Yes i know its profitable i have been under triple digits as well with a game named Exteel, wonderful gem of a game not popular enough though.

If we know its profitable what would make it work for EC? how should they display it? should we copy paste a game who has cosmetics at 30 dollars a piece?

Really, lorewise, tyranids are mindless animals that follow the orders of the hive: thats why the syneptic and the instincts exist in the game. Also, only few creautres, as I said, are able to work on their own. Also, again, even if we made a whole faction based around those creatures, tyranids, right now, are used for balance, and creating a mindless NPC faction that attacks anyone who is winning, and a playable tyranid faction that can win, will be nonsense.

The whole bullets thing really bothers me, but since you used that, I'll label the bullets individually. Paragraphs are just so much better.

1. Not pay to win, just pay for more ways to play the game. The Dreadnoughts themselves are not simply more powerful, or less powerful. Just different. Tactical advantage? Not so much, just kill people this way, or kill people that way.
2. Great!
3. Well, stats are one thing, and specialization is another. Consider Shotguns and Sniper Rifles in FPS's. People use Shotguns in certain ways, people use Snipers in the other. But you can't take them all. You don't get all the tactical flexibility of having every type of weapon available, you must commit to a choice. The thing about FPS's, are that some people will always go for the 'best' weapon, and some people will use the 'coolest'. That's why there are 'twitch snipers' and people who use the AK-47. The RT Dreads might not be the MSR (best gun).
4. I think you were missing the point I was making. Being an asymmetric game, having tactical flexibility/advantage is the name of the game. Playing one faction vs another means that the 'increased tactical flexibility' you are referring to is basically like saying, "don't forget to breath." You won't take away a different factions tactical flexibility whether or not you pay for anything.
5. Most likely I won't be buying any skins. I always saw the 'Bacon' camo in CoD, but was like... I have to pay real money for this?
6. See, I actually think an Exp. boosting Dread would be pay to win. Hmm... you know, paying for different patterns of Dreads won't give you more powerful weapons, just more focus or variety.

I can really sum it up so much more easily than all that^ typing:
Buying different patterns of Dreadnoughts isn't pay to win. It's pay more to play more. And by saying that this IS pay to win, it basically takes away from what pay to win actually is: paying money to become more powerful than others. With Rogue Trader, you're not paying to be unfair, you're paying to have more fun while playing the game. This is because of variety. The 'advantage' isn't unfair at all. It's like saying the DLC gun from Black Ops 2 is pay to win, because you got killed with it. We really shouldn't be arguing whether or not this is pay to win, but rather if you want this in the game. That's the best thing for everyone here.

I think the base game itself in a modern model to be open to a wider audience... in other words bring in new types of people who didnt game before would be keeping that base game free. Id still sell a special version like a collectors edition, thats always fun! I think that is what doomed AION some game that charged but meh I couldnt be bothered to find out. Since well video games in the industry well 99% are junk honestly so convincing most to gamble and pay for a game and a monthly fee is a bit much.

As i said, we can have "minor" cosmetics (a different mouthpiece or a flag on the shoulder plate for Marines, a different shape on the wraithbone armor of an Eldar Farseer, etc...) that would be like €1 each, and "major" ones (a custom Thunder Hammer or a unique Power Sword for Marines, a really cool skin for a full-body Eldar armor, etc...) that would cost €10+

@ GraciousEel761
Correct me if I'm wrong, but to summarize our disagreement:

My understanding of your opinion is that buying asymmetrical progression with cash is not pay-to-win because the tier purchased is of equivalent power, even if it's stats or gear are not exactly identical; and this in spite of the fact that character progression is largely based on asymmetrical options, which you bought with cash.

This contrasts with my opinion, which is that buying asymmetrical progression with cash is indeed pay-to-win because even though the tier may be of equivalent power, the stats or gear are not identical; when this is coupled with the fact that character progression is largely based on asymmetrical options, you effectively bought your character's increase in combat potential with cash.

This quote highlights our disagreement; I believe that having the potential to kill in different ways is indeed an advantage because character progression is based off of gaining these different options, which you want to simply buy. Having more options is more powerful than having less options, so you are buying power.

I am of the opinion that simply having that option available is an advantage over not having that option, which would be the case if the option was sold for cash and one didn't want to pay. However, if one already earned the option to field a specific gear, and then could a also purchase an identical or inferior version with some cool swag, then this doesn't affect the combat value potential of said gear. So specifically, if the RT Dreads' gun had, at most, identical stats in each respect plus some swag, and not some completely different option like sniper/shotgun, then it would be cool.

What you do take away is the balance in the degree of flexibility that your character is supposed to maintain with each other character, because where you could purchase a specific option, they potentially could not. Imagine that there were as many cash purchasable progression options as not. A player willing to buy progression options simply has more potential options than another player who is not willing. Again, even though each of those options may equivalent, if they are not at most identical, then those options actually represent an advantage because having more ways to play means you can play better, and simply by virtue of having paid cash.

Frankly, I haven't seen how experience works in this game yet, so it may actually be a pay-to-win function. I simply would compromise that there are too many people who would want it, and I assume that it would be less of a pay-to-win function than buying actual progression options with cash. Also again, buying more focused or varied gear/stats/dreads/etc. is actually buying more options.

I agree that we may simply be arguing semantics, i.e. the definition of pay-to-win. I think we each have stated very clearly our opinions and differences on the matter. Of more importance, I agree again, is the argument of whether we want this in the game. I simply include in my definition of pay-to-win, and what I don't want in the game, the subtle combat advantages of having more options, which you deny as any advantage at all and do indeed want in the game.

Thoughts?

Or the Behaviour Interactive team could implement that content in a thoughtful manner and make unique weapons and armor a mile stone of character progression, rather than a representation of how much money you coughed up.

There is no good cash shop. It simply doesn't exist. As Vigil has pointed out, a cash shop is cancer. All cancer is bad. Some types are worse than others, but any type isn't good.

I meant Unique only visually; stat-wise they are exactly equal to the standard ones. It is very hard to maintain a game that has to be constantly developed and maintained with one-time payments; what is better, a cosmetics-only shop or monthly fees? Hint: it is the one which isn't mandatory.

It would be pretty cool to know that resources are not being spent making the in-game store more profitable where resources could instead be spent improving the gameplay or making expansions. This issue of how EC should be funded is tricky. I mentioned before an optional support function where we can vote with money (and perhaps an in game resource representing community involvement!) on development priorities; this could both help fund the game and almost guarantee the developers can give to their supporting community exactly what it wants from the game.

@Beast and others involved in the voting/donation discussion-

what if the Dev team posted benchmark cost ceilings for the development of content on the website. Then, they allowed contributers to donate towards the content they wanted and when the "bar" was full... it would be worked on.

Example: The cost to develop a Black Templars content pack would be $50,000 in production costs (Just an example figure I'm not going to pretend to even know what the actual figure would be). There would be a progress bar in game and the website and players/contributers could choose to direct money at it. When the benchmark is achieved the content would be developed and then released to the "contributers". It could also be bought by people later. This would ensure the fees are covered and profit is made.. ect... Just a thought.. could be hogwash.. what do you think?