Speaking as a former game dev, voting with your wallet is in fact the best way to go.
If you give feedback yet still continue to give the company money, you're literally telling them "I may dislike what you do, but it doesn't matter since I'll be paying you no matter what you may try". Negative feedback is irrelevant when you have record-high profits on the current development path you're taking. If you continue to give them money despite their choices in game design, you give them the thumbs up to ignore you completely since your opinion doesn't matter; you'll be coughing up the money regardless.
Like, take FF14 itself for example. People want to complain and moan all they like about the direction the game is going, but from an industry perspective and from data I've personally witnesses at my time at Ubisoft, Square is exactly on track where they need to be. Why do you think games as a whole have become far more watered down and casualized as time goes on? Because they're literally the majority of gamers in this day and age. They're where the money is. Despite the endless complaints about SMN, it's one of the most popular and played jobs in the game, bar none.
Why do you think Battle passes, Microtransactions, Gacha, F2p, despite being widely hated systems, have continued to flourish? Because even though gamers want to complain all they want and give endless negative feedback, they still give them money for these things. (Spoiler alert: it ain't even the whales alone either. The game I had worked on at Ubisoft had a 72% purchase rate for the battle pass in it, in a game that had a million+ sales.) The only time feedback ever truly matters in the AAA industry is when their profits are hurting.
If you don't like where the game is heading, do both. Leave your feedback, and vote with your wallet by exiting stage left. If the people complaining are truly in the majority and not just the vocal minority Square can safely ignore and continue to get the exact same revenue stream with while continuing to optimize the game to better draw in the huge crowd of casual gamers that gives them the big $$$, then they'll be forced to look at the feedback when their profits are hurting.
Because they're right, especially when it comes to live service games. AAA studios do in face hire psychologists / experts on human behaviors in order to help them design game systems and reward structures that are designed to implant a deep desire to keep playing and to make it as hard as possible for the average player to quit due to mental attachment to the game and their character. That's why lots of AAA studios are comfortable ignoring their playerbase's feedback, when a majority of them will be merely all bark and no bite due to sunk cost, mental attachments, etc to their IP, brand, etc.