It is the point.TheChillyAcademic said:That isn't the point. The point is that while Card will receive proceeds for his "contributions", not purchasing the game effects more then just Card, speaking specifically of profit.
Card is the liability here. His benefit from this situation is what is under debate. Why not put the onus on him and ask why doesn't he forsake his proceeds so that everyone else involved with the game doesn't suffer (from a theoretical boycott)?
I think placing that responsibility on the consumer is ridiculous.