True in general, but in this case, it gets a bit more complicated due to the M&A situation, probably. You'd certainly want to ensure no questions arise regarding due diligence research and a potential poisoned apple in the expectations for the future development of Obsidian's value. Especially not when the buying party in the M&A is Microsoft.
As for Phoenix Point, the decision is in my eyes awfully myopic. Even if they can refund backers now while remaining in the black, that says nothing about sales of this or future games, let alone future willingness of people to back crowdfunding by the studio. A cold, hard look at Bethesda's experience with Fallout 76 should teach some lessons as to what happens when you put short-term pleasing of investors over long-term customer relations.
The problem a lot in the gaming industry seem to overlook is that if customers are happy and buying, revenue for investors will often come automatically. On the other hand, designing products alongside investor wants rather than customer needs makes finding customers willing to pay the price asked significantly more difficult. And if games such as Outer Worlds and Phoenix Point come to other platforms a year later, I'm pretty sure they will struggle to get a full price for a one-year-old game. You only need to look at Fallout 76 having ended up in some places as a giveaway to understand how risky acting in deliberate disregard for the wants and needs of your core customers can be. And revenue split aside, one should think twice before reducing Steam with its large user base to a bargain bin...
