I don’t think there’s really much complexity here. There are aspects of a game that are art, and there are aspects of a game that are a product. People have reasonable expectations about how the product aspects function, and they should not be violated.
If we imagine a simpler case of a film on a DVD, then the divide is the same, but maybe clearer - the film is the art, the DVD is the product. I understand how DVDs work, and I expect them to work that way. It’s perfectly possible to make a disc that self-destructs on being played, and I imagine there may be filmmakers who might feel artistically inclined to want an audience to watch a film once, then never again, and if so they’re welcome to say that. They would not, however, be welcome to sell a self-destructing DVD that violated people’s reasonable expectations of how DVDs work (at least, not without adjusting those expectations by making it very clear to would-be purchasers up front that that’s what they’d be getting).
The same is true of games - a creator can do whatever they want with the game content, but messing with the normal functioning of the platform would not be OK.
We usually see the ‘artistic freedom’ defence from gamergate types trying to defend their misogynistic Japanese imports, and it makes just as little sense here as it does there; ideas like ‘free speech’ and ‘artistic freedom’ mean that you can act badly, but they don’t mean you shouldn’t expect that you’ll upset people in the process, or that they won’t tell you that you’ve upset them.
Simply wibbling on about artistic freedom doesn’t invalidate anyone’s criticism of what they think are bad artistic choices.