I don't say non-patrons have no right to be critical.
As long as it is about the quality of the material. Like your recent ones about the slave route (which as pointed out has always been of lesser writing).
Patrons are the one paying, so they should be the ones with the right to complain about the delays and if any "milking" is being done of them.
Anyone else, we are only fans of the product, not really clients. We have no right to act as if it was a personal slight.
That said, your argument that they should have said that earlier is valid. Maybe they were hoping he got better earlier and it would not be needed, but it took a bit too long and makes it seem insincere and just to cover their bases.
Here's the thing: there can be a myriad of reasons as to
why non-patrons are non-patrons in the first place: Either they have no money to support the game in the first place, maybe they felt that their money could be better spent elsewhere, maybe they felt that the quality took a dive and decided to withdraw the pledge (at which point it can quite clearly be a personal slight), or something else entirely.
To just go "Eh, non-patrons criticism of XYZ's development practices and unexpected delays have no valid ground." is an awfully reductive way of looking at the situation, when in practice it should be the developer asking themselves: "Well, what can I do to convince these people that played my game enough to give out criticism so that they part with their money?" It's up to the developer to make sure that they can deliver their product on time, even if this means having to deal with unexpected roadblocks along the way, not on the customer or even potential customer having to wait out any and all delay and take it without being able to criticize it. And when customers start talking, onlookers and potential customers (which would be non-Patrons) will see that you have trouble staying on schedule (that you yourself set) and you'll make a very bad first impression to those potential customers.
As a little side note, I for example supported the game with 20$/m for quite a while up until a bit short of 2 years ago, yet decided to drop the pledge entirely and did not put it back on, partially because I just had to cut down on expenses, but also because there were some unusually heavy delays when they managed to crank out an update every 45 days or so pretty reliably (beginnings and ends not included).
Point is: The burden is
not on the potential supporter to just be denied any form of criticism to the devs practices, but instead is
entirely on the developer to actually get something unique enough out - be it through style, writing or whatnot - to attract more supporters in the first place and
then to use said income appropriately to (if anything) ensure the quality stays the same, if not even improve on it further so you can stay in that market.
