Well it started something like this, and now it's something like this. (I'm not leaking anymore!)

Not much, really. :)

The video will mostly allay the fears of backers who are worried that they won't get the game or that they'll get a bad game. For one thing it shows scenes from the game and discusses it, and seeing that at least for me helped increase my enthusiasm towards the game. It also shows more about the discussions that led to the decision, which can help some with the understanding of the situation.

If you're looking for concrete information about the budget, I don't remember there being anything there. I myself would love to see it.

Have you seen Episode 7? It's obviously not up to date, but was money/scope-talk heavy, to the point of having a glance at the budget itself.

Yeah, just shows I too have a bias which is based on not following closely enough. Looking back at the updates Project Eternity is in better shape than I thought. I didn't find info about where the funds are going though, so let me know where I can find that.

DF actually did provide quite a bit of information, both in the documentary and in posts. There were some periods with fewer posts, but they've generally been good about updates. The difference between game types means that it's impossible to provide the level of details Project Eternity does for the design, because RPG games have a lot more mechanics, while adventure games are a lot more focused on content, which is mainly spoiler material and therefore difficult to share.
That was a while ago. There's not much concrete information about the current situation.

This is starting to get into insane troll logic territory.

Repeat after me: bigger games take longer to make. Try it a few times and see if it sinks in. Were you really expecting them to make the 3M game by the Kickstarter date (which, btw, is an estimate)?

More importantly, they are not asking their backers to make up the difference. They have been raising money on their own from Brütal Legend sales, Humble Bundle and other sources.

I must have missed the Wasteland 2 budget update. I know they significantly expanded their budget as well, but what's the figure they arrived at?

+1
Brilliant distillation to the root of this conumdrum.
People have different views of ethics so their answers to what should be done in such a situation will vary significantly.
Key fact for me is that when you kickstart something you are acting on faith, with hardly any contractual or customer entitlements.

Caveat emptor.

I think there is a strong difference between supporting and blindly throwing money at the screen. When I support charity, for instance, I want my money to go to the poor in most part, not on employees business trips.

When somebody supports a developer via kickstarter, it's the many to make games, not cuban cigars and colombian hookers.

And most people pledge on kickstarter because they want games to be made in the first place, not to just "support" the devs. IMHO people should be dissappointed and be disappointed loudly every time a developer fails to deliver what they promised.

Yeah. And you're doing so with the risk of the said developer being terrible at financial management and screwing up. It's not goal attained = game, life just doesn't work like that. What has probably happened here is that DF wanted money for a relatively small project, and got money for what they supposed to be a massive one. If they released a small game that people have funded in the first place, the other half of the internet would rise up in arms yelling 'The game is not good enough for 3 million dollars!'
Well then you completely missed the point of kickstarter. It exists to create possibilities and opportunities, not a product.

Although the developers can't be held liable if they fail to deliver the game funded via kickstarter, the devs are obliged to do their best to make that happen. This would include rational budget management. Of course it would be hard to execute anything from a developer who spent most or all of the money, but at least it would give people a hint to whom they should rather not trust with their money.

True. Someone made and important point in this discussion - many times giving the devs much more money than they wanted may be harmful to them. Not only because it's harder to manage bigger budgets but because people's expectations would be much, much higher and there is no return from that.

Not every studio is capable of making a 3m dollar game without troubles in the first place.

Personally I'm having a hard time of seeing what the actual problem here is. Sure, the project needs more money, but DF is raising it from other sources. This won't sting the backers at all as far money is concerned. Not yet anyway, as the game is still on track to be published, just a bit later date. And those of who did not back, well, this isn't even an issue for them, because if there's risks with this new budgeting, the nonbackers will not suffer a bit from it.

In the end there's a potential here for DF to bring out a good, polished game, which is a rarity in modern adventure games. But in any case DF has ambitions with the game and its shows how much, when they are willing to use their own money on it as well.

My only concern is that they will trim the final game.

I missed that Wastland 2 update, I trust that he'll make the area the best he can, but, as long as the rest of the game is good, I don't think there's going to be too much complaining if it's marginal. If the other areas suck, there might be some griping about diverting resources to a new area rather than fixing the regular areas.

So what? People will always complain and some complaints will be dumber than others. That's like complaining a game sold too much for what its devlopment duget was. Crowdfunding just pushes the seles of the final product before the time of release.

A big problem with today's games is that they cost too much to make in the first place, the AAA model is not sustainable, but we are always told that by the developers the market wants expensive games. Now for once we have seen the market vote in favour of a cheap game and what happened? The developers decided again to make an expensive game. No one asked for it, but Double Fine just had to play around with expensive stuff.

Really? Then I suggest you start throwing money at me and maybe I'll make something nice. Or not, but who cares, I get free money and you get the possibility of getting something nice. What a load of BS, what makes money go round is prducts and services, not empty promises.

I'm confused, are you insulting us or agreeing? Or does knobheads mean something else in Australia?

Serious question.