This advantage can't be understated. Researchers, at least in psychology, almost never seem to care about the magnitude of an effect. It's simply enough to show that some effect happens in some direction. For this (generally acceptable) purpose, frequentist stats are great.
It's not entirely unreasonable, as often extra variables suppress the effect size. E.g. the effect is substantial in people with some genetics, insignificant otherwise. The fact that there is an effect at all makes it interesting as a starting point for further exploration e.g. to determine the mechanism or find the extra factors needed to make the effect significant.
That's not an advantage, that's one of the primary reasons psychology is among the worst subjects hit by the replication crisis.
So not a cheap shot at all IMO.
For example, suppose you are researching the effect of an emotional/negative picture on how a participant makes decision in an economic game. Here, you may think “a big effect size implies this study will have a large practical relevance.” However, following typical statistical designs, an effect size may be largely determined by just how many trials the experiment used for each participant. This is also not the only factor that’s relevant. For instance, it’s debatable how the emotion induced in the task compares to the intensity of real life emotional situations. With these factors in mind, the effect size really doesn’t tell you much that can be applied outside the laboratory.
Maybe in some non-experimental sub-fields (e.g. personality psychology) effect sizes are more meaningful…