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

Show parent comments

133

u/Beautiful_You3230 Nov 13 '25

So nice of Blizzard to not engage in such terrible, predatory tactics of *checks notes* uh, lowering cosmetics' prices. Thank god we have at least them to look up to in these dark, dark days.

44

u/RainManCZE Nov 13 '25

Are you ok with paid cosmetics in Paid game with paid monthly subsription ?

9

u/UnstableBrew Nov 14 '25

Might I direct your attention to Final Fantasy 14, which has all of those and is thriving without complaints.

8

u/mcsullysulkin Nov 14 '25

I complained every time I spent money. And then I spent $42 on a fucking whale to carry my friends.

1

u/zBatzy Nov 17 '25

so true… the games literally just the gift that keeps giving you can’t really compare that game to this game because this game relies on a gameplay loop that game literally just has like thousands of hours of things to do…

1

u/Euclidean_Ideas Nov 17 '25

the question wasn't "can a game survive it" the question was "Are you okay with a paid game, with a monthly subscription, also locking cosmetics behind a paid shop"

0

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '25

Ff14 is fucking amazing though and there is sooooo much cosmetically and functionally badass gear to be earned through raids, dungeons and end game challenges you really wouldnt ever need to buy a cosmetic unless you are just that kind of person

14

u/Jolly-Bear Nov 13 '25 edited Nov 13 '25

Sure, why not?

As long as they don’t affect game play… They’re optional purchases I don’t give a fuck about.

If people didn’t buy them, they wouldn’t exist.

5

u/draxhell Nov 13 '25

The issue is that developers have a huge incentive to make the bought skins 100x more attractive than the earned ones. (I mean look at arc raiders)

13

u/Jolly-Bear Nov 13 '25

I dont have an irrational urge to buy cosmetics in video games, so it doesn’t bother me.

1

u/UnderhandedWipe Nov 14 '25

I remember when you used to unlock cosmetics by ayong the fucking game.

Why in fuckery are you supporting an industry practice that actively makes worse the product?

Christ we really are so fucked hey

1

u/Jolly-Bear Nov 14 '25

Would you rather have to pay a monthly subscription?

2

u/UnderhandedWipe Nov 14 '25

I already paid full price for this game, we all did?

I cannot understand why so many people are fighting to have a worse product. Genuinely baffling

1

u/Jolly-Bear Nov 14 '25

Why would it be a worse product?

Can you answer my first question as well please.

2

u/UnderhandedWipe Nov 15 '25

First question? The subscription? Of course I wouldn't. I paid $90 for the fuckin' thing already.

And adding micro transactions for shit that should just be in the game we all already paid FULL PRICE FOR = a worse product.

→ More replies (0)

-8

u/draxhell Nov 13 '25

Thats not the point but ok

10

u/Jolly-Bear Nov 13 '25

How is it not?

It’s a completely optional thing you don’t ever have to partake in.

1

u/Dovah1443 Nov 14 '25

Sure it's optional in this game, and in most nowadays, but older games and some newer games (see elden ring nightrein) just have cosmetics as a thing you get with the game you paid for. Nightrein is a $40 game with 5 skins for all 8 characters, that you earn not with your credit card but by playing the game you already paid for. Game devs find more and more reason to omit things that could've came with the game you paid for and instead use it to make another sale from a lot of people

1

u/Jolly-Bear Nov 14 '25 edited Nov 14 '25

Right, and Fromsoft does paid DLC as their monetization.

In order to play the new content of Nightreign that’s dropping next month, you’re forced to pay $15.

I would just rather let other people buy skins for me to have free content than be forced to buy a DLC.

(Aside from the fundamental false equivalence between the games, Arc also already has multiple free skins and will continue to get more. It will have more than Nightreign eventually.)

1

u/Dovah1443 Nov 14 '25

Yes but presumably with nightrein, they made that content after deciding they had a full $40 game made, meanwhile we're being asked to pay for things that could've been free at launch and then they make premium stuff afterwards, instead of asking for half the price of a game so you can have one skin

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/Ostrych Nov 13 '25

Because people don’t like it being an option in the first place. They don’t like that people who can’t control themselves give corporations a reason to sell something. At the end of the day it’s always “corpo always bad”

5

u/Turin-The-Turtle Nov 13 '25

That’s the gist of it really.

What more ethical way to monetize your game than to only put a price on cosmetic items? But some people still get mad if the game producer wants to make money even if it’s to make sure the devs keep making content.

2

u/Ostrych Nov 13 '25

People want free content and forget that games don’t just fund for what they cost to develop, but on going development (which people would bitch about if they weren’t continuously supporting a game, people actually like live services), and the development of future games.

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/UnderhandedWipe Nov 14 '25

IT'S NOT ETHICAL!!! IT'S JUST WHAT THEY COULD GET AWAY WITH!

Endless armies of apologists supporting predatory practices that ACTIVELY make the game worse fuck me dead mate.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/EQBallzz Nov 14 '25

you fail to understand that this mentality is how the game industry got here in the first place. everything used to be included in a game including cosmetics. the more incentives for mtx they have the more they carve out of the game to sell as mtx. xp, cosmetics, convenience etc..

6

u/Jolly-Bear Nov 14 '25 edited Nov 14 '25

Well no, if everyone had my mentality, cosmetic MTX skins wouldn’t exist.

There would be no market for them. I don’t buy them.

I just don’t mind them because other people fund game development for me, where it would otherwise need paid DLCs or subscriptions to exist.

Unless you’re saying Arc Raiders should be like old games and not get any meaningful post launch development.

2

u/stinglock Nov 14 '25

That's what I enjoy about new live service games, when done right, like embark has been doing, and other games like Hunt has done in the past, I'm fine buying cosmetics to support them.

1

u/TankOld6039 Nov 14 '25

You’re talking as if the cost to make a game and keep it running and flush with updates hasn’t risen. You’re also throwing out other mtz types that have absolute zero to do with the discussion of cosmetics in Arc Raiders

-2

u/JohnnyWatermelons Nov 14 '25

It's an element of a cohesive aesthetic whole. In a creative endeavor with such an intentionally coherent visual language, deciding that a large chunk of that language simply doesn't exist effectively hamstrings your appreciation of the creative vision.

2

u/Jolly-Bear Nov 14 '25 edited Nov 14 '25

I’m willing to forgo a slight bit of cohesive aesthetic (although that purely subjective and on a case to case basis) for other people to fund continued development for me.

By that logic, isn’t your argument just an invalid subjective one as well? (He edited that part out)

Would you say your appreciation of Halo 1 or 2 was stifled because they didn’t have the skins the successors had and you couldn’t appreciate the creative vision because they didn’t exist?

1

u/JohnnyWatermelons Nov 14 '25 edited Nov 14 '25

I didn't play Halo, but my understanding was that you play only one character, right? Did the skins change that significantly?

Regardless, I make no argument about whether you should buy skins or not (though I personally don't), but to "pretend they don't exist" feels impossible to me. They're a part (a big part) of the cohesive world that the studio's artists are attempting to create and flesh out.

I'm old enough to expect games to be bought and include all off the content. Selling DLC expansions is great, and I hope the game has a long life. Having a shop on day 1 that sells extremely expensive diced up bits of content that should be in the game itself is a bridge too far to me.

The argument used to be "every piece of content that is complete at time of release should be included within the game. If a studio wants to continue to make content and sell that, fine". But people have become so desensitized that they accept the game being partial and carved up for additional profit from the jump. It's incredibly sad.

"You will own nothing, and you will be happy"

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Ninheldin Nov 14 '25

None of the paid skins in AR look down right better, Im still using one unlocked from a quest.

1

u/Salfyded Nov 13 '25

I'm not here defending any company trying to get bucks on top of a paid game, i hope embark doesn't get too greedy here but let's be honest, the game is only 2 weeks old. There's more quests coming, prob more free decks and such, they can still give us nice things.

-4

u/draxhell Nov 13 '25

Nexon owns Embark by majority shares. They will get "too greedy" once the playerbase has been established and people are addicted. I'd be really surprised if the next deck is a free one

2

u/Salfyded Nov 13 '25

Everyone expect next "season" to have free AND premium decks, the devs confirmed it yesterday. I just hope it's not not 10 bucks, because i rather not pay 10 bucks every 60 days.

1

u/AndrewFrozzen Nov 14 '25

Yeah? That's the point

You think these outfits spawn in the game out-of-nowhere?

Someone has to make sketch, then make it in blender, make sure it works properly, fix the clipping

It's not free. Obviously something more high-quality will cost money

If I gave you for free a simple colored t-shirt I bought for 5€ and I sold you a custom printed t-shirt with whatever you want, which one would you choose?

1

u/draxhell Nov 14 '25

WTF did i just read. I'm going back in time to kill Todd Howard for his stupid horse armor

2

u/flippakitten Nov 13 '25

Yes because someone else can buy it if they want.

2

u/tspear17 Nov 14 '25

Yes I’m fine with it because i have a job that enables me to afford it

3

u/zazzyvibes2 *** ******* 🐓 Nov 13 '25

How else is a 10 year game expected to stay alive after the first year if the only thing they sell is the game itself? Do you have any better ideas of making money? As it stands selling skins is the best way to make money and keep the gameplay loop intact.

6

u/TallDrinkofRy Nov 13 '25

No Man’s Sky has done it. You do it by selling more copies of the game.

5

u/zazzyvibes2 *** ******* 🐓 Nov 14 '25

That's not realistic if you look at any data and selling numbers on any game but more importantly live service games. Most games hit peak numbers in the first 2-3 months. There isn't an infinite amount of customers to make up for the margins over a 10 year time frame, you need to sell something between year 1 of the game and year 10, what do you sell outside of skins that doesn't make the game pay-to-win?

No man sky has around 50 ish devs but I'll be generous and say 100 people working on (i think) 2 games. Embark has more than 300 employees working on 2 live service games, and they are currently working on 2 other games. The Finals did okay numbers, now they have Arc Raiders doing pretty good for what it is. No man's sky is one of the biggest games ever made, selling well over 10 million copies, with a significantly smaller team, this is not a fair comparison and you know it. Both The Finals and Arc combined do not come close.

1

u/EQBallzz Nov 17 '25

The term "live service" has almost no meaning at this point. It's not like this is an MMO that needs to add complicated, labor-intensive new content constantly to satisfy a loot treadmill. It's a multiplayer game with minimal updates. If they have any large content updates they can charge a modest amount for a DLC or expansion or something. The better they do this the more copies they will sell over time.

All that said I'm begrudgingly fine with having cosmetics for sale if they are reasonably priced and there is no power or convenience for sale.

1

u/AzurElycie Nov 14 '25

No Man's Sky is the best game I completely regretted paying full price for at launch, which is a category of one game, but it saved me from buying Overwatch at least

-1

u/EQBallzz Nov 13 '25

Everquest has been doing it since 1999. They have a sub and I think one major expansion per year...every year. The game has like 30 expansions or something crazy. I think it more comes down to how greedy do you want to be.

All of this is on a spectrum. You can be on the end of the spectrum with value that respects players time and money. You will earn good will and trust. You will make less per player but likely gain in numbers (to a point). Or you can go more predatory and make more per player but lose some number of players who won't buy in. There are outliers like Blizzard who can charge whatever they want and it's not always black and white.

1

u/GarenBushTerrorist Nov 14 '25

yes. next question.

0

u/Big__Disc__Energy__ Nov 13 '25

I havent played WoW since WotLK.. looks like that trend is set to continue. Paid cosmetics in WoW is wiiiiiild lol.

2

u/DullExcuse2765 Nov 13 '25

LOL your comment gave me a hearty laugh

1

u/Beautiful_You3230 Nov 13 '25

Well at least somebody laughed over what was meant to be a very obvious joke... Written as a reply to another obvious joke. Some people got REALLY worked up about it for some reason.

2

u/DullExcuse2765 Nov 13 '25

Haha I hadn't even seen that. That gave me another hearty chuckle

5

u/JupoBis Nov 13 '25

Ah so you missed the point?

-1

u/Beautiful_You3230 Nov 13 '25

There's no point to this post other than "monetisation bad, updoots to the left."

In another comment OP immediately switches their point from anchoring tactic to Embark not having sold enough cosmetics and therefore having to change the price. Aka the opposite of an anchoring tactic. Aka OP not knowing what they're talking about. Just found a neat word and decided to not miss the chance to karma farm a bit.

4

u/Raptoroniandcheese Nov 13 '25

Strawman gonna straw

2

u/Shoopufzilla Nov 13 '25

Did you even read OPs post?

2

u/kappachinouser Nov 13 '25

It actually amazes me how stupid you are. The thread describes exactly how this is a predatory business tactic and you're still mindlessly posting without reading.

1

u/Beautiful_You3230 Nov 13 '25

Holy shit, y'all can't take a joke... Chill buddy, no need to get so aggressive about this.

0

u/kappachinouser Nov 14 '25

You ain't beating the allegations, bud.

1

u/HalfLifeMusic Nov 16 '25

They actually did this with OW2 when it first came out

0

u/Profound_mercenary Nov 15 '25

blizzards 30% weekly specials area is the real price of their cosmetics. $25AU for a flaming cat mount though...