Top
160°

Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Siege Will Ship With 11 Maps, All Future Maps Will Be Available For Free

Ubisoft has just announced that Rainbow Six: Siege will ship with 11 multiplayer maps, that will be playable both at day and night. Not only that, but the French company revealed that all post-launch maps will be made available to everyone for free.

Read Full Story >>
dsogaming.com
The story is too old to be commented.
FITgamer1005d ago

That's that what i like to hear. Can't wait for the beta.

freshslicepizza1005d ago

more devs should be doing this. it creates a very good relationship with the customer who will stick around instead of trading their games in all the time.

1005d ago Replies(4)
TheJacksonRGN1005d ago

So what the hell are they including in the season pass?

crazychris41241005d ago

Probably similar to what Evolve offered but hopefully not to its insane extent. Hundreds of dlc items on the 1st day gives us the impression that content was cut out which is why its a ghost town on PC (less than 1500/day) and probably consoles too. So expect more skins, weapons, gadgets, characters, accessories and more.

gangsta_red1005d ago

Awesome. I hope this type of thing becomes a trend...and by that I mean devs having mercy on our pockets.

_-EDMIX-_1005d ago

Games are already very expensive to make. We are technically paying less per game. The reality is...if this actually becomes a trend, they will demand more for games in that respect, ie $80 per game or something

(mind you that is actually still cheaper then if they where to release those as DLC as I don't think all the DLC wraps up to be $20)

So its $80 with free maps (mind you we will likely still see DLC lol)

or $60 for 10 maps or so, (DLC for those that want the extra maps)

Both have advantages too.

gangsta_red1004d ago

".if this actually becomes a trend, they will demand more for games in that respect, ie $80 per game or something"

Or they can just stop making DLC, I don't see how giving away free DLC would up the price of games. Especially when DLC is optional and not even a guarantee to recover loss of profits. And more time and money is spent making added content, maps and other features I seriously doubt developing no DLC would create the price of games going up.

_-EDMIX-_1004d ago

http://www.gamesindustry.bi...

and

http://www.pcgamer.com/elec...

sure...

Did you think that they would work for free just because? Do you not get that those developers are paid by contract? EA has to pay them more clearly to do such content.

http://arstechnica.com/gami...

and

http://www.ign.com/articles...

Yet they would work more and get less money, and even LESS if they went this no DLC route. Very, very funny.

I mean...you "doubt" it....but you also have very little to back up exactly why they would get even less potential profit for doing more work.

DLC is the only reason why games are still this cheap, they have a way to make money still. That clearly is going to change if they go a "no dlc" route. That also means less money over all. Something has to give.

" I don't see how" lol...yes....you..don't see how. (thats not really surprising giving have vague and baseless your post is, sounds like its merely a guess with no real research or source to back it up)

gangsta_red1004d ago

Yes, but you are only giving examples of DLC from big publishers like EA who have a huge library of extremely popular IP's that makes millions whenever they are released. They can afford to hire engineers and contractors and pump out DLC after DLC for profit. But how exactly does this prove that having no DLC would mean the cost of gaming would go up.

None of your links even suggest that DLC is needed to keep games at a $60 dollar mark which you stated.
Not all DLC helps to recoup development costs, especially for smaller developers. But for EA and Madden, of course it would, it's all just extra profit.

"Did you think that they would work for free just because?"

Where exactly did I even suggest they would work for free?

"Yet they would work more and get less money, and even LESS if they went this no DLC route. Very, very funny."

Wha?...you are making less and less sense the more you reply to me Edmix.

Seriously though, think about it. You're a smaller company making a product with an allocated budget, paying engineers, artists, qa, marketing, etc. etc for a game, you put it out in the wild for sales and profit. Then you have your same team continue to make DLC for the game, that means spending extra money and extra time spent that is added cost to the overall development project. And you are telling me it's all to recoup costs of the original development?

You also think that the reason some of these devs CAN give away free DLC (CD Project, Ubi) is because they have made a profit from sales already? You think EA would tank if they gave away free DLC for Madden or Activision gave away free maps for CoD?

But yea, no DLC means all games will now be expensive and upward of $80 and up. But hey at least you added a bunch of links to almost make it look like you made some sense. Awesome job with that.

_-EDMIX-_1004d ago

" But how exactly does this prove that having no DLC would mean the cost of gaming would go up" LOL!

Sooooooo you do know that games cost MORE to make yet make LESS then they did years ago right?

If DLC is countering this balance...then no DLC results in them clearly making less.

The are right now on base games making less money factually then they did 10 years ago, while spending MORE MONEY to create games.

"You also think that the reason some of these devs CAN give away free DLC (CD Project" LMFAO!

http://www.polygon.com/2015...

You sure bud? That small free DLC they are giving away is junk, we've been getting free DLC for years bud. How old are you?

I mean...did you not read that they are also having paid expansions? Sooo why are those not free? Craziest thing.. turns out it takes time and money to craft games, go figure.

Those links are telling you that games factually cost more to make, yet factually cost less for the consumer..

Its called inflation bud. For them to be able to make such a game, they need to either charge more, or make DLC to be able to make such projects.

BF4's engine was paid for by the DLC of BF3...they made 100 million on its DLC, used that 100 million to make the new Frostbite engine used in BF4 and many other games.

Sorry bud but its either $80 games or DLC....

I'm not even sure how you assumed they could even afford to make games for almost 10 years at the same price while also making more and more expensive games, engines etc. lol The cost to make a game 10 years ago and team sizes have went up drastically.

While games stated at the $59.99 for almost a decade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

You barely even get near the 60 million range in the last 10 years on that list, a HUGE majority of that list is beyond 2005 ie when we started getting $60 games.

"Where exactly did I even suggest they would work for free?"

How do you explain EA spending MORE MONEY on a team to get LESS MONEY off a game? They are working on DLC...thus working more....EA is spending money on something they are not getting MORE MONEY in return for as the base game at $60 is already FACTUALLY LESS THEN. I mean...you do know that having this free DLC won't just equal more sales to counter DLC right? Games still are bought based on quality, its not as if a game with free DLC was going to sell 30 million more or something lol as if its not selling because it has DLC...

But I guess these folk are lying.

http://arstechnica.com/gami...

and

http://arstechnica.com/gami...

But hey, what are facts.....=)

gangsta_red1004d ago

"Sooooooo you do know that games cost MORE to make yet make LESS then they did years ago right?"

Soooooo you do know that games are being bought MORE than what they were years ago right?

I mean we are talking about a Billion dollar + industry, way different market than the Atari days. Just exactly how old are you bud?

"I mean...did you not read that they are also having paid expansions? Sooo why are those not free?"

Zzzzzzz...*Yawn*...you are now arguing topics that I am not even caring about.

FIRST of all no where in my original comment did I say Devs should give away ALL content for free. All I implied is that more devs should give out more free DLC as this article has stated. THAT"S ALL!

Then here you come talking about the cost of games would sky rocket, developers working for free, inflation and all other types of nonsense complete shit.

I care about my pockets and I like the fact that devs are giving away free DLC with their games when they can.

Now do you really have a problem with this? Are you going to now start discussing the industrial age or oil prices effects on the US economy, how about China's money supply system in relation to the stick market? I'm sure you could work those in regards for me appreciating devs giving away maps or content for free.

But I do fault myself for being sucked into this pointless conversation. My bad =)

"I'm not even sure how you assumed they could even afford to make games for almost 10 years at the same price while..."

LMAO, my gawd...you are making things up now. Definitely my que to leave you where you stand.

_-EDMIX-_1004d ago

@G-red- "FIRST of all no where in my original comment did I say Devs should give away ALL content for free. All I implied is that more devs should give out more free DLC as this article has stated. THAT"S ALL!"

Yet your stating they gave free dlc as if they can afford to. My point is that they can't, though they gave free dlc...they are charging for those explains, sorta my point.

I agree with you, they should give more out and they actually do, EA, Rockstar, Ubisoft, Bethesda, 2K etc all give out free dlc many, many times, many times actually even more expansive then Witcher's 3's free dlc,

I don't disagree that they can make more free options.

"I care about my pockets and I like the fact that devs are giving away free DLC with their games when they can.

Now do you really have a problem with this?"

Me too, this is not about me personally, this is merely me stating how the industry currently is and logically how they can balance out those cost. Of course I want all things free LOL! But this isn't about what I want free, its about what they can and can't financially do based on how the industry currently is.

""I'm not even sure how you assumed they could even afford to make games for almost 10 years at the same price while..."

LMAO, my gawd...you are making things up now"

Not really, that is the assumption if you think they won't raise prices and would just do free DLC...

That means some where you think DLC can be free and games can stay the same price.

" You're a smaller company making a product with an allocated budget, paying engineers, artists, qa, marketing, etc. etc for a game, you put it out in the wild for sales and profit. Then you have your same team continue to make DLC for the game, that means spending extra money and extra time spent that is added cost to the overall development project. And you are telling me it's all to recoup costs of the original development?"

That is what you stated... Now..when BF3's DLC earns them 100 million and BF4's new engine cost that...it very much means they can make such a thing based on the extra money from DLC.

Understand that the over all development project costing more means they are making even less as they are still making the game for $60 for us to buy.

Thats not me saying I personally want it, its merely me pointing out how that doesn't make sense in line of how much games factually cost with inflation and how they are now making less if they don't factor in DLC.

At the end of the day, it is a fact that games cost more now then they did 10 years ago...it is a fact that games have been the same price.....for 10 years now. You easily can do that math. What I personally want to pay for is not a factor, of course we all want free junk lol, this isn't about that bud. This is about business. Can they factually make it with no dlc? I mean...they can't really do that now with AAA games, look at the cost, look at the price, it doesn't add up.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1004d ago
DanielEndurance1005d ago

That's good news, but why did level designer Benoit Deschamps of Ubisoft Montreal say there was going to be 10 included in the game, as stated in reports earlier today? Who's telling the truth?

TheDrunkenJester1005d ago

Yeah interesting, but I'm going to trust Benoit on this one for now until 11 is fully confirmed.

Show all comments (42)
The story is too old to be commented.