With money I can compete with mainstream games. I know that.
Sorry. But this is delusional naive.
No. You absolutely do not know that. You hope that. You believe that. But you do not know. You have no precedent of such a thing happening to you of a similar nature, so you can accurately predict the outcome of you having money. Or do you?
Also, not even mainstream games can compete with mainstream games. Professional game developing companies go broke all the time. They sink money all the time on projects that just fail. Or simply cost more money to make, than the game will generate.
So, even if you have an extraordinary amount of funding money, enough to simply buy an established game developing company and you just tell them: make me a game that makes a profit ... you can still fail. So please, do not claim you know.
Your whole thread is about the notion that some people can do a crowd funding thing, while others fail. And that this is strange, or in other words: unpredictable. Don't you see the irony here, in you claiming you know you could?
Kickstarter without massive advertisement or a huge following is pointless. A kickstarter campaing only runs a short amount of time. And you need a specific thing to fund. Like a webcoming trying to come to print for the existing readers. Or funding artists to exchange your prototype art in an existing and established game.
Merely hiring talents to make a game that does not even exist is problematic. You cannot predict, if it will be any good. Even if you manage to hit the target audience, that said target audience can be the harshest group to criticise the project and be disappointed.
So to answer your thread's question: Trivially, you can just dump money on adverstising to maybe meet the kickstarter goal, instead of having an existing following.
But neither advertising, nor a huge following, nor a huge load of money pumped into a project will make that project automatically succeed. There is always risks. And the most "benevolent" risk is, that the project might appear successful, but simply generates less money than was put into it. This is more visible and discussed at movie projects. Most movies are flops. And what is a flop is judged by the amount of money put in vs the amount of money it made. So even popular movies can be flops.
--
I would also remind younger audiences about this one here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theranos No amount of money thrown at funding a thing can overcome certain limitations. Granted, video games usually do not have technological impossibilities, but often unrealistic expectations from unexperienced creative minds.
There was also that thing with the ultrasound wireless charging. And countless solar powered gadgets and other kickstarter projects that promised everything and delivered nothing. Some intentional. Some just failed on reality.
And to put forward a successful kickstarter with a video game, there was this one https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/owlcatgames/pathfinder-kingmaker
Especially look at what they actually asked the money for, and what they could present at the time they opened the kickstarter. They had a playable alpha version. And bascially asked for pre-prepurchases, and the money would just bring the game from alpha to release. They did not present an idea and ask for financing all the creative work.
But even they were naive. They got screwed over by their publisher at the time and lost their own game shortly after publication.