Arc Raiders Tests PvE-Only Matchmaking as Embark Weighs Community Concerns

Arc Raiders is putting one of the extraction shooter genre's biggest arguments into a live test. Embark Studios has introduced a limited-time toggle for PvE-only play, giving players a way to enter matches without direct player-versus-player conflict. It is a deceptively simple change with potentially enormous consequences for a game built around uncertainty, extraction pressure, valuable loot, and the possibility that another human player may be more dangerous than any machine.

The trial has immediately prompted a fierce response from the community. Some players see a PvE option as an overdue accessibility measure for people who enjoy Arc Raiders' world, missions, scavenging, and combat but dislike being ambushed or killed by other raiders. Others worry that separating PvE from PvP could weaken the stakes that make an extraction shooter compelling, complicate progression and item values, or split the game's population into incompatible groups.

Those arguments are not limited to players. Executive producer Aleksander Grøndal has said that similar debates took place within Embark itself before the studio decided to test the feature. Rather than committing to a permanent, fully designed mode based solely on internal theory, the developer is using matchmaking data and player feedback to determine what people actually need from a lower-conflict Arc Raiders experience.

Why Embark decided to try a PvE toggle

The decision was partly driven by player behavior already visible in the game. Grøndal pointed to friendly servers where groups were, in practice, interacting in ways that made matches feel close to non-PvP sessions. The number of players seeking out or creating those more cooperative experiences appeared to grow over time, giving the team a concrete signal that there was an audience for a different kind of match.

For useful background on this topic, read Timothy Cain Warns RPGs Could Lose Their Best Kept Secrets.

That audience includes what Grøndal loosely described as "dad gamers": players with limited free time who may only get a few hours to play occasionally. The label is broad, but the underlying issue will be familiar to many multiplayer communities. These players can be interested in a game's objectives and atmosphere without wanting every session to become a high-stakes contest against opponents with more time, better equipment, more map knowledge, or a willingness to wait in an advantageous ambush position.

For those players, being eliminated by an extraction camper or a heavily equipped rival can turn a short session into a frustrating one. Their complaint is not necessarily that Arc Raiders' core gameplay lacks appeal. Instead, they may like the game while feeling that hostile player encounters prevent them from engaging with the parts they value most.

Embark's thinking is that if players enjoy the foundation of Arc Raiders but repeatedly identify other players as the main source of frustration, removing that pressure is a clear idea worth testing.

That does not mean the studio believes a PvE-only option is automatically the final solution. The test exists because the question is more complicated than simply turning off damage between players. A permanent version would need to account for incentives, matchmaking, enemy behavior, rewards, progression, and the social consequences of dividing a shared online game into separate experiences.

Extraction shooters rely on tension, but not every player wants the same kind

Arc Raiders sits in a genre where tension is often created by overlapping threats. Players must deal with hostile AI enemies, navigate a dangerous environment, pursue objectives, collect useful gear, and decide when to leave safely. The knowledge that another squad could appear at any point changes every decision. A successful extraction feels valuable because failure can cost time, equipment, and hard-won rewards.

Removing PvP alters that formula immediately. Without the risk of another player choosing to hunt, trick, rob, or ambush the squad, players can approach encounters more directly. They can focus on AI enemies and objectives, explore with less paranoia, and treat a match as a cooperative mission rather than a contest in which cooperation can collapse without warning.

For some, that is exactly the appeal. PvE can create room for learning maps, experimenting with loadouts, taking in the environment, and playing alongside friends who might otherwise avoid an extraction shooter altogether. It may also offer a more welcoming route for newcomers, especially if standard matches are intimidating or if losses against experienced players feel impossible to understand.

For others, however, PvP is not an optional extra. It is the ingredient that makes loot meaningful and extraction decisions difficult. A dangerous machine can be studied, anticipated, and eventually mastered. Another player is unpredictable. They may be under-equipped and desperate, highly organized and aggressive, friendly until circumstances change, or simply trying to get out alive with the same supplies. That uncertainty produces stories that scripted encounters cannot always replicate.

Embark's internal discussions reportedly reflected these concerns. Developers considered how a PvE mode might affect tension, challenge, and the in-game loot economy. Those are substantial design questions. If rewards are too generous in PvE, some players may feel pushed toward the safer option before bringing their gains into standard play. If rewards are sharply reduced, PvE may feel like a second-class mode that does not respect the time of the people it is meant to welcome. If the two experiences share progression, balancing becomes more delicate; if they do not, the feature may become less useful for players seeking an alternative path through the same game.

The first test has already exposed rough edges

The current implementation is intentionally straightforward: a matchmaking toggle. That makes it useful as a quick test, but it also means the mode has not arrived with every possible safeguard or system tailored for a PvE environment.

Players began identifying loopholes and disruptive behavior almost immediately. Reports have highlighted people interfering with loot and harassing Arc enemies in situations where the affected players were not prepared for raiders who no longer have opposing players to fight. The result illustrates an important point: disabling direct PvP does not automatically eliminate all forms of friction or griefing in a multiplayer space.

A more developed PvE offering, should Embark pursue one, could require finer controls around objective access, loot interactions, spawn behavior, player collision, enemy targeting, or other systems that become more noticeable once PvP is removed. None of those changes have been promised, and the limited-time test should not be taken as confirmation that a permanent mode is already in production.

Still, the problems are informative. A test is useful precisely because it reveals behavior that can be difficult to predict in design meetings. Players tend to optimize systems, exploit ambiguities, and discover edge cases at a scale no internal team can fully reproduce. Embark is looking for those lessons rather than treating the initial toggle as a finished statement of how PvE must work.

Live data may matter more than a theoretical answer

Grøndal's comments suggest Embark did not want to spend indefinitely debating a hypothetical feature or build an elaborate solution before validating the basic need. The team instead chose the most obvious experiment: let players select PvE matchmaking, observe what happens, and use the response to guide further work.

That approach is especially appropriate for a live multiplayer game, where the difference between what players say they want and what they repeatedly choose can be significant. Embark can study how often the toggle is used, which players use it, whether they return, how long their sessions last, where frustration appears, and whether the mode affects activity elsewhere. Feedback will supply context, but player behavior can reveal whether PvE is serving a lasting audience or merely satisfying curiosity during a brief test period.

The studio is also leaving room for an answer other than a permanent, unrestricted PvE queue. The test may show that players need better tools for friendly sessions, improved onboarding, protected learning spaces, revised reward structures, more cooperative objectives, or targeted anti-griefing measures. A binary choice between "full PvP" and "full PvE" may not be the only possible outcome.

That uncertainty is worth emphasizing. Embark has expressed excitement about seeing how players respond, but it has not made a promise to preserve the current PvE toggle or transform it into a permanent feature. The stated goal is to learn what works and use those findings when considering what comes next.

Frozen Trail also brings a long-requested quality-of-life change

The PvE discussion arrives alongside the Frozen Trail update, whose patch notes include a smaller but highly requested improvement: players can now open the map while downed. In a game where positioning, communication, and extraction routes matter, that change can be meaningful. A downed player is no longer entirely cut off from helping teammates navigate or understand the immediate situation.

It is also a reminder that Arc Raiders' future is not defined by one matchmaking experiment. The PvE test has attracted attention because it touches the game's identity, but quality-of-life changes can shape everyday play just as strongly. Better information while downed may reduce confusion in tense moments, help squads coordinate recoveries, and make losses feel less opaque.

For now, Arc Raiders' PvE-only matchmaking remains an experiment rather than a settled direction. The community debate is unlikely to quiet down soon, because both sides are arguing for experiences they genuinely value: a demanding extraction shooter where human unpredictability matters, and a cooperative sci-fi adventure where players can pursue objectives without being punished for lacking time or PvP enthusiasm.

Embark has chosen not to resolve that conflict through assumption. By opening the door to a limited test, it can measure whether the players asking for PvE are looking for a fundamentally separate way to play, a temporary refuge from competitive pressure, or something more nuanced. The next step will depend on whether the studio can preserve what makes Arc Raiders exciting while making space for players who simply want to get in, complete a few objectives, and enjoy the game on their own terms.