I don't think the article's intention is to convince people it's a con or crush the enthusiasm. Their points aren't illegitimate and their arguments are fair - isn't it prudent to criticise them and see how they respond rather than let them continue unchallenged, especially considering the collective financial contribution involved?

Considering that they already have prototypes together, they've already apparently got something to show. As the article points out there are flaws with what they're offering and questions that need answering.

I'm sure most of the questions and queries can be answered satisfactorily, but the crux is the lack of confirmed titles, which they can't fix themselves.