As another technicality -- but an important one -- by participating here on the Forums, users are, in fact, obliged to respect CDPR's rules.
Likewise, regarding the Betas, including real money transactions, by participating -- and continuing to participate -- players consented to abide by a contract made with CDPR. This contract had certain conditions, all of which were laid out in the
User Agreement (the agreement from the Betas). The most relevant of these conditions were Sections 4.1.7, 4.1.10, 7.1, 11.2, 11.3, 11.7, and 13.1. (I encourage those who are curious to read them.) Yes, only a handful of people ever fully read agreements, however, it can be valuable to know what conditions they contain, especially when real money is involved.
Basically, players were invited to test Gwent. There were no promises that anything would not be changed or removed at CDPR's sole discretion. Feedback was voluntary, and would be selectively implemented at CDPR's discretion. Virtual goods remained the property of CDPR, and, by playing Gwent, users accepted the definition of these goods, as well as the terms governing their use, and the limitations on refunds. The agreement is fairly clear on these points. It states that things could and would change, that long-term purchases with real money were basically non-refundable, and that the final state and features of Gwent would be left up to the Studio.
I realise this has been very frustrating for many people, and they would prefer that CDPR had taken a different approach; however, the terms of participation were made available from the start, for those who bothered to read them.
Setting these technicalities to one side, though, most criticism and complaints seem to stem from a fundamental perception of what CDPR
should have done, rather than what they were empowered to do with their own product. Did they make the best choices? That's a matter of opinion, but the conditions remain.