It's only shitty if your alternatives are to either buy a game or to pirate it - in that case pirating would in fact result in a lost sale, BUT, this is a FALSE dichotomy, pushed by corporations seeking to expand their control over the consumer (who already owns pretty much nothing: see licensing vs purchasing a product), at the expense of everyone, THEMSELVES INCLUDED, but most importantly at the expense of the indie dev.
The true dichotomy is almost NEVER pirate vs buy, now that the service problem has been solved and many platforms and payment options exist to satisfy any customer and facilitate a rapid, safe, and convenient transaction. The REAL dichotomy is pirate vs go jack off, or pirate vs go take a walk in the park, or pirate vs go visit your grandma - in other words it's about whether you play the game AT ALL or not, and buying doesn't even enter into the equation. In this situation, discouraging someone from pirating a game would actively HURT the developer in much the same way as deplatforming him or banning his ads would - he wouldn't be gaining a sale anyway, but at the same time he will be LOSING a potential FAN.
This potential fan will then never go online and tell everyone how great the game is, which might have prompted somebody reading/watching his comments to actually go out and BUY the game! This potential fan will then never contribute to the fanbase that keeps any game alive, in effect hastening its DEATH! The service the fan does to the developer beyond just buying a product is GREATLY understated, mostly due to how difficult it is to quantify it (though one famous EU report states that piracy doesn't actually hurt sales - meaning that pirates contribute enough in advertising a product to their friends for free to offset any mythical "lost sale"), but consider that a writer without sales is still a writer, but a writer without readers is NOTHING.