LOLCats
Banned
... A lot of SP only players will wait for a price drop. Some people dont find running around the same maps, chasing other players, dieing, respawning and doing it over and over again Fun. Sorry...
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Ubisoft confirms that Rainbow Six: Siege will NOT feature a single-player campaign
- Thread starter sflufan
- Start date
... A lot of SP only players will wait for a price drop. Some people dont find running around the same maps, chasing other players, dieing, respawning and doing it over and over again Fun. Sorry...
Yekshemesh
Member
4 months? This is an UBIsoft game. 6 weeks max.
I never said an MP only game can't be a full price retail game but I'm yet to see one that has justified itself as one.
This seemingly doesn't have the content to match the price tag.
There's single-player but not a single-player campaign. What is widely recognized as a single-player campaign (a set of sequent levels connected by a story progression with story telling via cutscenes, extensive dialogue or other storytelling methods) will not be present in Siege. A campaign in the traditional sense was never announced.
Rainbow Six Vegas released in 2006 and it's still going nine years later.
blacklabel93
Neo Member
So single player games like fallout and skyrim can cost $60 but If a shooter wants to be multiplayer only it has to be priced "accordingly? Pretty hypocritical if you ask me
UpDownLeftRight
Banned
I've not seen anything else mentioned so I'd guess that's all we're getting. The real shame is, if they were going to do it this way a digital release at £20~ might have been able to draw some in.
...Scatter...
Banned
What happened to this series? The originals on Xbox and 360 were so much fun. C4 was never as fun as it was in Rainbow Six.
Zombie James
Banned
Also confirmed: Me not paying full price for it.
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
You realise how stupid that sounds right?
Mp is an extra, it was introduced as an extra and will always be extra mode to the full game.
Having no Single Player will benefit it and damage it.
It Benefits it because reviews will not be dragged down for being a shit game will a good mp and it will damage it for not having one.
And I say a shit game because they obviously cut it because it was shit.
Don't get me wrong the game maybe fantastic but it's not worth 60 quid for MP alone regardless of how good it is.
It'll be the intro to the game which will make no sense once you start the game.
Traumnovelle
Member
Is this the case?
MarauderShields
Member
Kenzodielocke
Banned
Why is it hypocritical ?
Scientist Supreme!
Banned
Would you not buy a game for $60 if it was SP only?
Kabuki Waq
Member
Curious how many maps and modes did Unreal Tournament launch with?
Should be a pretty good comparison.
Should be a pretty good comparison.
SuperStiltzkin
Member
I would have an issue if competitive mode were the only mode. But Terrorist Hunt definitely makes it a more attractive package for me. I think the main issue people have with multiplayer only games is that the fun you have completely is reliant on many unpredictable factors, the most unpredictable of which is other players. You could get grouped up with a shitty team, run into cheaters, get matched against clans constantly or run into people with laggy connections. Unless you meet a very specific criteria of having 4 other friends whose schedules line up with yours, you're probably gonna spend 50% of the time losing. And in a competitive game, someone has to lose and it's a common be pessimistic and think you will always lose. I think the value people put in competitive games is entirely reliant on their attitude toward competition. If you've got a "win some, lose some" mentality than you probably don't mind. If are only able to have fun when you win, then a competitive multiplayer game isn't gonna be attractive to you. People just don't like it when the "bang" you get for your buck is determined by who you get matched up against. It's why you get less of an uproar when it comes to co-op focused experiences. Monster Hunter is essentially an MP game whose "single player campaign" component is the same quests as the MP mode, except you are by yourself.
Kenzodielocke
Banned
Yes, but I have different priorities, hence the "imo" at the and of my sentence that I wouldn't pay 60 bucks for a MP only game, that will probably also have microtransactions knowing Ubisoft. Why is that hypocrital ? Just my own preference.
What they did have is now replaced with tutorials...
according to the OP.
We'll see if Angela Bassett is still in it.
But I'm beginning to think what was in the Ubi blog and what was in the OP is just different people explaining the same thing.
So maybe nothing has changed since then.
bananafactory
Banned
I have no issue with games focusing on MP and leaving out a single player campaign that wouldn't work for the game
The problem is that it feels like more often than not these MP only game have only scarcely more content than other titles which include both MP and a campaign, so it feels like poor value.
The problem is that it feels like more often than not these MP only game have only scarcely more content than other titles which include both MP and a campaign, so it feels like poor value.
BlastProcessing
Member
She is a very good actress.
NullPointer
Member
Are there plans to sell the usual premium map packs every few months after release?
Any chance of free post-launch map support?
I'm not picking this up regardless since I'm really into the series for campaign and co-op, but post-launch plans could help justify the launch price, or make it look worse, depending.
Any chance of free post-launch map support?
I'm not picking this up regardless since I'm really into the series for campaign and co-op, but post-launch plans could help justify the launch price, or make it look worse, depending.
In a nutshell, this right here. You also rely upon other players and server support to enjoy multiplayer modes, where single player modes tend not to depend upon those factors. So if the game bombs, how good an experience will it be for that community?
All the maps are free at least.
There is a season pass but we don't know what that contains yet.
I would guess more operators.
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
I can confirm that I will not be purchasing this game as it is not made for people like myself.
hemo memo
Gold Member
Poor value depends on the price, if it's full price then you're right.
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
You are correct, but to the development team it is not, a lot more goes into the SP then MP and it's disappointing they've took this long and cut it.
I don't mind MP only games, but the one's I had in the past was £30 with a headset and £20 on there own.
MP is extra because it is exactly what it is, it use to listed as extra features
Just because people like to drive in and sit in the lobby for half hour instead of playing the Single Player doesn't change that or make it worth the price of full game with or without MP.
Can Universal Studio's charge £15 for an Extras Disc without the main feature just because some people like watching the extras?
You may not think it's the same but it is exactly the same, the difference is gamers accept it.
You might see it as worth 60 quid, but to me it's like just getting the bonus disc to movie
Scientist Supreme!
Banned
Of course its your own opinion/preference. Doesn't stop it from being hypocritical. Mostly due to them being both games but you not buying one due to a arbitrary reason even if you had a equal amount of "fun" with both.
NullPointer
Member
Great news, and changes the value proposition for me entirely. For me its still no campaign, no buy, but I don't see the problem with launching at full price as long as there are a decent amount of maps and modes.
CanUKlehead
Member
Too bad. I'm not very social online and solely enjoy the CODs and Halos for the superdumb action thrill rides that they can be, even if only for a handful of hours.
I'm sure I'm in the minority though, of course, but it's Titanfall for me all over again.
I'm sure I'm in the minority though, of course, but it's Titanfall for me all over again.
Shining Sunshine
Banned
Well, Evolve didn't do too well.
Battlefront is multiplayer only with coop available, but also has bots so you can play single player.
JumPeRJumPzZ
Banned
Yep. Im really getting worried about that new South Park game :/ I dont want to climb towers to help Mr Garrison
Scientist Supreme!
Banned
Well. That's certainly a reach of an opinion to compare a multiplayer component to deleted scenes or documentaries in film DVDs...
But you do you.
Man it's a good thing Rainbow Six Siege has a single player component in the game that lets you play co-op with friends...just like Battlefront.
Why would they come to a game like this that's been heavily advertised as a multiplayer-focused experience in the first place? It's not as if the series hasn't been heavily MP focused (yes I'm aware of the game's campaigns) before?????
poodaddy
Member
I know some people are ok with this, but I despise this trend so much. It just seems like a way to carve money off the games budget, but they still sell the game at full retail value. I loved Titanfall, but I got it at 15 bucks, the price that an online only shooter is worth to me. I'd never pay much for what I consider an incomplete experience.