ya know some people say: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. But i am more of a realist and believe its a equal combination of both. Someone got greedy and thought he could get through with it. Who dunno and honestly now i dont care about it as its gone.
why do you have to assume that? these devs have shown they are unique--they are by far the most open, and actually take into account what people have in mind. also, stop complaining if you've bought the damn founders pack. seriously. take your negativity and leave, or stop. this is not constructive at all, and isn't helping anyone.
youre not my boss but for now Miguel has spoken, and there is no need to disscuss anymore, the "negative people" won
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I feel like this post is somewhat dead after Miguel's "post-mortem" post. And I admittedly skipped from about page 8 to page 15. Behavior heard the complaint about items/side-grades/alt-heroes being character specific... they're going to change it so anything bought on the store isn't forced upon only just one character (aka moneygrabbing and forcing people to buy multiples of an item for multiple characters), but is available to any character under the registered account. I think that's a win for everybody involved. We had an issue... it was debated... they listened and did what appears to be relatively fair towards we the consumers. The Heresy-era items... I get why some folks are frustrated at the cost, but if Games Workshop says "make it really limited" then that's what Behavior has to do. GW is lord of W40K, after all.
You're confusing unlocks with founder's item purchases, the RT shop stuff are item sales not unlocks at all, unlocks come from spending XP in game.
I swear to god, none of these new people know how to fucking read. These items are pretty much cosmetic. They are not end game tier equipment, not even close.
Exactly that, you don't need to spend any points on any of the RT gear at all and if you do you will have exactly the same things (with different skins and a bit of asymmetric balancing) as everyone that hasn't bought a single thing and is using the starting equipment that comes with the game. So it's not even about fully equipping your characters, it's about do you want your character to have a cool looking sword or not? But that cool looking sword is going to be no better than a bog standard chainsword that everyone else is using.
I hope you don't mind but I've slightly edited your post. Note how the meaning has stayed entirely the same. As to the items being purely cosmetic...we're not too sure at this point...the Dev's aren't too sure at this point. Miguel certainly doesn't think they are. He has stated that the Vyper will be a cool and different thing to a Rhino. The vyper can carry far fewer people, is less armoured but faster. That is a distinct difference. On the other hand we have the Dev's stating that...I guess I would call them 'functionally similar' items will be available to non-Founders once the game goes live. That could mean everybody gets access to: A Vyper with a different skin, or A Vyper that is somehow different (it has a fighting platform instead of the turret gun, f.e.x.) Something that you can carry other people around it but isn't a Vyper. I assume that this means I as a Founder can have the Outcast Ranger while a non-Founder would be able to either give a basic class a sniper rifle (so perhaps Dark Reapers or Dire Avengers), or get access to a similar-yet-different class. I believe The Big M said it is Pay2Cool, rather than Pay2Win. Add in that we have old quotes that Founders stuff would become 'general release' after game launch - but that that now seems to have changed. and I think it is understandable that some people are a bit confused. Others are perhaps questioning the idea of e.g. Vypers being locked away to Founders. They are asking questions such as: does this give an in-game advantage? Shouldn't such an iconic vehicle be available to all players?
