But many people pledge to get a game. If all of them waited, the game wouldn't be made, because it wouldn't reach the goal.
So they worked for free and still have 2,2mil on their accounts? Splendid!

Are you being obtuse on purpose? What I meant was of course not that they haven't spent any money but that they haven't spent all of it.

Oh and it's not just 2.2 million any more. If you haven't paid attention, they have increased both their scope and their budget.

And what I said was: They shouldn't spend a penny before they count every single expense they may have. You know, if they did, they would come to a realization 2,2mil will not be enough to make a game they want to make and they wouldn't have to jump with all this early access bullshit.

It really looks like 'redneck won on a lottery' situation. They realized they don't have enough money half way through

Plan first, spend money later. I'm not saying they should anticipated this huge response, but they should take some time before "yay, monies, let's make a game!".

I hope you understand everything now.

Go read my post again:
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/double_fine_epic_fail_at_budget_management/post418

Go on. I'll wait.

Meanwhile the founder of Daedalic studios claims that the combined budget of 11 of their adventure games was less than 3 million:
http://www.telltalegames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=808125&postcount=865

"I unfortunately have to admit that the combined budget of Edna's Breakout, Harvey's New Eyes, 1.5 Knights, Deponia, Chaos on Deponia, Goodbye Deponia, A New Beginning, The Whispered World, Satinav's Chains, Memoria, 1954: Alcatraz and The Night of the Rabbit was less than 3M Euro. These are 11 adventure games with a mean length of usually 10 hours. None of these titles is just average! I have no idea what we'd do with 3M. A Heavy Rain, maybe. Should I be depressed? I just think it's alarming that TS wanted to have 0.3M $ and now 3M are not enough. By the way, Deponia 1-3 is more than 40 HOURS long (!) and competes internationally, everywhere."

And yet DF couldn't make 1 adventure game with that amount of money.

Daedalic makes their games in Visionaire Studio with the help of (low-paid? unpaid?) interns. They are not exactly pushing the envelope.

Also this:

http://www.gog.com/forum/general/preorder_the_night_of_the_rabbit/post66

DF might want to take a hint from them. I can only imagine as a San Francisco based studio DF must pay ridiculously large salaries.

ie; cushy middle-class jobs, DF obviously have a lax and non-disciplined office culture.

Backing a project with the sole purpose of getting your hands on a game (in a pre-ordering sense) is not the same as backing a project out of desire to support the devs making it.

There are no guaranties with Kickstarter. Even their ToS and Guidelines speak of "good faith attempts" - a good faith attempt is not necessarily guaranteed to result into something tangible at any given time, not only on Kickstarter but in any field and sector.

I'm not speaking specifically of DF and Broken Age here - people will and should make up their own minds about the situation with DF, it's none of my business to convince anyone either way.
I'm speaking of Kickstarter in general as a platform to get your next gaming fix - imho, if you only want the finished product then you're better off looking amongst the released games.

And that's all I have and tried to say.

Not at all, it's you who's arguing without checking the facts so you could continue to argue even your arguments are disconnected from reality, and when someone correct you, you then continue to argue in the same manner.

DF deliberately didn't make any plans during the Kickstarter campaign. Tim Schafer wanted the entire development process to be part of the documentary, including coming up with an idea for the game and then developing it, including choosing the tools to use, choosing the art style, ...

It's perfectly okay for you to not back such a project. It's perfectly okay for you not to back any project. But please don't use your ignorance to feed the argument.

Fire all the talent and start making games in Adventure Maker? What a capital idea!

Or, move the company? Can you imagine the cost of that?

Also, if you do start a company in a smaller city, you still need the people to make the games. There's a reason software companies don't operate in the middle of nowhere.

Who says we wanted Double Fine to push the envelope? We wanted them to make an old school adventure game.

And you can defend their current situation all you like but they say bluntly they fucked up and spent too much, they say bluntly the game can't be finished unless they get more money than they currently have, and it's a fact the game is like a year late already.

If you think whatever piece of rosy magic they create is worth any cost and wait, a very pro-artist view, then that's fine. I get that. But say that, rather than say they are doing nothing wrong. And also realize some of us didn't want am amazingly new redefinition of the genre or whatever, we wanted Deponia with Tim Schafer dialog and puzzle design.

For a start, they need to take a pay-cut, a big one. Second they need to hire a hardass producer to oversee the financials of their projects. Third they should definitely downsize to a core team of about 20 developers, the artists should work from home and the core programmers in office, in order to keep pay-roll down.

Daedalic guys make great adventure games, but this time they are using the old dialectical trick of attributing nonsense to a person, then accusing him he said nonsense.

1. They did not get 3 million EUROS. They got 2,2 million dollars, which is about the half;
2. The most expensive part of a videogame is the graphic - and you really can't compare Deadalic (beautiful!) 2d graphics with what we saw of Broken Age;
3. Heavy Rain with 3 million euros? LOL.

You have quite obviously completely missed the point.

Game development roughly works this way (obviously very simplified, but highly relevant).

Either:
(1) You think up an idea, a concept for your game, and establish a timeframe and budget.
(2) You secure funding for this budget for delivery of the project within that timeframe, either through a publisher, Kickstarter, private investor, whatever

Or
(1a) There is an alternate scenario where a developer might be commissioned by a publisher to produce a title and the publisher has specific constraints on budget, timeframe and content.
(2a) The developer then checks the specifications to see if it can be done and either accepts or refuses the contract.

(3) This budget and this timeframe are the alpha and omega of your development process. It is considered bad form and bad practice in the industry to exceed either (not least because more time = more money). If you end up exceeding either, you have to approach your sponsor (usually a publisher, but not in this case), who then makes a decision on whether to grant an extension, more money, put the project on hold or 'cease investment'.

(4) If a project overruns its deadline or budget, there are consequences if it is funded externally. Developers may be held legally accountable for violating their contract. They may lose part of their share of the income. They may even be taken to court of loss of profits.

The short of this is that you do not and cannot set a budget for a project that you have no fundamental concept of. It was remarked even then that there seemed to be very little in the way of content, but people were trusting enough of Tim Schäfer to produce a quality product. Many genuinely had no idea that he didn't even have a real design in mind.