I think this issue needs to be sorted out as soon as the next stream comes out, we at least need to have a crystal clear view of the dev on this matter. How are they gonna deal with the unfair advantages if we ever come across them in CB, OB, Launch and such!? And is there any plan for non buyers to have same degree of variety as the buyers? Otherwise, everyday pasts with this concept being interpreted wrongly by the community (there are a lot out there criticizing this whole founder program already), it will sooner or later cause massive damage to the game. There is nothing worse than being called a P2W game when you're not even released yet, we have enough doubts about the game already, P2W rep is the least thing we want right now.

I didn't agree with Miguel's comparison of the bike with the Rhino, since if you compare it to the standard bike, it is a straight up upgrade, even if all it had was an extra seat. Also making it founders only seems strange as it is not a Heresy only item and is quite common in the 41st millennium.

Or was Miguel saying there are no bikes other than attack bikes in EC? Which i doubt as that would contradict what he said about any vehicle that hovers and has wheels will be in the game.

holy fuck this post just fucking shut down everything.

Spending 30 dollars (arbitrary numbers) for a bolter that shoots faster but does less damage is not making you the unstoppable god being that everything seems to think. Do I agree with selling this and not having it unlockable? Not really. But just because I disagree with a business decision, does not give me the right to label it as P2W and stick my fingers in my ears.

If I spend 40-60 dollars, and unlock the factions, I should have every bolter pattern available to me in the form of unlocks. For the F2Orkz, it might be a little different. Maybe that's where sidegrades would be the most acceptable, since they are playing entirely for free. But for people who have payed upfront to play a faction it should be purely cosmetics.

No, "sidegrades" are not P2W. Variety is not P2W because your paying money for the CHANCE that it will be better than someone who didn't. It's not "outright deal 10x more damage" than someone else. It's "shoot more, do less". There are only certain situations where that would give you an edge, and there are other situations were it would give you a disadvantage. (See: Asymmetrical balance) The regular bolter will STILL be just as effective at killing the other person. Again, paying for the chance to be better than someone else =/= P2W.

The FAV example everyone uses. The space marine bike is NOT better than someone who doesn't have it, except in certain situations. Like getting from point a to point b and you're not expecting resistance. You'd probably get the bike as the Rhino is an armored transport meant for frontline transportation. If you're on the frontline moving forward, you'd be stupid to get a bike because you'll just murdered and waste Req. The Rhino is a better choice. Does that mean the Rhino is the worst choice for moving from point a to b? No, it does not. The Rhino is still just as effective at getting to the front.

This of course is assuming there isn't a FAV/bike option available to everyone. There very well may be a Land Speeder for Space Marines. In that case, the bike would be purely just a fancy way to drive, as for all intents and purposes the Land Speeder is the more efficient choice.

Variety is not P2W

Stop twisting the word to fit whatever business decision you don't agree with. P2W does not have some multi-color spectrum definition that applies to anything you dislike.

His use of words makes it sound like it, but we're not very sure if he actually means that the founder bikes are the only Fast attack vehicles that will be in the game or the only 2 seated attack bikes we will have. If there is other fast attack vehicles, then making the bikes exclusive to founders is not a big deal, because we still have the same tactical option, just with a different tool. But if we don't, then the bikes will be an exclusive advantage to the founders, thus making the game P2W, cuz they have access to a gameplay element we don't have.

There is another point of view.
Let me bring the example of another game, MechWarrior:Online. In this game you earn money in battles to buy mechs and upgrade them, buying new equipment and weapons. All of this can be bought with in-game currency. Upgrades are pretty significant, they allow you to carry more weapons, while running faster etc, but are still reasonable enough (not OP), and accessible to anyone.
The thing is, you need many days of gameplay to earn for a mech and then upgrade it and find the build that suits you, and your chances to win (and earn more) in basic models are slimmer, though you can compensate with skill and luck. And even with both present it still takes ridiculous amount of time.
But you can buy it all with real money at once, and the prices are pretty high.
Without throwing in money, in the end you will get all you need, but you will have to grind nearly infinitely for that.
So tell me, saving yourself weeks of godless grind to obtain the same thing, is it advantage or not?

To unlock or equip a weapon in EC you will need to pay whatever points, that you will have to grind for in game. Why not buy the sidegrade with cash and save your points? Isn't that an advantage?

I am in agreement that variety is not pay to win. That said, there will be situations where these exclusive weapons hidden by a paywall will excel over those that are not. Is that P2W? Well...its a fine line. Regardless if it is or not, it will be all the ammunition critics need to tear the game's integrity to pieces. I've seen it time & time again. If critics like Angry Joe or Totalbiscuit (both of which I am fond of) do a review on the game, realize there are weapons hidden behind a 15-35 dollar pay wall they will not hesitate to make that public which will deter TONS of potential players/customers.

I mean...we keep seeing this "Pay to be Cool" slogan thrown all over the place, but in reality we have an exclusive bike & weapon sidegrades that alter gameplay hidden behind a paywall. That isn't so much pay to be cool as it is, pay to experience all aspects of the game.

They keep saying allergic to P2W and yet bike is complete example of blatant P2W mechanic.

Imagine Planetside 2 where only founders would have access to harasser.... yea thats P2W.

Yes people want to look cool, they buy cosmetics, look at freaking DOTA 2, ALL HEROES are available to players you can buy only cosmetics that don't affect gameplay in any form.

DOTA 2 raised almost 11 Million just for tournament reward on selling purely cosmetic items with compendium.

Compendium price was 10$ only 2,5$ of each compendium purchase went towards reward poll.

Rest 7,5$ went straight to Valve, be in shock how much money only cosmetic items can bring. There is reason why DOTA 2 and CS:GO are most played games on steam and why Valve is making so much money on them.

Hell if you dont want Valve way go LoL way, sell gameplay altering items but let us acquire those items by playing the game. I can unlock every weapon in Planetside 2 through certs.



Putting gameplay affecting things behind paywall is wrong idea.

This P2W stuff is already hurting their reputation and lowering their income.

They mention Star Citizen and selling 1300$ ships. Well once SC launches you will be able to acquire that 1300$ ship simply by playing the game. Can i get bike in EC simply by playing the game? No...... that is bad idea.

This P2W is only reason why I didn't back this project yet.......

So will anyone at last clarify that to me? If I can obtain something in game just buying it right away with cash, saving myself 3 weeks of godless grinding and in-game currency needed to obtain it the normal way.. Can we say that I have bought myself some advantage over non-paying player or not?

While not having some sidegrade is a bad deal, it is negligible if balanced correctly and not making the game unfair by taking an entire gameplay element away from the hands of other players.

For example, as an SM, you can have 3 options to engage your enemies: Long range, short range and medium range.

• For long range, you will have the Stalker Bolter, Sniper Rifle.
• For medium range, you can use the standard Bolter.
• For short range, you can either equip yourself with a shotgun or a meltagun.

Now, we have 2 store sidegraded bolters:

• One will have high rate of fire and come with the cost of very light damage and inaccuracy, making it's only suited for close range combat. Player who like to use Bolter for close range combat can buy this gun, but he will have no advantage whatsoever over the ppl who don't. Because his bolter is only as good as, if not a bit worse than the Shotgun and the Melta. He will have another option to engage in CQC, but he won't be the only can do that job or any better than other people using shotgun or melta for that job.
• The other is a bolter which will have better range than the standard one with less round, lower rate of fire. Therefore you can only use it for long range because you will be dominated by the people with standard bolters at medium range. However, you will perfrom similarly or worse than the people with Stalker bolter and Sniper Rifle.

That's the way we can make it work, make it DIFFERENT, but not UNIQUE. Sidegraded weapons only ruin the game if they are the only ones can do a job that no other weapons can, such as a Sniper Rifle with longer range but fire slower. That Sniper Rifle is not actually sidegraded because it adds a whole new gameplay element to the player who uses it. He now is the only who can engage at farther range than anyone else who don't have the same gun. That is an unfair advantage, that is P2W.

Alright, so on the flip side why would anyone buy them if they're worse at the job than the guns already in game? It's more likely that people will buy the weapons if there's a tangible advantage (if they're to include stats at all, as opposed to being mere skins), not to turn one gun in to another - and bE know that. Considering bE want to compare a bike to a damn Rhino, and call that a side grade, then the differences between weapons may very well be equally as extreme. That's why I'm skeptical about this whole affair.

If the stat differences actually turn out to be minor, then fair enough - though if that's the case then why bother making them with stats at all? They'd be better off just getting rid of this dodgy looking side grade crap, make them cosmetics and be done with it.

And another way I look at it is what if I actually want the skin for my weapon, but I won't buy it because it turns my (for example) bolter in to a pseudo-sniper, which doesn't suit my play style? I then miss out on that skin because it comes with stupid stats, and they miss the sale.

No matter how I look at it, as it stands right now, I can't see how this is going to go well for the game.