GoatBoy: Anyway, welcome to the world of publishers :)
Cormoran: Indeed, kickstarter is letting us see that the "big bad publishers" really aren't all that bad with all of their oversight and deadlines.
They've had to deal with developers like Double Fine for years and know how to crack the whip, when to cut their losses and drop the project entirely, or when to just launch the game into the public regardless of it being up to the developers vision.
I've certainly gained a new appreciation for the big publishers thanks to kickstarter.
This does no such thing. Even with publishers there have been games that went over budget and were behind schedule. But, most of the time they would cancel the project or have it shipped in a buggy and incomplete format before allowing it to turn into a complete boondoggle.
I think that Spore is a good example, I'm not sure about bugs, but they substantially cut the scope between what they were originally promising and what was eventually delivered.
DNF had a publisher eventually, and they cut the scope on that particular game quite a bit to get it released.
What publishers do that KS campaigns don't, is require the developer to convince a 3rd party that they're making a game that's popular enough to warrant the risk. By taking the funding request directly to the people, there's a greater degree of freedom of topic and approach that you wouldn't necessarily see with a publisher.
In this case, it sounds like Double Fine was previously relying upon the publisher to tell them when the scope was too big and that they'd have to cut back or receive no further funding. It sounds more like a failure of the people designing and running the project to say "no" often enough to keep it on budget. (A similar problem led to DNF being so far off schedule)
Cormoran: I've certainly gained a new appreciation for the big publishers thanks to kickstarter.
stonebro: Publishers have never been the problem. So many games have been funded due to publishers who take all the risk. Being a video game publishers is essentially venture funding. Of course they're going to want oversight over the projects. It's incorrect to think that publishers just pull the plug on games if the developers can't deliver as agreed upon. The key for the publisher is to minimize risk. Minimizing risk may require further investment so that a game can actually get made.
So yeah, even if a publisher had funded this, they would probably have chosen to extend the funding rather than pull the plug, realizing the game had good enough sales potential if the developers were allowed to continue with their vision to an acceptable degree.
Flip side, cut out publishers and expect to see the developers take the project in the direction they would like. This is what Double Fine has done. They never promised to take the project in the direction that you, or any other backer, would like.
I'm very excited to see what this game will end up in, although I agree it's a damn long wait.
I think there's something up with your post. You say that publishers never were the problem, and then you say that publishers want developers to take the project in the direction that the publisher would like. In many cases that has been the problem.
But, anyways, regardless of what happens, I'm going to be really curious to see what this train wreck turns into. It might be more fun than the game, but I hope not.