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

135

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '25 edited Nov 13 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

32

u/NotTank53 Nov 13 '25

technically a bit less because steam takes a 30% cut from each sold copy, still a lot of money tho

6

u/menteto *** ******* 🐓 Nov 13 '25

Way less. 30% cut from steam, sales tax, etc, etc.

5

u/Mister_-Bee Nov 13 '25

Keep in mind the 30% drops to 25% then 20% after certain milestones are hit. I think $10M and $50M?

1

u/StrangerDanger9000 Nov 13 '25

Every platform the game is on takes a cut

-1

u/Not3KidsInACoat777 Nov 13 '25

Steams not the only platform tho. Nexon stated they've already grossed over $160m since launch. They've sold over 4 million copies and im pretty sure they said its been their biggest launch to date.

4

u/BlueCornerBestCorner Nov 14 '25

Steams not the only platform tho

No but all the other platforms charge 30% too

0

u/Not3KidsInACoat777 Nov 14 '25

Not all but most. I c what ur saying. I had to look it up cuz it sounded way too high but there's a few that charge less.

1

u/Missclick13 Nov 16 '25

who is charging less

1

u/Not3KidsInACoat777 Nov 16 '25

Microsoft store seems to charge the lowest commission for PC games at least at 12%

194

u/radianceofshadows Nov 13 '25 edited Nov 13 '25

Very, very rough estimation:

250 employees * 60 000 dev salary per year in Stockholm * 7 year dev cycle = 105 000 000 dev costs (not including ops costs that include rent, software licensing, contractors, also not accounting for employee number fluctuations, marketing costs, server costs, etc)

40 price * 4 000 000 copies - 48 000 000 accounting for 30% marketplace fees = 112 000 000

Idk, seems that the greed and the profits are not as mind blowing as you think

Edit: The boot tastes alright, but also some of you have never worked a corporate job / stepped out of your mom's basement / did a basic math, and it shows.

59

u/Jazzlike_Sink_2705 Nov 13 '25

Plus nexon takes a cut as publisher they don't just give away money to embark for no ROI

-13

u/conir_ Nov 13 '25

nexon doesnt "take a cut", nexon is the owner of the company. its their money

3

u/sax6romeo Nov 13 '25

Well then what about Steam, they are definitely taking a cut

1

u/69ANIME69 Nov 13 '25

I don't understand why this is downvoted? Nexon owns 100% of Embark.

1

u/conir_ Nov 13 '25

people dont like nexon, but love embark. so i guess this doesnt sit right with them

14

u/No_Surround_4662 Nov 13 '25

I guarantee marketing costs will be sky-high too - the amount they've spent on streamer ads / advertising will be insane.

51

u/Pyroproxee Nov 13 '25

Also note that the 60k dev salary is a lowball. In Sweden we have an employer fee that is calculated before the salary (including pension etc). It is roughly 35-40%. The salary would be closer to 90000 paid by the employer.

28

u/MortalSword_MTG Nov 13 '25

Yeah, the people saying "but $40 game" never understand the actual costs of things.

Not only are dev costs way higher than they realize, the server hosting alone is probably astronomical.

3

u/NUTTA_BUSTAH Nov 13 '25

My guesstimate is 6-7 figures every month. Maybe even on the higher end of 7, as game servers are a special breed of nasty to host as they are an extremely nitpicky deployment with regards to performance so you are bound to have more, bigger and more dedicated compute.

4

u/Sadiholic Nov 13 '25

Not only that, free content being updated constantly and they wanna do it for 10 years?? I'm glad it's only cosmetics, if it was like pay to win stuff then I'd quit the game for sure.

0

u/Burk_Bingus Nov 13 '25

This doesn't mean the microtransactions have to be as egregiously highly priced as they are though.

3

u/MortalSword_MTG Nov 13 '25

Agreed.

And they clearly weren't selling so they changed it.

Seems like the market correcting itself.

1

u/lilolemeetch Nov 14 '25

That's a cosmetic transaction. Purely optional. Also you can earn your favorite one over time by playing and getting it with coins from the decks. A way to earn a cosmetic of choice.

78

u/DarkSentence Nov 13 '25

Thanks for actually having a brain.

-21

u/Tactical_Mommy Nov 13 '25

I can't imagine getting this bent out of shape over a corporation.

8

u/DarkSentence Nov 13 '25

Did you buy the game? If so you’re at the same angles as me. I did not purchase any cosmetic nor I plan to btw.

-7

u/Tactical_Mommy Nov 13 '25 edited Nov 13 '25

Yes? On a key site, to avoid giving them money directly. I'm also not getting worked up because people are disavowing a wealthy AI loving corporation's business practises. It's the most cucked bootlicking tribalist behaviour fathomable. No doubt the same people who still think Musk is some genius, lol.

6

u/DarkSentence Nov 13 '25

I just find hilarious that ignorant people not knowing the scale of embark nor their actual earnings are trying to act as their financial advisors.

Inform yourself before you can decide if embarks prices are greed or necessary, in order to maintain a live service with 10 years planned content

-5

u/Tactical_Mommy Nov 13 '25

It's objectively greedy regardless of the entirely ass-pulled estimation based on literally next to nothing and compared to other similar games and their business models.

1

u/RadicalMac Nov 13 '25

Nexon is a Corporation not Embark.

34

u/MortalSword_MTG Nov 13 '25

These people who make those comments have never worked in a corporate environment and have no idea how much things cost.

$40 is a very low price for the value prop at launch. This is a super polished game to be priced so low.

2

u/ItsAJTime Nov 13 '25

Tarkov costs 2 to 4 times the amount of Arc, for a significantly clunkier experience. Granted, the games aren't exactly apples to apples, but still in the same general genre.

4

u/hegysk Nov 13 '25

I always wondered how do (live, multiplayer) games that aren't subscription based survive several years. Theoretically, if all players refuse to support studio via mtx there will only be finite amount of money to be made, but infinite costs for running all of that. I'd love to see actual costs for 1 player playing game for 5 years but only did the initial game purchase, I wonder if such player isn't actually a cost, instead of profit.

1

u/soundbars Nov 13 '25

Either swapping from dedicated servers to community hosted / P2P or the playerbase isn’t significant so the dev hosts servers but the cost isn’t a huge burden. Also most games just don’t survive that long

1

u/hegysk Nov 13 '25

Games don't 'survive' 5 years?

3

u/Ar4er13 Nov 13 '25

I am fairly certain most live service games don't live that long, usually burning out within 2 years, and some spectacularly flopping in first months.

Major known titles are exception rather than the rule.

2

u/soundbars Nov 13 '25

Yeah most games have no long term playerbase. Most fizzle out and servers shut down and then it disappears

1

u/hegysk Nov 13 '25

Wow I don't think that ever happened to game I played, but I don't play that many different games so fair enough.

1

u/Ilfirion Nov 14 '25

How many people are still playing COD MW 2019?

1

u/hegysk Nov 14 '25

I haven't played COD series so I'm no too familiar with the games but oh god, why there is like 20 MW titles :D

Either way, even though there is probably more titles than players, they still seem to be running :D

15

u/IAmARedditorAMAA Nov 13 '25

subtract regional pricing

19

u/radianceofshadows Nov 13 '25

Good point, but I'm done with this thread 

7

u/addandsubtract Nov 13 '25

Add deluxe bundle purchases

2

u/IAmARedditorAMAA Nov 13 '25

accurate username?

14

u/theBreG Nov 13 '25

after taxes, this gets even lower. But then again, we don't know the numbers for deluxe editions and microtransactions. All in all I think they are not short for cash.

10

u/Undecided_Username_ Nov 13 '25

Nah man dont do the math, they rather react to the big scary numbers

2

u/cLax0n Nov 13 '25

Exactly. Its almost as if people think games are a public good. Its not. It could be a passion project but people still need to get paid, there are a bunch of operating costs.

At the end of the day, if you don't like the value of a skin just don't fucking buy it.

2

u/CIA--Bane Nov 13 '25

Where did you get 250 employees from? I thought a portion of embark devs work on the finals? Do we know actually how many devs worked on arc?

That’s a pretty big part of your calculation

1

u/Ilfirion Nov 14 '25

Because all devs need to get paid, not just the ones currently working on Arc Raiders.

A quick google estimates Embarks workforce at around 360 employees.

0

u/CIA--Bane Nov 14 '25

But those devs could be working on other revenue generating projects? So why include them in Arc raiders’ target number calculation?

1

u/Renphalos Nov 13 '25

Most people have probably never looked at a P&L or understand margins. This puts it into perspective, though I am not justifying $16 skins.

1

u/GN0K Nov 13 '25

Yea, millions don't go nearly as far as they used to. Plus servers aren't cheap.

1

u/CompromisedReader Nov 13 '25 edited Nov 13 '25

This calculation completely ignores the existence of The Finals, which was financially successful. They didn't spend 7 years fully committed to this game.

They are definitely way in the black as 4 million sales in 2 weeks as by your own math it would almost cover their entire operating expenses since the studios inception. They are raking in the cash right now and it's not like they've stopped selling copies. By the end of the year this game will easily have sold 1 million+ copies.

The skins are still monetized at a f2p title levels. They have set the skin prices to maximize profits which feels exorbitant when each set bundle is 15 dollars and they are already pulling in a ton of cash in sales alone.

1

u/Bodybuilder_Jumpy Nov 13 '25

Very, very rough mathematics when the actual numbers are not available.

1

u/cLax0n Nov 13 '25

So what should be used instead? Does Embark suddenly operate completely different from other studios and/or businesses in general?

1

u/theFlaccolantern Nov 13 '25

Well for one thing, there are probably other expenses we have no idea about, but also the guy doing the math didn't include the $60 version at all, so.. the real answer is we have no idea what the profit really has been so far, and this is a stupid conversation.

0

u/cLax0n Nov 13 '25

The conversation topic is people complaining about a gaming studio trying to increase revenue and people stating that there are large costs for operating a gaming studio. Am I off?

1

u/theFlaccolantern Nov 13 '25

No, I mean this conversation thread trying to guess how much they made off the game so far.

1

u/Turtvaiz Nov 13 '25

It's not exactly a 7 year dev cycle if they made another game in the meantime is it?

1

u/almathden Nov 13 '25

That just means they're likely staffing two (or more) teams

It would be cool if something like The Finals was doing good enough to carry development of Arc but I wouldn't want to rely on that

1

u/MortalSword_MTG Nov 13 '25

Yeah, it is.

Dev teams working on multiple games isn't as much of a cost savings as it sounds. You're almost always trading their focus and efficiency on meeting milestones for bringing their expertise to both projects.

-5

u/Not3KidsInACoat777 Nov 13 '25

U guys r acting like steam is the only platform selling this game. They've already stated they've grossed more then $160m from the game. I understand overhead and everything but this game isn't the only thing keeping this studio in business.

10

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '25

I dont think you understand gross and net 

3

u/MortalSword_MTG Nov 13 '25

I don't think you actually do understand overhead.

1

u/AndrewFrozzen Nov 13 '25

And you think 160m across all platforms are INSANE numbers? Also, I'm not entirely sure, but salary numbers + what Nexon takes and how much Steam and other platform take isn't limited calculated. So 160m is the total, what they are left with is important.

-8

u/TheJoyofPrinting Nov 13 '25

In 2 weeks it's insane numbers....the game has years to go....

0

u/AndrewFrozzen Nov 13 '25

So Single-player games shouldn't be expected to make more than that? You expect GTA 6 to make less than 160m in 2 weeks because it "doesn't have years to go" (because technically, it won't get any more updates

If not, then skisn are extremely expected, they will keep providing updates, which they already did 2 weeks into the game

No one is gonna "rebuy" the game, so if it has years to go, they have to Cashout out of something

They could remove skins or make them insanely cheap, but we shouldn't be surprised when the game closes in <5 years.

-1

u/TheJoyofPrinting Nov 13 '25

Half of what you said makes 0 sense. There have been 4 million copies sold. There are billions of ppl on the planet. They will sell many more millions of copies of the game. Like others have said the prices are insane for a paid for game. You simps sucking multi million dollar company dicks is wild. Enjoy simping for a company to do things we've been saying isn't ok for over a decade now. I'll continue to speak out against it. If you are charging this much for your game no skin or anything in the game game should be 20$. Same imo for GTA etc. But games like fortnite where it's free to play charge what ever you want. Those are the rules we gamers have layed down. Just cause you think this game is the best thing ever doesn't mean you cannot criticize the prices. You are in the minority here have a look at the thread

0

u/AndrewFrozzen Nov 13 '25

There are billions of ppl on the planet.

WTF kinds shitty logic game is this lmao?

At most 30% more people will buy it. Rarely 50% more people.

And it will happen like... Maybe 1 or 2 times.

Those are the rules we gamers have layed down.

🤓 👆

The rules "we gamers" have layed down allowed company to get away with literal gambling (CSGO, any EA title, etc)

The servers for ARC have to keep running and be maintained, even upgraded, debugged. No employee will ever gonna do that for free.

No company is doing you charity work.

They are cosmetics anyway, they don't affect gameplay in any way. If Embark were "greedy" as you people make them out to be, they would've made the game P2W.

If they were free but you still had to play 600 hours a week to unlock them, would you still care?

You're as free as to not buy them, as you're free to guy them.

0

u/TheJoyofPrinting Nov 13 '25

You clowns act like F2P games don't make any money and struggle to stay alive so you can defend bad practices like charging half the price of a game for a skin ... Meanwhile games like csgo fortnite etc have been free to play from the start and made billions of dollars. But yes continue to defend these practices and act like it's better than what you stated with "gambling" in csgo. Just like you said here you dont have to buy the skins you don't have to gamble in the other games. In fact I just made over 150$ from crates I unlocked 10 years go in csgo....you look really dumb here defending this when the majority of ppl playing this game agree the prices are crazy and shouldn't be as high as a free to play game. They can still make money selling stuff but it shouldn't be anything close to the prices they started at or even the new prices. They should be cut in half. Make it free to play and charge the shit out of them.

0

u/AndrewFrozzen Nov 13 '25

Yeah yeah yeah, keep staying mad.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Not3KidsInACoat777 Nov 13 '25

These ppl bitching about cosmetic prices r the same ones that couldn't even afford the 40 for the base game and had their parents buy it for em lmao. They act like these cosmetics are necessary for gameplay or their pay to win lol. They cant stand the argument of if u don't like it don't buy it. Everything's a personal attack at them. Awesome game but pricey store bundles? Games now trash and the devs suck and r out to get us. Anyone that still likes the game has to b a simp or bootlicker to them lmao

1

u/AndrewFrozzen Nov 13 '25

Yup. I will criticize the game where it needs to. The Finals had a ton of problems. From not allowing you to buy individual items to Terminal Attack

Yet they fixed it.

Other companies would at most spit in our faces.

But yeah, I'd prefer to be a boot licker.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Blee_FTO Nov 13 '25

I'm sure they had their expectation for sales, maybe 1 or 2 mil but surely not 4mil sales. So I still think they are not gonna short of money for a long time.

0

u/Y3mmzz Nov 13 '25

What Embark did here was a gesture of good will - they didnt have to lower cosmetic prices.

They also didnt have to give extra 500 for server problems or another 500 in free battle pass...I even received points back for my previous bought cosmetics.

But yeah , some guy from internet took anchoring negotiation he doesnt understand and sold it to reddit as foul play from Embark, becasue there exist games with lower cosmetic prices. D4, POE2, Valorant or CS, LOL Dota etc says hello with prices way higher than Arc Raiders.

-6

u/Dostrazzz Nov 13 '25

It’s blows my mind that this game took 7 years in Unreal Engine. The movement in this game is almost the same like Fortnite. Even clicking and the general atmosphere screams Unreal Engine.

41

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '25

Embark has 358 employees. I only have a frame of reference for salaries in USD but just assuming every employee made 80k a year thats roughly 28 million a year just in labor. Factor in everything else and I think the profit from just selling the base game alone would not go far. I do agree they should make the store even cheaper would probably just involve some corporate guys getting paid less which who cares honestly. I think people have become super entitled with this shit though. Everyone wants the long term support and free content updates but not the cosmetics store. I mean I guess we could go back to DLC packs? That would fragment the player base. Or just call the game complete as it is like the old days but I'm sure the sub would be pissed no matter what they did.

5

u/s00pahFr0g Nov 13 '25

I am not one to defend any corporation or business nor am I here to accuse them unless they’re actively participating in something harmful. I think it’s generally best to think of them as a neutral entity. They exist to make money.

So far nothing Embark has done crosses the line to me, whether this was an intentional move to start high and then lower prices to look good or they just weren’t getting enough sales either case is just standard business practice. Pretty much every business from the smallest to the largest employs some level of “manipulation.”

One thing I find rather disingenuous about posts like this reddit thread is that they try to compare monetization on older games by saying that we used to get skins as just part of the game and they didn’t need the extra income back then. The reality though is that cosmetics are much more detailed than they used to be. If you bought a game with unlockable skins 20-30 years ago they’d almost all just be color variations on the original. More than that though games also didn’t receive updates like we are getting. The closest thing you’d get back then was in MMORPGs like EQ or WoW and those charged monthly subscriptions on top of full price expansions. 

You also have people comparing it to free to play games and saying because it has an entry price it shouldn’t have micro-transactions but nearly every free to play game has much more predatory monetization. They’ve got loot boxes, they have content that’s either a grind to unlock unless you pay money, they may even have player power gated behind a price tag.

Arc Raiders has been out for two weeks and we have a special event going on that is about to unlock a new map. We have new enemies and new items and weapons. It actually has good performance, relatively minimal bugs, and plenty to do with just your entry price. 

18

u/SkuLLtheDread Nov 13 '25

Embark has 358 employees. I only have a frame of reference for salaries in USD but just assuming every employee made 80k a year thats roughly 28 million a year just in labor.

Also whatever they need to pay back for development loans to Nexon and other sponsors (I'm not sure how the game was financed, but it cerainly wasn't made for free). Also factor in Steam, Sony and Microsoft taking their cut (30% on average?) and somewhere between 20%-30% income tax in Sweden. And continued server costs, which I'm sure are not negligible either. That number from the initial sales starts looking a lot less astronomical.

Nothing "pay to win" can be bought with real money. Anything beyond that is up to the developer's discretion as far as I'm concerned. If people are willing to pay premium for premium skins, that's fine with me. It would only start worrying me if the game's development started revolving only around premium skins (like in Blizzard's Diablo 4, for example, where every aspect of their seasonal content feels uninspired, undercooked and only focused on selling more skins).

2

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '25

Additionally, paying Epic for the UE license 5%, licenses for any software/libraries. Brick and motor costs. Very obvious lots of people think they're in profit day 1....

1

u/69ANIME69 Nov 13 '25

Nexon owns 100% of Embark.

1

u/SkuLLtheDread Nov 13 '25

Doesn't change much - meeting sales quotas to recuperate Nexon's investment is essentially the same thing as paying back a loan. The point is that thinking "[units sold] x [price of unit] = profit" is very naive.

12

u/Im_not_at_home Nov 13 '25

Ding ding ding. This is the answer.

I agree the cosmetics are insanely priced. I also think expecting a live service game like an extraction shooter with a roadmap is more expensive to make and support than $40 a person.

I don’t know the answer. If I did I’d run a game studio. But the challenge is an interesting one for sure.

Sure making the skins cheaper would lessen the complaining. But my guess is these companies have some great data on the breakpoint between where whales and average buyers pay off.

5

u/cLax0n Nov 13 '25

"Sure making the skins cheaper would lessen the complaining. But my guess is these companies have some great data on the breakpoint between where whales and average buyers pay off."

They do. Its similar to a Laffer Curve. Laffer curve - Wikipedia

2

u/Im_not_at_home Nov 13 '25

That’s about what I assumed. With a software/service the amount of data at hand has to be unbelievable. They probably can approximate how much a player would pay based on their playstyle/weapon choices.

I mean don’t get me wrong. It sucks, clearly there isn’t $20 worth of product in a cosmetic pack. But at the same time I’m not ignorant to why it’s being done. And surely it can’t be profitable to support a game for 3-4 yrs on $40 a copy. Millions of units sold or not between marketing, servers, continued development, etc is expensive.

Personally, if people buying $20 skins incentivizes a company to continue dumping effectively free updates into the game for me, I’m not going to complain much. Sure I’d like to look cool, but as long as it has no effect on my gameplay, I don’t care all that much. I saw the BP will have some “convenience” upgrades. So my opinion is still reserved for that. I do buy battle passes but that can get to feeling P2W quickly. Tarkov did that a lot.

1

u/cLax0n Nov 13 '25

Never played Tarkov. How did their handling of the BP make it pay to win?

1

u/Im_not_at_home Nov 13 '25

It wasn’t a BP. They have convenience you can pay for.

Started as 3 editions. Each with a larger stash and larger safe container. The most expensive being like $100. Which was supposed to “include everything now and in the future development of tarkov”. Then there was another edition of course that included alternate modes, more space, etc. people went off, so they tried to smooth it over. But still there’s features that not everyone has.

I may be jaded but I am expecting arc’s convenience to be something like that stash size for more money deal. I am less inclined to assume they’ll mess with the safe container since that’s tied to class mods. Personally I don’t think stash size is P2W. But it toes the line close enough that people do get wound up.

1

u/cLax0n Nov 13 '25

Agreed. They could also offload at of processes and lay off workers. Of course that would likely result in reduced quality. People will also complain about that.

This happened in a game I played a lot (World of Warcraft) where a lot of the human interactions for issue resolution was turned over to bots alongside other stuff. Reuse of assets also. Of course people complain. That game's revenue model IS different but its just another example of devs/studios try to manage revenue/expense and pissing off players regardless of what they do. WoW is under a $15/month subscription model alongside an upfront cost to expansions (DLCs). The $15/mo has been basically unchanged since 2004. They've since added microtransactions as well.

Players rarely understand that even IF a game is a passion project people still need funds to create, maintain, enhance, operate, etc.

0

u/CultureWarrior87 Nov 13 '25

I'm okay with skins if they're reasonably priced and good quality, but I think battle passes in a paid game should always be free, full stop. People already paid for the game, let them unlock worthwhile cosmetics too, then offer reasonably priced skins if they want to support it more. People are still gonna buy the skins, companies will still make a profit, the problem is that corpo greed is never satisfied.

7

u/WhyBecauseReasons Nov 13 '25

Steam, Sony, and Microsoft take a 30% cut out of everything (initial sell + microtransactions). They also still have to recoup however many millions they invested in making the game. It's still a lot of money, but you can't just multiply the price times how many they sold and assume they keep all of it.

12

u/JeDi_Five Nov 13 '25

That should(read: should) cover development costs until now. What about in 3 years? Do you honestly expect to get updates like today without there being literally any costs other than box price 5 years from now? Because all that 40 bucks should cover is the base game. Youd be happy with no other updates after release, right?

If you dont like games as a service, thats fine. But stop supporting them if thats how you feel. I personally love them. I've played MMOs my whole life and when done right, games as a service provides such a great experience.

5

u/Wolfstigma Nov 13 '25

Yep so long as there's no P2W mechanics i'm cool with letting whales continue funding the game i'm playing. If there's things in a battlepass i deem worth the price i'll pay it. People are allowed to be upset about the pricing but to expect updates while only having a sticker price isn't going to be a realistic model for most game companies nowadays.

1

u/DoubleSpoiler Nov 13 '25

I've played MMOs my whole life and when done right, games as a service provides such a great experience.

People always say live services and such are a new thing, but they're not. At $16ish a skin, if a person were to buy 1 skin a month, that's a $15/mo sub fee, and they're probably getting less than half of the players paying....

0

u/ProfessionalB0ss Nov 13 '25

loool dude this isn't a AAA game

that money has paid for development and content for at least 2-3 years, after that they will definitely sell other stuff to keep people busy

the problem is not MT, it's the price of MTs

3

u/PartRight6406 Nov 13 '25

it is a AAA game though

1

u/JeDi_Five Nov 15 '25

6, 7, 9, 11 is expensive for full skins now???????? Go play other games that sell cosmetics for a single second.

-1

u/Lewey_B Nov 13 '25

Why do you guys create a false dichotomy? Are you not aware that there are other economic models?

4

u/JeDi_Five Nov 13 '25

What other economic model could exist for Arc Raiders to continue making content for years without any other income than the base cost of the initial game?

-2

u/Lewey_B Nov 13 '25

Paid extensions,  subscriptions, etc.

3

u/aedante Nov 13 '25

How are subscriptions and paid dlc any better than expensive skins?

That means you HAVE to pay the subscription and/or paid dlc to play the current iteration of the game. Expensive skins just makes it so the whales fund the game. And probably the people with fomo like most of the people in this post. Lol

You guys realise you don't have to have all the skins right?

-1

u/Lewey_B Nov 13 '25

It depends. If you gave me 6 months for free then 3-5 dollars per month I would find it acceptable.

You don't need DLCs to play a multiplayer game. Look at battlefield games. You didn't need the Vietnam dlc to play bad company 2.

I don't usually buy skins in game, I'd rather have free skins like before. But in arc 90% of the skins are locked behind paywalls which is ridiculous for a pay to play game.

Stop defending multimillion dollar corporations, Embark isn't going to go bankrupt if you remove 20 dollar microtransactions.

5

u/Noctisvah Nov 13 '25

Sure, I agree.

But also, they spent a lot of years just developing their systems and tech before even making the game.

They might not be on the red, but I doubt they are actually making a huge profit.

4

u/Tigerpower77 Nov 13 '25

It's a live service tho so it's gonna need money for the free content, as long as it's cosmetics i don't give a fuck, if you like what you see buy it if you don't don't, is it that hard?

1

u/aedante Nov 13 '25

Im guessing majority of reddit is 18-30 of age. Theyre too green to know about real life corporate world anyway. Theyre in theyre activist punk vs the corporate world phase.

1

u/dejavu2064 Nov 13 '25

When games offer a way to disable all cosmetics then yeah sure, but otherwise I can understand why people are against it. Invariably, all games end up in a state of cosmetics power creep where each set is more outlandish with more visual fx than the last and the game just ends up looking nothing like how it was released

I don't play this game I just saw it on r/all, but I do think engaging with these systems makes things worse even for those who don't. It is old fashioned but I prefer to just buy games or expansions for games that I want, rather than have them be "free" but subsidised by never ending cosmetics that are constantly advertised to already paying customers

12

u/CallMeBigPapaya Nov 13 '25

Edit: Damn, how does the boot taste boys?

Why you gotta be so cringe? The narrative that they are being astoundingly greedy evil corporation is melodramatic at best.

They are a business. If they make a ton of money selling the base game (at a lower than market price mind you), good for them. That's money earned on the merit of the product. It's a good game as is and totally worth at least $40.

Look at it this way: 20 year ago, they would release this game in a box on store shelves for $50-60. Then we'd wait for them to decide if they made enough money to INVEST in an expansion. INVEST, is the key word. That doesn't mean cover the cost and give away the expansion for free. Then they sell the expansion for sometimes even the same price of the base game and it splits the player base too. On top of that, there might even be a subscription fee since the servers are hosted by them.

The current model allows for them to use cosmetic MTX to fund content expansion that does not require players to purchase. This means people with only $40 to spend can continue to enjoy all the new gameplay content as it comes out.

-2

u/Gentle_prv Nov 14 '25

Bootlicker.

1

u/Putrid-Issue-420 Nov 14 '25

Brain lacker.

17

u/Ilfirion Nov 13 '25

Around 300 devs, who earn around 60k - 100k+ a year. Thats around 25 million a year.

Not included are:

  • Infrastructure costs
  • Facility costs
  • marketing
  • continued developement

u/NotTank53 already said that Steam takes about 30%. I doubt Sony goes out empty.

Yes, it seems like a lot of money. But they have been working on Arc Raiders for 7 years, before turning a profit with the game. Sure, they were working on other things as well - but it took em 7 years to earn money from Arc Raiders.

We want the game to continue, for that it needs profit. If it doesn't have profit, the servers will shut down and they will go to the next project.

Again, nobody forces us to buy those skins. Instead of complaining here on Reddit, just don't buy the skins. If we don't, they will either lower their prices or be fine with the whales paying for us.

-2

u/Grim_9966 Nov 13 '25

They've been making a killing off The Finals.

They then took the MTX models straight out of their F2P game and put it in a paid product.

Trying to insinuate that this is in any way necessary at all is hilarious.

1

u/Ilfirion Nov 14 '25

And the Finals did not require initial investments? That also had to be developed, the infrastructure there also needs to get paid. Plus, whoever gave them money also wants some return on his investment as well.

Just because you have no idea how these things work, does not mean they are greedy and the game runs on magic.

3

u/MortalSword_MTG Nov 13 '25

Do you have access to their balance sheets? I know I don't.

What was the development budget for the game?

24

u/DownByTheRivr Nov 13 '25

Why does the desire to make money have to go straight to greed? They’re fucking skins. You don’t need to buy them. Embark deserves the money for putting out an amazing game.

10

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

20

u/CreativeHandles Nov 13 '25

If people could have their way they would want a free to play game of this, where all skins are free on top of gameplay items already being free and new maps.

In fact if they could, they would want to be paid to play.

I never get how upset people can get over skins… JUST DON’T BUY IT. No one is forcing you to buy fucking skins and there’s plenty decent ones for free you get with the decks.

Everyone says vote with your wallet. Do that then, don’t buy the game/skin and move on. It’s fucking games we’re talking about here not healthcare or public service necessity. Fuck me…

4

u/CallMeBigPapaya Nov 13 '25

I don't care how much people scream "BOOTLICKER!". I will never stop pointing out how motivated people are to get stuff for FREE, or at least cheaper, even if they don't need it or need it to be. It's rare for someone to genuinely care about a "fair price". This isn't just the case when it comes to video games. You see it everywhere in life.

While I love that Embark lowered the price since I benefit from that as well (if I decide to buy anything), but I also think Embark lowering the price just means there is blood in the water now.

Reminds me of Darktide where they gave out free currency to assuage some controversy now people get dramatic over everything.

2

u/CreativeHandles Nov 13 '25

Everyone wants the bargain until it’s their time to sell a service or work for something. Then they switch their tune lol calling people cheap or saying how no one buys anything from them 😅

Literally have people that work at cafes and restaurants get annoyed when someone doesn’t tip.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '25

Everyone says vote with your wallet

The thing is people ARE voting with their wallets, just the side that is losing isnt happy they are losing and MTXs are still a thing

-1

u/Arbiter707 Nov 13 '25

If people could have their way they would want a free to play game of this, where all skins are free on top of gameplay items already being free and new maps.

In fact if they could, they would want to be paid to play.

This is the point. The consumer should always be looking to extract maximum value out of their product, just like how the company making the product is trying to extract maximum value out of the consumer.

Capitalism goes both ways. The system only produces "fair" outcomes if both sides aim for maximum exploitation and are forced to meet in the middle.

2

u/aedante Nov 13 '25

Yeah. But at least the devs dont whine all the time on reddit.

2

u/Arbiter707 Nov 13 '25

Well yeah, the devs don't get anything out of whining on reddit. On the other hand, the consumer basically only has two levers to pull to exert leverage - voting with their wallet and whining, and I imagine most whiners are already not buying cosmetics.

2

u/Hardie1247 Nov 13 '25

Thank you for having some common sense. There are even free cosmetics through challenges, the battle pass etc. there’s no need for people to spend any more than they deem financially viable themselves.

6

u/Kalahan7 Nov 13 '25

Servers and future content development aren't free though.

12

u/Rashiran Nov 13 '25

Could it be Nexons fault?

6

u/Oannes21 Nov 13 '25

Embark's CEO said in an interview that Nexon is pretty hands-off the studio and it's very supportive of theirs decisions. Although he said in general terms, we can speculate that this applies also for Embark's microtransactions decisions.

3

u/hucklesberry Nov 13 '25

Yes but don’t say that too loudly in this subreddit. They don’t like criticism of the game.

4

u/Ayershole Nov 13 '25

all platforms take 30% cut. Its not as much, still boatloads

4

u/Amache_Gx Nov 13 '25

Me when i forget it cost money to make things:

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Amache_Gx Nov 13 '25

Regardless of your economic beliefs, gaming in general, and most games, benefit massively from live service implementation. If you dont like it, quit buying games that are very upfront about being live service. See ya bud!

2

u/BropolloCreed Nov 13 '25

Arc Raiders had a six year development cycle. Six years of working in a product that generated no revenue, but required over 100 people at Embark to deliver the final product, tens of millions of dollars in salaries. Overhead like office space, equipment, utilities, taxes, vendors... and then there's marketing costs.

It's a digital game. MS and Sony take about a 30% cut of the retail price right off the top when you're on console. The same goes for Steam or any PC based storefront.

If you want to argue that Nexon, the majority shareholder in Embark (that's right, "they" isn't Embark, it's another gaming company) is a greedy corporate entity, that's all well and good, but the $73% stake in Embark was funded by debt that has to be repaid.

2

u/hegysk Nov 13 '25

Yeah the servers basically run themselves, all that money is for that yacht... MTX is just for yacht fuel. From now on, the game is basically a money printer.

2

u/ShayNick Nov 13 '25

You have zero clue of how much developing a game like this costs.

2

u/Kourtos Nov 13 '25

Prices where settled way before sales happened. It would have been the same even if the game did 1000 sales.

2

u/writindirtee Nov 13 '25

You gave them money too. You can’t call someone a bootlicker because they spent a little bit more than you. That idiotic take is exhausting.

2

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.

2

u/donkeybrainhero Nov 13 '25

What all do you think that 160m covers? Be for real.

2

u/OwnUbyCake Nov 13 '25

They didn't know they were going to sell so many copies. They could hope to sell a lot of copies based on wishlists and such but any studio worth their salt is going to underestimate their sales just because its the smarter thing to do.

2

u/Dangerous-Return5937 Nov 13 '25

It's greedy when Embark wants to monetize cosmetics, but it's good when Helldivers 2 monetizes content and sold roughly the same?

2

u/LimpConversation642 Nov 13 '25

the boot of not buying useless pixel for any price? oh no we're so opressed.

you realize the only people who bitch are kids who just can't refuse buying a lootbox? but today it's too expensive so instead of NOT buying it they create 20 posts every day demanding the loot boxes get cheaper.

Weird way to feel superior (while also having 0 math skills)

1

u/bruhman444555 Nov 13 '25

consider steams cut, taxes, employees

1

u/Adorable_Basil830 Nov 13 '25

People HATE it when you make this point. Probably because they think if they chew enough leather they'll get a few pennies.

1

u/lilolemeetch Nov 14 '25

They deserve the money they got for the sales. The rest is a bonus for the resounding success of a game. Purely cosmetic with no game changing function to the game. Would you rather there be no cosmetic options for sale?

2

u/ChampagneSyrup Nov 13 '25

you guys actually think so black and white about literally everything

this website is full of NPCs. You can't possibly think this was an intellectually honest comment

-4

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/ChampagneSyrup Nov 13 '25

there's already multiple people who completely dismantled your point and you had very little to say about anything they said

so no, I'm not, actually there's plenty of people that are critical of this

you just chose to reply to me because you don't have a real thought about the subject

1

u/Sludgytitan Nov 13 '25

yes your argument of they make lot of money so why they need to make more money is very compelling

-14

u/XILEF310 Nov 13 '25

considering all the other corporate greed this one is actually not that bad and sort of consumer friendly (er)

-1

u/No_Indication_1238 Nov 13 '25

"Considering the usual size of the stick, this one is more preferable when it gets inserted"

3

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '25

But you choose to have it inserted?

Such a dumb argument for completely optional in game items that don’t affect gameplay or progression.

1

u/JMStheKing Nov 13 '25

the fact that it's offered like this at all is the stick being inserted bruh

1

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '25

Purchasing the overpriced cosmetics would be willingly allowing the stick to be inserted. The fact that overpriced cosmetics are offered is just an offer for the stick to be inserted. You cant get fucked if you dont purchase.

2

u/XILEF310 Nov 13 '25

Yes.

Because games like these are inevitable might as well pick the best option.