Every large company issues the same response and then goes, "ooopsies, we had no idea they actually got something. Our bad."
No idea if that is what's happened here, but the first statement is frequently benign.
They made some major changes to the games that didn't work out with "eras". You only use a civilization for 1 "era" then you pick another. It was an interesting idea, but the execution and reality didn't really work out. Instead of offering variance to a game, it just feels awkward and...
The idea that a crash leads to something better is a fallacy (Broken Window). It is just as likely (probably moreso) that you get something worse after a crash. It's not a 'reset'.
They did make more money though..
Net Sales: ¥169.6 billion, up 11.3% from ¥152.4 billion in FY24/3.
Net Income: ¥48.4 billion, up 11.7% from ¥43.3 billion.
They cite a key driver as "Expansion in digital sales (¥103.6 billion, up 7%)"
My assumption is that they don't really care if it's invalid and the point is to make anyone suing them have to jump through as many hoops as possible.