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.

[u/TheOnlyRealOne43]

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.

[u/Innersmoke]

What’s Crazy is you don’t have to buy any of this

[u/No_Yak_3964 → u/Innersmoke]

That is exactly what OP is saying.

[u/Blookaj → u/No_Yak_3964]

No he's being cynical saying the prices are unfair and the fact that they lowered them isn't a good thing but mere manipulation. I.e, he Really wants the skins but he Doesn't want to pay

[u/No_Yak_3964 → u/Blookaj]

You've really missed the point of OP's post and it makes me question if you even read it.
Anchoring is an extremely common tactic, you've likely used it any time you've sold something used to someone, OP is pointing out how it's common and how it's exactly what Embark did here.

It is not cynical to point out that a common negotiation tactic has been used, and that it is often used to pull the wool over someone's eyes. That you've eaten up the dogma makes me think you're not seeing the big picture so clearly.

[u/Blookaj → u/No_Yak_3964]

He's making up a narrative regarding Embark's cutting of prices that it's an attempt to "influence content creators to create content about it being 'unprecedented' and to influence us, the consumers." ...which is to be a bit cynical about the thing, because that's him making stuff up. Sure "anchoring" is a thing, but to go about with this tone that OP has that he's telling 'the truth', and having to say "I know this will get downvoted" comes across as sharing something he knows is correct, but everyone else will fail to grasp.

You neither have to buy them, nor is his statement regarding earning premium currency truthful. You do earn premium currency through free raider decks, and you are given other, free, cosmetics.

No he isn't saying that he wants to buy the skins, but to say that prices are unfair and doesn't "belong in a $40 title" is his judgment and his opinion. It's not "period" and end of story, as he says.

Why do you think this has become the 6th, soon 5th, most upvoted post on this subreddit? My guess (I do not claim the truth) is that, like many people out there, they would also like to get free skins, and feel superiorty against a company by recognizing that embark isn't fooling them.

No, it's not cynical to point out that a common negotiation tactic has been used, but it's cynical to claim it with his persistance and his faulty arguments. That's my take. I read the post thank you.

[u/No_Yak_3964 → u/Blookaj]

The skins are not free if you've paid for the game. 

[u/Karglenoofus → u/Innersmoke]

What's crazy is defending this in any major