A lot of people own a gram of sugar and make up a lot of sugar cubes. Informing them and motivating boycotts can have an accumulating effect.

But I’d say vote with both anyway. Your democratic vote and your money.

TLDR; eat fiber and don’t get old.

Or don’t eat fiber and don’t get old as well.

If the “win for everyone” includes shipping a game as microtransaction-based instead of ad-based, I doubt it’s really a win. Microtransactions usually come with dark patterns and rely on techniques from the gambling industry.

Some options you could consider include […] making your game free to play with optional upgrades sold via Microtransactions or Downloadable Content (DLC).

I am not sure this is better. I hate microtransactions usually more than ads.

Ads don’t cost you money, just time, and sometimes some screen space. They are annyoing and that sucks. But leveraging dark patterns as stuff like FOMO and other psychological tricks to nudge people towards microtransactions can cost you a lot. A business model, which relies on techniques from the gambling industry – also by catching some whales – is imo way worse than ads.
Such games aren’t made for all players, just for some who don’t have control over their expenses (or can really afford it).

I can live with DLCs as long as there aren’t so many that it becomes increasingly indistinguishable to microtransactions. But in the end I don’t want to buy a fucking lego set, where I have to constantly buy new stuff.

That’s why I prefer single purchase games. I am also ok with paying more for them if that means the devs get the proftis to keep the development of games I like going. Buy once – have it all. Keeping games at a comparably equal price over decades is imo not meaningful anyways due to factors like inflation. But the gaming community can be really unforgiving in this regard. That’s why ad-based or microtransaction-based games are taking off. A majority of gamers are uncritical enough that this works. And then they are surprised when it bites them in the ass…