Support NeoGAF

[Femto.]

Because Peter came out and said- the data shows nobody cares. You're a vocal minority I think.

I'm only calling it out because it's hilarious how inconsistent people are with which games can get away with no campaign and which ones shouldn't.

The inconsistency is what baffles me, and I should say I'm not too invested with FPS games. It's just something I've noticed.

 

[GrantDaNasty]

I didn't know that.

I was just reading this the other when I was considering getting the game

http://blog.ubi.com/rainbow-six-siege-single-player-terrohunt-modes/

That was June 15th this year.
They even had Angela Bassett signed up.

This is the part that gets me. They show footage at E3 featuring Angela Bassett, which...unless it's just backstory and some incidental lore for the multiplayer, I thought for sure it would have some form of campaign.

 

[Xando]

Is it free2play or something.

From the look of it's character unlock mechanics it's a F2P game for 60$.

Like most multiplayer only AAA games.

 

[ScaryShark]

And have season passes. >.>

They've already announced a season pass.

 

[The Lone Courier]

Well that confirms me not buying it then.

 

[SystemBug]

Didn't they already announce this?

 

[3AM]

Good. The single player in rainbow six is a waste of resources. They need to focus on making a kick ass mp game.

 

[Always-honest]

But did it ever have that feel from the shown gameplay? I feel this was always going to be a small team tactics game in a closed environment, with only MP involved.

We were only shown the few mp maps. And no... They didn't feel much like the Vegas games but those mp modes aren,t that bad.
For me the vegas games were about T-hunt and SP though.

 

[PeskyToaster]

I'm only calling it out because it's hilarious how inconsistent people are with which games can get away with no single and which ones shouldn't.

What do you mean 'get away with'? Do you have examples of a person who forgave Battlefront but not TF, Evolve, and/or Rainbow Six?

 

[oti]

You're smarter than this GAF. Why on earth did you even expect it to have a single player if they never showed or even talked about it? I thought it was pretty clear this was another Titenfall/Evolve kinda deal.

 

[PrinceKee]

As opposed to being a coaster with a terrible 5 hour campaign

because it is an at outrage that I am missing out on such great content

GTHO with that BS. We've gotten good single player campaigns from this series especially Vegas. Sick of this precedent of only including multiplayer because "supposedly" no one plays single player story, yet we get charged full price for half a game. This series has always had a single player so fans of R6 were looking forward to it...

This is the part that gets me. They show footage at E3 featuring Angela Bassett, which...unless it's just backstory and some incidental lore for the multiplayer, I thought for sure it would have some form of campaign.

This is what gets me too. They kind of led us to assume there would be a campaign in some form...

 

[Whompa02]

They've already said maps will be free.

Will everything post launch be free? Will they offer map packs based on community created maps?

Basically: will this have a lifespan comparable to the behemoth fps shooters like counter-strike?

 

[Femto.]

What do you mean 'get away with'? Do you have examples of a person who forgave Battlefront but not TF, Evolve, and/or Rainbow Six?

Some state that previous DICE titles campaign's were lackluster and they're okay with the exclusion. Others state that battlefront was never known for the campaigns. They're just observations I've seen in threads about MP only games.

 

[Warxard]

Wasn't this already known?

Terrorist Hunt was already the single player component. This was already known.

 

[Predwolf]

I love the gameplay through and through, but with only 20 operators at launch and no real self-customization, I was hoping for a fun co-op campaign like the Vegas games had.

I've bought every R6 game since the first PC release, along with the collector's edition that had all of the early games in a new bundle, simply because I had to have it. It pains me to say this, but I will probably skip Siege. $79.99 for the base game, and $119.99 for the game with a season pass, it's just not worth the money.

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

GTHO with that BS. We've gotten good single player campaigns from this series especially Vegas. Sick of this precedent of only including multiplayer because "supposedly" no one plays single player story, yet we get charged full price for half a game. This series has always had a single player so fans of R6 were looking forward to it...



This is what gets me too. They kind of led us to assume there would be a campaign in some form...

MP only isn't "half a game".

 

[SuperStiltzkin]

They've already announced a season pass.

Post launch maps will be free, which is nice for T-Hunt. Season pass will probably feature new operators with overpowered and unfair abilities.

 

[hiptanaka]

Automatic no-buy from me.

 

[Stone Ocean]

Why spend millions on a mode people will complete in 6 hours and then move on to the multiplayer. It's where the real money and time invested is. People always complain about tacked on multiplayer but tacked on single players are just as bad. Titanfall didn't lose a playerbase because of the lack of single player. It lozt it because the multiplayer didn't have enough unlocks/things to earn. Games have deep unlock pools for aa reason. It's the same reason loot games are so successful.

Buying a multiplayer only game is a risk. I mean sure, there's always the risk of the game being bad but you have ways around that. On the other hand everyone and their mother wants a piece of the Call of Duty pie, if the game doesn't click with people and the userbase goes back to whatever they already play you're left with a $60+DLCs door stopper.

Having some single player fluff aleviates that because at least you'll always have something to go back to. If publishers don't want to spend money on that because they know it's not worth it fine, but in that same vein either give something really meaty for 60 bucks or don't charge full price. Hell not even Activision is charging full price.

 

[Warxard]

GTHO with that BS. We've gotten good single player campaigns from this series especially Vegas. Sick of this precedent of only including multiplayer because "supposedly" no one plays single player story, yet we get charged full price for half a game. This series has always had a single player so fans of R6 were looking forward to it...

"Full price for half a game."

Multiplayer only games can't be full price?

Single player only games must be half a game then, obviously they should sell those at $40.

Buying a multiplayer only game is a risk. I mean sure, there's always the risk of the game being bad but you have ways around that. On the other hand everyone and their mother wants a piece of the Activision pie, if the game doesn't click with people and the userbase goes back to whatever they already play you're left with a $60+DLCs door stopper.

Having some single player fluff aleviates that.

So, that's what Terrohunt is for.

 

[Kade]

SP only = 100% game
MP only = 50% game

I will never understand this stupid mentality.

 

[Steveo]

So we only get 11 maps @ launch for 59.99 plus tax?

Sounds like a deal!

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

So we only get 11 maps @ launch for 59.99 plus tax?

Sounds like a deal!

So would a SP campaign make up that difference?

 

[Warxard]

Outdated information.

 

[PeskyToaster]

Some state that previous DICE titles campaign's were lackluster and they're okay with the exclusion. Others state that battlefront was never known for the campaigns. They're just observations I've seen in threads about MP only games.

Yeah but I think it's different people making those observations about different games. Nothing hypocritical. I take issue with people being happy when a game is singleplayer only but up in arms when game is multiplayer only. There seems to be a dislike of multiplayer that is completely at odds with how the general population buys games.

 

[manzo]

Excellent. All the manpower behind the mp mode. Should be the same for Battlefield.

 

[TGO]

They've already said maps will be free.

But they're not, they 60 quid because that's all that's on the disc, maps
If there's no Single Player or even Co op story then they are shipping a Disc with maps for us to entertain ourselves with for 60 quid
Instead of 60 quid worth of entertainment and some mp maps as an extra.

 

[Stone Ocean]

So, that's what Terrohunt is for.

So there's single player content, just not a story campaign?

I'm ok with that.

 

[Kenzodielocke]

Will fail like Evolve. Titanfall did kinda well, but it's dead too, at least on PC.

 

[Warxard]

So there's single player content, just not a story campaign?

I'm ok with that.

Yes. Terrorhunt has it's own ranking system apparently as well.

Will fail like Evolve. Titanfall did kinda well, but it's dead too, at least on PC.

And you don't think Evolve's failure had to do with it's mostly anti-consumer DLC/Season Pass bullshit?

Evolve had SOLO play/single player as well. It wasn't strictly a multiplayer-only title. Titanfall had NO options for Solo play, and yet it did better.

Where is this logic that you're going with? Because even games like Evolve can fail with your fabled 'single player content' as a selling point.

 

[Radec]

Eh.. I think I'll pass then.

 

[jelly]

Wasn't it a lone wolf single player, it was so wrong to begin with.

 

[Hale-XF11]

2015: The year the campaign died.

 

[Kezen]

Count me out then. I thought they confirmed there would be a SP mode of a sort.

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

But they're not, they 60 quid because that's all that's on the disc, maps
If there's no Single Player or even Co op story then they are shipping a Disc with maps for us to entertain ourselves with for 60 quid
Instead of 60 quid worth of entertainment and some mp maps as an extra.

I mean that's what the game is. Do not like this MP game for being multiplayer game?

 

[Always-honest]

So there's single player content, just not a story campaign?

I'm ok with that.

Title is somewahet misleading but there will be no story campaign where you can give orders to friendly Ai members.

 

[Alpha Phoenix]

Count me out then. I thought they confirmed there would be a SP mode of a sort.

I was under the same impression. Could've sworn they mentioned a SP campaign at some point.

 

[PeskyToaster]

Buying a multiplayer only game is a risk. I mean sure, there's always the risk of the game being bad but you have ways around that. On the other hand everyone and their mother wants a piece of the Call of Duty pie, if the game doesn't click with people and the userbase goes back to whatever they already play you're left with a $60+DLCs door stopper.

Having some single player fluff aleviates that because at least you'll always have something to go back to. If publishers don't want to spend money on that because they know it's not worth it fine, but in that same vein either give something really meaty for 60 bucks or don't charge full price. Hell not even Activision is charging full price.

Who goes back to a Battlefield single player though? The single player isn't what people usually go back for. It's one and done now lets play MP for 500 hours. And I'm fine with charging less for less but then I would also have to be fine with charging more for meatier games. A Skyrim would be worth more than a linear one and done game.

 

[TheSlySoul]

2015: The year the campaign died.

Yep, it is truly sad that developers care more about MP because they can sell you microtransactions than making a overall package.
I stopped caring about Rainbow Six 10 years ago, so meh.

 

[Stone Ocean]

Will fail like Evolve. Titanfall did kinda well, but it's dead too, at least on PC.

Evolve and Titanfall failed because they had laughable content out of the box.

Evolve also happened to be shit.

 

[Kade]

Will fail like Evolve. Titanfall did kinda well, but it's dead too, at least on PC.

I'd probably agree with you if Rainbow 6 Siege wasn't a highly anticipated entry in a long running franchise that hasn't had a product on the market since 2008.

Wouldn't play it anyway.

Do some of you guys suffer through those Battlefield campaigns out of principle or something?

Gotta get my $30 worth of content, man.

 

[Fudgepuppy]

I thought this was known? It's literally the only thing they've shown from the game. :S

 

[JaseC]

Bah, tutorials. Last I read, there was going to be some sort of SP/co-op component:

“The single-player is really about the player’s story, and the player’s impact on the Rainbow Six universe,” continues Witts. Rainbow Six Siege is bringing us back to the scenario-based missions from previous Rainbow titles. Each scenario is designed with single-player in mind, though all of them can be played in co-op. As with the Hostage Rescue mode revealed at E3 last year, there’s no respawning; if you go down once, you’re down for good.

Edit: Oh, the above is still in, there's just no traditional, narrative-driven campaign? That's acceptable.

 

[Xando]

Evolve and Titanfall failed because they had laughable content out of the box.

Certainly looks like R6 will have the same problem.

 

[Femto.]

Yeah but I think it's different people making those observations about different games. Nothing hypocritical. I take issue with people being happy when a game is singleplayer only but up in arms when game is multiplayer only. There seems to be a dislike of multiplayer that is completely at odds with how the general population buys games.

Likewise, worded my thoughts incorrectly as that is what I was trying to get at.

I have no problem with $60 MP games as long as it has longetivoty and variety of play with quality gameplay. Just because a game doesn't have SP does not make it half a game charged at full price.

 

[Omega]

GTHO with that BS. We've gotten good single player campaigns from this series especially Vegas. Sick of this precedent of only including multiplayer because "supposedly" no one plays single player story, yet we get charged full price for half a game. This series has always had a single player so fans of R6 were looking forward to it...



This is what gets me too. They kind of led us to assume there would be a campaign in some form...

I never said no one plays single player

Vegas was trash. OId school R6 is dead and it was never coming back so I'm not sure why people are all upset. Better to focus on one aspect and make sure it's the best it can be rather than splitting up resources to develop a mediocre SP and a mediocre SP.

but hey i guess it's a full game so even though it wouldn't be a game worth playing, it's still worth $60. because why would value be based off enjoyment?

 

[3AM]

Will fail like Evolve. Titanfall did kinda well, but it's dead too, at least on PC.

Yeah. Like counter strike. And rocket league. League of legends. Dota.... You get the point. Mp only does not = fail.
However spending millions on making a sp that most of the fan base won't care about and most people will just crap on if it's not amazing is a fail.

Plus r6 is a pretty niche title and spending crazy amounts on a sp and not making enough back is a good way for the franchise to never make a good come back.

 

[Warxard]

Yep, it is truly sad that developers care more about MP because they can sell you microtransactions than making a overall package.
I stopped caring about Rainbow Six 10 years ago, so meh.

CoD, Halo, Battleborn, Battlefront, Metal Gear Solid 5 -- all BIG titles coming up that have both single player and multiplayer components.

What is an 'overall' package? Why can't a multiplayer-only (which R6S isn't) game be an 'overall package' in the same vein as a single player only game?

 

[spazchicken]

I loved the Vegas titles and was excited for the R6 game that got cancelled but Siege never really grabbed me. I've always been waiting for that single player footage. Now I can finally wipe Siege off my list.

We'll always have Vegas at least.

 

[Grief.exe]

But they're not, they 60 quid because that's all that's on the disc, maps
If there's no Single Player or even Co op story then they are shipping a Disc with maps for us to entertain ourselves with for 60 quid
Instead of 60 quid worth of entertainment and some mp maps as an extra.

It's an arbitrary comparison.

One person may derive more enjoyment from the multiplayer and not value the single player at all.
One person may value single player content more and not see value in the game as the result of a lack of single player content. Both are perfectly fine with their opinions

To make the point even more irrelevant, a studio is given a budget at the start of development. They can split that budget in half and devote their resources to both single player and multiplayer modes, or just focus all of their budget on multiplayer.

Personally, I would prefer if developers of these popular multiplayer games such as Call.of Duty, Battlefield, etc would devote all of their resources to multiplayer rather than put out a subpar single player. Obviously others would disagree, but ultimately it's up to focus groups and the publisher to determine how the budget is utilized.

At the end of the day, you are going to buy the product or not, but you can't form an argument for entertainment value based on subjective opinions.