Deleted since I own both already :) Thanks anyway!

Can I have one rising storm, thanks!

that's what she says whenever i cook

Prayer doesn't follow the same grammatical rules as Hope, though (Firstly, in meaning- the noun form of Prayer doesn't suddenly mean you expect your prayer to come true; Secondly, unlike Hope and Hoping, you have Pray, Prayer, and Praying, meaning that Prayer doesn't share both a verb and noun usage like Hope does, with Hope's two utilizations being split between Pray and Prayer. Of course, Pray for Homeless People doesn't interpret as Pray for Homeless People [to exist], true- but again, that's a distinction between how the two different words are utilized in relation to other words, and not due to grammatical constants.)
A better comparison would be "Wish"- ie, "Wish for Orphans" versus "A Wish for Orphans", which has a similar approach of applying modifiers to obtain the noun utilization of the word. Likewise, wish is often directly interchangable with hope, meaning you can surface-check how your presentation sounds by substituting wish in place of hope.

Likewise, we're not talking contextual intuiting, we're talking formal presentation. While from our end it's just comical, from Humble's end it's a quality-lax formatting error. Like, putting a ' in the wrong location- regardless of how easy it is to intuit the correct positioning, it still speaks of lax oversight quality from the company presenting that formatting. Moreover, had their intent been providing Hope to orphans, It would have been Hope / for Orphans, not Hope for / Orphans, as they currently have it formatted (note where the coloration is split). Between the phrasing and presentation, the title ends up being rather dubious in its presentation. Our ability to interpret a functional meaning has no relation to their marketing team's quirky design decisions on the matter.

"Hope for the Orphans" (without a preceding 'A') adds another grammatical quirk- Hope for the Orphans to do what, exactly? Despite that grammatical quirk, "Hope for the Orphans" would nevertheless be a nice way of diluting the darker meaning (as such meaning is nearly impossible to interpret once you add the 'the' in), especially if the emphasis on different parts of the phrase was also removed, leaving us with a slightly awkward but rather functional title.
Which is to say, if you present it as Hope / for the orphans [which has the effective grammatical presentation of Hope (for the Orphans) ] it works as emphasizing the noun interpretation, and does seem to come across a fair bit clearer than Hope (for Orphans). Currently, the main issue is that it's Hope for (Orphans), which distinctly indicates the verb presentation of the word; though the fact that they're using "Hope for" instead of "Hope to" muddles the matter to begin with, as "Hope for" is primarily associated with the verb utilization of the word, and invites confusion just from that.

In short, to recap, Hope has to have a modifier to distinguish it as utilizing its noun format, due to its versatility as serving as both a noun and a verb, and especially given that the verb form is dominant in utilization. That modifier can be as simple as adding "the" or by separating the word from other words [as a noun interpretation is assumed where there is no associated context to give meaning to the verb form], but it needs to be present. Likewise, using "hope for" where the intent is "hope to" is misleading, and should be avoided where modifiers don't make the intended distinction clear.

The fact that Humble used the most misleading phrasing possible, and then separated it at the wrong point for the predicted meaning, and did it all for a bundle with content that seems to match the negative interpretation rather than the positive one, is just weird. I mean, it's a good bit of dark humor, but it does also make my inner editor squint their eyes dubiously toward Humble's marketing staff. :P

If I recall correctly, similar examples of such a phrasing typically emphasize a separation of the 'for' (which Humble already does by sizing, but ruins by coloration), to try and highlight both words as being separate nouns connected by the 'for'. In fact, I guess most of why the negative interpretation is emphasized, boils down to someone not coloring within the correct lines.
Man, and who said kindergarten doesn't teach you anything useful, huh?

Right above this comment.