No option is going to make the uber-entitled modern consumer happy.
I'll echo that "uber-entitled" is an interesting charge to levy.
Maybe it seems hyperbolic when attached to a particular game-development effort, but I was speaking generally. People are generally acting that way in relation to basically every in-development title, to some degree.
People also bring up breach-of-contract as the main point. However, game development isn't like delivering a load of a specific number of widgets, by a certain date, to a certain place. People and companies who have been running large game development projects for over 3 decades still can't assure any of those things, for basically any game project, except the most mundane.
Game projects are not a commodity that can be specified exactly by contract, every game development project (except for by-the-numbers sequels) is solving a list of unknown-unknown type problems. If games are made up of widgets that can be expected to have a "contract" to deliver, then the widgets are made of an unknown material, of a yet-to-be-decided shape and purpose, with an unknown number of widget types and widget amounts per type, to be delivered at an unknown date to an unknown place, but with a vague understanding of the overall shape the pile of widgets must resemble.
The alternative is just not how game development even works. That's not how games are pitched to
big name investors. Big name investors are extremely used to schedule slippages, budget overflows, requests for more money, and the game being redesigned midstream, because those are just the basic realities of what it's like to create video games.
it's the norm, not the exception, for just about every detail except for the broad game concept to be different by the end compared to the start. Except big name investors don't freak out because the details changed, including platform of delivery, final date, pricing etc. All of those are
expected to be different by the end compared to when the investors put the money in. This level of specificity is in fact the industry norm, not some exceptional breach of "contract".
If any one thing is going to kill crowd-funding of game projects, it's the way the crowd responds to the changes that occur during a game development effort. That's where the sense-of-entitlement comes in and is much different to how a regular investor would react.
Sure, maybe game developers shouldn't promise these things if they "can't deliver" but that's basically like saying game developers shouldn't make any new games at all. If devs only made what they knew they could deliver, only the shittiest clone games would ever get made.