Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Those sympathetic to the critics argue that when a major studio builds an entire game around mechanics pioneered by small independent developers, transparent and prominent credit is not optional generosity but a basic professional obligation, and that a demo shipping without a credits slab, followed by vague assurances, understandably read as carelessness or reluctance rather than oversight. They see the developers who distanced themselves, including Alan Hazelden, as acting in good faith to protect their own reputations and the norms of a small, trust-dependent indie community, and view scrutiny of Blow's past public statements as a legitimate part of deciding whose projects to be associated with.

The case against

Those more sympathetic to Thekla and Blow would argue that licensing agreements were reportedly in place, that the studio has now confirmed full, stylised, multi-venue crediting for every contributing developer, and that judging a large, unfinished project by an early demo's rough edges risks mistaking incompleteness for bad faith. They would also caution against conflating a creator's unrelated personal opinions, however unpopular, with the separate question of whether collaborators and inspirations were properly acknowledged, arguing that ambitious creative works deserve to be judged on their own merits and stated commitments rather than by association.