It all kinda depends, if you ask me - which you indirectly did when posting this thread. I think Early Access can be a poison in this context; why finish developing a game you already got paid for? With Kickstarter more often than not you ask for money BEFORE the project starts. I'd much rather back a kickstarter than an early access project, unless the latter has a good pedigree. But in the end, a delayed game will eventually be good, but a rushed game will forever be bad. Except Mighty Number 9, that shit will forever be mediocre even after several delays.

I'm just pointing out the double standards, with these people who think being cynical is the new cool thing.

People hate on AAA games because they're always delayed and shown too early, but then try to justify when it happens with indies with excuses that they're small. Why would that even matter? Those indies are making games according to their capabilities, size and budget, they aren't making AAA sized games.

...

But it is double standards for a reason. Everyone does and should have higher expectations of AAA game development. They're under far more scrunity because they have near unlimited teams and resources to complete the work.

Because games that are being kickstarted are getting funding from the audience to actually make the game so of course they're going to be presenting games that are far earlier in development and it's much harder to judge a game's timeline whose features will be determined by how successful funding is. AAA developers do not have that restriction and announce the game and release date whenever they feel they are prepared to do so (well, whenever the publisher pressures them to). 

Personally, I don't complain about either. Delays happen. Getting mad won't make a game come out faster or better. Complaining about them only encourages publishers to put undue pressure on the devs, who don't really have the final say in things like advertising and release dates.

If my youngest son poops on the floor, I wouldn't be too mad because he is potty training and that is a part of it. If my 9 year old did the same thing, I would be pretty mad. If my wife did it, I would be aroused.

People have different expectations. I dont mind an indie game being delayed because I know it's typically a small team. I do mind when a AAA game is delayed or shown way too early because they are from big companies with larger staff. I don't think that makes it a double standard at all.

Maybe the developers should have applied that to Duke Nuke Forever, eeeeh? ;D

That it's good advise ore devs should follow. Though, in the case of Duke Nuke Forever that didn't help. aybe if they had delayed it for another 10 years...

Of course it matters.  We aren't generally talking about studios that have been around for years and managed by publishers with hundreds of completed projects under their belt.  I would be more surprised if an indie studio was able to correctly estimate how long a development cycle is needed.  It's a very difficult task to begin with and can only be made more precise with experience.  Even then, at the rate the industry changes, setting a release goal is, at best, a rough estimate.

Also, "showing off games too early" doesn't have much meaning any longer, not with Kickstarter, Steam Greenlight, and people buying Early Access games.  That's the environment that developers have to navigate.  They're not Bethesda who can announce Fallout right before release and have it sell millions.

The thing is less people care about indie games so there is less complaining about them.

I personally don't care about delays anymore because I'm more bothered by bad or unpolished games.

A delayed game is eventually good. A bad game is bad forever. And if the game is still bad after many, long delays - just cancel the shit!