The evidence? Right now all the evidence looks exactly the same as mechwarrior. Confusing posts, confusing website, massive packages in the in-game store, and vacillating opinions on features and business direction.

The majority of old forum posts are supporting a "sidegrades" direction that implies founders-only vehicles including the Vyper and Warbuggy, and weapons with different gameplay stats. I'm not saying that the devs weren't claiming that those weapons and vehicles would be perfectly magically balanced, I'm saying that people didn't believe them. And they will go on not believing them until they don't have to root through an hour long video livestream for one of Miguel's sound bites.

Don't get me wrong, I've been a EC supporter since the start, and I'm rooting for the game to not have this direction. I have faith, maybe. But the evidence? The evidence is all for PtW.

The vehicles are rewards for believing in the game and supporting it. If there are guys out there who do not want to support the game then they don't have to. But that doesn't mean they should cry for the rewards founders get when the game comes out. Its a too late for you buddy scenario. Now they also made a concession that if you do play you can earn store credits and acquire if not the same exact models then their equivalent in stats. This I don't not agree with when it come to the limited 'Rewards' for being a founder but what the heck why not. Doesn't seem fair to the investor though.

And gold ammo was a reward for supporting more WOT not really p2w... 2 seat vehicles exclusivity is bullshit and I still believe that everyone should able to access them since day 1, give founders some kind of exclusive skin, different (cosmetic) weapons effects and stuff like that.

1: Pre-ordering is not an investment. You are simply buying the game before there is a game to buy. Back before digital distribution, the "perk" of pre-ordering was that your copy of the game would have your name put on it so you can pick it up at the store whenever without having to worry about it being sold out for several weeks straight. With the advent of digital distribution, a server can churn out infinite digital copies on demand so this perk was rendered mostly moot unless you just like feeling the box in your hands.

Now, it's mostly just a way for companies like Ubisoft to sell as many copies of their latest game as possible before anyone has a chance to playtest it and realize that it's riddled with bugs, runs at 20 FPS on high-end rigs, is locked to 900p resolution, and looks absolutely nothing like the E3 demo (see: Assassins' Creed: Unity, Watchdogs, Aliens: Colonial Marines).

2: If you actually are finding that one of the incentives to pre-order a game is a mechanical gameplay advantage over people who did not pre-order, that is a problem.

"I paid, so I should win" is not a valid defense of P2W.

1) The Founder's Program is an investment, as there are the features the devs plan to have at launch, the ones they would like to have at launch, and the ones planned for post launch. Founder's packs increase the likelihood of the latter two options actually being available ahead of scheduled, so this is an investment as other pre-orders are buying a finished game that's development won't be effected by your order.

2) Reward does not mean, "I want to have better equipment." Here it means we want unique equipment, something exclusive to give a reward for investing. Nobody (perhaps there is a minuscule minority) actually wants the Founder's items to be objectively better, and both devs and players are saying there can and should be equipment with equal stat lines available in game. What founder's want is for their special gun to look cool, not be superior.

It is not I paid so I should win. There is no evidence showing that paying early will cause you to win. In fact in most cases like an open top vehicle as oppose the standard fully armored one it may be Harder to win. Its I paid so I can ride this cool bike or have the shiny item that those who did not believe in the game or had reservations cannot. That doesn't mean you'll win or loose just that you have something different especially after everything is tested balanced.

I mean, the very fact that the forums are filled with discussions like these - where sections of the community are actually arguing for exclusive paywalls on content - are enough that skeptics get turned off right away.

I mean, you guys realize that other people playing this game are your content, right? Making their experience inferior by locking off extremely well known and specialized tabletop staples like the Vyper or Possessed Marine is not going to win points with the non-fan-preorder-founder crowd. Read, almost every player in the game. If this game is an investment for you, realize you are requesting for your investment to be reduced in quality. Making gameplay content universally accessible to basic paying(!) players doesn't affect you personally, it just increases the content available in the game. Unless, of course, your objective is to win more. In which case, you desire PtW.

Couple of things I'd like to chip in:

Firstly, fast 2-player light vehicles are ludicrously fun with Guild/Clan mates. Fun things should not be locked behind an additional paywall.

Secondly, the whole "super special secret club" elitist mindset has killed more multiplayer games than I can count.

1. The information is there. Sure non-fans do not care to watch the twitch. I wouldn't either if I were not a 40k fanboi. However, they have indeed said that the items from the store will have in game earn-able equivalents. Not the same look, but the same stats. Even the founder gear has to be unlocked. If you don't care to believe that, I don't blame you. Watch and see if it turns out that way. Only open beta will tell for sure where you will first have founders and the general populous engage.

2. Many gamers will not pre-pay for any game that is still in development. I had to think about it but my 40k fanboidom won out. If the game is unbalanced or unenjoyable, I will be out some cash. I don't blame a single person who is skeptical and will wait and see. It is up to the development team to create a great product that will entice the skeptics to want to play or at least check it out.

3. bashing a game that is in development is as asinine as praising it. NONE of us know at this point. Things are in flux and will change over time. If you are skeptical, then the reports from alpha and beta should give you enough info to want to try the game or not. They even have a FTP option with the orks just to kick the tires so there really is no risk at all once the game launches.

We're talking about what boils down to essentially cosmetic items, as there will be in game equivalents, and the paid classes are actually meant to be a rather specific form, such as the Possessed in store is not the only form of Possessed Marine planned, they in fact plan on having an entire Possessed class, one that is customization, while these will not be very. This boils down to an information availability as those who frequent the forums are privy to information scattered around random threads, confirmed or alluded to by dev interaction. Unfortunately, this leads to criticism of those who are not active members presenting false or outdated information. Back for items, the cash shop requires items that can't otherwise be obtained or else it is pointless, and unless you want a subscription game there needs to be an ongoing cash shop to fund the game after launch. The paywall is cosmetic, everyone can get a gun with the same stats as the guns in the store.

As for light vehicles, this topic has not been discussed. Given that standard versions tend to have a single seat, I would presume that only the two-seater version is exclusive. It warrants an inquiry.