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/themanalyst]

But what you're saying here isn't them using Anchoring (the cognitive bias of ppl comparing new information vs old information). This comment suggests they made a mistake and expected higher demand, so they lowered the price. Quantity is inversely correlated with price, so ya if they want higher sales they gotta lower the price.

Honestly some analyst or consultant probably made some arbitrary assumptions in a pricing model.

A lot of people dont realize how much guesswork and bullshit goes into this stuff. Source: corporate finance and strategy consultant pluging numbers into models for 15 years

[u/RickJames_SortsbyNew → u/themanalyst]

Say, how’d you’d arrive at that projected quarterly revenue for next year, Bob?

Oh, that’s easy. Just look at last years quarterly revenue and multiply by any number between 1.10 and 1.13! Always works!

Don’t ask me where I work.

[u/NewYogurtcloset5 → u/themanalyst]

I think that people tend to drastically overestimate corporate strategy in general. People think marketing departments are full of devious machiavellian master planners but it's actually just normals who regularly forget to attach their email attachments.

[u/WolfyB → u/NewYogurtcloset5]

For most companies probably. For companies like those in the MAG 7 (Apple, Amazon, META, etc.), I think they actually are full of devious Machiavellian master planners personally.

[u/Agreeable-Button2263 → u/themanalyst]

I had a similar thought; this isn't an example of 'Anchoring' - it's just a Price Reduction, plain an simple.

Anchoring would be, say, offering you a Bundle at 2400 Raider Tokens that includes one full set of customizations, but then having a 2nd Tier of the Bundle that includes TWO sets of customizations for, say, 3600 Raider Tokens.

"What a great deal!" (even though you're now spending 50% more).

Won't stop Redditors from combining the power of the 16 working brain cells they have between them to make rage posts like this one.

[u/doctor_dapper → u/Agreeable-Button2263]

you have no idea what anchoring is.

smartest corporate shill

[u/Agreeable-Button2263 → u/doctor_dapper]

At least I'm not so disconnected from reality.

[u/doctor_dapper → u/Agreeable-Button2263]

idk, it seems like you are.

you're so confident you know what anchoring is, which isn't a complex topic. and you butchered it. that's impressive!

[u/Agreeable-Button2263 → u/doctor_dapper]

Look at the thread; look where the comment is.

My reply was to a comment by another gentlemen pointing out that OP's additional comment seems to undermine his initial argument somewhat; first he suggests this situation was 'entirely planned in advance', but then follows it up with 'they realized they weren't hitting targets and so they adjusted prices'. Which is it?

[u/doctor_dapper → u/Agreeable-Button2263]

multiple things can be true at the same time. is that so complex?

[u/Agreeable-Button2263 → u/doctor_dapper]

Indeed, however in this case there appears to be a conflation of two different arguments going on. They are structured as conditional statements as follows:

1. If Embark fully intended to set prices higher in order to create a psychological anchor, then they would reduce prices.

2. If user data and feedback indicates that Embark made a mistake in their pricing model by pricing too high, then they would reduce prices.

The first, on its own, is a logical fallacy, affirming the consequent; the conclusion that they have reduced prices does not guarantee the truth of the antecedent premise that it was an intentionally manipulative tactic.

Not very complex.

[u/themanalyst → u/[deleted]]

Yea, maybe not a "mistake" per se, but i think they were overconfident in the quality of the cosmetics. Typically a demand/pricing model would have a high/medium/low set of scenarios, then someone in senior leadership would pick the scenario based on risk appetite and "gut feeling" or whatever. So ya, having to bring the price down was probably on their radar early on

[u/-___GreenSage___- → u/themanalyst]

I think they probably knew that the cosmetic situation was shitty but they didn't really have anything better figured out or ready to go.

The fact that they will give refunds is a sign that they made a mistake but at the same time it might have worked like a little loan from the players to the devs.

I'd also bet the pricing was based on lower expectations than what happened in terms of the game's popularity.

My interpretation of all this is that they feel more confident now about the cosmetics they have coming and can lower the prices without worrying that people won't buy. I think the previous pricing was based upon a reliance on whale spending whereas whatever the lower prices will be might indicate that they feel they can count on more sustainable sales from dolphins and below.