This "hastily thrown-together, unplanned business interview in a crowded, chaotic environment" has not said anything different from the things the devs have previously said in a not-so-hastily thrown-together, planned business interview in a nurturing and supportive environment. Miguel has even used the Rhino vs 2 seater bike comparison before. This is not new. This argument has been revisited for months now and this article is only another catalyst for its return. Because this is an argument that needs to be had sooner rather than later and yet the devs consider it a closed matter because they had a single ambiguous poll about it.
As for buying this stuff with the founder pack, a single look at the badge next to my avatar should tell you that this has long since been done. I am not worrying about myself here but rather voicing the concerns of very many other people who have actively chosen to boycott this game because of this shit. It is in my best interest to have people to play with as well as a fancy bike, not to alienate everyone for the sake of said bike.
You have to understand that no information you seem to so desperately pine for matters here. It is the core philosophy that is reprehensible and unjust.
Also as a small divergence, no form of vehicle customization has been confirmed yet. All the recent livestreams have spoken about how the team doesn't yet know for sure how vehicle customization will work or if it will work at all so statements like "and each of these vehicle types are supposedly going to have a massive tree of customization options" is a bit premature even if all signs point to yes.

That's very noble of you to want to spend money to get the bike for yourself, but good luck trying to Robin Hood the thing for everyone else to have. I have the utmost confidence that there will be other FAV vehicles in-game, but they will just not look like the current one. That's kinda why you spent money and others don't have to.

The devs saying "the bike currently in the RT store will not be available to F2WAAGH! players" is true likely because there will be other bikes/FAVs available, but not exact copies. If the devs haven't read this thread, then hopefully they will pick up that players are wanting a multi-seater FAV option available to unlock in-game (which, again, I have the utmost confidence it will happen because there are tons of different bikes across the Imperium).

I understand discussion, but I couldn't help but immediately think its a flame war when we have some saying "let's speculate" and others saying "I threw my money at the devs, why aren't things happening".

Btw, the apples and oranges remark regarding how players spend/withold their money was directed towards those that are upset because:

Whereas we have zero in-game knowledge of the heresy weaponry (and barely any knowledge of the generic weaponry, which you better believe will be changing over the next year), so its a baseless accusation to call anything P2W when the founders, and eventually the rest of the community, are the bottom line for if a weapon is too strong in too many situations. Having certain weapons be better in certain scenarios than others (i.e. Devastator vs. Assault) does not make them P2W, you just have to know to avoid weapons at their deadliest and destroy them at their weakest. That is why there is going to be such a large variety of weaponry. #NotCorraDurry

I Copy/pasted this from 1st post
Miguels answer:

I do not see f2waaagh players mentioned here or anywhere in his answers. It`s not hard putting other FAV into the game but can they put FAV that is close to bike/eldar board (2seat vehicle with same or similar size, same or similar stats like speed, durability, etc. and same weapons)? + They are already comparing bike to rhino (that makes sense to you?) and to me that sounds like they don`t have other plans about putting something else into game, something that could be used instead of a shop bike/board.

If i missed something feel free to let me know ^^

I`m fine with people buying weapons from shop (weapon+special skin) as long as others can unlock it in game (weapon + normal skin) but so far it seems like they want to make shop customers feel special by not putting weapons with same stats in game as unlockables. Still cant remember 1 game that succeeded after going this way.

Nothing really new with this interview but I have to say on the whole very happy with the direction Miguel and the dev team are taking the game!

For some reason, I think Miguel is directly specifying the current RT bike, especially when he said "it will not be available in-game", but that does not necessarily mean there won't be other bikes available in-game. It would just be silly if there was only one bike per faction, only utilized by founders, of which will likely consist of <10% of the total pop.

Sorry for the confusion in my posts. Currently fighting a severe head cold and just wanted to bring a heated discussion back down to real-world terms.

I, too, am fine with people buying weapons, and their accompanying skins, so long as the general weapon type will be available. Personally, I would love to be able to unlock tons of patterns, sidegrades, weapons, gear, and other equipment in-game, but at the same time it seems like a sensible business practice to say "Pay $40 for this massive MMO, TPS game with the capability to help us shape it in specific directions along the way, but if there are numerous requests for additional things to be added, then we're probably going to charge a little extra since it wasn't a part of our original scope".

Even though BE is being incredible amounts more transparent than other game dev groups in the past, its impossible for any business, company, corporation, etc. to be 100%, or even 99% transparent, because we live in a dynamic world that is controlled by the opinions of people rather than cold, hard facts.

All this argument about side-grades it sound's like a bunch of historians arguing which final production model historical WW2 tank was the best (American M4 Sherman, British Cromwell, German PzIV, or the Russian T-34.) Then if the T-34 was locked behind a pay wall, everyone crying pay to win because the T-34 is a different play style locked behind a pay wall despite all the tanks available (M4, Cromwell, PzIV) are all equal but slightly different.

AND THAT is largely my point. even if "variety = advantage" which is not an objective truth but instead is a situational potentiality, the potential advantage is likely to be so small as to make arguing about it idiotic. I mean until there is more of this in place and we can see how it works it really is just howling at the moon for all the validity of the arguments for or against.

I'm skeptical of this whole sidegrade thing and they're not helping themselves with that because, at the minute, there's insufficient information on it. Yet, despite that, they're selling the game. Is it P2W? To me it is sorta looking like it might be, but I'll reserve judgement for the time when there's more information available. To an outsider this is a company with virtually no reputation; selling $450 founders packs for a game which is barely started, let alone close to finished; selling $35 guns; selling weapons with different stats from those found in game, and trying to compare a tank to a bike as a side grade to excuse the fact that one is behind a pay wall. If I was that outsider, and this wasn't based on 40k, I would have probably rolled my eyes and moved on.

I'm 100% fine with cosmetics, but when you start talking about being able to purchase weapons/vehicles/items with different stats, which would presumably be better in certain circumstances/play styles then that's too much for me. By restricting that sort of choice, you can reduce a player's tactical flexibility or even, to a degree, bar him from a certain play style - and I don't like the thought of that.

A Rhino vs an attack bike isn't a side grade, it's apples and oranges. I can't see how they compare, that's like saying it's ok to make players have to buy thunder hammers because they're not bolt pistols, but a bolt pistol can kill too, so that's alright. Even if I owned the bike, I'd want to use the Rhino if I'm trying to ferry a squad of guys. So as an owner of the bike I can choose which to bring, based on the situation, where others can't because they didn't cough up the extra money to buy that item. That is a tactical advantage, and in my view that is pay to win.

This skepticism is why I have no badge beside my name. This business model, and the very fact it's available to buy so soon raises alarm bells for me - but it's the lack of clarity which made me close the browser when I considered the purchase.

4 of them are similar, but not the same, 1 tank could fill a role where the others cannot. Like t-34 can do hit and run tactic cuz it's more mobile and harder to hit than the rest of them. And if it's locked behind a pay wall and only a fraction of players who pay can get it, then it's P2W. In PvP game like this, having more options means more power, like a player who bought a Store Stalker bolter which has farther range than the normal Stalker Bolter, he of course has more advantages, advantages that can't be obtained by other players if they don't buy items from store. That is downright P2W, no matter how dev screams and sings that that bolter is just a sidegrade because it has lower rate of fire, who gives a shit about rate of fire when he can hit me and I can't hit him.

If there is a gun in the shop, I can just buy it and go, that's my point! Others have to grind for their gun, which may be better in the end, but meanwhile I have an advantage. And when you can buy power, no matter how strong it is, it's called P2W.
Your idea about shop guns being weaker than normal ones contradicts what Miguel said in OP. He says the shop guns just have the same stats, but switched places.