I’m frankly baffled that their “clear editorial stance” is apparently something that never budges (except for all of the times it has budged) and that therefore each time it budges, they are not merely to be disagreed with but less respected.
I think for a number of reasons, quite a few fans were turned against this game by the price point and I think that has poisoned the well here, not some kind of slip in editorial stance.
I’m not going to shell out $95 for a novel component process from an untested publisher, either, but I don’t see why that particularly ought to be held against SU&SD. They have consistently recommended games that are not accessible, that are difficult to get to the table, that have problematic themes, that are not (yet if ever) at market for substantial portions of their audience, that are very expensive, that don’t look very nice, and on and on.
While Quinns has made numerous statements about Kickstarter games and why, in general, SU&SD tends not to cover or recommend them without reservation … I don’t think it has ever been presented as a golden rule that should never be broken nor would it make much sense for that to be the case.