This is basically what I got out of that person's tweet.
well, yeah, that's part of the problem with a decades-large library of classic games for indie devs to contend with:
if you are making a game, and a game from 10-30 years ago is a more appealing prospect for people to play, re-consider the overall design of your game, if not why you are making the game in the first place
for this particular developer, I actually took a look at the game, listed below:
needless to say, the audience that would play decades old RTS re-releases is not the audience that would want to play (yet another) cozy game about being a witch. I feel like I see several of these exact games released each month by indie developers, to the point where they all start looking the same to me.
and if there are already so many cozy witch life-sims that are as inoffensive as possible on the market already, what would set this one apart from the others? why can't I just play one of the Atelier games if I want to play as a cute potion-maker doing cute things? once Witchbrook from chucklefish releases by the next decade, it would be even more over for all of these other developers' witch games! even more so once Concerned Ape finishes Haunted Chocolatier, despite not being a witch game, because it is clearly the sort of game they want to emulate!
everyone wants their own Stardew Valley, but they are incapable of understanding why Stardew Valley succeeded on a fundamental level - at that period in time, these sort of life sims were on the wayside with the downfall of Harvest Moon. now that they're a dime a dozen, there needs to be further innovation from the ground up to set your own work apart if you want to stand out. and if one guy could make Stardew Valley over a period of years, learning how to make it as he went, use that to fuel your own desire to make something equally as good, something that people would be lining up to play for years to come!