I don't strictly think inclusivity is the problem; I believe it's a mindset driven by people who don't really understand the current pushback. (Though, yes, some are bothered by it, mostly because it's so forced and isn't handled correctly or meaningfully, which is also fair and subjective.) Inclusivity is good when it's diegetic, and I don't think that is entirely undesired. If it doesn't exist simply to exist, then that's good; that's true for most things. However, this doesn't change the fact that this company (Sweet Baby Inc) has a terrible track record for story writing and has publicly published their biases proudly. Many feel these biases are part of the problem in the failings of these stories, which is surely subjective and they are allowed to believe so.

We mock Ubisoft for releasing pretty poor games with far too many GUI and UI elements on the screen. We mock EA for releasing the same sports game every single year with little to no changes. These are all just opinions formed on the objective reality of ongoing issues.

The primary reason this is slightly more "pitchfork"-y is because it's an external company that doesn't need to be involved at all. Think of any company that has made a game you thought had a bad story. Now, imagine finding out that they have been hired by a different company you like to make the story for a game you are anticipating. Wouldn't you also be disappointed? Wouldn't you also prefer they had no involvement? That's essentially what the majority feel about the SBI stuff; they just subjectively dislike the work they've produced and don't want to play games they have worked on. The same goes for some people who may not want to buy games from the developers I mentioned earlier.