Dead by Daylight players call out “scammy” Naughty Bear discount
Behaviour InteractiveA “false” discount advertised on the new Naughty Bear skin has Dead by Daylight players feeling irate.
At face value, the idea of complaining about an advertised discount might seem ridiculous. Especially so, given the fact that you’re more accustomed to hearing players complain about the price of Dead by Daylight cosmetics being too high.
However, one player has prompted a heated conversation on r/deadbydaylight around the ethics of Behaviour Interactive advertising their Naughty Bear skin as discounted when it will likely never not be discounted.
Dead by Daylight’s “perpetual sale” upsets players
Naughty Bear is Dead by Daylight’s most recently released killer cosmetic bundle and is based on the 2010 game of the same name. It’s available for Trapper, one of Dead by Daylight‘s base killers. While the skin will set players back 1,485 auric cells, the store page claims that the pre-discount cost is 1,950 auric cells.
The apparent discount has struck players as disingenuous, given that the set is not only being released at a supposedly reduced price but will likely never be listed higher than that on the store at any time in the near future.
Believing this to be a deliberate and cynical marketing move, Redditors were quick to point out the illegality of perpetual sales in Australia, Europe, and the UK. As well as that, they made unflattering comparisons to Fallout 76’s controversial holiday emote bundle.
However, a few commenters pointed out a “loophole” for the developer: rather than being a sale-specific markdown, the constantly displayed discount calculates how much a player would save buying the Naughty Bear skin as a bundle instead of its individual components.
However, given that the Naughty Bear cosmetic consists of a linked set, there’s no way to buy the head, torso, legs, and Mori separately. So, a few fans believe Dead by Daylight’s Naughty Bear skin may inhabit a legal and ethical “grey area” preventing any action being taken against Behaviour.
That said, some commenters were still confused as to why anyone would want to intervene in the first place: “Why are we complaining about paying less for the skin?”
