My feelings are irrelevant. I’m not in my cups because I feel cheated.
But that’s why we have the forums. So we can air our grievances and share our praise.
In a years time, or whenever the expansion is released, we shall be able to look back on this debate, hoist a pint and have a good chuckle. If we’re all still here.
We’ll see, won’t we. 
To fix the shortcomings of the current core game and with a increase in speed and quality every Cycle (from experience and better content-pipeline setup) we can still expect this to take at least 2 years to happen.
Do you think EHG talks about a expansion which will only come in 2 years? Rather then in… let’s say 1? Half a year?
They’re already net-negative and absolutely fucked it up beyond measure… they did so since pre 1.0 non-stop and people (including me) called them out over… and over… and over again. I was bashed left and right whenever I said ‘this here is a red flag, don’t let it happen!’ to only be told to screw off, they’ll fix it for sure!
And here we are. Jack-shit is fixed, the red flags have turned out to be true and they’re going potentially against existing EU customer laws which will with a high potential (especially in the current state of affairs with video games being under scrutiny) cause them cost at the hallmark of tens of millions should they do it as they said.
You simply cannot sell a product (yes, a crowdfunding with a return being given for funding is a product sale in the EU) on the premise of stating ‘You’ll get unlimited full product access for the full time of existence of the product’ and then go along to backtrack.
The only viable option is to make an exception for everyone before the change has been stated.
And that would kinda be their whole playerbase… so wouldn’t make sense now, would it?
But if they don’t do it they will with a decent chance be in court against the EU customer protection.
I dunno… which way of failing do you prefer? The one where you go away on good terms or the one where you struggle while screwing everyone over until everyone detests you? We see the direction EHG is going clearly.
Law is a complicated thing, and not all things are clear-cut.
In the Kickstarter campaign, they wrote “planned pay model”. Plans can change, in contractual language, that can be important.
If you read the ‘Risk and Challenges’ section, you’ll find:
Risks and Challenges
Since we have most core systems created and ready for heavy content implementation, the only large risk we run is the lack of buy-in from our community. As with any game aiming to continue delivering content after release and supporting multi-regional online support, we will rely on the Last Epoch community to continue funding the game through cosmetic microtransactions. If our current community’s enthusiasm is any indicator of their future buy-in, we will have no problem continuing support for the servers and the generation of new content to keep players coming back for more
Legal grey area, I suppose, whether backing a project falls under a (pre)-sales contract or general contractual law. Any EU regulation or national law that was made after the kickstarter campaign finished in 2018 doesn’t apply to this case, as laws usually don’t work retroactively.
Irrelevant by EU law.
If it’s even implied that a specific sale-methodology is used then this is to be upheld. It’s a binding legal aspect as payment method is a fundamental reason for acquisition of a product.
This is extremely tightly managed comparatively to other things, like actual content of the product.
I did.
And they clearly state that the only risk is a lack of buy-in.
LE was wildly successful. Despite that it fails.
That tells us mismanegement happened and would’ve happened no matter the amount of people paying.
Because let’s be clear-cut here: EHG used more money then they saw they were getting.
They expanded their company beyond their means.
So this paragraph simply is bullshit in the first place. Company does shit and hence customer has to forfeit legal rights? Cry me a river, shut down that pile of trash if you can’t manage basics of a business… because that is the basics.
No… not even remotely ‘gray’.
This is written directly into the law. It is stated directly related to crowdfunding.
To be exact crowdfunding is split into 4 different causes. Those are:
To be explicit here: Last Epoch’s crowdfunding is a Rewards-based crowdfunding.
Rewards-based crowdfunding under EU law is stated to be a exchange of goods and hence applicable to all sales-related laws, including the contractual binding laws of a advertisment. The crowdfunding page is the first legally binding contract between customer and company in the EU.
If we want to get specifically into the part which it would take action we hence need to get into the ‘Misleading business practices’ under EU laws.
Those state that any ‘deceptive, dishonest, or fraudulent actions by a business that deceive consumers, causing them to make purchasing decisions they otherwise wouldn’t have made.’
Take note of the last part here especially, that’s very very important: ‘causing them to make purchasing decisions they otherwise wouldn’t have made’.
Which means in reality that from the moment the kickstarter happened up to the reveal of a potential expansion which needs to be paid for happens a customer buy under the premise that any and all content will be delivered for free solely by paying the shelf-price.
This has already been defended under EU law repeatedly and hence strongly ingrained under customer protection laws.
If you change your product - especially pricing - in a manner where extra costs apply to a customer which were explicitly stated not to happen then you as a company are not allowed to demand them from the customers paying in formerly.
You got hence 2 options legally without getting into a major shit-show with the EU… not individuals… the EU directly:
If we wanna be especially specific then the respective law applying is found inside the ‘Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU’.
This one went into action to apply to all contracts After June 13 2014 which clearly includes the kickstarter of EHG hence.
The exact document can be found here as a whole: Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (Text with EEA relevance)
Article 5 describes that before a binding contract is allowed the trader (EHG) has to provide the consumer (us) with several points or the contract is always null and void.
All relevant points are included there, if you look at Article 6 it only gets more narrow and is applicable since it’s a ‘distant or off-premise contract’.
I’m specifically taking Article 5 here to keep it more simplistic, Article 6 is the same + extra, and the one which actually applies under EU law.
This includes:
This is Article 5, which directly include the kickstarter hence.
Article 6 relates to the right of withdrawal for ‘distance and off-premise contracts’ (hence anything not face-to-face.)
I just don’t wanna go into the myriad of failed things EHG already has broken the law with, like a distinct reminder of the existence of a legal guarantee of conformity for goods… which is a mandatory aspect under ‘Article 6/l’. And a few more in there simply not done.
As for the further information requirements those are stated in Directive ‘2006/123/EC’ and Directive ‘2000/31/EC’ as well… so this is only the start and not the end of what has to be upheld. At least as long as the newer directive isn’t directly clashing, then the newer one is to be upheld first and foremost.
Further onward:
Under ‘Article 18/2’ it is stated that the trader (EHG) has to fulfill his obligation of full delivery of the product within 30 days from the conclusion of the contract.
This is specifically a reminder of the contractually obligated end-time of their roadmap for release, stating that they would release in 2020. Hence since no distinct date in 2020 was given it means February 2021 would’ve been the last applicable timeframe.
This timeframe is allowed to be changed once only and we as customers were allowed to terminate the contract hence at that time. Or for any later customer upon missing the contractual obligations according to their own timelines given to the customer related to release and the state of release.
Under ‘Article 18/3’ it is also stated that upon termination based on delivery the trader (EHG) has to return without undue delay all sums paid under the contract (the shelf price + all MTX are the case here as the MTX are based upon the core product)
Also under ‘Article 18/4’ it is stated that the termination under ‘Article 18/2’ can lead to further remedies provided to the consumer (us) which is applicable further related to national law.
I think it’s fairly clear-cut to see which solely the ammendment which has gone into action in June 13 2014 already applies to several breaches of contract related to what EHG provided.
Their kickstarter is a contractual obligation which has never been changed for anyone. Depending on later situations whenever one applies the consumer (us) is immediately allowed to call for said breach of contract as the contract has no applicable end-term and hence is perpetual until the service is ceased.
The current potential breach of contract is not abiding by the statement that beyond the base price of the product no mandatory further costs will be included to experience the full scale of the product.
This is very important to understand as seemingly neither EHG nor Krafton realize what they’re doing is not only pissing off their consumers but also steering towards a breach of contract which would cost them likely more then they would even make from the whole console release + the expansion in total.
Any consumer can write directly to the ‘ECC’ (link here: European Consumer Centres Network - ECC Net - European Commission ) to enforce their rights. You don’t need to have any form of legal insurance in the EU, those work for free to ensure consumer rights are upheld. And if they suddenly get several E-Mails about Last Epoch breaching contractual obligations… well… I guess then it wouldn’t bode well for either Krafton, EHG or the game’s further existence. Many have reached into the hot coals and while some managed to get away scott-free far far more have been heavily burned or completely incinerated at times.
They doubbled down on this after they were out of their kickstarter phase so this isn’t important at all.
The sources I found were even more aspirational in language than the kickstarter page.
That’s aspirational language, not a guarantee.
I didn’t find this. Crowdfunding explicitly isn’t part of any directive predating 2020. Discussions predate 2020 for sure.
I wonder if anyone reads this before supporting anything on Kickstarter:
Is the Fangs of Astarkarn out yet? It was announced in Aug 23 & was expected in 2024 (scroll down to the “when” bit).
Yup, absolutely nothing has been fixed, all the bugs from the past few years still exist & there have been absolutely zero QoL changes.
Yes, that’s the “lack of buy in” they talk about. People, quite literally, didn’t “buy in” as much as they thought/hoped.
When did that get signed into law? 'Cause if it’s the dates on the site you linked (2020), then that was after LE’s Kickstarter (2018). As the superlative legal mind that you are, could you let us know if it’s possible to be prosecuted for actions taken before something gets signed into law?
I would provide a pic with the relevant section highlighted, but apparently Imgur.com doesn’t want to work for UK people.
Yeah, but that doesn’t mean that the Kickstarter Ts & Cs can override a person’s legal rights under law.
Half a year seems too little, based on what Judd said. I’d expect at least 3-4 seasons before the expansion, so at least a year.
They’ll try to adjust balance in the meantime, add the missing skills, add the last 2 chapters.
It’s quite likely the expansion will address other issues LE has, like endgame variety.
This is highly unlikely based on the simple premise that the pay model has already changed from what’s stated in the kickstarter and this didn’t happen.
The kickstarter states:
The planned pay model for Last Epoch upon release is for the game to be free to all players until level 20 with restrictions on player interaction in order to deter spamming. To advance beyond level 20, players may spend $14.99 to unlock the rest of the game’s content and full social features! These restrictions on free players will go a long way to deter spam and botting accounts, which will help keep the game’s community and economy healthy. This one-time payment will be all that a player will have to spend to have the complete Last Epoch experience and be on the same footing as other players.
This is not the current pay model. Not only is there no free client for players under level 20, the price is twice the stated one.
And yet, no one batted an eye or tried to sue them.
My loyalty and financial support for the Last Epoch developers were based entirely on the guarantee that all future expansions would be free. A change to this policy under the new ownership is unacceptable and invalidates the initial premise of my support. They are obligated to communicate with their new bosses and refund every transaction made by supporters. I invested in a game’s promise, not in a corporate investment portfolio.
Is an non-expensive addition a problem? Or will ye prefer the death of the game to satisfy thy pride?
it was good while it lasted. also not paying even more for the game that is lower priority for me. got my money’s worth in 3 seasons.
Laws apply above the notions any company provides to the consumer.
As a EU citizen you can completely ignore that you are not buying something when backing a project. Because you do when it’s reward-based 
Not if it’s one of the other 3 options though.
I’m talking about core elements. Not balance based stuff.
Has the UI been fixed?
Have the factions been fixed?
Have the dungeons been fixed? (And I don’t mean atrociously awful solutions like a complete skip or just throwing in loot pinatas in the form of lizards)
So… what did they want? 200k people? 500k people?
How delusional should EHG become compared to being one of the biggest indie hits the world has ever seen?
Did they expect to be another Minecraft?
What you’re referring to is the ‘EU Crowdfunding Regulation’ (2020/1503) which focuses on investment- and lending-based crowdfunding. Which is above mentioned as equity-based and debt-based.
It’s what I get 99% of the time when I search for crowdfunding, it’s a mess to wrangle the internet to get the respective directives rather then always and over and over again simply leading towards the 2020/1503.
To be specific applicable parts I’ve found in 2000/31/EC, which is communication-based and includes crowdfunding projects.
2006/114/EC which specifically relates to misleading and comparative avdertising.
2005/29/EC which does relay to business-t-consumer comercial practices in the internal market, meant to protect consumers against misleasing and/or aggressive crowdfunding practices.
93/13/EEC for unfair terms in consumer contracts, hence standard terms&conditions used from crowdfunding operators.
Already in 93/27/EC it’s under Article 7 stated that the directive directly addresses commercial practices directly related to influencing consumers decisions in relation to products.
Since a reward-based crowdfunding is creating a product it wasn’t directly addressed but included into the law there, only going further as it was revisioned.
If we go further into it then we see a case for Article 5/2/b aplying, which states: A commercial practice shall be unfair if it materially distors or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour with regard to the product of the average consumer whom it reaches or to whom it is addressed, or of the avergae member of the group when a commercial practice is directed to a particular group of customers. (Older directives were a mouthful).
Article 6-8 proclaim what exactly is misleading or aggressive.
Article 6/1 goes especially into the definition of misleading, which is interestingly written as well as it implies a lot of stuff can easily be misleading.
‘a commercial practive shall be regarded as misleading if it contains false information and is therefore untruthful or in any way, including overall presentation, deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer (and here comes the banger) , even if the information is factually correct., in relation to one of the following elements, and in either cases causes or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise.’
That part is from 1998.
Article 6/1/b proclaims it’s misleading if it’s not ensuring to have the main characteristics. This includes composition (3 end-game emchanics, having PvP and so on which is missing from the kickstarter page’s direct mentions and not deemed as provided hence), date of manufacture or provision (roadmap stating release in 2020), fitness for purpose (which includes that it does do what was proclaimed, lack of PvP is for example not fit for purpose hence in that regard) and some more which I personally don’t know if they might or might not apply.
Article 6/1/c goes into the extent of the trader’s commitments, which is clear-cut applying to crowdfunding already.
Further on in Article 6/2 we get into a core aspect as well.
Article 6/2 ‘A commercial practice shall also be regarded as misleading, in it’s factual contect, taking account of all its features and circumstances, it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise, and it involves:’
So here it becomes interesting, and this is where distinct aspects of the promises can be removed. Hence why EHG is not directly enforced to provide the things already mentioned above in full. This is the ‘legal gray area’ people speak about when it comes to realizing a project’s scale. This one directly clashes with Article 6/1 in some measures and hence has to be decided case-by-case, which is why people don’t run directly to the ECC to complain in 1.0 as it’s not 100% realized.
Specifically Article 6/2/b.
'Non compliance by the trader with commitments (crowdfunding is a commitment) contained in codes of conduct by which the trader has undertaken to be bound, where:
i) The commitment is not aspitational but is form and is capable of being verified (this is related to the content, as content is aspirational to be created to a degree. The core notion has to exist - which makes missing end-game mechanics a issue for example, or missing PvP - but the form it takes is not fixated.)
ii) The trader indicates in a commercial practice that he is bound by code (this is payment methods. You cannot be aspirational in the form of monetization you make as it’s a code-bound commercial practice. The code here is the law as it would otherwise be misleading for the customer. You cannot tell someone you get all possible upgrades to something and then ask for extra money to provide them after, which would cause a customer to not pay for the product in the first place, hence misleading).
This is the aspect of misleading business practices, which in combination with the demands of what sales of goods have to provide to be under law in the EU leads to crowdfunding being a goods-based exchange. They never were the wild wild west, since the EU exists they’re bound by laws, it has never been a different case.
They just weren’t named directly as it was a newer practice, but always applicable under exchange of goods. ‘You give me money and I’ll give you a key for access’ is a exchange of goods. Had it solely been ‘we wanna make this, please donate’ without return then it would be donation-based and hence no terms would apply.
But that wasn’t the case, and isn’t the case for 99,9% of all product projects in crowdfunding still.
All fair and good.
But… weren’t kickstarter people not promised 3 end-game mechanics (not including arean or dungeons… but 3 full end-game mechanics?)
I mentioned that already beforehand that this does not apply to the people backing.
For the backer it makes no difference as they have full access anyway.
But a change in pricing which does affect a backer and not a follow-up customer it does indeed apply to them.
Because you can only bat an eye and sue legally if you’re affected.
Is anyone affected if they’re not applicable to it?
As for free access… is anyone damaged by not having free access? They didn’t pay, hence there is no damage. Hence there is nothing to sue for 
The second, though the reasoning is not pride, it’s principle.
If you allow misleading business practices to not be punished then you allow companies to use this as a normalized business practice.
This means any future product you buy can willy-nilly change their pricing methods. Pay shelf-price and be promised no other payments further? No issue, let us just change it into subscription fees on top after half a year! For example… it’s the same premise, just more outrageous even.
The precedence allows companies to lean into it and test the legal limits.
Which UI? If you mean the MG UI, then they’re slowly getting to it. If you mean any other UI, then yes. They’ve worked on it and added UI scaling, which was often requested. I’m not aware of any other UI issues.
“Have the dungeons been changed in a way that I like them?”. Fixed it for you.
There have always been people that like dungeons as they are. So what is “dungeons fixed”? Because if you ask 3 players what they think you’ll get 5 different answers.
You don’t need that many (although Judd did say their ambition is to become the top ARPG, so probably more than that). You just need the ones that join to actually spend on MTX, which apparently they didn’t do enough.
You mean other than friends of backers that weren’t allowed to try out the game? You likely have plenty of backers that wanted to convince their friends to join and were hurt in that by them not being able to try out for free, despite that being promised.
ALL of them actually 
You click through em. They overlap. The are off-center for clicking.
Not even talking MG specific… which is still not even the barebones. Can you search for free affix-slots for example? Which is a important basis of decision? But that’s besides the point anyway.
If you’re not aware of them I’m fairly baffled. Open the filter UI and click around… your character moves.
Open the idol enchanting and the stash… the idol UI overlaps with the expanded stash tabs (the side overview for quick-switching).
There’s a ton of those issues and they’re very very long-standing by now.
Nope… really… I mean that as I mean it.
The dungeons were called out to be ‘barebones and lackluster’.
The fundamental setup is not enjoyable for the vast majority of people. It’s not like the PoE lab which just isn’t a style many people enjoy… but it’s simply ‘bare’.
And there’s people which like eating shit… does that mean it should be normalized hence?
Then maybe provide MTX to spend your damn money on?
‘Bohooo… they didn’t spend enough on MTX! Whyever is that shield players don’t buy our shield MTX when we have a whole 2 of them available for em?’ ‘Why don’t they buy one of our 2 footstep effects when both of them are miniscule dots on the ground you can barely see?’ ‘Why don’t they buy our skill effects when the majority doesn’t even have one?’
Oh woe those poor poor developers!
Yes, which isn’t applicable by law though.
A bummer, but sadly nothing to be enforced there. It should be plainly spoken and you’re 100% right! But it’s a mess to bring into a legal state.
It’s indirect damage and has a miniscule weight still.
I haven’t seen that happen at all. The only overlap is your inventory when you’re in the weaver tree, but that is necessary so you can place the items you want.
Maybe it’s a resolution issue and my resolution works fine?
The fundamental setup of arena is not enjoyable for the vast majority of people. Does it need “fixing” as well?
How is lab not “bare” as well? It’s basically the same thing. In fact, it’s exactly the same thing in that everyone that runs the lab just checks the layout so they can get out of there as soon as possible. They just want the end reward and are forced to run the middle bit which no one enjoys.
This I agree with. MTX outside of the latest supporter packs are kinda meh.
Do you have a mandatory need to use it like you do with Temporal Sanctum?
No?
Here is your answer then.
It wasn’t even the case before the weaver tree allowing you to drop the rewards from it, but the premise has changed, at best you got a bit of a power-boost from the rewards there. Hence ‘no’.
How? Really? Is that an actual question?
You got 2 reward systems in lab, chests + the fountain or whatever it is for the gem-rewards (formerly enchantments).
You have several systems in place to increase the reward-count of the chest reward. Hence killing/not killing ads for example and others. You also got a side-boss which needs to be searched for to improve the rewards, already giving a choice between rushing or min-maxing rewards.
Then you also got the ability to search for secret areas which change the core aspects of the lab, like disabling traps in the bossfight or providing specific permanent buffs for the whole lab duration.
Then further on you got the traps, which are a distinct function of the lab itself. Increasing in difficulty the higher the level of the lab is. From ‘you won’t even have any in the way’ to actual deadly skill-based ones you need to overcome. Also in different flavors. We got spikes, we got flying serrated discs, we got guided sawblades on the ground, we got hard-hitting blades in a fixed position which need timing. Decent variety hence and at times combines, especially with AoE totems which cause you do adjust your approach.
And you’re comparing it with… a area that is the exact same as any monolith area with a fixed singular layout but solely having RNG barriers in place to change the course. That’s all the difference there is per dungeon.
The gimmicks are changing defenses in Soulfire bastion… which has a single trap related to it at the start to showcase the function and then at the boss-room. No segments which needs switching em, solely enemies which do different types of damage… and with normal res-cap can be entirely ignored too.
Then we got Lightless Arbour… which plainly spoken… I have absolutely no clue what the light does for the 2 mob-stages. Is there any reason to remove it from you ever there? The only places are the bonfires to enkindle, which is once showcased on the way and at the boss-fight. Once more nothing to work with there functionally for the dungeon areas itself hence.
Temporal Sanctum is just a double-layered labyrinth, that’s it. The most interesting… with the most dumbed down mechanic possible. No puzzles which change stuff in the ruined area by adjusting things in the divine era, having to combine that to provide extra rewards or a way forward. Just 2 different sets of mobs… and I think it’s 3 per timeline? So a total of 6 mob-types? Which are also existing in Monoliths?
I mean… plainly spoken… piss off with the comparison there. I know you mean well there… but if you wanna be screwed over by the barest of minimums of execution just to excuse ‘we’ve done something’ then that’s entirely your problem. Basics standards can be expected.
And yet despite all those choices, every lab farmer will always rush to the end because it’s much more effective than to waste time looking for extra stuff.
There aren’t options. They’re noob traps. New players will run around looking for them (and risking dying before reaching the end), older players will know to ignore them completely.
Unless you do what every lab farmer does which is use a build that 100% ignores any trap and simply run over them as if they were plain floor.
I’m only comparing the fact that almost no player in either game will enjoy running either mechanic.
It doesn’t matter if you create the most elaborate mechanic if your players don’t like running it. And PoE players don’t like running labs in the same exact way LE players don’t like running dungeons.
In fact, I’d be willing to bet that if GGG implemented the equivalent of portal charms to be able to just jump to the last Izaro fight, 99.99% of players would use it.
Because, just like there are a dozen people that enjoy running LE dungeons, there are a dozen people that enjoy running PoE labs.
So considering that labs, just like dungeons “have a mandatory need to use it” (even more so in PoE than in LE) and that no one likes them, do labs need “fixing”?
Balance issue, not content issue.
Also the key-strat is a better one very early in a league because of the quality and leveled gems.
But still besides the point… EHG’s labs are a content issue, not a balance one. GGG can make lab wildly profitable in 5 minutes solely by changing the quantity of rewards from side chests and the reward chests at the end.
Can EHG do that with the content of their dungeons? The whole rewards are based upon the end-result, right? So they threw lizards in to at least not make it utter nonsense. But is there a single mechanic present which does have a significant potential impact?
I mean… the doors could… but they were already barely viable when it was freshly implemented.
Dunno… I know a few lab farmers.
It’s like saying ‘nobody likes Heist’ when there’s a good chunk of Heist farmers.
I know the difference between ‘it’s just a shit mechanic for how it’s made’ versus ‘this thing needs a specific mindset to enjoy but isn’t badly designed per-se’.
We can say arena is decent designed by now, it works, it isn’t ‘lackluster’ anymore after the different types of Arenas have been implemented. So ok-ish. But dungeons? They’re not using their own mechanics outside of the bossfight. I mean… come on… it’s the least needed.
And no, labs like arena do not need fixing. The ascendancy shouldn’t be in labs of PoE I personally say as it’s a core progression element forced behind a side-content (much like the ultimatum or sanctum in PoE 2)… but the mechanics directly don’t need it.
If no one likes it, few people will be farming it. Which means that it’s profitable. So the few people that like it can run it for profit. And even if you don’t like it that much, you can still make an effective build for it (like one that ignores all traps) and run it for profit even if you don’t enjoy it that much.
Because greed is also a factor.
Besides, players still complaint even with portal charms that let you just have a boss fight to slam legendaries. If you make the dungeon mechanic more convoluted/challenging, even more people will complain.
Personally, I think EHG’s solution was a step in the right direction and one that GGG should also adopt. Namely, being able to jump over all that nonsense and just jump directly to the needed reward.
Or, alternatively, if you actually enjoy it, fill it with stuff (currently only lizards, but there’s potential to add other stufF).
Therein lies one of the problems:
What does the average consumer expects when backing a video game in development?
That monetization never changes if the business models will turn out to be unsustainable?
The risk is disclosed, albeit vague on the consequences.
For example, a box price of $14.99 was given in the context of a plan, not as a guarantee. The average consumer will understand that inflation is a thing, thus an increase in price has to be expected.
An average consumer (in the scope of the target audience, so an adult video gamer) is expected to be reasonably well-informed (e.g. I know I back a product in development, I don’t buy a finished game), reasonably observant (lack of revenue from cosmetic MTX is a risk, this wasn’t fine print), and reasonably circumspect (inflation, reliance on constant cash flow).
If you ask me, a reasonable person cannot have the expectation that in an iterative creative development process, nothing will change as development goes on - scope, features, etc. - or that estimated delivery dates can be upheld.
The average, reasonable consumer isn’t naive and oblivious to basic market realities.
You run into the issue of proportionate actions of a company conducting their business. I think it’s highly unlikely that a court will find, given all the information out there, that EHG would have to go bankrupt and not be allowed to charge money for an expansion to save their business.
Your expectation and hope that EHG fails as a company isn’t proportionate.