I'm not talking about alpha and beta testing phases, that some (but not all) developers use to distinguish between public and non public testing, I'm talking about development phases.
And I learned these definitions over 20 years ago, so well before the advent of early access games.
Also there is a big difference between corporate dev cycles (which need, by virtue of being a corporate project, a much stricter definition), and other development cycles.
I get it, you would probably make it different, and that's fine. But not everyone goes by your definitions, and not everyone uses corporate dev cycles.
Different sized project with different sized teams need different dev cycles. There is no one true meaning to alpha, beta etc. stages.
So you calling him wrong on that, doesn't mean that much, other than you are stuck in your own ways.
A much more open dev cycle with broader definitions and less strict restrictions can be more benefitial for some devs, and especially for creativity, and the freedom to change or replace functionality, can be beneficial to some projects, especially in small teams.
It certainly comes at the risk of feature creep or stalling development, but I see no signs for that in this project.
He stated his plans very clearly at the beginning, and has a road map somewhere, and whilst I haven't checked it in a while and confirmed it, I'm pretty sure he said that he'll be working on the framework before adding content, and as far as I'm informed (again, I haven't crosschecked it, because I had no reason to do so) he's still pretty on course with that.
As in regards of Patreon: I really haven't checked his numbers, but wether or not a certain project is worth supporting or not is only yours to decide for yourself. In general I don't support any patreon projects, for the simple fact, that I can't afford it. I also don't agree on monthly pay cycles for the most part, but everyone has to make that decision for themselves, and again everyone has his own opinion on that. The only thing you can do, that is sensible is to vote with your money, and voice your opinion in either direction at the author directly in a respectfull manner.
Posting in here most likely will accomplish nothing, especially if you do it in a way, that states your opinion on how you would do dev cycles as a fact that everyone has to agree to, when it quite obviously isn't everyones opinion, or even usefull for every project.
In any case I'm off to bed. Happy new year everyone, have a good one.
Edit:
Just like some people have different definitions of what is a 'fact'. "Alternative facts"? A euphemism for misleading and/or lying. Facts are subject to interpretation, but they cannot be denied. You can't just make shit up and get away with it. Well, not until recently, it seems. Unfortunately, that's also the case with re-labeling what is an alpha or a beta.
Calling something an alpha or a beta, when it's not even half-baked yet, is just pandering to the ignorance and/or stupidity of those that never bothered to learn how to do professional software development. Accepting their definitions is enabling a continuation of that ignorance and/or stupidity.
Sorry, the only one relabeling alpha and beta dev cycles is you