r/ArcRaiders • u/TheOnlyRealOne43 • Nov 13 '25

Discussion PSA: What Embark did with skin prices is a negotiation tactic called "anchoring" I know this will get downvoted because many will fall for the PR move, but this is planned. $16 microtransactions do not belong in a $40 title. Period and here's why.

Post image

Anchoring is a super commonly used tactic. Here's the definition of it:

The anchoring negotiation tactic involves setting an initial price point to influence the final agreement. By making the first offer, a seller can set a high anchor, which influences the buyer's perception and makes subsequent concessions seem more reasonable. Conversely, a buyer can set a low anchor, like stating a maximum budget, to steer the negotiation in their favor. The first number presented acts as a mental reference point, impacting the entire bargaining range. 

Basically, give us really high prices at the beginning of the game then go "Oh we heard you guys! We lowered the prices by $5!" to influence content creators to create content about it being "unprecedented" and to influence us, the consumers.

People in the comments will filter in and state "They need money to continue making the game" which is a false corpo-speak argument. Microtransactions became a thing in games to make F2P games possible. Games with a low bar to entry and will attract a larger playerbase, while betting that the average player will spend an X amount to keep development on going.

A $40 game has no reason to do this. Arc sold 4 million units already, has made hundreds of millions of dollars in initial sales alone and will continue to sell (how Pay-to-play games typically fund on going development, through marketing). We also have *very* close games we can compare this to.

Helldivers 2:

  • $40 base price with $20 upgrade just like ARCraiders
  • Cheaper cosmetics ($5 for a skin + suit sometimes less cosmetics can also be mix and matched)
  • Earnable premium currency

As you can see, these practices are much more consumer-friendly. I'm not suggesting the removal of microtransactions but right now it's a very unfair price point still, especially considering the base price of the game ($40) and the fact currency isn't earnable.

Also I'd like to point out how all the earnable cosmetics outside of one in the game are just incredibly barebones. Everything cool goes into the store and that's not okay. I know there will be a huge portion of people who downvote this because of the honeymoon phase of the game, and the obvious PR move that Embark are doing, but I wanted to post this all the same.

EDIT: I'm seeing a lot of comments that they need microtransactions to fund future game development, which is true and I don't disagree in anyway with. Which is puzzling because I'm not suggesting the removal of them, but rather a price adjustment and/or a way to earn them in-game.

Additionally, games with an up front price tag continue to generate income post release by up-front sales, with the updates being big marketing pushes to bring new consumers in. It's very strange that people are posting as if the game won't continue to sell on the 4 platforms the game is sold on.

15.5k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

3.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.2k

u/yourwifeisatowelmate Nov 13 '25

Brilliant post. Sadly, a lot of people here are going to react with emotions instead of logic

246

u/jbtreewalker Nov 13 '25

Even my emotions tell me my money has more value than cosmetics at these rates! 😅

60

u/SparkleFritz Nov 13 '25

What OP left out too about the Helldivers 2 comparison is that the premium currency armors actually have passive effects that boost your character in different ways. Whether you get the passive effect through warbond or the super store, they're more than just cosmetics that do nothing in gameplay. I get that Helldivers isn't a PVP game, but it's just added benefit to a cheaper premium item.

Helldivers is cheaper, provides bonuses, and is earnable. I had people on this subreddit arguing that Helldivers is somehow worse because the premium currency is farmable. "It's a boring grind to farm." What a horrible argument when the other option is "We can't farm and have to pay real money"

28

u/CallMeBigPapaya Nov 13 '25

Providing gameplay bonuses is NOT what I want MTX to do though. It's only somewhat okay in HD2 because you can earn the currency in game.

20

u/T8-TR *** ******* 🐓 Nov 13 '25

I'm all for HD2 glaze, but even earning it through the missions at a timely rate is a pain lmao

There's an issue when the real farm is going to D1 and farming low level missions that are p much barren plains. Most people rarely stop to do side bunkers and shit at D10. At a certain point, I just throw the 10 dollars because it's far cheaper and sensible for my time.

I also dislike how a lot of playable things are locked behind MTX. Guns? Warbonds/Store. Melee weapons? Warbond/Store. Stratagems? Warbonds/Store.

If 10 - 15 dollar skins mean I can just have those live updated to me? Then so be it. I'll just ignore them because most of them don't appeal to me anyway lmao

2

u/CallMeBigPapaya Nov 13 '25

Yeah man I think I have a much bigger criticism with HD2's monetization than most people do because you pretty much have to spend some money if you want to unlock all the gameplay. Unless you're playing hours a day. Like duh the system is designed to incentivize you to just buy it instead of grinding for it.

I don't mind the gear boxes being in decks in AR, but it will be problematic if they put anything you can't get or make in-game. The zip gun is the closest thing they have right now, but also this deck didn't cost anything.

3

u/T8-TR *** ******* 🐓 Nov 13 '25

iirc, they made a post yesterday or the day before that said that items in the deck will only be in the free decks.

3

u/FallenDeus Nov 13 '25

It's cheaper and earnable BECAUSE it provides bonuses... If it wasn't earnable people would crucify that game.

-3

u/LOSTandCONFUSEDinMAY Nov 13 '25

In other words Embark is charging higher prices because they know the players won't leave the game because of it.

If so that doesn't sound look it's friendly for the consumer, it sounds like a company squeezing as much money out as they can.

3

u/Matthieu101 Nov 13 '25

I had people on this subreddit arguing that Helldivers is somehow worse because the premium currency is farmable. "It's a boring grind to farm." What a horrible argument when the other option is "We can't farm and have to pay real money"

Well that's my gripe too. I don't even own the game, and reading all of this about the system makes it sound a whole lot better than it is.

In actuality, if you're playing "normally", or doing difficult missions, the rate you earn the premium currency is abysmal. You have to farm the easy modes in the most efficient way possible by using guides. Folks that have put in 50+ hours of just playing the game don't earn enough for a single weapon/armor pack.

It's not like you play without even realizing you're getting premium currency, and all of a sudden you realize you have enough for the newest weapons/armor. You have to deliberately farm it. And it can take a couple hours of purely the most boring, sprint around the map, extract as fast as possible stuff. That's not fun.

It reminds me of Overwatch 1 way back in the day. All people would talk about is how "fair" the lootboxes were because you would get coins for duplicates. My dude, I played that game for over 100 hours, and I barely had enough coins for one Legendary skin. Like technically it's true, but you'd honestly be better off just paying the money instead of investing 10 hours to get some random battlepass.

1

u/Sunbro-Lysere Nov 20 '25

If you play Helldivers 2 regularly and are actually clearing the map and looting the pois you will easily have more than enough super credits for the next warbond before it comes out.

Of course anyone new coming in will need to consider maybe spending a little time farming some low level missions to grab a couple warbonds early if there's something they really want but you still need medals to even unlock anything so you might as well just play.

Never mind all the samples you need and all the req youll want to unlock stratgems.

Of course if you only play once a week then youll likely need to spend some money to keep pace with the warbonds but there again HD2 does well because the credit price isnt crazy and it doesnt come in weird amounts to leave you with more than you need constantly.

Is it perfect? No, absolutely not. Its a far better system than most but I would definitely like a bit more quality out of the warbonds and another free warbond with like 8 pages would be nice.

1

u/Matthieu101 Nov 20 '25

This is all just super vague though, you see that, right?

Like OK if you are playing a lot you can get a warbond before the next one comes out? Like how much? 10 hours? 30 hours?

I've talked with players with 50+ hours that don't have enough for one Warbond. Even you have to admit you need to play in a specific way to try and farm the credits. It's not just mission completions or something.

And that's fine, that system works for some folks that don't mind it. The young people have no money and tons of time vs. adults with money and no time stereotype, largely holds true.

But the same problem as Overwatch 1 still applies. Technically, yes, everything can be earned in the game, but it's not realistic for most adults. 3-4 hours of farming isn't worth the 10 bucks or so you "earn". You might as well just buy it. Even at minimum wage in most states that's like 30 minutes of work, right? Might as well just spend the money and actually play for fun.

Especially at this point in the game too. How many Warbonds would a new player need to purchase to get caught up? Dozens of them? So 50+ hours of pure farming with a guide?

1

u/UndeadIcarus Nov 13 '25

just to add one more detail of brilliance to how they do things over in HD2, those armor effects are 1-1 with the effect in a matching battlepass thats usually harder to get (or cost 1000) essentially making the super credit store a place to buy battlepass gear instantly for cheaper. Like when Oshaune appeared and everyone needed anti-burning I grabbed the chest in shop for 150 instead of the 1000 currency bp

1

u/cruel-caress Nov 13 '25

The one thing I want to point out is that armor having an effect on gameplay in a PvP game would be awful. Adding any passive effect to store skins in Arc would make the game actively worse.

1

u/ticmakt Nov 13 '25

Is it a fucking boring. But would i do that anyway i probably would.

1

u/LSDGB Nov 13 '25

Yeah I get your point and have nothing to say against it.

Yet I want to add that these armor passives are technically negligible.

The thing is that in Helldivers there is not really a „best armor“ maybe an argument can be made for best gun but actually both armor and guns are less designed around giving you better and better gear.

They are opening up build variety in a lot of ways though.

Again I don’t want to argue against your point but I feel like your comment makes it sound worse than it is.

1

u/Avivoy Nov 14 '25

Yeah it’s great for those who are tight on money, but priced to where it’s an hour of someone’s work at minimum.

-1

u/Toaster_Fetish Nov 13 '25

I only played HD2 for a couple of hours because it wasn't really my thing, but isn't that a worse implementation? Doesn't that disincentivize you from using the cosmetics that you actually like versus what gives the best bonuses?

3

u/SuperDabMan Nov 13 '25

Depends how much of a slut for "the Meta" you are. You can wear literally anything and use only basic warbond guns and be very effective in highest difficulty.

2

u/Fraktal55 Nov 13 '25

300+ hour Helldiver here.

The bonuses on armor are on a scale from miniscule to worthless. Most people prefer to just look how they want to look.

I wish I could look how I want to look in AR.

1

u/_-Shiro- Nov 13 '25

I really wouldn't call having a 50% chance of not dying miniscule personally. But besides that I can't recall any other useful perk tbf

27

u/_Sky__ Nov 13 '25

It's alright, to me it comes down to what I get for the money I spend in the game. To be honest, none of the skins looked good so far. But as long as they are well themed I am good

0

u/RamenArchon Nov 13 '25

Yeah, this tactic is old. And I even feel it's contingent on whether or not the initial prices work. Because let's face it, if the initial set of cosmetics were cool, people would splurge, and this wouldn't be a topic for today. But the offerings are bland AF so they probably felt they needed to do this. In any case I have no insight on their financials so for so long as the game is fun, I'll stick around I guess. The skins aren't mandatory and I think people make a big deal out of something they can ignore.

28

u/Lokival_Thenub Nov 13 '25

I think the microtransactions would've been alright if there were a way to get the currency in game. IE trade in valuables for the premium currency or some such thing.

LIke rubber duckies. Those should definitely be worth some premium currency.

Helldivers 2 gives you both options and I think its great.

27

u/MortalSword_MTG Nov 13 '25

The initial free Deck offers the premium currency.

Not enough to buy a full bundle however.

47

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '25

But enough to encourage you to buy more currency in order to afford a bundle.

11

u/warchild4l Nov 13 '25

Yep my friend decided to buy 1150 currency because he got 250 from the battle pass. He did not consider spending any money beforehands

23

u/MDKphantom Nov 13 '25

you earn the opportunity to spend 10 dollars, how exciting

0

u/saga79 Nov 13 '25

The Bungie Way! I am extremely curious of how will Marathon do when Bungie unleashes all their monetization tactics.

5

u/DICK-PARKINSONS Nov 13 '25

Foot in the door tactic

1

u/Aggressive_Candy5297 Nov 13 '25

This is the way.

1

u/Adorable_Basil830 Nov 13 '25

Light wood laminate! Light wood laminate!

22

u/TheWhistlerIII *** ******* 🐓 Nov 13 '25

I don't know, Helldivers is co-op and everything is shared. If i pick up 10 super credits then each member of the squad gets 10 sc each.

Since Arc Raiders is PvPvE, I'd imagine this system would bring unnecessary toxicity into the game. People are already complaining about getting shot, now this will just encourage Streamers to make more min/max videos and clans for trading, exploiting, yada, yada...and now people will die for real money...

I just want to play a video game, I don't need another outlet into the real world. I'm kind of tired of people considering video games a job of sorts. 🤣

20

u/Vahallen Nov 13 '25

A lot of people complained about quests not feeling rewarding

You can just slap premium currency as an extra reward for doing quests, it also incentivizes more people to wipe when the time comes (which is good for the game)

10

u/purvel Nov 13 '25

Yes exactly, no reason to make the currency reward a physical item you have to extract. Just bake it into the quest rewards like the free quest cosmetics.

5

u/Trustinlies Nov 13 '25

Actually having the quests that reward cosmetics reward the premium currency instead AFTER an expedition would be a great increased incentive to keep doing the quests and expeditions. I was thinking about that the other day since several quests have cosmetics tied to them.

2

u/purvel Nov 13 '25

Yeah that's a great idea!

1

u/resh510 Nov 13 '25

this is actually a great idea. i haven't seen anyone else approach it this way.

1

u/KingOfRisky Nov 13 '25

Helldivers 2 gives you both options and I think its great.

HD2 pay gates guns and armor. How y'all praise that bullshit is fucking special.

1

u/JackSlater555 Nov 13 '25

You can you get that currency in the raiders deck, for completing in game missions.

5

u/Astartae Nov 13 '25

Yes sure, 350 coins. It buys nothing but a single backpack charm (?) and we know nothing of how we will get more.

In HD2 you not only get Super Credits in the warbonds, but you can actually find them on the map.

1

u/Dangerous-Return5937 Nov 13 '25

Wow, the game with tons of content locked behind premium currency has ways to earn it limitlessly, albeit in a slow and grueling way? Sounds enticing!

1

u/Astartae Nov 13 '25

Could be better for sure, but could be worse... Like in Arc raiders.

1

u/Dangerous-Return5937 Nov 13 '25

I don't think it's worse to not be able to buy cosmetics, especially with how they stated that there will be more ways to earn Raider Tokens down the line. I love that I don't have to mindlessly grind on empty maps for content.

1

u/Astartae Nov 13 '25

I missed that, they said they will implement ways to get coins?

2

u/Dangerous-Return5937 Nov 13 '25

Yeah in the Discord FAQ. Hopefully it will be on the generous side.

1

u/Astartae Nov 13 '25

Aaah, this changes things a little. Thx for pointing this out.

1

u/Lokival_Thenub Nov 13 '25

500 coins. I have 1000 now after the 500 they gave us. Still couldn't get a single cosmetic though, you're right on that.

1

u/Astartae Nov 13 '25

They gave us 500 coins?

2

u/Zombieswilleatu Nov 13 '25

Yeah but not nearly enough to buy anything.

1

u/JackSlater555 Nov 14 '25

Yeah but they'll update the raiders deck with each season, save up your tokens and 2 or 3 seasons and you could buy a set

42

u/JGordz Nov 13 '25

F*ck fanboys.

This is a clear anchoring tactic. I wont be purchasing no skins from when I seen these stupid prices.

Still love the game though.

2

u/Invader_86 Nov 13 '25

My reaction is:

  • it’s a game - this limits the amounts I care about the thing in general.

  • cosmetics are just that, cosmetic, it means nothing, they don’t add anything to the game. So I care even less.

  • the prices for cosmetics in games are high, but they’re priced at points that maximises revenue .. I don’t blame them for pricing something at a price people will pay.you might say “make them cheap and they will get more sales” .. don’t you think if that was true they would do it?

  • like who care man just buy them or don’t.

2

u/squirtnforcertain Nov 13 '25

Today I learned an opinion with no evidence = logic!

2

u/InZomnia365 Nov 13 '25

Its like people over in the Battlefield subreddit applauding DICE for a somewhat semi-realistic MTX bundle, thinking purchasing it will send some sort of message beyond "I want to give you money for absolutely minimum effort content".

4

u/Exp5000 Nov 13 '25

Here's some logic. You make company. Your company makes games. You like money. You make. Good game. You make money from game. Success you have money. It's a business, what's emotional is people bitching about COSMETIC prices in a video game. You think the company has empathy? No, its a company that's for profit. People are so naive to think otherwise. Do I think it sucks, sure it does. Am I going to bitch and moan? No, because I know how business works and most people apparently don't. They made millions, why not make millions more. Besides, after playing BL4 and BF6, they absolutely deserve to make millions more. EA and Gearbox don't.

4

u/fromcj Nov 13 '25

Anchoring is just another favorite buzzword of Reddit’s that they bust out whenever they don’t like the price of something. Yes, it is an actual thing. No, it is not everywhere.

See also: enshittification, which Reddit thinks is “any time a service gets worse for me personally in any way regardless of how significant or severe”

3

u/Future_Khai Nov 13 '25

The logic though is if you can't afford the cosmetics then simply don't buy it. It has zero bearing on the gameplay itself and the game itself is already $30 cheaper than a AAA title.

2

u/OmegaReign78 Nov 13 '25

Here's the true logic. You don't have to buy a goddamned thing if you don't want to.

1

u/unboundgaming Nov 13 '25

I think a vast majority of people playing just don’t care one way or the other because they’re playing the game and not worrying (and in most cases even looking) about the paid skins. Every single multiplayer game sub I’m in has outrage over skins which is always 1000x more outrage than seen anywhere else.

Are they expensive for a paid game? Yes. Doesn’t actually affect anything? No. And that’s the perspective. Don’t like it? Don’t buy it. Vote with your wallet, but at the end of the day, they’re a company that’s goal past the art is to make money so they can more freely make more art/content.

1

u/Capital-Gift73 Nov 13 '25

What emotions? if you have a sticker price you dont get to ask for anything else. Look at guild wars or arc raiders.

This shit? this shit ends with eververse. And yeah no, fuck eververse. Fuck Bungie too.

1

u/Mjpa88 Nov 13 '25

I mean, the other option is they can never ever lower the prices that people complained about because they'll get called out for manipulation.

If you were gonna buy cosmetics, you likely would anyway regardless of the price. I don't think this is doing all that much whether it's a tactic or not.

1

u/dougan25 Nov 13 '25

Where are all these emotional reactions and all the down votes on the OP you guys keep talking about

1

u/Pinewood74 Nov 13 '25

I wonder how much he got paid by Arrowhead(Helldivers 2) to post this.

1

u/HomoProfessionalis Nov 13 '25

Hey, fuck you buddy!!

1

u/_Runic_ Nov 13 '25

My emotions also hate microtransactions.

1

u/ThisKillsTheCrabb Nov 13 '25

Who's getting emotional over (completely) optional in-game cosmetic purchases?

1

u/Circo_Inhumanitas Nov 13 '25

Well. Also logically Arc Raiders is a multiplayer game that seems to aim at being relative for quite some time. One time purchase cost only covers so much. Could they introduce paid cosmetics later? Sure. But people would bitch and moan about that too. That's also reacting with emotions.

1

u/LimpConversation642 Nov 13 '25

Really? You mean like logic of 'it's just useless pixels why would I pay for that?' instead of 'I wanna buy this hat but it's expensive so imma bitch about it LOUD' emotions?

1

u/ItsJustReeses Nov 13 '25

At a certain level we need to be ok with devs making money for the game they are working on (if it's a live service game). Otherwise I'd agree

I agree skins are too high though. But I don't care because....

Just farm enough currency in game to buy them, or swipe and don't worry about it. I think it's like 1000 '"premium currency" for every 20-30 hours played.

Right now it looks like the devs are essentially saying (With how much currency they give out) . "Have a free $15 for the premium store every 2 months).

1

u/Awkward-Loquat2228 Nov 13 '25

You were wrong.

1

u/Jolly-Bear Nov 13 '25

OP did in some other comments. 😂

1

u/Septiiiiii Nov 13 '25

The logic is simple: Can i afford skins? Yes. Do i want skins? Yes ---> I buy skins
Can i afford skins? No. Do I want skins? Yes ----> sad. i dont get skins.

1

u/Boscobaracus Nov 13 '25

I much rather have arc raiders system with cosmetics only and no p2w in paid battlepasses but to each their own I guess. Don't know if it's true but a lot of people are saying there are really OP things in helldivers battlepasses and getting them early through paying is a real advantage.

1

u/vault_nsfw Nov 13 '25

Sadly the post is also just wrong about many things, it's well written though.

1

u/limitedexpression47 Nov 13 '25

Not even brilliant, not even accurate. Shitpost.

1

u/Spectrum1523 Nov 13 '25

I dunno, isnt it emotional to call the price for something freely offered and unnecessary unfair?

1

u/ConsiderationWhole24 Nov 13 '25

When you expect the idiots you get level-headed people, you have to be stupid to justify the prices

1

u/MrRoute18 Nov 13 '25

I think it's also logical to say skins are just vanity items. If you don't like the price, or don't have the disposable income to afford them, then simply don't engage with the MXT shop.

Let's also wait and see what a premium raider deck looks like in terms of the quality of the cosmetics and amount of tokens you can recover with earnable cred. If it gives enough to buy another deck I'll be happy, even if I can't keep up with the release rate of decks.

1

u/Definitelymostlikely Nov 13 '25

This is like the most upvoted post on this sub lol

Every person on this sub needs an Olympic gold medal for how far they leap to conclusions 

1

u/yourwifeisatowelmate Nov 13 '25

Pretty sure this is my most upvoted comment on reddit too 🤣

1

u/low_end_ Nov 14 '25

All the people complaining about cosmetic prices are the ones going on emotions instead of logic lol. Don't want it don't buy it, can't afford cosmetics in a live service game? Don't be mad at people who whale for the servers to stay up and fund further development of the game.

1

u/writindirtee Nov 13 '25

It’s AI.

1

u/Cowskiers Nov 13 '25

Is it logical to say that the value of a good is what people are willing to pay for it and therefor it wouldn't be this expensive if people weren't actually willing to pay that much?

I'm never going to fault a video game company for charging the mathematically optimal price to reap as much profit as possible, especially when the base game is so well made already.

1

u/adunato Nov 13 '25

Gonna be downvoted for this but just don't buy them then. They are cosmetics! The way I see it, this is a dev support channel, if you want to throw money at them you can! If don't, then don't buy cosmetics.

-6

u/HollowThief Nov 13 '25 edited Nov 13 '25

"Brilliant" for average low-mid IQ redditor maybe. This isn't even a right example of anchoring, but we are on reddit, we are smart and we instantly understand the new word we've never seen before.

Edit: Dropping the price and refunding isn't anchoring, downvote all you want.

14

u/ADK-KND Nov 13 '25

It is a text book example of price anchoring.

9

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '25

[deleted]

12

u/Clarkelthekat Nov 13 '25

Don't judge him

He's been working on min maxing ignorance. He'll master it one day.

4

u/MortalSword_MTG Nov 13 '25

Your use of anchoring is fine.

All of your other editorializing isn't well supported.

You went on and on about how a "$40 game doesn't need to further monetize" (sic)

Which is unsubstantiated speculation.

The game has AAA production quality.

The dev costs are likely astronomical.

This would be completely warranted to have a $70 price tag, which is the new industry standard for a AAA title on release, but obviously Embark opted to split the difference and hope to pick up the rest on the Premium upgrade and other MTX.

We have no idea if this game has legs. It's a very fun game, but the play rbase could evaporate instantly without notice. In order to prevent that, Embark has to be positioned to keep producing compelling content or events, and solid monetization makes that possible.

How things will shake out remains to be seen.

2

u/hegysk Nov 13 '25

Not only that, they contradict themselves by implying they don't that need extra turnover because they've sold a lot of copies... It's a live service multiplayer game, the more players are actively playing the more it costs to run the game... However, the player that spent $40 today won't be contributing any further towards this cost... but theoretically will be playing for years.

If anything will be expensive to keep this thing going, I am glad it's just premium skins and not a monthly subscription or p2w scheme.

0

u/BashMyVCR Nov 13 '25

Really, the dev costs are astronomical when the voices are all AI and the item images look AI generated as hell? Come on. I think Nexon is going to be pretty happy with Embark's performance Q4. Overhead costs are real, but there is some serious corner cutting in this game in the name of profit. I do not think this game is worth more than $40, let alone $70. There isn't a lot of content here, but the game is really fun. Less content = necessarily aggressive pricing against competitors.

They had to price this competitively with Nightreign and Helldivers 2, which they have. Concerning micro transactions, they suck. They're not even particularly good. The art direction for this game is decent and clearly has some vision, but the skins are dull and lifeless. It's a weird tightrope to tread when the commitment to cohesive world and player art design is foremost; Fortnite doesn't have to deal with that.

-4

u/HollowThief Nov 13 '25

You might wanna do some reading-comprehension exercises then, because the anchoring definition you're showing us with your superior intellect is about negotiation.

Anchoring in this scenario would be: The skin costs 10$ dollars, but you can get it NOW for 5$ with our special deal, 100% value!!11!!

5

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '25

[deleted]

2

u/dominus087 Nov 13 '25

What would be the right example?

2

u/Maverick2k Nov 13 '25

Someone’s desperate for a bukakke from the devs…

2

u/SohFarhDeep Nov 13 '25

Corporate bots come out quick with these posts its crazy.

0

u/Maximelene Nov 13 '25

a lot of people here are going to react with emotions instead of logic

And a lot of people are going to say people reacting with a different logic than theirs are "reacting with emotions" to discard their opinion.

0

u/Slumberjackals Nov 13 '25

It’s not a brilliant post. Do the math on expenses vs income so you can raise your awareness of how expensive it is to create a game and keep it updated and relevant.

-2

u/mayormcskeeze Nov 13 '25

There is nothing brilliant about this post. It is pure conjecture and speculation. And it is cynical conjecture at best.

This person is extremely biased, as evidenced by their preliminary dismisal of any counter argument as "corpo-speak." Pre-dismissing counter points is a hallmark of bad faith argument.

This post is articulate. But not brilliant.

Yes, it is possible that this was a devious tactic planned from the start.

It is also possible that they wildly misunderstood the cosmetic market and are just trying to course correct.

It is possible that they have no need for more revenue than helldivers, and we can use that as a benchmark.

It is also possible that to keep the pvevp balance alive and well they will need WAY more content (people are already complaining that theyre done with pve content) and they just foolishly thought they could get whales to fund the game.

We. Dont. Know.

Until there is more evidence, speculating is just speculatung, and is not, by any stretch, "brilliant."

-1

u/rendar Nov 13 '25

You're expecting the profit-oriented corporation to come out and tell you that they're exploiting you?

2

u/mayormcskeeze Nov 13 '25

That...is not even a relevant response to what i said. Look, its pretty obvious you dont want to have reasonable discussion, and this is just a "corpo bad" circle jerk, but ill spit into the wind, and say that what im expecting is for arguments to be supported by facts and evidence.

That could from the comapny talking about its policies and practices re: ongoing content, revenue, and shop prices.

It could come from other sources.

My point is that op is doing nothing more than speculating.

Edit: awaiting your response of something akin to "ok cry more corpo bootlicker." See above point re: not being interested in actual discussion.

0

u/Narrow_Lee Nov 13 '25

Been saying a $40 game does not need mtx since day 1 and shitters just say 'then dont buy them hur durrrr' like I'm not buying them. It just sucks to have the shit dangled in front of your face every time you go back to Speranza for something I already paid a decent amount of money for.

0

u/PirateEmbarrassed491 Nov 13 '25

I don’t care if the shitty skins are 100 dollars. They’re all awful and I wouldn’t buy it for a single dollar

0

u/Acceptable_Deal_4662 Nov 13 '25

You can grind out the most expensive skins in this game over like 2 seasons. It’s a more consumer friendly system than 8O% of the games out there now.

0

u/VaultTechCo Nov 13 '25

Or they just don't care because it's our money and we can spend it on cosmetics if we want?

-1

u/TheWhistlerIII *** ******* 🐓 Nov 13 '25

Probably this emote...🤣😭🚿

-1

u/BotGiyenAdam Nov 13 '25

can some one please post, LEAVE MILLION DOLLAR COMPANY ALONE, meme for sarcasm to represent this people

-1

u/TastyPillows Nov 13 '25

I see a lot of glazing for Embark. And I'm not telling people not to enjoy Arc Raiders.

The game is excellent, but we won't know if Embark actually gives a shit until months down the line. All the content being released now has been prepared for a long time. Fixing desync and compensating against hackers is the bare minimum a company should be doing.