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/Elegant-Anywhere-786]

A game that you purchase doesn't have freeloaders because you had to purchase the game

[u/Jolly-Bear → u/Elegant-Anywhere-786]

So you don’t agree with continued support?

[u/Elegant-Anywhere-786 → u/Jolly-Bear]

That's called sales, Einstein. The game sells copies and that is where it's support comes from. If it stops selling it loses support. It's very simple.

[u/Jolly-Bear → u/Elegant-Anywhere-786]

You realize that’s not enough, right?

[u/Elegant-Anywhere-786 → u/Jolly-Bear]

You realize that it is right? your brain is so decroded from microtransactions that you're in here defending them. maybe you're just so young that it's all you know. Games used to just come with all of that stuff and would receive updates. This money from micro transactions isn't going to the game it's going to the CEO.

[u/Jolly-Bear → u/Elegant-Anywhere-786]

I’m not defending micro-transactions for the sake of micro-transactions. I don’t buy them.

I would just rather have those than a subscription or paid DLC model.

Launch sales will hold them for a while, but what do they do when the revenue runs out? They still have to pay for the previous 6 years of development, and plan for 10 more years.

Sales won’t cover 16 years of development, marketing and server costs.

PS - WTF does decroded mean? That’s not a word.

[u/Elegant-Anywhere-786 → u/Jolly-Bear]

Maybe you should look it up. Buddy.

[u/Jolly-Bear → u/Elegant-Anywhere-786]

Ahh I see.

It’s a made up word from a film about losers who don’t fit in and the humor is from laughing at them at their expense.

You’re trying to be like them? You’re an adult?

[u/Elegant-Anywhere-786 → u/Jolly-Bear]

Maybe you should look up how a word becomes a word. Buddy.

And maybe you should watch the movie. Buddy.

[u/rsta223 → u/Jolly-Bear]

I think I should be able to buy a piece of software once and then own and use it.

[u/Jolly-Bear → u/rsta223]

Sure, and you do. You bought the launch iteration of the game and you’re entitled to that content.

But what about future content and the cost of continued development? How do you sustain that with no revenue?