy

A recent example is related to the news that Bluepoint Games were pitching a Jak and Daxter (and Bloodborne) remake, but Sony shut them down (and the studio). Many people expressed disappointment in particular with the fact that Sony were actively passing on remaking or reviving the classic Jak and Daxter games that are beloved by many, but others made their views known that they would have no interest in any new games in the series and are content with the originals or the recent upscaled PC ports. That's all fair, but others take it further by saying "Because I'm not interested in this idea, it shouldn't happen and I hope they don't make it". Now I should be clear that there are reasons to not want something to be made, such as if you think it would ruin the franchise somehow and tarnish its image, or because it would take up resources and time that could be devoted to something else you'd rather that particular studio be making, or because of political or moral reasons (which some people cited as opposition to any Harry Potter games, like Hogwarts Legacy, due to the associations with J.K. Rowling's "political expressions" - or rather, calling a spade a spade, transphobia). You can hold any reason or belief you like for wishing something not to happen. But this particular reason just doesn't make any sense to me. Because YOU wouldn't derive any benefit or utility from a product or phenomenon of some kind, therefore it shouldn't exist - why, simply because you think there would be no purpose to it and anything without a purpose ought not exist? If that's really the rationale, it seems selfish to me when other people actually would benefit from it and therefore it has a purpose to individuals beyond yourself. But I could be misunderstanding or misrepresenting/strawmanning the reasoning there, so I'm more curious to understand it.