I believe the OP raises a good point, actually! This shows an attempt to problem solve instead of simply complain -- and I'm always behind that mentality. However, there are three things I present to back up my vote for "Maintain the current system".
1.) Whether development is funded in-house (which is the ideal way to produce anything), funded by a third-party (which means developers must then answer to a "Producer"...like EA, Zenimax, Ubisoft, etc.), or Kickstarted (["Kickstarter-ed"?] which means that development will be pressured to follow a pre-determined focus and scope...a doomsday countdown for pretty much any creative venture...and a major reason many Kickstarters fail.)
2.) Whether any of the three options above are used, development will always arrive at a point where it's necessary to put "coat after coat of paint on the same walls". That's just the nature of development. It's part of the job. Imagine what the developers and beta-testers of Dark Souls felt like during the game's production. A game specifically focused on making players fight the exact same enemies, in the exact same places, over, and over, and over again...by design. I'm sure their beta testers felt like they were in grey, lifeless, bizarro-world (no pun intended) after only a matter of weeks. Firstly, all of the intended features of a game must be added (the goal of any alpha). Secondly, once all of those features are working mechanically, content must be expanded and real bug-fixing can begin (the goal of any beta). It's not until the latest stages of beta that "polish" can begin, where pass after pass is made to ensure that things are balanced, full of variety, and fun. In other words, I don't wax the car until the engine is tuned up, the wheels balanced, the leather interior is installed, it's painted and dried, and it's thoroughly washed. Only then do I polish it to make it shiny and take it out for a pleasure cruise for fun. Lots of work to do yet.
3.) I can't express how important it is to finish something once it's started. Could the game have been made all three ways? Probably! But switching funding options at this point would simply drop the present focus and invite a whole new group of people to "direct" its production. In a sense, abandoning the present development and switching to a new project. That's normally disaster in a bottle. Too many captains on the boat...a loss of direction and vision. Best bet is to see the course through to the end. Nothing guarantees success -- except experience. And if I walk the entire path, I am guaranteed experience. (Besides, I've done a little content writing for game studios in the past, and been involved in their development, meetings, etc. I've seen two fail, and neither was a surprise. In my opinion, Gwent's development feels like it's moving along at a pretty good clip.)
