Thank you for your response. I'm glad you got something out of this, and I'm glad I was able to provide this counterpoint to some of the other takes that have been floating around in this jam. I take professionalism and craft very seriously as a game developer.
I will say that this is not meant to be an attack on hobbyists as a whole, or of people who enjoy niche art specifically. Indie and alternative art is valuable in its own right, and I have no ill will towards those who do not aspire to reach a broader audience. Hell, I think making art for a variety of different audiences with varying levels of mass appeal is something more artists should do. My piece is specifically targeted at people who argue that niche/alternative/hobbyist art is inherently better than art with a broader appeal, aesthetically, qualitatively, and morally. Hence why I call them "snobbyists": These are the people who feel the need to attack others with more traditional success than them, while doing nothing themselves to reach to achieve that success. Why, who can say. As I outline in my essay, I suspect they feel entitled to that success. In which case, perhaps they should not be making games at all, if they are neither content to make outsider art for niche communities with no ambitions of outsider recognition, nor determined to become the kind of person who is capable of producing a piece of art designed to at once honor their artistic vision while being able to connect with a wider audience.
As for the argument about nobody deserving love or attention or respect, I stand by that, though perhaps I ought to clarify what I mean. Philosophically, I don't think that anyone deserves anything they get at all, be it good or bad. Things merely happen to people. When I say that, I am NOT saying things like "There are not things people need in order to live happy and full lives with dignity," or "There shouldn't be any standards of conduct that dictate how humans should treat each other," or even "Marginalized groups need to shut the fuck up about how they should be treated as equals to dominant power groups, because discrimination isn't actually a problem," or something equally horrible. What I am arguing is that assuming that something about who you are or what you have done entitles you to any sort of special treatment from anyone or anything is a recipe for misery. Essentially, I am arguing against just deserts. It's meant to counter people who believe that some people deserve good things and other people deserve bad things. Hence my points about how the best way to get love is to give it, and the best way to make art that gets recognized is to focus on your love of the craft, of yourself, and the other. The reason I oppose the very notion of anybody deserving anything is to get people to look outside of themselves to the people around them and to try to reach out to one another, to help ease each others suffering and make the world a better place. It's not a nihilist position, nor is it opposed to justice. It is meant to be a restorative justice mindset.
As to the point about selflessness, I would never argue one should never look out for themselves. I have heard many horror stories from people who have had their kindness and good will taken advantage of. It sounds like you have experienced that too, and for that, I am truly sorry. Nobody deserves that. What I personally believe is that you must give yourself the same attention and care you give to other people. We must be kind to others, and you are also one of the others. I tend to pose it like this: how would you treat yourself if you were a friend, a loved one, a pet? How would you take care of yourself? What advice would you give? Loving yourself in this way, I find, can be a very effective way to avoid both the traps of thinking too highly of yourself, or ignoring your own needs.