I'll tie it somewhat to the rise of social media. Once that proliferated and became accessible by everyone, it became quickly used to push grievances or create controversy. I don't think the mystical "algorithms" are to blame, this seems more like general human interest in shitflinging. But companies had to manage their image more closely from then on. You can have one retarded opinion with a thousand likes get posted around, and even though it could just be a minor issue, it gets blown way out of proportion, and it can seem like a very loud opinion. People being mean online? I can't police and control them, so the next best thing is to complain to the platform and blame it on them. If companies just said fuck off, it's not on them, this would have died out. But no, the corporation must not only provide goods and services in the modern age, it must be a moral entity. That is what companies have learnt, that it's not enough to be an amoral service provider anymore, that there is a great and profitable demand in being seen as "doing good". So out of this perceived need for morality and in accordance with perceived developing social mores, they fall in line to prevent these things. And as some adopt these censorship rules, others scramble to as well – you wouldn't want to be the only company who isn't a "good" company, do you? That's why it's so particular about some words being filtered and others not despite carrying the same semantics; they don't care about the problem, only that it looks like they've done something about the problem. As long as the main problem words that the general public seem to care about are dealt with, that's their job done.
As for the people making the complaints to begin with, I'd associate it with a few factors:
- Overly coddled, thin skin
- Petty authoritarianism and lack of power/agency/control in their own spheres
- Dopamine from perceived righteousness
- Reinforcement from peers
- Off-loading of personal responsibility to paternalistic entities (eg, governments, corporations)
Virtue-signaling is addictive. It's not just "good" for your status, it feels good. You're doing a good thing. Who could object to wanting to get that nastiness out of games? Think of the children! If you object, it's just because you want to call black people niggers, you fucking racist! And if you're a good person, you would want the same things I want, so you should help me. The moral high ground is exhilarating. But being able to shit on others and have the moral high ground? Sublime.
It's the same spirit that drove the puritans and the Satanic panic, that drives political correctness and censorship: that combination of moral assurance and need to dictate other people's lives. And for the general public, the principle sounds legit superficially. Only a racist would want to say racist things. Only a jerk would want to insult others. Surely there's nothing wrong with limiting that.
Why did it become acceptable to rob you of your purchase? Because it's just the next logical step after deplatforming. There is no "live and let live" or "mute and move on" in this crusader mentality. There are no protections or principles of protection that can be invoked here, because they should have been invoked every preceding step of the way. Do you have a right to own the thing you purchased? Fuck your rights, rights are irrelevant when you're doing something I don't like. Rights are lovely things to speak in support of, but when it comes to actually defending them for your enemies (ie, the only true test of your belief in said right)? Fuck that, people will sacrifice whatever rights they want on the altar of self-gratification. If anything, many only profess support for rights because it seems to be the socially moral thing to support. And companies are quick to adapt to the demands of their times.
Like dogeatsworm says, it's just business. But it's not just business.