Interesting concept. I don’t really have a dog in the EGS fight; don’t care much. But I do agree with @peterb upthread that the market, essentially, will decide whether EGS is making good choices in what games to sell, so we really don’t have much to add to that beyond, well, buying or not buying. I am intrigued, though, about this assertion that as long as some people are benefiting, we should be happy for them.
In I guess some sort of cosmic moral sense, the opposite of schadenfreude seems like a reasonable and empathetic sort of reaction. “Hey, I’m glad you got that job!” or “I’m happy you won the lottery!” I’m not sure it’s nearly as valid in the realm of political economy, however. Paying off one group to screw over the rest is a time-honored tactic, especially in capital-labor relations. Divide and conquer has been a part of political and economic strategy since long before Machiavelli. Now, I am not saying EGS is doing anything of the sort, or implying any evil motives, or what not. What I’m suggesting is that, no, the mere fact that one group is benefiting from something does not make that thing in and of itself necessarily good. It might be. It might not be.