Usually people associate games with the developer and/or publisher as an entity, to a lesser degree with the people in charge, writers or artists. Obsidian was not the first or only studio several of those people are associated with, but obviously it requires some amount of effort if there would be another rebuilding required at some point and it is almost certain that successors will spawn or other studios be transformed if people leave for whatever reason. Either way it can be frustrating for consumers and developers.
I think it is one of the benefits of social media that these individual people get more recognition, wasn't it common practice to give the developers practically no credit at all in the 80s?
The point being, as long as games are not scrapped because of it, it is not the worst thing, and even then they might resurface with a different paint. Legends of "what could have been" are sometimes effective tools of promotion, too.
It might be different if a game's appeal is based on a specific IP but in general good ideas resurface in some way.
If that sounds like I think it is already over and what good can be salvaged, that was not intended. Just an observation that more or less cool names, immaterial figureheads or logos are nothing more than a mental crutch to sort things with. And people prefer these crutches to remain useful if established.