You have touched upon a very interesting philosophical question. Indeed, why shouldn't play-to-earn game developers maintain interest in their games over the long term? Of course, it is difficult. But nevertheless, there is nothing impossible about it. Players' interests do change, but this does not mean that developers cannot follow these interests and adjust game mechanics to their interests.
Simple, money!
You understand that in order to play to earn somebody must bring in the money for your reward, you have millions of players you need to bring in millions. You have for example 10 million players, each needs to make like $100 a month to be happy, this translates into 1 billion each month that needs to be injected in the game, 12 billion each year, this can be possible only if you add new 120 million players and each spends for started on average $100. Now you have 130 million players that each want $100 a month so....get ready... 170 billion is needed each year or 20 times!!!!! the revenue of Blizzard or Electronic Arts.
The problem with all those games is that they have been built on an MLM scheme basis, they produce unlimited tokens that need unlimited resources, and it's simply impossible for them to survive in the long run.
Imagine what would be the price of any item in the world if everyone started making it, every single person in the world would plant potatoes for example, the outcome would be that potatoes would be worthless since everyone has more than they need and nobody buys it, such is the problem with play to earn models.
Essentially a rug-pull by the game developers of Hamster Kombat because they can not afford to keep the company going with the in-game currency dumping along with the platform's own TON coin.
If Hamster Kombat turns into a rugpull it will be the end of mini-games and their tokens, there will be millions of frustrated users who have spent hours working for this stuff and if they don't get anything decent they will never touch these kinds of games again!