GPL makes sense in a context where that sort of vendor compatibility creates existential conflicts for the product. For an operating system and associated toolset, it is clearly an excellent license and does great work encouraging the necessary cooperation from otherwise unwilling partners.
Games are a different beast. For one, the dominant revenue model for videogames continues to be to sell copies of the software, and most digital platforms want (understandably) to apply some sort of DRM to those purchases. If I license my game library for GPL it means that, among other things, users are not free to use it in their iOS, Android, Nintendo, PS4, Xbox, or Steam* releases. That makes the library dead on arrival for almost all of the compelling distribution channels. As a result, all of my game libraries are MIT. I want users to be able to sell software that is built using my library, and that means I want to use the most permissive library possible.
There is a place to fight philosophical grounds, and then separately there is wanting to make sure that my actual users (game developers) aren't restricted by my personal philosophies. Thankfully, MIT is itself perfectly copyleft compatible. You can very well include it in your GPL games, and I'd love to hear if you do! But if you are the much more typical developer trying to make a living with your craft, then I want to support the practical realities of your available storefront options, and let you get on with that.
(*Someone much better versed in license legalese informed me that Steam games can be released under GPL so long as they avoid the Steam SDK. I am not lawyer-y enough to confirm this or speak to the details.)