My sense would be that while a budgetary breakdown can't plausibly be given at the time, a good rule of thumb is to look at the number of people they purport to have on their team, the amount of months they claim development will take, and the amount of money they're asking for (minus costs of physical reward fulfillment, taxes, KS fees, etc.) And if the napkin math doesn't work out, then don't pledge. The napkin math would not work out in the case of this game, not at all.
I mean, the default should be "I will not pledge". People should be opting in on a very choosy, selective basis. If there are any red flags at all, don't let the people assuage you or smooth it over with a message DURING the Kickstarter, just sit it out. If the product ends up releasing, you can try it then. If the product doesn't get funded, well, you're not to blame--the people pitching the product are for not doing a better pitch.
In the case of the reductio ad absurdum licensing situation, I don't think backers would be hurt by just assuming the license is a major component of the money asked for and then proceed from there by doing the above calculations.
I don't want to take away from the liability of the people selling snake oil. Those people suck, and even if they're coming from ignorance rather than malice, they hurt others and they owe us more responsibility than that. But I'm highly skeptical of outraged and baffled claims by backers who clearly didn't put even 5 seconds of thought into their pledge because they were so wowed by something conceptually or by someone's name that they shut down their mental faculties.