Broken Age

[Thursday Next]

Well they did say on the Kickstarter that if they got more money they would expand the project.

 

Oh, well in that case fair enough. *I'd* still be upset because *I* would have wanted a low-fi Maniac Mansion / Day of the Tentacle type thing. Not some high falooting, magnum opus of a game. But if that's what I signed up to. I'd swallow my disappointment down in the pit of my stomach like a proper English man.

[Waldorf and Statler]

I think we're making a bigger deal out of this if we're still arguing. Shit happens.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

 

Well they did say on the Kickstarter that if they got more money they would expand the project.

 

Oh, well in that case fair enough. *I'd* still be upset because *I* would have wanted a low-fi Maniac Mansion / Day of the Tentacle type thing. Not some high falooting, magnum opus of a game. But if that's what I signed up to. I'd swallow my disappointment down in the pit of my stomach like a proper English man.

 

 

This is why I re-iterated the "it's not a pre-order" point. You're paying for an idea. Not anything too specific in terms of the final product other than "Double Fine Adventure."

[Hot Heart]

Dean, where do you think all that money's going? Do you think this small team just got a load of bonuses? Things have quite clearly changed since the original Kickstarter page. Either way, Double Fine has salaried staff. Artists, animators, programmers, etc. A change here and there creates ripples throughout the project. It's a more complex and involved game (to create) than FTL.

 

Also, why are you under the impression that the spirit of Kickstarter is for 'starting companies', one and done? It's not Dragon's Den. It's for projects, it's on the About page. Anyone can submit and it's up to people to gauge whether it's worth it.

 

So far, I'm not too bothered. To use the analogy, I'm not hungry at the moment, and I'm happy to let the chef cook up the best thing they can. And even if things do get pared down, I know Halo 2 suffered the same fate and that was possibly my favourite Halo game (and many people's favourite multiplayer game for a long time), and Mass Effect 3 was a big load of cut corners, yet that was still a good game

[TheMightyEthan]

I thought Halo 2 suffered massively.  Easily my least favorite Halo game (at least as far as the campaign goes).

 

But that's neither here nor there.

[Hot Heart]

But...the enemy diversity, the bit with the tank, hijacking ghosts and planting grenades on wraiths, playing as the Covenant. Come on!

 

The biggest problem was boss battles (and leaving the player in Arbiter's boots. It was always going to be a cliffhanger ending), but I assume that was always part of the design; and the cuts weren't just in the singleplayer either. But anyway, yeah, I trust you still thought it was a good game.

[Waldorf and Statler]

Halo 2 had the best/most fun multiplayer. Because of glitch runs and games people made up.

[deanb]

At this point I honestly don't know where the money is going, but I know where it was meant to go. I also don't understand this concept that all the money needs to be spent, be it suddenly having team members going from $50K a pop to $400K a pop in salary or deciding to make the project vastly more complex than it needs to be. And their changes created tsunamis not ripples. Maybe it's just me being a sterotypically tight yorkshireman, but when I get in a bunch of cash I don't go "oh I've got a bunch of cash, I must spend it all!".

 

Because as mentioned it's in the name "kickstarter". Like a car, you kickstart it and then it continues along on it's own steam, If you need to kickstart a car all the way down the street and along a motorway it's probably fucked. Of course it's entirely up to Kickstarter what they do with stuff, and they've shown so far as long as a project is going to make them more commission than trouble they'll let most projects slide regardless.

 

Yeah I felt Mass Effect 3 was a fantastic game. 

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

I also don't understand this concept that all the money needs to be spent

 

 

Stretch goals are usually specific about what they're adding.

[deanb]

They never added stretch goals in the way some others have done,  as far as Double Fine Adventure goes it's:

Proud to announce we're going to be developing for PC, Mac, Linux, iOS, and Android!  In addition to Steam codes, we will also be offering DRM free versions.  And for all our lovely friends overseas, we'll be localizing the text in French, Italian, German, and Spanish.

 

 

As well as:

Additional money means it can appear on more platforms, be translated into more languages, have more music and voice, and an original soundtrack for the documentary, and more!

 

 

These things add extra cost to the initial scope, but I highly doubt porting and translating would account for $3.4million excess (otherwise HIB would struggle severely for one). And while some projects include stretch goals, it's not a requirement. As I said; what's up with the concept that all the funding must be spent? That's not a requirement for that either.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

Ah okay. In this case I agree then.

[TheMightyEthan]

They never added stretch goals in the way some others have done,  as far as Double Fine Adventure goes it's:

Proud to announce we're going to be developing for PC, Mac, Linux, iOS, and Android!  In addition to Steam codes, we will also be offering DRM free versions.  And for all our lovely friends overseas, we'll be localizing the text in French, Italian, German, and Spanish.

 

As well as:

Additional money means it can appear on more platforms, be translated into more languages, have more music and voice, and an original soundtrack for the documentary, and more!

 

These things add extra cost to the initial scope, but I highly doubt porting and translating would account for $3.4million excess (otherwise HIB would struggle severely for one). And while some projects include stretch goals, it's not a requirement. As I said; what's up with the concept that all the funding must be spent? That's not a requirement for that either.

 

 

You left out part:

 

All money raised will go to make the game and documentary better. Additional money means it can appear on more platforms, be translated into more languages, have more music and voice, and an original soundtrack for the documentary, and more!  We're still working to figure out exactly what we can offer, but we'll post more information as soon as possible.

 

Emphasis added.

 

You'll also note the "and more" on the end of that.  You'll also see:

 

Q: What happens if you go over the goal?

A: The extra money will be put back into the game and documentary. This has already resulted in increased VO and music budgets, and additional release platforms for the game (Mac, Linux, iOS, Android). The higher it goes the better the project gets!

 

Again, emphasis added.

 

They were always saying that the game would be expanded if the Kickstarter exceeded its goal.  Now, whether or not it's okay that they then even exceeded what they got is an entirely separate question.

 

Also, to me the thought that you're supposed to spend all the money developing the thing makes perfect sense.  People gave you this money in order to fund the project, so if you just pocket a huge portion of it then I think people would rightly feel robbed.  They didn't give the money just for the creators to have, they gave it to be used on the project.  I'm also with Hottie in that Kickstarter is to kickstart the project, not the company as a whole.  Just because a company got one Kickstarter successfully done doesn't mean they won't or shouldn't do another.

Edited July 10, 2013 by TheMightyEthan
Edited for formatting

[deanb]

I didn't really leave that part out, the part I included was the expansion of that. Even the question you added: "This has already resulted in increased VO and music budgets, and additional release platforms for the game (Mac, Linux, iOS, Android)." which is what they've mentioned up top. The only "more" they added following was expanding the rewards to include t-shirts and digital soundtrack.

 

They'd feel robbed on what many are treating as a pre-order (Which'll take 4 times longer than originally suggested)? Don't forget with this one backing is also a way to get in on joining along as it goes. And back to the FTL guys: They just pocketed the rest. Don't really see many up in arms, they completed their project, sorted out their rewards all fine and dandy within the project spec. If a project is only requiring $400K, and it gets that (in 8 hours) then any extra is just random unneeded money going on the pile. Some do stretch rewards, but it's not required. In Broken Ages' case they'd do better sound and port it to more platforms.

 

I'm the one saying Kickstarter is for kickstarting, Hottie is the one fine with using it as a continuous stream of funding as opposed to expanded business ventures from the kickstart. Though it's notable that so far the two companies coming back for repeat kickstarts are video game companies, established ones at that. The habit of using someone elses money must die hard

[TheMightyEthan]

You're the one saying Kickstarter is for kickstarting companies.  We're saying it's for kickstarting projects.  I would agree it's shady to use it for funding when you've already got enough funding lying around, but just because a company is already established doesn't mean they can develop a new game without outside funding.

[deanb]

No I'm not. FTL isn't a company, Double Fine Adventure isn't a company, Pebble isn't a company. Where have I said anything about these being "companies"? Though there's plenty of projects where they're one and the same, such as with Pebble, Ouya. Or even FTL, the Kickstarter allowing them the funds to register and license as a company as part of the game development.

 

What I have said is that KS is for "Kickstarting", not kickcontinuouslyfundingforalleternity. Which you seem to agree with, at least partially.

[TheMightyEthan]

@GOH: Yeah I understand a couple (including Double Fine, great timing holding off the "oh no we fucked up our first KS budgeting" news after they completed Massive Chalice funding eh?) have done multiple funding, but it's not really the spirit of kickstarter. It's kinda in the name right there, kickstarter, not kickforeverandever.

Either you fuck up at KS, either due to missing targets due to a non-compelling idea, or you mess up on delivery of the project goals in which case you won't be coming back again. Or you do well, hit your targets, even exceed and deliver a compelling product that goes on to be further commercially viable. In which case you make money from those sales and shouldn't really need further external sources.

These statements imply that you don't think it's appropriate for the same company to come back to KS more than once for funding, even if it's for entirely separate projects.

[deanb]

Which aren't statements of saying Kickstarter is for founding companies as you just previously pasted saying I had said. As I shall reiterate, for what I think is the 5th or 6th time now; it's Kickstarter. Yes, I do think it inappropriate that once you are kickstarted to continue on being kickstarted(kickmiddled?). That is not the same as saying it is just for making companies. Those are two different things. At best, as previously mentioned, you're going to have a lot of overlap due to it being a start, a project start is usually going to end up with the founding of some kind of company if they're going from scratch.

[TheMightyEthan]

Right, exactly, you're kickstarting the project.  Whether or not the company/group/whatever that's doing it has already been established, or has already kickstarted other projects, is irrelevant.

 

We don't have a dispute about what kickstarter means, we have a dispute about what's supposed to be being kickstarted.  I think it's just the project.

[Hot Heart]

The idea with Kickstarter is to find out what the demand is straight from the consumer.

 

Whether it's a company or individuals, they will pitch an idea, say it needs x amount of $ to happen, and then gauge whether it's not going to work or whether they can expand on that vision. It's why Zach Braff can see if anyone wants to fund his (crappy-sounding) film; it's up to people to decide if it's worth backing, just like a publisher will say yes or no. The entertainment industry doesn't just run off its own profits, it seeks other revenues of funding. All the big game devs work with publishers because they're funding these things. If they have one big runaway success, they don't go independent and forget about seeking funding altogether.

 

Take something like the Veronica Mars film. That never would've happened through the normal channels. By going straight to fans, they can get an idea of how achievable the vision is and whether there is enough demand. In the same way, Double Fine wanted to see if there was a desire for their style of adventure game. Then loads of people backed it and they saw that they could improve upon the initial idea and offer more.

 

I can see why folks aren't up in arms about Subset Games. Firstly, they weren't already a company. So that extra money (and we're not talking millions either) would be going towards these startup costs and software licensing, etc. Hooray, indie success story that you helped make. And these guys can go onto make bigger and better games in the future. They actually started making FTL before pitching it to fans, and needed they money to make it what it was (no licences, unpaid sound guy, and no QA without fans). Part of their success is down to Double Fine putting Kickstarter on the map in the first place.

 

If Double Fine had plonked out a $400k game and just pocketed the $2.9m, it would be a completely different story. And there's an example of the ripples I'm talking about. For every line of dialogue, they're translating it into four more languages and that then requires the voicework at least in English (not sure if they expanded on that since the KS page). They're producing books, t-shirts and disc versions of the game. Yes, that's in the stretch goals, but even as those amounts go up to really high numbers, the costs increase beyond the original scope. Which is why, like others have since, they should've limited numbers for all of the physical stuff; again, live and learn. Ports aren't mega-expensive, but they aren't free either; just more little things that add up.

 

Double Fine started with the intention of being open about the development, and that's what they've done. People were backing a game and a documentary; both are being made. I've not had to pay any extra money, and Double Fine found the most agreeable and undisruptive avenue for further money along with a suitable compromise. It's a helpful experience for gamers, because they get to see behind the curtain. If people are more wary in future, then that's a good thing, but it also makes them appreciative of what goes into games and the roles of media producers.

 

And here, have a useful analogy.

[deanb]

Not quite, to gauge demand is to carry out market research. Kickstarter was just for demand there wouldn't be multimillion dollar figures thrown around. Pebble raised $10million from 68K people, but they'll have a much much higher demand than just 65K units.

 

If the entertainment industries funding for further projects isn't being pulled from revenue and profits, then where is the money coming from? They don't have a magical money printing machine. If they are successful, and generate profits, then that is reinvested into further projects and studios. If they are unsuccessful then they fuck up and end up the way of THQ. That is how business works. You make revenue, you make profit, profit is invested into further growth.

 

The FTL guys the funding of a company wasn't from the extra money, it was from their $10K backing. The FTL guys seeked $10K to finish up the game, found themselves as a company, and pay their music guy. Most of their money from the extra that they spent on the FTL stuff was just doing the now vastly ramped up reward manufacture and distribution. The rest is to be put toward further projects.

 

The dialogue doesn't cost an extra $3.4million, nor does porting. As I said, if it does then these indies that are out there with games across multiple OSes and platforms must have some serious amounts of cash they're not letting on. As for pocketing the extra, going back to the second part on profits, do you think they're going to make zero extra sales on this? Cos they're going to, and they'll generate profits, and assuming their intention is to not become a true indie self-publishing and continue funding via KS for all their further game projects, then what is happening to the profits of BA except being pocketed?

 

They're more open than a studio would be with publishers, but their openness is nowhere near they're claimed "total transparency" of the KS pitch or folks would have known well ahead of time it was this badly over budget and off key from the original pitch. They're so open the only reason folks that haven't backed it know about this is because the backers copied the post verbatim for everyone else to see.

 

The analogy is largely flawed in that it makes an assumption that the full amount has to be spent. It also still works on the assumption that a KS project is pretty much like being funded by a publisher, but it's not one publisher with a big lump of cash, but lots of little publishers with tiny amounts. It kinda forgets that EA can pour extra money into a project* (like say...Brutal Legend which EA bought on and funded for the final stretch) whereas KS runs for ~30 days, and that's all the funding you get unless you go around it and go all Steam Early-Access (which is largely a game-only revenue, and didn't exist when their KS was done) and hope that that produces the extra revenue you need to finish your project, which you really should have budgeted ahead of time and maybe not assumed it needed to be "rescoped".

I am confused where he pulled them having a 15% margin of error from. Assuming that the rescoping was necessary (otherwise they're already 800%  over budget) Tim has said without excess funding they'd have to cut 75% of the game, but can release half of it in beta to SEA, implying they're more in the 50-75% over budget range. If they're only 15% short then that'd be accountable to porting and translation costs, so the regular Windows game in English should be doable, not only quarter to half of the game.

 

*Also I'd need TN to confirm this, but if a studio pitched a game to EA, and budgeted it for $4 then EA wouldn't (especially in their current state) go "here's $30!". At best maybe go "well in our experience you're going to need a bit extra, stick to your budget but here's $5".

[Thursday Next]

A large publisher would probably say "Here is an advance of $X." They would expect the dev to make the game with that amount. If the game was over budget then the publisher would either say. "This looks like it will be amazing and sell a mega-fuck-tonne we're going to give you some more cash, but we're tightening the reins to make sure you stay on target." or "We've lost confidence in this. Finish it as best you can and we'll try to recoup what we can."

 

Game development costs don't increase exponentially when you localise into a couple of extra languages.

 

If Double Fine had released a $400k game on time no one would have any room to complain. If one billion people had backed Pebble that doesn't mean that Pebble should make diamond encrusted watches because they have loads more money now. It means they release the $100 each (or whatever it was) watch they said they would in the first place when they said they would (though you could probably forgive them for being a bit slow on delivering to 1/7th of the world's population).

 

 

 

EDIT: I think what's being overlooked is the value of the finished product versus the cost to make it. Even though the total funding was in the millions, each individual only paid $10 to get the game (not a pre-order blah blah). As such everyone should expect a $10 value game. If EA pay a developer $4million it's because they expect a $4million cost game.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Thursday Next

[Hot Heart]

I guess I need to clarify some things. I am arguing that increasing the scope of the project is perfectly fine (and was perfectly fine with all the backers). However, going over that is a stupid mistake, I agree.

 

Market research is what gets you First-Person Army Man Shooter #42. Obviously, I'm not saying it's exactly the same thing, but Kickstarter is still about testing the water and getting a feel for how far you can take a project. Double Fine Adventure was looking to have this extra bit of creative freedom, but at the caveat of the risk being on the backers. Schafer says he always designs too much game, so I imagine this is either common practice or at least common to DF, so they have found ways to cope in the past. The difference is now you can see it. Still, they found an alternative way to fund the rest, adamant that they wouldn't ask for more money from backers (which would be akin to asking a publisher for extra funding) while only making moderate cuts to the game.

 

When I'm talking about funding, Dean, I am pointing out the industry norms for entertainment products. If everything were made directly off of a creator's profits there wouldn't be adverts, product placement, etc. Spielberg has made billions of dollars but he doesn't dip into his own pocket every time he wants to make a film. That is essentially my point. Just because a developer makes some money from a game, they don't suddenly go indie and fund it using only their profits. With Kickstarter, backers are replacing publishers. Thing is, it's new territory, so the expectations and complications are still a little fluid.

 

And I wasn't saying that extra languages, porting, etc. uses up another $2.9m. It was an attempt to demonstrate how a relatively small design decision can have a larger impact down the line, thus making it trickier to predict the final budget required. I'm arguing the fact that it's a more complicated thing to create and predict when compared to something like FTL. And when I'm talking about exponential costs, I'm referring to the physical side of things (i.e. economies of scale).

 

I imagine the 15% figure comes from actually having spoken to someone inside the studio. The 75% cutting down comment appears to be based on projections as to continuing full steam until July 2015 without increasing costs. It always seemed a little weird for me, but I really don't think they were expecting to make up to an extra $2.5m from Steam Early Access.

 

Whether not anyone has room to complain if DF released a $400k game doesn't make a jot of difference. People would complain, whether they paid the minimum $15 or not. Everyone was already expecting a much larger game before the KS funding period even ended because DF had already set out those expectations. There was no uproar 9 months ago, when nothing materialised, precisely because everyone was waiting for a larger game. Everyone was perfectly happy for Double Fine to put more into it, beyond what they might've expected to get for their money. Besides, as already mentioned, those who 'have been following along in the documentary know about the design vs. money tension [they've] had on this project since the early days'. The big issue now is that it has overstepped what people reasonably expected it to cost and the amount of time to deliver with cuts then reducing the finished product. Additionally, there's the usual case of everyone parroting what a media source has told them in the usual manufactured outrage (even I was swayed a little until I bothered to look into the documentary and listen to other perspectives). Not saying that's the case with you here, but it seems to be the general attitude.

 

Regardless, I can see the frustration, and I absolutely agree with the idea that they should've set a more reasonable 'buffer'. However, I will never be of the mindset that Double Fine expanding the scope in the first place was the wrong thing to do or that everyone would've been so accepting had they not.

[deanb]

That expanding the scope to match (and exceed) the budget given to them being perfectly fine would be the major point of contention. And no, not all backers were happy to find the scope had increased and the game delayed by nearly two years from the original 6-8 months.

 

Market research is also how you find out demand, as you initially said KS was for. There's quite a bit more demand for army man shoots than many other types of game, but it's a false and lazy premise, ill fitting of you, to suggest only army man shoots get made through market research. And KS isn't about seeing "how far you can take the project". As TN noted with a project like Pebble, more funding didn't mean diamond encrusted watches, so why is DF attempting to make a diamond encrusted game? And given it's a common practice for Schafer and DF it means it's something that should have been resolved and assessed well ahead of time, not 16 months into an 8 month project. Heck, maybe within the early years of his career even.

 

Spielberg dipped into his pockets to make his early early films, so slightly a moot choice of point there. He's also one of the three founders of Dreamworks, so he still does put his money where his mouth is even further along in his career. I'm still curious where you think money for the entertainment industry comes from if they're not using the regular business of using profits to fund further projects and growth. Also if Indie studios aren't using their own profits to continue going then where are they pulling the money from? They pull it from a publisher then they're not really indie, and KS is only recent so that can't be a source of game making money for most. Mojang would be pre-KS, the (massive) profits from Minecraft going towards founding a proper studio, hiring staff, further development of MC, and development of a second game Scrolls. No kickstarting, publisher or magical money printing machine needed.

 

You specifically said " And there's an example of the ripples I'm talking about. For every line of dialogue, they're translating it into four more languages and that then requires the voicework at least in English (not sure if they expanded on that since the KS page)." so if the porting and languages (which dude who I imagine knows the budget on these things more than you or I has said isn't exponential then I'd go with them not being exponential) isn't what the ripples you're talking about, then what are the "examples of ripples" you're talking about? As for the physical costs of things, that only came in on the $100+ scale of things, which accounts for ~12K backers, and making 12K DVDs is probably cheaper since those kind of things tend to get cheaper as you scale up.

 

If he's getting the 15% from an internal source in the studio then surely that'd be another sign of DF not being as transparent as promised? Until they're a bit clearer on how much they fouled up, having to take the 75% trimmed at current budget at face value.

 

Thing is, people are complaining now. And they've massive amounts of wriggle room to complain with. The game is massively delayed, massively over-budget, and also partially compromised on their "rescoped" vision to boot. You'd have to try real hard to find something to complain about if you got the promised game, on time, for the $15 you paid for it. Oh and there's also the fact it has a ripple effect on other gaming projects. As much as it has helped make KS higher profile for funding games with, it'll work in the exact same opposite way too. Though as Goh notes it'll hopefully serve to make future projects better (obviously not DF's second one mind) if they get in the habit of posting projected costs and such. Showing they're at least somewhat capable of basic budgeting and project management.

 

Also seems a weird to accept it fine for them to expand their scope to match the budget, but not be fine that they went all the way and past it. They wouldn't have done that if they'd not expanded the scope in the first place. I personally think it's reasonable, and it's what their original KS pitch said would happen with the funds, to use the excess to expand porting and translation, but the raw project should have remained that which was pitched and backed.

[Hot Heart]

Dean, I'm not saying that entertainment producers don't use any of their profits. I'm saying that they don't fund it entirely on their own like independents (who even strike up deals themselves when it comes to films). Game developers go to publishers (alternatively, Kickstarter) for funding, film studios strike up advertisement deals, etc. It offsets production costs upfront and reduces the risk of the creative endeavour. I really didn't think this needed clarifying.

 

For all intents and purposes, Kickstarter is akin to drawing up a deal with a publisher, only that the boundaries are not so defined nor is there the same level of binding contracts. Backers' actual expectations and satisfaction mean a hell of a lot more than what they have a 'right' to feel. I don't doubt that there were some upset backers nine months ago, but I never heard of any significant negative outcry like now. The Kickstarter page explains Double Fine's view on the project, which would've given backers an idea of what to expect (and probably why most were fine with the increased scope)

 

 

Crowd-sourced fundraising sites like Kickstarter have been an incredible boon to the independent development community.  They democratize the process by allowing consumers to support the games they want to see developed and give the developers the freedom to experiment, take risks, and design without anyone else compromising their vision.

 

It was never Schafer's intention to go over budget. He just wanted to make the best game possible and show it being done. Backers have even contributed art ideas and voted on other things. As a backer, I don't support them going over-budget, obviously, but I can now see why it happened. Yes, I have every right to be upset, but since I've not been asked for extra money and Double Fine have found a creative solution, I'm happy to see what happens.

 

I'm using the first-person shooter example to show how more risk-averse publishers are. The old standard of market research is why bigger games have become so homogenised. With general market research, they're looking to find the big thing at the moment and capitalise on that. It's generally accepted that indie games, where developers are not so shackled, are where the riskier, more creative ideas are.

 

I said that smaller decisions can create a larger impact which makes it hard to predict a cost. If the game gets bigger, the script/story changes, they have more music, design new areas and add new characters. This requires re-writing, concept artwork, voice-acting, extra documentary episodes, etc. The artbook and soundtrack then require rethinking as to what gets included, etc. None of this happens by magic. The translation one, as I stated, is relatively minorOnce again, I'm not saying they should've expanded the way they did (i.e. gone over-budget) but I can see where things become difficult to predict. Maybe that is an example of exponential costs, but I was only bringing it up as an example of the complexity involved with making a game from scratch compared to FTL which was already locked-in as a design.

 

And Double Fine haven't technically gone over budget. As with all games, even by developers with publishers, they've had to rein in the scope to bring it back in line with the budget. Crowd-funded games undergo the same issues as publisher-funded, only this time it's out in the open and the risk is on the backers. If people thought this was a pre-order service, that's their own misconception and a lesson-learned. Until such time as Double Fine plonk out a game that looks less than $400k's worth, I shall reserve judgement.

 

And please, stop with these pointless analogies. They're what's confusing the discussion. A watch is not the same as a game. And, once again, the design was already locked-in (having secured outside investment already as well). They weren't making something from scratch and showing the backers how it's all done.

[TheMightyEthan]

Also seems a weird to accept it fine for them to expand their scope to match the budget, but not be fine that they went all the way and past it. They wouldn't have done that if they'd not expanded the scope in the first place. I personally think it's reasonable, and it's what their original KS pitch said would happen with the funds, to use the excess to expand porting and translation, but the raw project should have remained that which was pitched and backed.

It makes perfect sense:  They stated on the KS that the scope of the project would be expanded (no matter how much you want to say they said it would just be more VA/music/translations, they did say the project would get better and better the more money they got), so it makes sense to expand the scope to use the funding that was given to them to use on the game.  Going over budget, however, and risking the possibility that the project might not get finished or might have to be left with obvious holes for planned content that didn't make it is irresponsible.  Why is that a weird outlook?