Infold Deleted a Character Because Players Made Them

The conventional wisdom about gacha games is that developers hold all the cards. You spend, they drip content, and no amount of forum posting moves the roadmap. Last week, Love and Deepspace blew a hole in that assumption.

From Reveal to Erasure in Under Two Weeks

Valko made his debut during a surprise "Supermoon Countdown" livestream in June — what initially appeared to be a routine broadcast was interrupted by fictional emergency reports about a mysterious beast roaming the city, before cutting to Valko's reveal trailer. The theatrical rollout was crafted to make a splash. It made one, just not the intended kind.

Valko was planned as the sixth romanceable character in the title, scheduled to launch in-game as part of a version update. He would have been the first new love interest after a significant gap, making this a major content addition. That context matters: a new love interest in a mobile otome game is the equivalent of a new hero in a live-service shooter — the tent-pole that drives a spending cycle.

Within days, Papergames and Infold Games confirmed on X that development on Valko has permanently ended. Not paused. Not rescheduled. Erased. Following the backlash, the development team committed that no additional love interests will be introduced in future content plans — the entire team will instead focus on the existing love interests.

What Actually Set Players Off

The backlash was layered, and it's worth disaggregating.

The loudest objection was structural. The core complaint: existing love interests had gone long stretches without meaningful story updates, and introducing a sixth character felt like the development team was spreading resources thinner rather than deepening what already existed. This is a recurring fault line in live-service games — every new character is implicitly a vote against the existing ones.

It didn't stop there. Some players speculated that a werewolf character was linked to file labels found in the game's code, evoking historical sensitivities. Papergames addressed the speculation directly, but the damage to the discourse was done.

A promotional livestream showed Valko in werewolf form entering a home and making suggestive statements. Critics argued that given the game's primary audience is women — and that it has underage players in many regions — such promotional material should raise greater awareness around women's safety.

The protests moved offline. After Papergames installed a Valko-themed display outside its headquarters in China, protesters allegedly left symbolic items in the company's delivery lockers.

The Studio's Response — and Its Cost

Infold's statement didn't dodge. The studio acknowledged that it moved forward with Valko before it was truly ready, and that in doing so, it let down players who had supported the game from the start — and also fell short of delivering the experience that players anticipating Valko deserved. That's a notable admission: they're simultaneously apologizing to the people who wanted the character and the people who didn't.

The compensation package tells you something about the economics. Outfits, photo poses, and event-tied boxes will be sent to all players for free, and players will also receive bonus gacha pulls for an extended period. Free gacha pulls given as an apology represent real money being refunded in-kind. Studios don't do that casually.

The scheduled update still launches with all other planned systems and features intact. The studio stripped the character but preserved the update — evidence of serious contingency planning, or perhaps evidence that Valko's removal was operationally simpler than they let on.

The Fracture the Decision Exposed

Here's where the story gets genuinely messy. The backlash that killed Valko came predominantly from the Chinese player base. The global community landed somewhere else entirely. Petitions calling for Valko's reinstatement gathered significant signatures, and the #Valko hashtag trended on X worldwide.

Players who were genuinely excited for the character feel the decision punishes a global audience for the preferences of one regional segment. One side of the playerbase is pleased with Valko's cancellation; another side appears to have been spurned by Papergames' decision. The studio, trying to satisfy one constituency, created a second one.

This is the structural trap of a globally distributed live-service game with a single shared build. What reads as a consent problem in one region can read as a content deprivation in another. Infold had no surgical option — they couldn't ship Valko in some markets and not others. The binary choice forced a binary outcome, and they chose the direction where the loudest noise was coming from.

What "Player Power" Actually Looks Like

The instinct will be to frame this as a win for community advocacy, and in narrow terms it is. Player voices moved a studio to reverse a core content decision before launch — that's genuinely rare. Most live-service post-mortems go in the other direction: developer ships, community complains, developer issues a blog post, nothing changes.

But the Valko outcome also illustrates that "player power" is messy and uneven. The players who won this fight aren't the whole playerbase. Fans of the cancelled character gathered outside Infold's headquarters to bid Valko farewell — a mourning vigil for a fictional werewolf who never made it into the game. That image captures the whole contradiction: one group's victory is another group's loss, and the studio gets blamed either way.

The broader lesson for live-service developers is less romantic than "listen to your players." It's closer to: know which players you're listening to, and be prepared for the other ones to show up next.

---