I think the PTO is less appealing than the ETO in no small part because of issues of "war guilt" and how things were decided. In the ETO, the allied powers generally decided that Germany was firmly and almost solely in the wrong (we don't spend any time haranguing the Finns, Hungarians, Bulgarians, or Croatians for instance, and the Italians got away with their involvement by just abruptly switching sides for the second major European war in a row) . Germany's new regimes (East and West) for the most part were accepting of this, and its enshrined to this day in the legal system of the current unified Germany (the banning of Nazi symbols, etc).
With Japan, the outcome was entirely different. Firstly, the decisions on how things would go were largely US made, with little influence from any of the Allied powers. While Western Europe was happy to sign their own agreements ending their wars with Japan, this was not the case with the Soviet Union. Russia to this day has no formal agreement ending their conflict with Japan and has numerous territorial disputes with the Japanese. The situation of the Chinese is similar, in that the People's Republic of China has its own views on agreements cut between the Republic of China and Japan and how legitimate these are. The two Korean regimes, both of whom do not recognize the other, similarly agree that Japan has not done enough to accept its war guilt, and its about the only thing they agree on. The comment about the victors writing the history is especially interesting with regards to Japan, since the US decided to push much less on the issue of war guilt there than they did in Germany, being able to make that decision essentially unilaterally. The issue of Class A war criminals being enshrined at Yakusuni, a Shinto shrine dedicated to those who lost their lives in service to the Empire of Japan, is an especially sore subject and one that we allowed to happen in Japan, even though we would never have let it happen in Germany. All of this wraps together to make the PTO and the outcome of the war against Japan much more divisive to this day and it can't help but have an influence on marketing decisions.
Secondly, its just less well known than the ETO. The PTO was reduced in the podcast to big naval battles and island hopping, which did dominate, but airborne operations and tanks and other things were involved and a game could easily be quite diverse. The islands in question for instance aren't all just desolate beaches and jungles, but also include high mountains, swamps, and other environs. A game focused on that part of the world could also see operations in the virtually unknown China-Burma-India (CBI) Theater and the brutal fighting in the Aleutians. The developers for Company of Heroes 2 in their video developer diaries and the ad campaign for that game show that the average person really doesn't know the scale of things on the eastern front against the Germans. I think that a similar deep dive by developers into the actual particulars would cause them to be shocked at what actually happened in the PTO-CBI-Aleutians. I think that most game companies who deal in historical settings could do themselves a significant service by hiring historical consultants who are subject matter experts. This way they could reduce the amount of time they have to spend in getting up to speed on any specific event and just see about how well that would translate into the game they're working on.