Sorry, but you didn't get it. The architect will get the money from somebody else and will build you a bigger and nicer house without any extra money from your side.

I think most of us would take this offer gladley. (That is also the reason why you see (nearly) no backer complaining. Because they did understand what this is about.

Have you posted on the Double Fine Adventure backers forums? If not, then DF naturally will not consider your opinion. If you did, it's still possible that they chose to listen to the people who did want a larger game than a $300k one, given that DF got a lot more money. I imagine you're rather unique in wanting the originally pitched game.

Not to mention that they never promised to deliver a game. To quote the end of the pitch video (which you can still see on the project page): "What's gonna happen? Nobody can say for sure. But here's my promise to you: either the game will be great, or it'll be a spectacular failure, caught on camera for everyone to see. Either way, you win."

So really, how can you complain about not getting what was promised, when you can just take out the popcorn and watch everything go down in flame, just like you were promised? :)

Edit: I don't really think that things are going down in flames, but I think that anyone who really thought that the date on the Kickstarter would be the delivery date of the game wasn't paying attention, and I think that so far the documentary and all the posts have certainly been worth the money. I'll be disappointed if the game fails to appear, and I'm disappointed that they went over budget, but as far as I'm concerned I'm getting my money's worth even without a game.

I paid $50. I want something comparable to Dragon Commander or Original Sin. And I can live with "when it's ready", except I want to actually get the content when it's ready, not when they deign to make it available in the form it was promised.

Actually, I was just watching the trailer for Broken Age and noticed the few frames with this image.

If the actual gameplay looks look that then it could be very nice. It's 2D but the characters look like puppets or like their made from play-dough or something, they don't have that "too shiny" crappy look of many 2D games. Also the scene looks like it could be have nice puzzles.

At least they finally set a release date.. well, not officially, but kind of. Can't wait to play it.

The screenshots don't do the game justice. It looks much better even at the current state. The lighting alone makes a world of difference.

I haven't posted, but I don't think any majority of the backers has posted there. So it should be naturally to just stick to the original goals. And even then it would be unfair for the backers who don't like the change. The original KS page should be the basis of all considerations.

I doubt that they really never promised to make a game. After all you might agree that the whole page gave a very convincing impression that they really intend to make a game. If they indeed just wanted to gamble with the money I would have expected them to write this clearly somewhere. Instead it was all about a game. But hey, maybe I missed this,

I value the game most and don't care about the videos, indeed I never watched one. So I didn't get anything out yet. Actually I only want the game, nothing else.

I just have to imagine this kind of situation in a non-gaming context. "Yes, I know you hired us to build a small house for you and it should have been done by now, but sinc eyou gave us a generous amount of money in advance we decided to build something much bigger instead and blew the budget. Please enjoy these photos of us goofing around on the construction site."

Your architect example is incredibly flawed thinking.

I seriously hope you're kidding.

I'll help you: imagine this kind of situation in an entertainment context: "Hey man, you know, I am insert_super_musician_name_here. I've got this project, and it's cool, and I need some money to raise a band, buy some instruments, etc. If you help me, you can have a free ticket for our concert and you can have a little fun with us while we play, maybe giving us some suggestion. What do you think?"
And so on.

I would like to emphasize: entertainment, not "building a house" or "cooking a potato".

Yes but I don't think entertainment absolves one of responsibility.

If some band member said that and couldn't deliver, I would think he was a douche. Depending upon how famous such a band would equate to the backlash at hand.

Double Fine isn't a newbie on the block. Now you could argue that this is the "first" kickstarter and so they were ignorant, but I still don't think that holds water. First, they should based upon past experience (being veterans) known pretty well. Second, even if we take that argument of lacking knowledge on kickstarter and being veterans, that still doesn't excuse mismanagement.

It doesn't matter if they were making Barbie Dolls and Ken figured, bottom line they mismanaged funds.

Now there isn't legal recourse, due to the nature of kickstarter. Everyone should know about the risk involved but none of this helps their reputation.

Problem is that if episode 1 will be financial failure, then they won't have money to finish the rest of the game and backers won't get whole game even tho they paid for it. And I would say that this game has potential for not being successful because:
- Double Fine core fans already bought it via kickstarter
- It has a lot of bad PR
- It is niche genre

Even tho I'm big fan of adventure games, this game is not interesting for me and I have seen a lot of people saying that. Art style makes this game look like it's aimed for younger audience.

I think it should have been obvious to everyone that they're not going to create a $300k game after they've been given over $3m (even if only $2.2m were left for the game). That would have been considered by most backers to be a much worse mismanagement of funds, and indeed breaking any confidence DF had with its backers.

Not to mention that there was nothing in the Kickstarter campaign about the game. It was clear that any design will be done after the project gets funded, and it was clear that the design will take into consideration the budget which resulted from the campaign. (Tim Schafer even mentioned in the first update after the end of the campaign that they're going to calculate this budget.) It was also clear to most people (but obviously not to all) that the game will not be finished at the date originally mentioned in the rewards due to an increase in scope.

If you didn't watch the videos, then you missed a lot of information. DF regularly communicated with its backers over the forums and Kickstarter (although Kickstarter posts are just a subset of what's on the forum), and if you chose not to read and watch, then why are you complaining about DF not making it clear what is going on?

Sure, it wasn't clear just how badly they were over budget, but it was clear even before (to anyone who followed) that they were struggling with the scope.

Um... if all you really wanted was the 300k game and you are disappointed that you are getting a much bigger game that takes longer to develop, why don't you ask for a refund? I'm pretty sure you'll get it.

I totally agree: but, as a matter of fact, you are helping to fund a project (with the promise of some small benefit at project completion), not paying for a product. If you do not understand this distinction, well, it is your fault.

(By the way, I was pointing up the "entertainment" part not to take responsibility away from DF, but to indicate how someone can feel satisfied by the investment, although the product is not yet completed: bitching around on DF forum seems enough).

I agree that you are funding, with others, for the game. I still think everyone should have a say.

Are you saying that this participation should be based upon how much money you send it, like a public stock company?

Funding is indirectly paying for a product in this sense. You are funding with the "hopes" of getting something in return. In this case, depends on the rewards. If it was strictly funding, then there wouldn't be a reward system.