I have no idea why this is an issue. They said the game wasn't close to done..... And it isn't. Grifters? Unreal.
An issue is a broad topic. To be clear, it absolutely, flatly, unflinchingly is not an issue on a legal, moral, uh...
'doing something wrong' level. The grifting claim suggestion made above seems likely to be either 1) casual overreaction, or 2) becoming used to a specific way something is done and forgetting that it is the exception (to the point of finding the lack of it to be suspicious).
Whether it is 'an issue' in terms of positive to the net result, or pleasing the people who bought in, there could be. Note that some people voicing their displeasure are simply stating that this looks a little more likely that the end result will be something they won't be as pleased with. So, an issue the same way that your lotto number not coming up is (the far opposite of someone doing something wrong style issues).
Seriously.
I really like Colville, and his content. I've given him money in the past. I did not, however back his game.
He was completely upfront about this. He said it was going to be a long term project, and they weren't even close to settled.
The only core thing was the premise. They wanted the game to be Tactical, Heroic, Cinematic, Fantasy. He explained what he felt all those things meant, and how he thought they might achieve those goals.
Now, they are going through playtesting and revisions and work shopping their ideas.
If you backed this expecting there to be a complete game and you're just funding the printing, you obviously weren't paying attention.
This is for people who are not only interested in the game itself, but also the process of game design. You get to watch the sausage get made here, and even take part of it through playtesting.
If I had a group that was really into tactical combat play, I might have backed it because I think this could be a really fun and interesting experience. It would be really neat to play through multiple revisions of a game. See how choices get made, and see it how evolves over time. I don't have that kind of group though so me backing it would only serve to help show MCDM support. I'm sure a lot of people backed it for that reason alone. They were probably going to back it regardless.
There we go. This is helpful information. If this was specifically advertised as experience delivered, I get how this could have proceeded without things I would normally expect to be within the pitch.
Premise, setting, and expected playstyle are the few things I think you can solidly settle upon before the primary resolution system. Everything else, I feel is stuff you have to leave loose (or else risk having to loosen and re-tighted, I guess) until you have that at least relatively confident. Since that base mechanic is often the big-lift component that tells me that someone has more than just a nifty concept (which, honestly, are a dime a dozen; execution is the hard part), I would normally expect that as being part of the pitch.
If the entire model of the project is 'we are going to take you through that part,' then it makes sense. It is a trust-fall with Colville, and advertised as such.
In that case, the only critique I have is that, knowing that (and where we are in the process), mid-2025 seems awfully ambitious.