That's the dumbest application of game theory I've ever heard.
This example would only apply if there were a finite amount of animals shared between the two people only and there were no other factors at play other than eating and being hungry. Additionally let's assume the x is [eat animals]. This then defines the reason why people are telling you to not eat animals (the second x) as simply because "they don't like it". It shows you are missing the point entirely.
Don't pretend your "you don't like it so I'm going to do more of it" is anything more than "owning the annoying vegans who told me what to do".
My point was that a bacon sandwich in particular is not a food need that's hard to replace nutritionally by existing foods. People eat it because it's super tasty. I would bet there is a very small percentage of total bacon eaten in the world that is eaten out of necessity (impoverished family eating their raised livestock).
It's a bad faith argument to make the assumption that I think the change should happen overnight instantly. And it's simply a bad argument that someone somewhere would have to eat meat eventually. It takes a LOT of crop farming to provide sustainance for the meat industry.