Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Fans arguing for the boycott would say that live-service games rely on an implicit contract of continuity with paying players, and that killing off a beloved character without adequate warning or player agency betrays the emotional investment (and often real money) people have put into those relationships. They see the boycott as a legitimate consumer response, a way of signalling to the developer that narrative decisions have real commercial consequences and that player attachment should be respected, not treated as disposable for shock value or plot convenience.

The case against

Those defending the developer's choice would argue that writers must retain creative freedom to tell meaningful stories, and that risk, loss and consequence are often what make a narrative feel earned rather than saccharine. They would note that a game promising ongoing drama cannot keep every character permanently safe without becoming static, and that a vocal backlash from a subset of fans, however large, should not necessarily override the storytelling choices of the people who built the game's world and understand its long-term arc.