Around here, the reaction was positive, but if you take a look at how the game was treated at Steam and also how the reaction was at the Playtonic Forum also among a lot of people who were registered long before the controversy (this is important, because of course, one should filter out deliberately opened troll accounts), I think it is not fair to say the reaction was predominantly positive. Financially, I feel it is quite safe to assume that it hurt the game overall, assuming that not a lot of press would have reported very strongly about it - which I think is unlikely to happen, because there were no positive articles about this on any site I frequent - and people who wanted Jontron gone wouldn't have resorted to attacking the game in a similar way as Jontron supporters did after the decision.
First, I do not want to tell you what you should do, it is just explaining my rationale. Second, to explain it maybe a bit better: If you are not buying A Hat in Time (or Yooka-Laylee before, had they not removed Jontron), this is not really perceivable as a clear stance against racism, because there can be a lot of reasons not to buy a game, so it does not deliver a message about racism to the development studio. On the other hand, if you buy games by Ubisoft, EA and Activision (for instance), you are talking team sizes in excess of 100 western developers. This makes almost certain that there are racists among them: Trump voters, AfD voters, FPÖ voters, Wilders voters, SVP voters and so on. So the only difference is that you have absolute certainty in one case over almost certainty in the other case, which is making it hard for me to understand how it is coherent.
Still, I think it is important to stand up against such stances, I just do not feel that this is a good means (for me) to do so: It does not strike me as effective, nor fair if it is a team effort with many other team members who may also have totally different viewpoints, ones with which I may align with very well. So my preferred way of opposing viewpoints I do not consider acceptable (among which racism is a very prominent example, naturally), is to directly engage with the viewpoints themselves and to condemn and discuss them, rather than to resort to measures that predominantly hurt people disassociated with these expressions and are hard to identify as a stance against the original claims.
I see and respect that other people may evaluate this differently, but I think it is not correct to say, just because one does not like this means of opposing racism, one does not oppose it at all.
