Amicably Solution? (KS Unique Progenitor Model)

How can we resolve this situation and others like it in a amicably way?
How can we prevent situations like this to occur in the future?

Best will,

Cody

To be honest, it's a developer decision. It's out of our hands. If they want to throw their KS backers under the bus, so be it. I'm not a fan of it, and I will criticize the hell out of the decision in a logical, constructive way (sometimes straying into passionate, irrational dialogue), but there is really nothing we can do about it.

I'm a KS backer and I don't feel like I'm under a bus.....

Cheers,

-Todd

Im in the same boat as Todd.

Both of you. Enlighten me, please, by answering this question.

You are alright with Uber taking an exclusive model (the Progenitor) and reskinning it into a new model for charity (the Able)?

Yes.

What have you lost? Bragging rights? Did you really pay so much extra for a commander model?

What is this charity everyones talking about?

I didn't. I'm not a KS backer

If I'm way off base, then I'll sit back down before people start booing

http://www.ablegamers.com

What`s so bad about that? Man, people should be ashamed. First myself then myself

Quite frankly, the able commander should be better then the KS one.

Charity is worth more then a group of capitalists.

Backers are not as helpless as you think. There is multiple avenues that they could take. They could ask that their pledge be returned to them as per kickstarter terms of use. Another avenue is legal action for violation of contract. Let me make this clear I am in no uncertain terms advocating those avenues but they are there and there are on the table. So solution?

Kickstarter FAQ - Accountability. Obligations of fulfillment.
https://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/kickstarter basics#faq_41860
Kickstarter Terms of Use.
https://www.kickstarter.com/terms-of-use?country=US

They are a great charity; the reality is it's not a defense. Uber entertainment took a unique backer model and reused it. The quote from the kickstarter campaign page:

(my emphasis)
It clearly tells that progenitor commanders model is exclusive not the texture. Every time I see it I think better looking progenitor not able. As part of pledging it is not just the game is all that encompasses it. That includes any add-ons, perks, bonuses, rewards, etc. as part of pledging. when a backer pledged it was an agreement that they would for everything that was offered in the tier. The underlying issue here is Uber not honoring their part of the agreement. One thing you do is always follow through with your word never break it. From past experience Uber should've known this was most likely response from the community. People intrinsically knew this and their reactions are what you would expect.

What I wrote in a different thread.
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/what-defines-thread-hostility-able-commander-controversy-aside.61895/page-10#post-959335

Edit: wrong link

Well I already covered ways to prevent situations like this after the Delta/Invictus Debacle(Henceforth D/ID).

I mean there is the obvious one of staying away from meddling with Exclusive content. The D/ID scenario required that due to the unique circumstances but Uber actively chose the Progenitor for the Able Commander, seemingly in spite of the perception of that action by the community which could be easily assumed based on what happened with the D/ID.

The next big thing that can be taken away by this is Uber needs better internal control about when/how this stuff becomes public knowledge. There have been many thing the community has found out by stumbling across them or by chance during discussions with the Devs. Other things were communicated but beyond the point where the community could offer any comments on a potential course of action and/or after the chosen course of action was either partially for fully implemented. For the D/ID if they had come to us and said;

"Hey so we all really like the Delta design, it was our first fully fleshed out design after all, and because we liked it so much and didn't have anything else to use for a lot of our marketing material and that leaves us in a bit of a pickle because we can't have something exclusive in our marketing material."

That'd be a huge start, and could be followed up in any number of ways, either asking for Community input on possible solutions or proposing some curated options for the community to discuss.

The worst part is that it would have been so well received, I mean sure there are always people that would be upset over any change like that and there is always the chance that some people won't like the outcome despite agreeing with the course of action(the replacement commander not being visually appealing to everyone for example) but in general there would have been massive brownie points for simply being honest with the community and even more for involving them to some degree.

And you know it could have been the same here with the Able Commander, if they had come to us saying;

"Hey guys we want to do something for Charity but we're a little tight on resources right now so we wanted to do a re-skin and wanted to use the Progenitor, what do you guys think?"

I won't deny that there still would have been a lot of people rightfully disagreeing with the re-skinning of the Progenitor, the fact is that the tone of the discussion would have been massively different ompared to what we got when we stumbled onto it ourselves.

At the very least, even if nothing changes about Uber's decision process, we need to be kept informed of the chosen decisions.

Mike

Yeah what ever makes you guys tick tock, do it.

I paid money to be able to play this game early, and to be able to help guide its development by providing feedback.
I didn't do it for the commander, but it was a nice bonus.

Am I upset that Uber re-released something that resembles the Progenitor? Not really. It was done in good faith, on Uber's part.
I would be disgusted in myself otherwise.

make the unit of gold and profit!!.... all happy, gift me one for the idea

I completely agree. Uber has showed significant progress in developing this addicting game whilst allowing players the opportunity to be part of the development process through Alpha and Beta participation. They have been nothing short of courteous in working with the community. To go after them about such a small facet of the larger "whole", you are ruining a perfectly good relationship between the developers and the gamers. They did this for a CHARITY that helps disabled children have fun playing video games. Please take a moment to step back and consider if this fight is important enough to you to besmudge a company that has been excellent in their communication, their progress, and their kindness towards the community while developing PA.

Absolutely Mike if they involve the community this wouldn't have turned out this way. Here is a resource that could help them in the future. Art of community this book was written by Jono Bacon former Community Manager for Canonical and now Senior Director of Community at XPRIZE.

Download at http://www.artofcommunityonline.org/get/

Yes. It is saying one thing and doing another thing because your word is your bond.