I had this with Fallout 4. I played it a huge amount in a very short space of time but then I haven't really gone back to it. Though, to be honest, I'd still highly rate that game.
I dislike the way that people can turn against things they've put so much time into. Surely, if it has held your interest for a decent amount of time then it has done it's job. It's not the game's fault if you put 1000 hours into it in the first week and then get bored.
Just because a game has flaws doesn't mean you can't enjoy it. But I would say that the tendency to play it to death upon release is more the reason why people stop playing a game. And not the hype around a game causing people to say that it's good when it's not.
It has an appeal this game. And even if people turn against it in the coming months then I think it's unfair to pretend like that appeal never existed and it was all just hype. I highly rate this game and I'm OK with the fact that I may not be playing it in 6 months.
So long as people enjoy the 'mediocre movies and games' then the developers have done their job. (Frankly, an astounding job by this game given how few worked on it.)
I can't see how ~15 people can develop a game that's popular and that that is somehow a bad thing. It doesn't exactly dilute your experience of so called 'good' games does it? If so, how does it? Your 'good' games don't disappear because this game exists do they?