It´s funny to see how many times a statement like that precedes a libertarian speech. I don’t want to be rude or offensive but the discourse you had throughout this thread is not taken very seriously in most real academic environments in economics today. You would more often hear this kind of discourse on the internet and from finance graduates than from academic economists.
To answer the OP, I don´t really think anti-consumerism is the best concept to talk about this. I do see what you mean, but maybe it would be better to frame it as Activision-Blizzard commiting to shareholder capitalism. If Blizzard has decided that, for example, having 10,000 purchasers buy a 30$ portrait to earn a 300,000$ profit is better than having 50,000 purchasers buy a 5$ portrait and earn 250,000$ is because they care more about generating profit for its shareholders than generating utility for its customers or stakeholders. Maybe it is better to think of this on these terms and say that you think Activision-Blizzard should care more about their Stakeholders (like us, customers) because on the long run they will benefit more from having a large playerbase of happy customers than bigger profits from a few whales today. That way we are still discussing different market organizations, as opposed to anti-consumerism where things can get a bit messy on the ideological front.
You can search the wiki entry for Stakeholder Theory for reference, I can’t post links 