Always-honest
Banned
If it was like the Vegas games, hell yes.
-
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
Scientist Supreme!
Banned
Why can't MP only games cost $60?
Spyder_Monkey
Banned
I smell disaster.
Corleth the Fey
Member
Ha, I don't care because Terrorist Hunt will be as good as last time, right guys?
They're screwing that up as well aren't they?
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
That's interesting. I had assumed from the previews that SP would have been a L4D style single-player, maybe with limited AI commands. That is to say that no one would be buying it for single player, but in the event someone did, they wouldn't immediately flip the table about it. One of the reasons I assumed this is because they spent time at conferences talking about the characters in the game--not that you can't have characters in MP-only games, but I just felt like there would be some sort of story focus and enough of an offline component. *shrugs*
I don't like when developers/publishers shoehorn multiplayer modes into games designed to be single player, and I shouldn't be upset when they decide not to shoehorn single player modes into a game designed to be multiplayer. I have no problem if game designers stick to thier strengths and focus on what they're good at.
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.
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.
MarauderShields
Member
But only should if they deserve it
TheSlySoul
Member
Not getting my money then, thanks Ubisoft!
Why should they? Not seen any compelling evidence from Evolve or Titanfall.
PeskyToaster
Member
Single player only games are the ones that shouldn't cost 60 bucks. MP is what gives games longevity in most cases. I don't get the idea that single player only games are so welcome while mp is so derided.
Alpha Phoenix
Member
Same here. Neither Evolve nor Titanfall was worth full price, IMHO.
funny isnt it.
for the longest time everyone cried about "shoehorned" multiplayer but when devs stop putting stuff in games so that it's an extra bullet point, all of a sudden it becomes "half a game"
Such a stupid mindset and why most modern games are trash, because pubs listen to clowns like this who don't even know what they want. they just bitch to bitch
Scientist Supreme!
Banned
I don't understand. You seem to think SP can be the only way a game cost $60.
ScaryShark
Banned
Evolve 2.
Coming out during a loaded fall/winter buying season too. If this doesn't end up being a disappointment sales wise I'll be shocked.
Coming out during a loaded fall/winter buying season too. If this doesn't end up being a disappointment sales wise I'll be shocked.
shanafan
Member
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.
Stone Ocean
Member
They can in theory, it's just that no AAA retail game has made a case for it yet.
At least this will have free maps I guess, that's a start.
Visualante2
Member
I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. I'd be happier with $50 ($40 on PC) but I fully support this. The data shows very few people care. Sorry folks.
Jim is more likely to applaud the game for breaking the AAA shooter mold. And then rail on it for being full of microtransactions (if it is)
VibratingDonkey
Member
What is happening? I thought they'd said there would be a campaign? Oh well, at lest this ends that confusion, like two months before the game's out.
I appreciate that they're doing what could be a good one of these, but fastpaced CQB is generally not my thing when it comes to multiplayer. So with this news, I'm out. Don't know if I would've been interested anyway, as when playing Rainbow Six's I've always just wished the campaigns were more like SWAT 4.
I appreciate that they're doing what could be a good one of these, but fastpaced CQB is generally not my thing when it comes to multiplayer. So with this news, I'm out. Don't know if I would've been interested anyway, as when playing Rainbow Six's I've always just wished the campaigns were more like SWAT 4.
People usually assume FPS games have single player, because most do.
Battlefront got some. Just seemingly not as much. People here on GAF have sworn not to buy it based on that. When Im not on mobile I will try to find the thread
Because people knew from the get go Battlefront wouldn't have a single player mode
There was never any single-player campaign in any of the previous Battlefront titles, so there was no expectation that there would be one in the DICE version.
Rainbow Six is another issue entirely because there has always been a single-player campaign associated with the series.
Guy Legend
Member
Hype deflated.
Stone Ocean
Member
I'm pretty sure Battlefront got some shit for that. But honestly, after playing Battlefield 3, 4 and Hardline, the lack of a campaign in Battlefront is a plus to me.
Axispowers
Member
Right!? Why is this so surprising
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
Visualante2
Member
Because Peter came out and said- the data shows nobody cares. You're a vocal minority I think.
DizzyCaffeine
Member
But will there be a Team Deathmatch mode? The game is going to get super old fast without it.
Scientist Supreme!
Banned
Sure. It just felt like the guy was saying MP only games on principle can't be $60.
GitarooMan
Member
The idea that 60 dollar games can't be MP only is so narrow. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean there aren't thousands of people who will get tons of play out of it. The fundamental idea that the value of SP is somehow higher is so dated, and this is coming from someone who primarily plays SP games.
PeskyToaster
Member
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.
LegalEagleMike
Member
Plenty of people give Battlefront heat for it since the announcement. Most people are ok with it based on the quality of prior DICE campaigns.
I see the argument for rainbow six, but Titanfall and Evolve were two new IPs aiming for no campaign like Battlefront. I don't understand the mentality, perhaps it's just nostalgia is what exempts Battlefront.
Omega Kirby
Member
Seriously this is like EA saying battlefield 5 will not have a campaign. Its all about the multiplayer
SuperStiltzkin
Member
I'll buy whenever it gets cheap and just play Terrorist Hunt. It's a damn shame though. Unlike Evolve, I can totally see how cool a RB Siege campaign would be. No Vegas style campaign, but rather something more in line with traditional Rainbow Six mission structure.
HarryDemeanor
Member
To be honest, I was under the impression there was no single-player because all they've been showing was multiplayer stuff. Then the Angela Bassett stuff at E3 made me think there was something there and now there isn't.
I'm confused.
I'm confused.
Rex Griswold
Member
I was enjoying the beta, but no campaign is a killer for a Rainbow Six game.
Confidence Man
Member
More outraged at the lack of dedicated servers.
Ulysses 31
Member
And have season passes. >.>