AdonistheDark said:
As far as "artistic integrity" goes, artists aren't free from criticism. That's the primary way audiences interact with their work. An artistic can't bask in praise while shunning negative feedback as illegitimate. Want to be free from criticism? Paint in your basement and never release it to the public for their opinion. Not to mention how much of this "art" is be committee. Just look at Ubisoft to see how rote the design of their AAA games are. Art, more often than not, is a commercial product. Hence your suggestion to "vote with your wallet".
The design by committee philosophy is why I've always found the artistic integrity argument to be largely uncompelling, apparently, when a publisher changes the artists vision we all bow to the god of capitalism and justify it as just a business decision, but the ramblings of the internet masses with little actual power to force change are apparently derided as attempts at censorship.
Generally this argument smacks of wanting to have your cake and eat it too, games are apparently a commercial product whenever it is convenient, but they are also some form of mythical sacrosanct artistic vision as soon as some form of criticism we don't like comes along, not just with diversity arguments either, I see this form of argument get trotted out for a lot of other things too.
It's people pretending that they care about the artist's vision for a game, except when the publisher comes along and forces story, gameplay, or artistic mandates in line with their focus-grouped marketing studies, then apparently all those artists and writers can go fuck themselves because games are suddenly a business product again.