Viajero, Gregg used the term as a comparison with how it comes across (ie legal but poor). You are niggling over minutiae that is irrelevant and discounting it - that's what a strawman argument is.
Not really Riverside, it is not an analogy precisely because it is a strawman brought in to justify lack of propriety. Alas, one does not need to establish legality/illegaility of an issue in order for a debate on propriety to take place. Especially if it is not illegal. In other words it is also a complete moot point.
A loan that is not returned is not a loan, it's a scam.
It was you who brought in the term "informal loan". The actual LEP conditions we are discussing here had very specific language by FDEV all throughout the time they were available with regards to the guarantees (or rather the lack thereof) on the future content, here an example from
Newsletter 29 back in 2014:
"This means that if we are as successful as we hope to be, you will still be benefiting from the fantastic early support you gave us for a long time to come"
And of course, no dates at all.
The delivery of future LEP content was and still is contingent on the product commercial viability from the developer point of view, and with no guaranteed deadline.
Since then FDEV has actually delivered one paid for update, Horizons. And more recenlty FDEV has also now confirmed the release of the next paid update estimated for next year.
Your last post was effectively telling us that FD was under no legal obligation to deliver a return of investment, that's why I brought it up, FD aren't obligated.
Indeed, we agree (Horizons has been delivered though). Subject to the commercial viability of the product from FDEV´s point of view.
Some of us have higher expectations, it's fine if you like to wait for a couple of years while watching delays on the delays without effective communication.
That some may have different expectations is perfectly fine of course. What we are discussing here as of late are the merits of some of the justifications put forth to explain those expectations.
As for communications for upcoming content, there is this (among other comms):
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/important-community-update-01-03.479122/
True, that's why talking about obligations is irrelevant.
And yet some here are justifying refund considerations on the basis of certain perceived obligations not being met.