Beyond a boycott of the game, there's not much the consumer can do to take the publisher to task.
Then that's what customers should do. If that means that we have to pass up playing a game we'd like because we're unhappy with the publisher, then so be it! Morals are hard.
And "don't buy" doesn't mean "pirate". "I'm boycotting them, so I'll pirate their games" is just an excuse, a weak justification for something the person wanted to do anyway.
Like, I haven't bought a Ubisoft title in over a decade now, because I could see that they were an awful publisher, even back then. The closest I've came is one of the new Rayman games, but the response to the latest round of Murder's Manifesto titles ("AC2014 wasn't great. Here at IGN, we've given Ubisoft a thorough minor tap on the pinkie, and written a bunch of articles on how they're sorry, how they are going to fix it, how the game is great otherwise, how they've fixed it, and all the stuff they held back but are now going to graciously give you for free. In conclusion, you should buy Murder's Manifesto 2014!") put me off. I'd like a nice 2D platform game, but I like my personal integrity more.
So yeah, I think it's fine to voice displeasure about these things...
but that isn't what Gamergate is doing. If Nathan Grayson never wrote another article announcing that a game had made it through Steam Greenlight (For example), it still wouldn't do anything to hold the major publishers responsible, or to make gaming media any better for gamers. You
have to go for the big targets. They're the only ones that matter.
(Ex-accountant; have worked under a code of professional ethics, have no intention of breaking them now even though I resigned my membership.)