And there are MUCH better ways to handle that than just deciding to go back on something they decided to sell because it was more successful than they predicted.
Take Clockwork Empires operated by Gaslamp for example (Before the disaster release state which was for a whole totally different set of reasons).
1) The public Early Access builds released monthly with critical bug fixes only.
2) The opt-in Experimental branch with typically weekly (sometimes more often) builds of WIP things that would eventually become the stable branch monthly build when ready. Which gave people the chance to voice input on new concepts, balance changes, how things like progression pacing was impacted, UI usability and such before such changes were further fleshed out. But also was unstable and could often introduce utterly game breaking oversights.
3) A closed branch available only to certain members of the community who had shown the ability to provide constructive feedback even if it was negatively critical when needed. That got the unstable of the unstable and poked and prodded builds really not suitable for larger exposure, some of which either didn't make it to experimental even, or did so somewhat later.
They didn't go "Oh, we want to do #3 so, as a result, we'll stop our existing cases of #1 and #2 and to hell with everyone that's bought into what we advertised... but let's keep selling it of course!".
No. They worked out a structure to do all 3 concurrently (I hear there are these magical tools that allow you to do things like branch off repositories and migrate bug fixes and more stable changes from the most recent branch into other branches... but shhh they're super magical top secret tools).
And that's a relatively small team where there were about 4 active members of the actual development team (CEO/Programmer, Main programmer, Lead artist, QA) constantly communicating on forums both their own official boards and the Steam boards on a daily basis, doing bi-weekly in-depth dev blogs, and managing 3 different development branches and sticking to their outlined structure for a good 3-4 years.
What Klei did very much just comes across as deciding not to bother to come up with a practical solution. Instead opting to drum up some justification about "It will negatively impact the games image" for why keeping to what they offered everyone wasn't going to happen in any guise and did something that I'd quite honestly expect more from a studio like 22Cans than a group like Klei.
If they can't react sensibly and positively to getting more interest and support than they had expected and instead pull out of delivering something they constantly kept selling the entire time, then I don't really know how Early Access for this project can end well, or how much of anything said or presented can be taken seriously. :\