Well, I guess your problem is that you know very little about game development. All you say is theoretical stuff. But you're kind of right. There shouldn't be such things like firm stretch goals in the first place. Game development is about tought choices and constant iteration in a highly unsecure environment. Fixed goals you "have to fulfil" are pure poison and Larian did the right thing not sticking to them. You know why? Because the game itself benefitted from that decision. What's better? A game with a huge list of predefined features that sucks or a game that cuts a few features (but maybe adds other features which emerged during development) that is pure fun?
The one reason why you should pledge for a game on kickstarter is indeed trust. But not trust in a list of fixed features. Trust in the capability of a developter to actually deliver an enjoyable game with a certain vision they presented to you. If you actually pledged for a certain single feature you made a big mistake and I feel with you. But then again you probably didn't understand how video game development works...
Indeed. For example, I backed a game on KS (a highly anticipated sequel to a game from 2006) that was explicitly promoted as a single game. However, as development progressed, they decided very recently to move to an episodic format. Now, I - for one - do not like episodic games. I still haven't finished TWD Season 1, in spite of buying them all at once. It's immersion breaking, to me. Nevertheless, I understand the business reasons behind it, and it actually makes sense - given the format of the game - to divide it up in this manner.
Am I disappointed? Yes. However, I pledged to support them because I wanted them to make a game I desired to play. I trust them to make that game, in spite of changing the "promise" made during the KS. Game development requires flexibility, and we - the backers - have to understand and accept that.
