But the Armikrog developer is 'only' a bigot and fundie, of which there are millions in the USA, with hundreds of billions of dollars in total possession, so the million or so he'd gain in revenue is not really significant there
It's always significant; this is basic "Tragedy of the Commons" stuff. Just because the harm one does or supports is relatively small compared to all the harm that is done or could be done does not mean that one does no harm. Harm is harm is harm. Just because many people litter does not entail that you should not concern yourself with littering. Just because there is already a great deal of trash on the ground does not make it acceptable for a person to throw more down. Same concept, y'ken?
I'd rather have fundies preoccupied making nice games than doing fundie stuff (especially when more fundies would open their minds to video games because of Armikrog).
The problem with this is that you're basically saying, "I will accept that you do undesirable things so long as you do something else, first." S'saying you can beat all the hobos you want so long as you pay the hobo beating tax (the paying of which will distract you from beating hobos, to some degree)*. It's still saying, "I will support that undesirable thing." That a caveat is added doesn't, unfortunately, change that. There
are situations where something like that may be your best option (It's
definitely a thing on the level of world politics), but in most cases it's definitely not. In the scenario being considered, it's definitely not.
*Now, you can say that they're going to beat hobos
anyway (and this is likely true), but that doesn't make it acceptable for
you to support the hobo assault just because it will slightly reduce the frequency of such attacks. Instead of giving them the support needed to assault three hobos in order to prevent them from assaulting a forth, give them no support at all. And maybe go out and interrupt when they've decided it's the hobo beating hour.