Profit from Anti-Censorship: Lollipop Chainsaw RePOP Breaks Sales Records
The remaster of Lollipop Chainsaw, titled Lollipop Chainsaw RePOP, has exceeded expectations and set new sales records.
For those unfamiliar, Lollipop Chainsaw is a wild, over-the-top action game about Juliet Starling, a cheerleader armed with a chainsaw, who battles zombies in a high school overrun by the undead. She’s joined by the disembodied head of her boyfriend, Nick, who provides comic relief and gameplay support. The original 2012 release stood out for its campy humor, flashy visuals, and bold personality. Its unapologetically fun tone made it a cult hit.
Now, Lollipop Chainsaw RePOP has made waves not only for its sales success but also for its refusal to bow to modern censorship trends. Dragami Games’ parent company recently reported a 52.1% increase in net profits, attributing much of this success to the remaster smashing its sales targets.
The relevant text being the following:
Some Good News
Dragami Games’ parent company revised its annual forecast upwards with a 52.1% net increase in profits thanks to Lollipop Chainsaw RePOP significantly exceeding its initial sales targets! This is all thanks to the support you gave us, and we are truly grateful.
What makes this remaster notable is that, while it had to compromise on re-licensing original music due to restrictions from the American recording industry, the developers kept the game free from unnecessary “modern sensibilities” censorship. Fans have celebrated this decision, proving that respecting artistic integrity and audience preferences pays off.
Historically, censorship often backfires. When Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball was canceled in the West, demand skyrocketed on import sites like PlayAsia, which saw record-breaking sales. This is a recurring trend: audiences consistently show they prefer more options rather than having content limited by the moralizing of a vocal minority.
Critics of censorship argue that it often masquerades as making content “inclusive” or “safe,” but the reality is far less altruistic. Censorship doesn’t respect diverse tastes — it imposes one narrow view on everyone. Whether it’s toning down jokes, altering character designs, or removing entire storylines, it all communicates the same patronizing message: that audiences are too fragile to handle creative freedom.
This trend isn’t new. It’s the same mentality as the “Satanic Panic” of the 1980s, where games like Dungeons & Dragons were vilified for nonexistent harm. Today, we see fiction censored or suppressed based on unscientific claims of harm or offense. For instance, a production of Bizet’s Carmen in Australia was canceled simply because it was set in front of a tobacco factory. This isn’t progress; it’s an overreach that stifles art and creativity.
Ultimately, respecting art means allowing creators to take risks and audiences to make their own choices. We don’t need less; we need more. Games should cater to a variety of tastes, and instead of censoring content, studios should offer options to accommodate different preferences. For example, Lollipop Chainsaw RePOP and Capcom’s remasters could have benefitted even further from modes or settings that provide choices rather than imposing edits on everyone.
Censorship disguised as moral progress does more harm than good. It infantilizes audiences, limits creativity, and alienates fans. If the pendulum swung the other way — censoring LGBTQIA+ content in titles like Boyfriend Dungeon or The Red Strings Club — the outrage would be justified. The principle remains the same: creators should have the freedom to make their work, and audiences should have the freedom to engage with it or not.
The success of Lollipop Chainsaw RePOP is a clear example that anti-censorship pays off — not just in profits, but in trust and respect for fans. Let this be a wake-up call to other studios: censorship isn’t the answer. Offering choice, respecting art, and trusting audiences are far better solutions that benefit everyone.
Sadly, a lot of companies aren’t seeing very good results or returns on investment by watering down their games.
Koei-Techmo isn’t doing so well. Square-Enix has reported losses. The way I see it, all those losses could have been avoided by not capitulating to a moral panic.
I can more than understand wanting to protect one’s own brand.
But the very people That defend the censorship and say it’s more moral or censorship will mitigate bran risk…
Are the same people that abuse.
