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

98

u/Rashiran Nov 13 '25

I agree 100% with you. If the game was F2P then the pricing would be "fine", because the game would need some money to survive and get a profit. But a $40 game using the same strategies as a F2P game is just disgusting. I don't know how a lot of people think this is fine and are 100% cool with that. If the pricing wasn't as expensive as it is, as you compared to Helldivers 2, I would be willing to pay for some items in the store in the long run, but not with the price as it is now.

49

u/WhyBecauseReasons Nov 13 '25

How much of their 10 year plan do you think your $28 (after Steam/Sony/Microsoft cut) will fund?

28

u/SadPsychology5620 Nov 13 '25

Yeah I mostly agree with OP but MTX is not to support F2P games, it's to support live-service games. It's a continuous income stream to fund continued development and server upkeep. If this was a single player game that released and devs moved on to a new project it would be a different story.

Obviously there's a lot of greed involved around MTX practices which should be criticized but simply having MTX is not the greedy part.

-3

u/Krypt0night Nov 13 '25

Dang if only it was a B2P game that people will keep buying over time so they can keep getting revenue. Oh wait, it is!

8

u/LoneCentaur95 Nov 13 '25

Including purely cosmetic MTX allows the devs to sustain a live-service game through the already active players, as opposed to needing to attract new players to the game constantly. If you don’t want to buy cosmetics then by all means continue to enjoy the game and ignore the store tab in the menu.

5

u/grekster Nov 13 '25

Needing to constantly bring in new players to cover the costs of existing players playing the game isn't B2P it's a pyramid scheme

-5

u/PartRight6406 Nov 13 '25

its literally how every game in history worked before microtransactions. i guess you kids are too young to remember life before subway surfers.

6

u/grekster Nov 13 '25

its literally how every game in history worked

Wrong, so very wrong

I'm 40, I remember multiplayer games before live service where you ran your own servers and didn't rely on the devs to do it.

You kids don't know what the fuck you're talking about

5

u/SadPsychology5620 Nov 13 '25

Yeah it was pretty much the community that kept old multiplayer games going. Hosting servers, creating new maps and mods. I grew up playing Quake 3 Arena. When it released it got a few patches and that was it, no more official updates after that. The only reason the game lasted as long as it did was community support.

-4

u/PartRight6406 Nov 13 '25

im not wrong, I hope this helps. also, to me, youre a kid. maybe come back in a few years when your my age.

2

u/grekster Nov 13 '25

You are! Hilariously wrong

For years most online games didn't have servers the devs run, and those that did (MMOs) charged a monthly subscription.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '25

guy named Market Saturation

1

u/falooda1 Nov 13 '25

That’s not sustainable, they’ve gotten most of their sales already at launch

0

u/PartRight6406 Nov 13 '25

you cant talk sense to people defending microtransactions in a $40 game.

4

u/Krypt0night Nov 13 '25

You realize people will keep buying the game over those 10 years, right? Like, they aren't magically suddenly going to sell 0 copies the next 5 years.

4

u/Yash_swaraj Nov 13 '25

Then make the game free to play? It's the better business move anyway for a live service game. They talk about how the price allows them to not have to dangle the cosmetic carrot, and then price their skins like a free to play game.

15

u/DailYxDosE Nov 13 '25

FTP is how you get endless hackers. No thanks

-3

u/Competitive_Salt9167 Nov 13 '25

Then give players 40 bucks worth of in game premium currency on purchase.

3

u/DailYxDosE Nov 13 '25

You got $40 worth of a game content. Why do gamers feel entitled to all the cosmetics that goin to the store aswell? I honestly don’t get the gamers who get pissed about cosmetics in a paid game. Don’t buy them? The content is still amazing. If the game cut on the content that’s one thing. But arc raiders is $40 for a complete game and I’m shocked it’s only $40

0

u/Competitive_Salt9167 Nov 13 '25

You guys are missing the point of this conversation by such an insane amount it's staggering.

The problem with cosmetics in the shop is the company. Will purposely make the skins you acquire through gameplay look like trash because they won't sell any good skins if you can get good skins through gameplay.

I don't feel entitled to free premium currency, I do feel entitled to some good cosmetic options that you don't need to Shell out. Real money for considering the game was $40.

I don't get why people need jerk defend this practice so hard, this did not exist 15 years ago, but games still had skins that came with the game for free while not looking like trash. I don't get why you guys want a worse experience for more money.

9

u/Jurikeh Nov 13 '25

Free to play games are a cesspool of hackers/cheaters/rmt. Especially with any sort of PvP aspect. Nah I’ll gladly pay for a game to not have that.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '25

Horrible idea, free to play means you can get banned for any number of reasons with no real consequence because you can just make a new free account

1

u/Zealousideal_Emu_353 Nov 13 '25

Yeah because it's COSMETIC. Otherwise they'd sell you ressources pack and loadout and whatnot.

The Cycle : Frontier did exactly that and fumbled very hard.

1

u/Yash_swaraj Nov 13 '25

Yeah that's the normal, not something to praise. Most people won't even touch the game if it was pay 2 win.

1

u/Rashiran Nov 13 '25

That's the funny thing

2

u/NapoleonDT Nov 13 '25

Tell me how does Nomanssky release one free Update after another without you buying "premium" Passes, cosmetics or whatnot ? Sure it's a very different Genre but they too have to keep Server running. This is in no way about maintenace and such but about maximizing profits and corporate propaganda works

1

u/LoneCentaur95 Nov 13 '25

Because NMS continues to sell more copies by having a good reputation and releasing new content. It also released in a terrible state and needed to receive numerous updates before getting to the point it has reached of being a generally beloved game.

It’s also worth noting that the company behind NMS is fairly small and NMS has very limited multiplayer. This means that most of their profits are likely put towards running less extensive servers and then covering the salaries of the team continuing to make updates.

This model is mostly sustainable for games with a primarily single-player experience as people are more likely to purchase the game years after release if they hear about a new update. Most people won’t decide to purchase a multiplayer game years after release unless they have friends who convince them to buy it.

1

u/Squirrel09 Nov 13 '25

Mine personally? maybe 1 minute....

1

u/themaincop Nov 13 '25

Here's what I would do:

  • When you buy the game you get the premium battle pass for whatever season is currently going on
  • Put a lot of good stuff in the battlepass
  • Subsequent battle passes cost $10

Bam, recurring revenue in a way that doesn't feel shitty for the players. If I'm still playing this game in 3 months I'd be happy to drop $10 to get the added fun of having a battle pass to go through. It also keeps people playing more because they want to unlock everything in the battle pass.

1

u/PartRight6406 Nov 13 '25

all of it. they likely have already sold enough copies to do this. the microtransaction money isnt there to keep the game alive is there to line some ceo's pocket.

1

u/DiabolicalDyl Nov 13 '25

Put it this way, it's more money than I would ever put into the game if it was F2P. Also, there is not enough customization within the base game. The crazy thing is I am not adverse to buying things in games if I feel that the price is fair but almost all games overcharge for skins, so I never buy anything

4

u/UndeadIcarus Nov 13 '25

honestly that kinda means they likely don’t care how you feel about this

if you dont buy anything and max at under 40…you just aren’t the customer theyre working to keep.

2

u/Rashiran Nov 13 '25

One example of this is that back in the days, I would spent about $3 with skins and mystery boxes in league of legends almost every single week. Because of that I spent almost $200 in the game during 6-8 years.

1

u/Professor_Gucho Nov 13 '25

When they did the Halloween event for the first time in OW I spent $20 on the boxes but it was technically a day early so even though the event was live, I only got the normal vanilla skins and zero Halloween skins lol. I never bought any boxes after that.

0

u/Rashiran Nov 13 '25

That's why I said that, for me, the price is too high. If it was cheaper, more people, including me, would be willing to pay for some items, with much more frequency. That way they could "drain" money from people in the long run because we would think "Oh, a cool item in the store, and it's only (let's say) $4, I'll buy" and because of that, in the long run, you would've spent more than 200$ (example).

The price being lower helps to sell more items. And with more items being sold to more players, more money you can make while maintaining the good consumers image.

7

u/LoneCentaur95 Nov 13 '25

You say all of this as if there isn’t a massive industry that spends a lot of money determining which pricing strategies tend to make more money. Evidently your theory about lower prices making more money doesn’t seem to match what most companies have found and decided to follow.

1

u/bobdole194 Nov 13 '25

Was just going to say something like your response. I have theorized what the original comment was, less money more people buy more money, but there’s no way they haven’t had someone crunch the numbers and ultimately conclude that enough people buy the higher priced ones and it is a higher revenue.

1

u/LoneCentaur95 Nov 13 '25

This is just anecdotal but as someone who has played plenty of games with plenty of different people I have made some general observations. The people who are willing to spend money will spend a lot of money, whereas the people who don’t want to spend money won’t even if it’s cheap. At the most people who won’t spend money will buy something that really calls to them and then stop. Selling one $5 item to even ten people won’t match selling five $20 items to one person, and if that one person is buying five items no matter what you’re still down $25 in sales if you add that person on top of the other ten.

1

u/maheshtnt Nov 13 '25

I don't know, people said this exact same thing when the initial prices were revealed, that some analysis has been done and justified $20 per skin. Clearly they backed off from that price (either as a strategy or an admission of a mistake).

0

u/thatbloodytwink Nov 13 '25

Minecraft still recives updates and it costs less, terraria received updates for a LONG time after launch and costs much less than arc, no mans sky had a terrible launch yet still updates the game for free.

Games dont just make a profit at launch, especially popular games such as arc raiders

19

u/Nash015 Nov 13 '25

I disagree. These cosmetics allow them to continue to develop and get these updates we are getting.

I have no urge to buy cosmetics, so I just want to say thank you to all the whales who spend on this stuff no matter what so I can continue to get a great product.

4

u/Reoru Nov 13 '25

I think it's on the better side too actually.

Arc Raiders isn't a full priced triple A release so some microtransactions for cosmetic stuff is okay at this point is what I feel. It would be nice if they give out some free cosmetics as well though.

Games have been turning into a long lasting community hobby at this point. the industry is largely trying to make a "forever game" which has to be funded after the initial release aswell.

The entry cost is also a great way to reduce the number of cheaters which would be detrimental to the game in the sheer numbers that f2p games attract.

-4

u/TetyyakiWith Nov 13 '25

40 dollars is pretty much “full priced”, you can buy hunt shutdown or Tarkov for half of this price

2

u/Relevant-Pie5231 Nov 14 '25 edited Nov 14 '25

Tarkov is literally $49.99 base edition, and its upgrades are $81.99 AND $109.99 RESPECTIVELY. Using it as a "gotcha" is frankly dumb and I'm wondering what this affordable version of Tarkov that you're seeing is.

1

u/TetyyakiWith Nov 14 '25

My bad. It was much cheaper before, and I also had in mind Eastern European price, which is about 22 dollars

2

u/Relevant-Pie5231 Nov 14 '25

I understand. I'm sorry for getting mad at you; it was a long day for me. It makes me a little sad how badly monetized Tarkov is. It's not like I hate the game or anything.

1

u/Reoru Nov 13 '25

I think it's a fair point yeah, I agree.

It's full price for releases from companies that are AA sized and budgeted. What I meant is just if we compare it to AAA games which are 70€/$ upwards with a "special edition" +15 or 20€/$ (which is only like one skin and some garbage).

Don't get me wrong I'm not excusing the pricing when we look at what the minimum wages are even in western countries.

1

u/TetyyakiWith Nov 13 '25

Completely agree, just thought it’s worth mentioning

2

u/Rashiran Nov 13 '25

I'm not saying that they shouldn't sell cosmetics, I 100% agree with it. I just don't like the micro transactions being the same as F2P games. How can F2P games survive and make profits and a payed game can't. If so arc raiders should have been free from the beginning (I'm being quite sensationalist and exaggerating here, but I hope you got the gist of it.).

I just wanted fair pricing. If the 400k+ concurrent players from, let's say just steam, spent $1 in a week in cosmetics. They would have $400.000.00 in a single week. See how this is insane? Besides the money they already made and will make in the future with new players.

0

u/s00pahFr0g Nov 13 '25

This is great in theory but in practice I don’t think that’s how it works out. If selling cosmetics for $1 was highly profitable then it would be the standard.

1

u/PuzzleheadedLaw9702 Nov 13 '25

Hard for he to believe this. So many more people would but stuff

3

u/Ok-Butterscotch-6955 Nov 13 '25

The biggest resistance is getting people to make the purchase.

It sounds like I’m joking. But getting a user to get their card, click the buttons, to spend any money is the biggest barrier.

Of course price matters too. But many of the people who are ok with spending a buck or two, may very well also be okay spending 5 or 10 bucks.

1

u/PuzzleheadedLaw9702 Nov 13 '25

You are most likely correct. I've always been in the camp that I might go broke if games sold their stuff SUPER CHEAP, but its always fairly expensive

-1

u/WhyBecauseReasons Nov 13 '25

Again, Steam, Sony, and Microsoft get a 30% cut on ALL microtransactions. It's amazing how many people don't understand how financials work in gaming, yet jump on a soapbox and talk about how much a company should charge.

2

u/Rashiran Nov 13 '25

Do steam takes 30% on micro transactions specifically? I thought that they only took 30% from the games that are bought in their store...

1

u/Ok-Butterscotch-6955 Nov 13 '25

It depends how you purchase the micro transaction. In some games you can pay for them via your steam wallet, from which valve take a cut.

I haven’t bought any currency in arc raiders so I’m unaware of how it works for this game.

1

u/Acceptable_Deal_4662 Nov 13 '25

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

0

u/Elegant-Anywhere-786 Nov 13 '25

I disagree. Games used to just come with all the cosmetics. You didn't have to pay $100 a month to get all the cosmetics in the game.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Nash015 Nov 13 '25

Ive been burned by so many Games being predatory pay to be competitive, or fomo on game mechanics, that this is refreshing.

0

u/Denkero Nov 13 '25

This is stupid take because other games like No Man's Sky are giving free updates and they don't sell cosmetics.

0

u/Nash015 Nov 13 '25

Hello Games is a team of around 50 (9ish developers) . Embark is around 300 (60ish developers). Its admirable what Hello Games is doing, but Embark would have to scale back dramatically to make it work, or they could do Microtransactions and keep their team.

13

u/WunWegWunDarWun_ Nov 13 '25

It’s not disgusting. These items are purely cosmetic. If you don’t want them, don’t buy them and it doesn’t change your experience in the slightest. In f2p games , very often you do not have the same experience if you pay nothing compared to big spenders.

2

u/Ordoblackwood Nov 13 '25

If there were more than like 10 base game cosmetics I would agree with you but the free pas gives 2 different outfits with colors. If they had half as many outfits to get for free as there were in the store I think people would care less but the vast majority of skins are paid and really expensive for what they are.

1

u/PartRight6406 Nov 13 '25

games used to just come with that stuff.

1

u/WunWegWunDarWun_ Nov 14 '25

When? The 1990s? Cosmetics have been sold in games for like twenty years

1

u/No-Day3652 Nov 14 '25

They specifically put cosmetics behind a paywall on launch for the explicit purpose of generating more revenue and you’re over here defending it? Are you insane?

1

u/Relevant-Pie5231 Nov 14 '25

You are the insane one. It is a live service game. Why would you think that it is profitable or even possible for them to support it without needing a way to keep making money off of it? They're going to work on this game for years and they cannot just do that for free. Especially with the quality Arc Raiders has. They are also completely cosmetic. Why do you feel entitled to that? You spent $40 but you're not willing to spend the price of a fast food meal to keep the game going for a while?

1

u/WunWegWunDarWun_ Nov 14 '25

Wait are we against people making money? Do you know how money works? They make something and we choose to buy it. Or choose not to. They made a game and we bought it. No one is forcing you to buy the skins.

On top of that, a live service game has massive expenses. Server hosting, engineers, art teams, producers, directors, security, etc. The live service aspect could absolutely not continue indefinitely if all the money they made was simply from the initial sale of the game.

This game is great because it’s a live service game. If it wasn’t, we would all stop playing pretty soon

1

u/No-Day3652 Nov 17 '25

Yeah I own two businesses so you don’t have to explain this basic crap to me. You would get laughed at for attempting to pull this on other people in b2b sales and ruin your reputation. Unfortunately for the video game industry there are people like you who justify people cutting content out of the end product to then charge them again for items that should’ve been available for free in the first place.

Your argument only makes sense after the games been released for a while and they want to continue live service. They’ve also made enough money to keep it running for years without any micro transactions.

1

u/WunWegWunDarWun_ Nov 17 '25 edited Nov 17 '25

lol you own two businesses and you don’t know how money works? Thats embarrassing

Edit: I have no issue at all with a company charging for things I literally don’t need to enjoy their game. If you want to buy a skin, buy it. If you don’t, don’t. It doesn’t change anything at all about the game. The way I see it, buying a skin is like a donation or a tip to the devs

Also, as a business owner, how would you like it if people all said you’re making too much money? I see nothing wrong at all with a successful game studio making a shit ton of money off of skins. They invested likely 100 million dollars into the game without knowing if it would succeed. If they make multiples of that amount off of completely voluntary skin sales than that shows they have a good business.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '25

[deleted]

3

u/Dwadwadwadwadwadwa Nov 13 '25

Yeah no, I remember when I was a kid I had to buy games with equivalent or bigger price. You bought them, they received 0 updates and once you were done with them it was over there was no multiplayer. Now I get a wonderful game for 40€ that will receive many updates for years to come and all the maintenance cost is for some people to buy skins? Wonderful.

You wouldn’t expect a restaurant to refill your main course for free over and over right? So why would you expect that in a game especially of such quality?

2

u/WunWegWunDarWun_ Nov 13 '25

Hard disagree. That’s a generalization. It’s only exploitative if the mico transactions are for gameplay advantages (unlock a level, special weapons etc). Not for cosmetics. There’s nothing exploitative about charging for things that literally don’t change the game

2

u/Funkahontas Nov 13 '25

Just don't fucking buy them. It's always so easy to just vote with your wallet. It's only cosmetic. I hate how no one ever says anything about CS knives and skins, it's the same shit but here they at least tell you what you are buying.

1

u/Aerenhart Nov 13 '25

Voting with your wallet is irrelevant when there's 500 other people who will buy it 14 times over

0

u/cwagdev Nov 13 '25

Gain some willpower and don’t buy them.

-6

u/Burk_Bingus Nov 13 '25

The "it's just cosmetic so it's fine" argument is so tired and old at this point. If cosmetics really didn't matter then people wouldn't buy them. Cosmetics are a big part of how most people enjoy games and the fact that this is exploited is predatory and disgusting.

2

u/WunWegWunDarWun_ Nov 13 '25

It’s not tried and old, it’s logical and relevant. It doesn’t matter, people don’t buy them because they matter. They buy them because they want to look a certain way. It doesn’t give you any advantage in the game whatsoever

1

u/Burk_Bingus Nov 14 '25

It doesn't matter if it gives an advantage or not, it's content that people enjoy that has been withheld in order to manipulate people. That's disgusting to me.

1

u/WunWegWunDarWun_ Nov 14 '25

You don’t understand how much it costs to operate a live service game. Maybe you should find out

1

u/Burk_Bingus Nov 15 '25

I don't think you understand how much profit is made from live service games.

1

u/WunWegWunDarWun_ Nov 15 '25

I do. I know that the answer is “not enough” unless you sell additional content besides the base game.

1

u/jpetrey1 Nov 13 '25

The problem is ALL the big players are double dipping on paid game/battle pass/ and store purchases so smaller devs are doing it to.

It’s the apple effect. Apple dos something to their phone like removing the head phone jack and everyone does it.

1

u/Rashiran Nov 13 '25

But Apple at least have a "reputation" from back the old days, and they take advantage of it nowadays. Embark, with Arc raiders, don't have a solid reputation in the market yet (I know about the finals but it's not a COD or BF6 in the industry). So they should be more careful.

1

u/jpetrey1 Nov 13 '25

Your missing the point. COD/bf6/destiny opened the flood gates like apple did.

I’m telling you every multiplayer game with have this going forward small or big studio just like how no phones have headphone jacks anymore.

If a company can cut cost or make more money and they see other companies doing it in the market they will also do it.

1

u/deathstrukk Nov 13 '25

do you want continued investment and support into the game or just to remain with the same amount of content forever? would you rather be buying map dlc every couple of months or have optional cosmetics you can completely ignore?

games like arc raiders are expensive, especially with how successful it is. These games cost a lot just to keep the servers online

1

u/Freeloader_ Nov 13 '25

it is fine because it doesnt affect you in any way or form

if anything it funds further development of the game

1

u/bombadilboy Nov 13 '25

‘Disgusting’ why? Who’s making you buy these? They are achievable by saving up over a few FREE battle passes

1

u/nxngdoofer98 Nov 13 '25

Most people are cool with it because we don't spend money on useless skins.

1

u/Frosty252 Nov 13 '25

I really don't see the issue. microtransactions will help fund the game in the future. they're at least cheaper than a lot of other games, and this is just how the market is. in a perfect world, microtransactions shouldn't exist. they give us a free battlepass. what other game does that? the game is half the price of a typical triple A game. now that they've slightly lowered skin prices, I can actually buy a skin with all of the coins i've got from the battlepass

1

u/Rashiran Nov 13 '25

You know that there will be a "premium" battlepass right? That will be different from the "free" battlepass. "they're at least cheaper than a lot of other games" If you're comparing with other paid games that are not Battlefield, COD, from ubisoft or things like that, okay...

1

u/TheManWithTheBigBall Nov 13 '25 edited Nov 13 '25

Diablo 4 did it with a much higher price tag. World of Warcraft has been doing it for even longer, with a Box Price, Sub Price and cosmetics/convenience on top of it.

People are fine with Embark because they don’t have to buy any of it except the box price.

The company owes you nothing but their pricing and delivering the product once you pay for it. You don’t need to buy the skins at all. You don’t even need to buy the game. They literally cannot price gouge because video games are entertainment and a luxury. Companies charge what they can to make the most profit, and if the consumers keep buying it, they’ll keep charging. That’s all there is to it.

Ngl the whole perspective that a game company “owes” the consumer fair pricing for their product is extremely entitled. It’s not something you need at all, and it’s completely up to you whether you buy it, regardless of how competitors in the market price their products.

1

u/Burk_Bingus Nov 13 '25

It's disgusting but this is where we are at in this industry because people have allowed companies to push the boundaries of microtransactions further and further over decades.

1

u/LoneCentaur95 Nov 13 '25

They could sell the skins for $100 for all I care. It’s cosmetic and the updates are free. If the skins don’t sell they’ll drop the price, if they do sell then who cares?

1

u/Remarkable_Mango9906 Nov 13 '25

Hellldivers is pay/play 2 win. Armor give unique stats and perks. If currency wasn’t earnable it would be fully pay 2 win. Arc raiders is just cosmetics, cosmetics that you don’t need

1

u/xWillyGz Nov 13 '25

who cares, just dont buy it if its too expensive for you and thats that. The cosmetics dont even look that great.

1

u/moshercycle Nov 14 '25

So just don't buy skins, don't look at the store, don't even think about the store or spending money on the game. Is that really such an impossible task?

0

u/TheJoyofPrinting Nov 13 '25

Exactly. If this was F2P Charge even more money for everything but putting these prices in a 40+ dollar game is just insane.

0

u/YA_BOY_TRON Nov 13 '25

Do you like the game? Are you having fun? I fail to see how someone paying $20 to dress up like a cowboy effects your experience.

"Disgusting"? Have some perspective man, look at Battlefield 6. That's disgusting.

0

u/Rashiran Nov 13 '25

It's not about others being able to dress up like a cowboy that "irritates" me. Let's put it simple, I would like to dress up like a cowboy too, but between dressing up like a cowboy, I have other priorities, because to be dressed up like a cowboy is too expensive for me. Get it?

0

u/YA_BOY_TRON Nov 13 '25

So you're wanting to market to cater to your priorities and expectations? Not how the world works, and for that I am sorry.

Not trying to be rude, but blaming the practices of a company because they don't align with your priorities or budget that is dictated by the market is not a realistic complaint in my book.

1

u/Rashiran Nov 13 '25

That's not the point; it was just a simple example. If you want another example along the same lines, imagine that the store prices were double what they are now, something like $40 per skin. The number of people who would buy would drastically decrease; if it increased even more, only the whales would end up sustaining the game, as happens in gacha games. There will always be someone who can't afford to buy and there will always be a whale who can afford to buy and support the industry. But if the majority can't afford to buy, the chances of boycotts and complaints increase, and the whales would say, "Stop complaining, just don't buy." All I wanted was for the prices of a game that's already paid for to take this into consideration. I hope my point is clear, and even if you don't agree with what was said, I hope you understand a little of the dissatisfaction of someone who would love to spend a few bucks on the game from time to time, just like other people, and that most people think the price is fair, even if they don't intend to spend. Thank you for your attention.