We need YOU on the steam forums

No matter what side of the argument you are on, you can't deny that this is a PR disaster for Uber. Whether you believe Uber are to blame, that's up to you, but at least it will hopefully stop other developers from making the same mistakes. It doesn't really matter who's right, the results speak for themselves, and therefore other developers would be stupid to follow their example.

What did they do wrong? What bad example? I see nothing.

This whole controversy is because people are unreasonable and unrealistic. Uber can be faulted for nothing here.

That's a load of hog wash and you know it. Accidental or not, Uber is at fault for treating paying customers differently. Sure some folks are being a tad over dramatic, some do want stuff for free even though they might have only bought the game for $5, but at the same time people aren't being unreasonable.

As I said to Colin the other day, steam users feel like Uber is treating them with contempt while rewarding kickstarter backers, and ignoring people isn't exactly a good way to prove you don't have contempt for them.

Steam forums have been pissed off at Uber since they announced additional content for MNC that didn't pan out. Its not new, and seems like it has been one of the "cool developers to hate" for quite a while now.

Also some defense for the kickstarter backers, but when steam people were able to buy into early access, they were doing just that, buying early access to a game. Kickstarter backers were giving money in the hope that the game would be made. There's a lot more risk inherent in backing on kickstarter, and they're the people who really made the game happen. (Also in what strange universe is an stand-alone add-on for a standard price contempt?)

Good theory, but no dice. I've been supporting Uber well up until this point. So perhaps there was an angry crowd willing to jump on their every move, but lets not pretend that is all there is to it.

You have no idea how tired I am of this argument.

Kickstarter backer that pays $20 vs a EA backer that pays $90

Kickstarter backer may not get a product, EA backer at the time of buying would have been left with an unplayable mess. The risk is practically the same, not ending up with anything worth playing, but I think we can all agree that $90 is a much bigger monetary risk that $20.

Yet, those that paid $20 get it for free. That's the contempt we're talking about. As has also been mentioned time, and time again, this isn't about the price, not for most people.

His point is valid and you can't dismiss it because you feel like it. Give us evidence and we'll listen. Here you're just shutting down his opinion because it doesn't align with yours.

Then why on earth are you bringing up the price?

The risk is entirely different. On the one hand, you have a promise for a game - on the other, you have a partially complete product ready to play. You can't call those anywhere close to equal IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.

There is no reasoning behind this BS that we've been seeing from people against Titans - it's all about how offended they are because someone else got the game free and they did not. They feel they deserve it. That's not their decision to make - the KS backers took the risk and earned this gift from Uber no matter the cost.

please stop this argument. please. There is nothing to be gained from this.
Don't try to separate kickstarter and early access that much. It won't help the situation at all.

Fortunately, the world is not only English centered:

The results speak for themselves. You don't see all the negative reviews and posts? Whether or not this is unfair on Uber is irrelevant. It is what has happened and if I was a developer I would want to avoid this situation. In summary, don't do what Uber did.

The presence of smoke does not imply a fire. You give me a specific instance where Uber made a mistake and a way to correct it that would not lead to financial ruin. You can't.

Does it really matter whether or not Uber are at fault. The market has spoken and if I was another developer looking to follow Uber's example, then I would seriously rethink my strategy.

Well last I will say on the topic is this. Uber didn't need to give any of the backers free access to Titans. They chose to give it to the Kickstarter backers to thank them for their support and making the game possible. I see nothing inherently wrong with choosing to do this, especially with how important the success of the kickstarter was to Uber. Do I think that there are more people than just the kickstarter backers worth thanking for their support to the game? Of course I do, and I would be crazy not to. Would I have chosen a slightly different window of people to give it to for free? Yes. But not getting for free an expansion to a product hardly counts as contempt in my book.

Well I hate to pop your free-market capitalist utopian view there, but really the only people the market has spoken to is Uber, and without having any access to their numbers and financial data you can't claim to speak for what "the market" has said.

Do you just ignore the smoke then? Sure that seems like a healthy and completely logical approach.

That's like saying you should go rob a bank because you're facing bankruptcy. Just because they had to make this decision in order to not face financial ruin, doesn't mean all should be forgiven. Why did they end up in this situation in the first place? It's possible that Uber had no real options, so they chose the best of the bad. This kept them afloat but still wasn't a great option. Once again, I'm sure most developers would prefer not to be in the position which Uber currently are.

But they aren't stealing from a bank - they made a product and are selling the product in a regulated free market. Your analogy makes zero sense. Answer my question directly.

That gif got me.

I didn't say they were stealing from a bank. I was using an EXTREME example of a BAD decision they could make in order to not face financial ruin. They didn't steal from a bank, but the decision they made with Titans was still a bad idea. It caused bad press, and whether or not it is fair press is irrelevant.

I just feel that this is relevant...