Rainbow Six Siege Confirmed To Have No Single-Player Story

What is it with modern-day shooters going down the ‘no story’ route?
Titanfall, Evolve, Star Wars Battlefront – now Ubisoft’s latest franchise-resurrecting Rainbow Six has just confirmed it’ll be running with a heavy focus on essentially being multiplayer-only. Sure you have access to offline and ‘single player content’ in the form of maps filled with bots, but unlike the cancelled R6: Patriots that looked to be delivering a sold story, Siege will have no such thing.

[Canthar]

Makes it an easy pass for me. If a game wants to focus on multi-player then go for it. I am sure those players that want MP appreciate the effort put into MP and not spent on SP.

[JJShredder]

Still a slap in the face to those who enjoyed the single player aspects of previous games.

Nothing against those who buy it because they like the MP aspect, just doesn't seem to be a reason to not accomodate everyone's tastes.

[Canthar]

I can agree with that. I was hoping for an SP option. At least they are staying true to the focus they want and not giving crap options for both.

[freshslicepizza]

a developer should do what they want to do and focus all their efforts on team based online gaming. i'm tired of tacked on stuff just because some people think online only games can't justify a $60 price tag. yes they can if they are fun and done right.

we can enjoy single player games with no online at all and pay $60, no reason that same rule cannot be applied to online games. this game looks tight but you need to play with the right people. i imagine a ton of clans will be built.

[saywat247]

ubisoft.... why ubi-putting-out-shit recently. all their games look good when announced but they always tank. ubishit has a recent habit of screwing up their games and throwing curveballs. the division is gonna tank like this and all their recent games. they were on top back in the days...wtf happened?

[MysticStrummer]

"Still a slap in the face…"

So much drama.

"just doesn't seem to be a reason to not accomodate everyone's tastes"

There isn't a game in existence that does that, and there never will be.

[NatureOfLogic_]

The game is no longer a purchase for me. I was looking forward to a story mode in this game.

[Lennoxb63]

I'm the type that feels if a game is good, it doesn't need any particular mode. So if its SP only, or MP only, or both, it doesn't matter. As long as the game is good.

[Mulletino]

It would seem obvious that their customer input data, flawed or not, suggests that that they can get away with not allocating resources toward adding single player and allocating those resources elsewhere, all while still reaching their monetary and customer satisfaction goals. If anything should be questioned it is how these companies are compiling this input to come to the conclusion that single player is not useful enough to add to their products. I personally haven't finished a story in a multiplayer shooter since MW2 (which was due to travel and lack of internet) and before that was probably Golden Eye. If you feel that strongly about this issue, as it seems a "majority" does per the dislike ratio, then be sure to give these companies your input via direct contact or by not buying the games.

[rainslacker]

It's more a cost to sell ratio than anything else. It's not meant to be a slap in the face.

By their data, they think they can sell enough to make money off a MP only game...likely supplemented by DLC/MT, and it will cost them less to make because they won't have to pay for the SP component of the game.

If they thought their sales would be seriously hurt by lack of inclusion, then they wouldn't remove the feature.

To them, they figure they may lose a certain number of sales by not including the SP, but that number isn't so high that it justifies the cost of making the SP.

Whether this is what will happen in the real world remains to be seen...but every game is a speculation on what it will sell.

I know on forums it seems like there are huge numbers that are put off by the lack of a feature, but more often than not, that doesn't really matter that much when the consumer goes out to purchase. It sucks some people are put off by it, but it's just business.

[XBLSkull]

Coop campaign was always the best part of R6, bummer it isn't here. I don't mind multiplayer only games, but price accordingly with the amount of content you are giving out. You shouldn't be charging $60 for this title, it should be $40, or less. And for $60 you'd better be giving out any DLC free of charge. I mean isn't Halo 5 giving you the biggest campaign in the series, and like 15 maps with like another dozen as free DLC for the same price?

[quaneylfc]

I'm annoyed sure but why does everyone always claim to be slapped in the face?

They aren't going after you, they're just cutting it to half the development time.

[indyman7777]

Yeah I'm not buying a game that I can only play online. Multi player is a option to me not the main course.
As long as it is a mutiplayer game only like destiny, more power to them.

I hope they don't later make a single player to the same game. And charge full price. That would be a start of a trend. Destiny didn't do that. It is the game.

[ifistbrowni]

I thought they had a showing at e3 and brought out that actress that played in American Horror Story? Am I remembering wrong?

[Bigpappy]

Exactly. Developers should focus on their vision and not feel compelled to tat stuff on just to say they did it. I play RB6 for single player and co-op. If it doesn't have those things, I will just find something else to play. No petition on sending Ubi hate mail. They just missed out on my mizely $60 this time around.

[Gazondaily]

Exactly! Let them do their thing and work on their strengths. Not constrict them with our demands.

[s45gr32]

That only works if the game developer game is published by a mainstream game developer. What happens if the gamer is the publisher of the game (kickstarter, indie gogo, early access). Then the game developer has no choice but to accomodate to gamers demand or tastes due to the gamer published the game 😸

[s45gr32]

What if the gamer publishes the game, markets it and thoroughly test the 🎮. Doesn't gamer have a say on how the game should be developed?

[shadowknight203]

While im not neccessarily a fan of online only, one of my favorite franchises was rb6 back on early ps3 days. I have to buy it because i did love the online portion to those games, and i havent been an online multiplayer gamer in quite sometime now. Heres hoping to rekindle an old flame.

[jb227]

I was under the impression that this was always mp only. I agree though, as long as companies are up front about it and don't shoehorn in some weak offline functionality sans actual story content and call it a campaign then good on them. I'm all for every kind of gamer getting the kind of game they want, as long as this increased rate of mp only & mp focused games doesn't translate to a shortage of sp campaigns more power to them.

It would be cool if they made a proper Tom Clancy narrative based sp game one day based off of one of his novels though, throw Stephen King in there while we are at it, I'd like to see what a gaming translation of some of the more popular recent novels would end up playing like, we get plenty of films based off of books but rarely any games.

[ILive]

This kind of stuff is what i hate the most. I'm not for this type of direction no matter how upfront a company is about it. Not putting the game down by any chance. But its not worth it by default.

[user9950279]

I love your attitude, and as a MP gamer I appreciate it. sort of "it is what it is". not wasting your energy complaining that the game isn't what you want to be. rather just passing because it isnt what you want it to be.

I like that the Rainbow team is focusing on MP because thats where ill spend my time. I can see why some people would prefer it have a single player because they have done it well im the past, but personally I have always seen this as a multiplayer franchise. Terrorist Hunt basically plays like a singleplayer game, just without the generic pseudo-military narrative.

[Joey_Leone]

This game is going to turn into useless junk once the servers go down.

[solid_snake3656]

Yup buying online only games feels more like a rental.

[kyzer1978]

As a fan of the series I find this to be unacceptable. Vegas 1 had a great story. When they removed that element it absolutely ruined the sequel. 2 was a huge let down. This game has been delayed and pushed back so many times and for them to not be able to put together a good storyline after all this time just sucks. It just does. Multi-player only shooters suck. The only reason games like Star Wars Battlefront get a pass is because everyone already knows the story. Games like this are different. Its just not going to work. Thank god Destiny The Taken King is so great at least.

[_-EDMIX-_]

"As a fan of the series I find this to be unacceptable. Vegas 1" stopped right there.

Your a fan of the "Vega's" series, not Siege, you never played Siege (unless your where in the beta lol).

Who stated that this was going to be ALL the Rainbow Six games?

I mean...are we not looking at subtitles anymore?

[otherZinc]

Very 1st time I won't purchase a new Rainbow Six Game.

[Detox024]

Agreed. I can't get to mad at them but this takes it off my radar completely. Guess I'll just wait for wildlands which looks much better anyway.

[overrated44]

Games coming right out and saying "multiplayer only" is fine and good, but I honestly don't think they should be asking $60 for what a lot of people consider to be part of a full game.

[_-EDMIX-_]

Agreed.

"What is it with modern-day shooters going down the ‘no story’ route?
Titanfall, Evolve, Star Wars Battlefront"

Star Wars BF has a single player mode.

Also Team Fortress 1 and 2, Counter Strike, source and GO, Battlefield 2, 1942, 2142, Planetside 1 and 2, MAG the list goes on.

This isn't new, in fact single player modes have been added in many games MORE so then not being added as several series have single player modes in which they've never have before.

Why should they have a mode that they are not focusing on? Sooooo tact it on?

I'm sorry but COD, BF etc SP modes are not Bioshock or Halo LMFAO! Its not as if they are theses ACE experiences...they are legit many times just walking killing galleries.

If you think this is new....it merely shows many member's age on here lol.

[jholden3249]

No, not "tack it on"

MAKE it a focus. Lol/rofl/hahahaha pfft.

[TonyPT]

That sucked but it was to be expected. It's a pass for me as well.

[jholden3249]

Yep.

Going to cancel preorder now.

[cheapness1]

from playing the beta I'd say this is more like PROPER rainbow 6 than vegas 1&2 were...actual planning with real pplz

*edit: f**k the sheilds tho

[supes_24]

@Canthar,

I agree with what you said. I also will now pass on both Star Wars and Siege because of the MP only route they are taking.

[3-4-5]

* So they release a FPS game, during a time when a ton of other high quality FPS games are being released, and they want to stand out by doing the very thing that would turn away their hardcore fans ?

* Are they just going after the CS:GO PC scene/crowd and trying to get them to go console, or what?

Rainbow 6....the first one for PC, was one of the best games I've ever played.

Every time you play it, it plays out differently.

Getting to choose your squad before every mission and having to keep them alive had a Fire Emblem aspect to it that I really liked.

They have since removed all of that.

It's a Rainbow 6 game in name only.

It looks decent, but it's very...ONE THING, and one thing only.

[_-EDMIX-_]

"So they release a FPS game, during a time when a ton of other high quality FPS games are being released, and they want to stand out by doing the very thing that would turn away their hardcore fans?"

? Hardcore fans of its SP? Not likely. Also its titled "Siege", its wasn't just mentioned that ALL games going forward in the WHOLE series would be MP only.

"* Are they just going after the CS:GO PC scene/crowd and trying to get them to go console, or what?"

Reaching as CS GO is on consoles too, This game is on PC too...very much reaching with that one as I don't even see a bases for it.

CSGO was full price, L4D was full price, MAG was full price etc.

They very much should charge full price, they are giving free maps for this game, it warrants the full price easily.

[Tzuno]

Wonder if they would still charge full 60$.

[JJShredder]

Not sure if this is actually news but it really is quite sad regardless. I enjoyed the Vegas games very much and I have no interest in this game because of the lack of a narrative.

Mark my words, this will end up exactly like Evolve and Titanfall.....fun for the first two or three months and then a severe drop-off as people realize there is very little content and you get sick of playing with unhelpful people that don't know a thing about teamwork.

$30 by March, you watch.

[DarkOcelet]

30$ by January mate.

[JJShredder]

I wouldn't be suprised. At least PC version for sure.

[Yui_Suzumiya]

Should be $30 or $40 at launch with no true campaign, lol

[DOMination-]

Skyrim should have been a $30 game too then because it had no multiplayer

[jb227]

I definitely think the short life of a lot of mp only games is partly to do w/ the lack of a campaign, but it seems like it's mainly down to the litany of mp releases on the market these days. Used to be there were only a handful of contenders in the arena that gave these games legs, now it seems like there's a new one every month. I guess it doesn't bother the devs & publishers any because it kinda forces people to buy the games early at full price to get in on the action. That's one of my main reasons for not playing mp, a solid offline campaign can be played and appreciated for as long as the tech exists to play it on, whereas mp games are becoming shorter & shorter in play potential. I could see a future where an annualized franchise like CoD will start shutting off servers every year to push people into the new iterations, doubly so if they are having to aggressively battle an increasing number of contenders in the market.

[Dissidia]

Wishing they made a Vegas 3 right about now. :(

[TKCMuzzer]

I played Vegas 2 a lot but can not remember virtually anything of the single player campaign, yet I can remember countless nights doing terrorist hunt. That means this direction favours me and due to lack of time, I spend more time on multiplayer than single player in most games.

[holdmyown83]

As do I. I also always thought this was a multiplayer game only. Looks fairly boring anyway.

[stuna1]

No game should be multiplayer only. The game is useless for those with no internet access for whatever reason that may be.

I can see a game being only single player at least the game is playable.

[Pandamobile]

Simple solution: if you don't have a stable enough internet connection for multiplayer games, don't buy multiplayer games.

[stuna1]

So everybody that doesn't have a stable enough connection the hell with them!?

So the true test is how well this game will do with just multiplayer, and I'm willing to bet it won't do half as good as it would do with a single player!

[Pandamobile]

Yeah, pretty much. Not having decent internet is definitely going to impact what games you can play. It's 2015 after all.

The game is also $60 USD/$80 CAD, so I don't see it doing particularly well in terms of sales regardless of how poorly featured it is.

[-Foxtrot]

So all those gamers in parts of the world with shitty internet connections or even people who live in a full house (big families, student accom etc) where the internet is very strained...what? Tough shit?

Maybe you should start to expect developers to stop being lazy where they expect us to create our own replay value over the same bunch of modes/maps over and over instead of creating more fulfilling content

Create an offline mode with AI bots

Create an offline horde mode where you and AIs (if you wish) have to hold out

Create some randomly generated offline missions, a combination of the above ideas.

Point is you can do a single player and other offline modes.

Remember Resident Evil 4, a solid single player experience with a shit load of content to keep you going afterwards. A mercenary mode, new game plus and two side campaigns with Ada Wong. Only issue was the fact the mercenary mode didn't offer a no time limit mode.

[Pandamobile]

"Point is you can do a single player and other offline modes."

And people will still complain that the offline mode doesn't meet their expectations.

[Bigpappy]

Sounds like simple and obvious logic to me. I feel like I out grew turn-based, Linear RPG's so I just stopped buying them. Never asked or recommended that they stop making them. I know many still love and should have and enjoy them like I use to.

[4Sh0w]

"No game should be multiplayer only."

-Very one sided view...if Im a dev and I know my heart is into making very addictive multiplayer social experience games AND the feedback tells me 90% of the fans of my previous game with SP & MP only played the MP then why should I have to tack on a SP just for the hell of it, you know just so *everybody is happy.

-Also by that logic SP only games should always have a MP too, tacked on or not that should be a rule so they appeal to those MP focused gamers right?...ahhh I see so only SP lovers concerns are valid.

"So all those gamers in parts of the world with shitty internet connections..."

-Yep, or should BMW or Mercedes lower their prices so the average guy/family can afford one too= NO, thats not the market they are aimed at and neither is this game.

[MrBeatdown]

"So everybody that doesn't have a stable enough connection the hell with them!?"

It's not fair.

It's an awful trend with games lately. I refuse to support a developer that doesn't cater to absolutely everyone. There are so many people being left out nowadays... those with poor internet, those without the console, those without electricity... it's disgraceful.

[maniacmayhem]

So people who have great internet connections and love multiplayer games should suffer because of those with no internet access?

How is that fair for us?

In case you haven't notice MS and Sony and other devs are making a lot of money on their digital services which include, movie rentals, music downloads, apps monthly service fees, network subscriptions and DLC.

You think these large companies are worried about poor Joe Schmo that lives in some ass part of the world that probably only shelled out money once for a system and can't anymore?

That is not these company's target and this is why a lot more games who's focus has always been multiplayer are now multiplayer only.

[Baka-akaB]

When the hell have multiplayer fans even suffered because of offline and SP gaming and its fans ? Probably never or close to it .

So how exactly is this unfair to you ? We've mostly seen initially single player games suffer because of the time and ressources allocations diverted to added multiplayer modes .... or those remaining at the same level of quality in cases like Uncharted ... not the other way around

[jb227]

How exactly would a game suffer for having an offline mode? Considering $60 has been the standard for a game featuring a full campaign & suite of mp modes since it's introduction, isn't it actually less fair to ask full price for what would amount to half of what a game would previously be? Add in the rising trend of paid dlc maps, modes & microtransations and I'd personally be pretty miffed if I was an mp gamer as these devs are making money off of that group hand over fist. I can't imagine that the overhead on an mp only game is enough to warrant asking for upwards of $100 from a player.

I honestly think it's fine if games go mp only but to ask $60 from you guys when communities dry up within a month or two is borderline criminal.

[Baka-akaB]

I don't necessarily feel that a mp game shouldnt cost full price . But it better feel damn worth it , and not just "less" than an usual SP+MP combo , and certainly not as if there were clearly a plan for a campaign that got scrapped .

But the people defending such practices might wanna enlighten us about game that actually gained something from ditching the SP

[Mulletino]

Haha crudely put but spot on. It is a business at the end of the day and they need to be doing whatever it is that makes them competitive. Prize will still go to the businesses who figure out how to incorporate both with the same resources.

[4Sh0w]

"When the hell have multiplayer fans even suffered because of offline and SP gaming and its fans ? Probably never or close to it."

-Uhm thats a "what if" type of situation that cant be answered only because those games shipped as is, without an alternative version that lacked a SP. However its certainly reasonable to suggest that the MP of those games could have been bigger/better/more content/more polished had they not had a SP campaign its almost certain at least 1 of the above is likely. So in theory those who ONLY care about MP could easily suggest SP takes something away from what the MP could have been even if it was "that time could have been better spent making more MP maps".

Most of us normal un-entitled gamers just accept that no 1 game can cater to everybody even with both an outstanding SP and MP, there will be those that dont like it because they prefer 3rd person shooters vs 1st person shooters, I dont like jrpgs, or some dont like MMO's, and of course the dreaded microtransaction games= so many reasons not to like the game that the *devs wanted to make but then this is just accepted because YOU are not the dev and that is THEIR design choice. I love SP and MP games, but Im sick of SP lovers thinking in 2015 every game SHOULD cater to SP gamers or those less fortunate with no internet, seriously as others have said it really IS quite simple, if no SP campaign is a deal breaker for some then clearly its not targeted to you so dont buy it, believe it or not there are tons of folks that will instantly think that this game is sooo much better than past Rainbow6 games because they focused on MP only because they hated or never played the SP anyway.

[Baka-akaB]

"So in theory those who ONLY care about MP could easily suggest SP takes something away from what the MP could have been even if it was "that time could have been better spent making more MP maps". "

Except everything proves your argument to be wrong so far . Concentrating on mp only hasnt stopped (or even slowed down) in any way publishers from regulating the maps to a standard amount , then drip feeding the rest as dlc .

Hell with the game discussed here , you get the pretty much default 10 maps , then (at least for free) the rest will be distributed as DLC .

You'd only have a point if you could even point to games that got more MP content than the rest of the fray , when they released it as mp only titles . And in at least most cases we can think of , that' not true . It just is convenient for publishers , and that's a good enough reason

"Im sick of SP lovers thinking in 2015 every game SHOULD cater to SP gamers or those less fortunate with no internet"

That's not even the argument made by most people . At the very least i don't mind mp only titles . I bought Destiny and titanfall without issues , and will get Battlefront . In another genre , I'm also quite a fighting game fanatic , and we know that most of those only get sp modes for show and pretense , even if things are changeing .

There are still games that got an history as a franchise , like RB6 of providing both just fine ... so it's no use to complain , about people complaining about it being ditched , with no upside yet in sight .

"seriously as others have said it really IS quite simple, if no SP campaign is a deal breaker for some then clearly its not targeted to you so dont buy it"

Didnt those people already claim they'll skip it this time around ? Itr's already adressed , they're just voicing their opinion on the matter , like you

[4Sh0w]

"Except everything proves your argument to be wrong so far . Concentrating on mp only hasnt stopped (or even slowed down) in any way publishers from regulating the maps to a standard amount , then drip feeding the rest as dlc ."

-That doesnt negate my arguement at all. DLC is a different animal in most cases born out of greed or just short dev time....either way DLC isnt a isolated problem only for MP games anyway -so I dont see your point at all. In either case all Im saying is that a MP only game can be just as worthy as a SP only game & both can be bad games as well. Its like saying Titanfall would have been a better game with a SP campaign, NO it could have just as easily have been a good multi game with less content plus a terrible SP campaign, not much more than some of the after thought type tacked on experiences= SP does not make games better anymore than MP makes SP driven games better.

-Also while some have addressed this issue properly by saying its a no buy for them(I made no complaint about such statements) however Iam and will continue to only disagree with those who say a dev is lazy or a game MUST have SP, or any other illogical BS about what a game SHOULD BE, that type of only shoehorns gaming into some flawed rationale that dev must do this or that to please everyone. Why cant SOME games specifically only be for a certain type of gamers?...like every other product, without SOME saying its a terrible game only because it doesnt have a SP.

[Baka-akaB]

"That doesnt negate my arguement at all. DLC is a different animal in most cases born out of greed or just short dev time....either way DLC isnt a isolated problem only for MP games anyway -so I dont see your point at all. "

" Its like saying Titanfall would have been a better game with a SP campaign"

That's not even what i'm arguing about and saying .
You suggested that " the MP of those games could have been bigger/better/more content/more polished had they not had a SP campaign" , which is what i'm adressing and not agreeing with much . I find it too easy to argue about a reverse scenario that hasnt even proven to be true .

Of course you'll argue , as you did that it's an impossible what if scenario to prove . Maybe .. yeah

However it's not that hard to answer questions about weither or not those mp centric fps provide more , especially in the fps departement , than the usual mp+sp combo ... and so far based on the few empyrical evidences we see it isnt the case .

Those games arent usually bigger nor provide more content on the mp side than their competition , they are just a different concept that we accept or don't ... enjoy or don't .

That was my point about the dlcs ... the added content and its delivery are the same , and in most cases so can be the initial content of the core game . And many will indeed expect better content and/or more content from a multiplayer centric title , and compare its value to more traditional combos

But again don't be surprised if by the expectations of an already built and existing franchise , and a few standards surrounding it , if people complain when you turn things around with no hugely visible upside .

Sure some people moaned when Warhawk , MAG , Destiny or Titanfall were announced as mp only , from the get go ... but most people got over that quickly , or gave up on the games quickly , save of course some trolls .

I find it unrealistic to expect the same reactions on the umpteenth sequel of a franchise with always sp+mp turning the same way .

Again i already stated that i dont mind mp only games or sp only games , nor do i feel the need to adjust their price . But franchises have a few habits and expectations . Of course it's up to their creators to follow or ditch them , but positive or negative reactions about those decisions shouldnt be a surprise either

[stuna1]

I feel I'm in the Twilight Zone in this thread with those agreeing that people without good internet should #Dealwithit!! SMDH.

I feel sorry for those in a good position to say that now, if they should ever end up on the other side of the fence!

[MysticStrummer]

I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone reading comments about this being a slap in the face. It's a game. No game is for everyone. If this one doesn't fit your needs, skip it, there are many more for you to play. It really is just that simple.

I may skip this game myself now, but damn the drama is incredible.

[stuna1]

Not buying a game doesn't alleviate the act of wanting a game! As I said people are in positions every day by no act of their own.

[Mulletino]

The target market of this game is people with internet. Don't buy it if that upsets you. If enough people do this then they will adjust accordingly or lose out to those who do.

[4Sh0w]

I agree with Mystic its really simple logic, no game is for everyone.

"I feel sorry for those in a good position to say that now, if they should ever end up on the other side of the fence!"

-What is this some silly guilt trip, I grew up poor, at times a big family meal was all I got and appreciated for Christmas. Today my financial situation is classified middle class. Now IF I ever find myself in the position that I cant afford reliable internet then the last thing I would do is go to the library get on their free internet and complain about a game....nah it would motivate me to right the negative financial situation I have found myself in, recover and reach or exceed my current financial status, plus build a better savings plan. But then Im not that the kind who gets passive aggressive or applies the burden of guilt on others just because they have a bigger house and drive a better car than me either.

[andibandit]

"No game should be multiplayer only."

Yeah I still dont understand why those Singleplayer MMO's never caught on.
/s

[rainslacker]

lol. First thing I thought from your comment was Kingdom of Amular. Basically a SP version of WOW. Good game though, just terrible and corrupt management.

[_-EDMIX-_]

smh. I'm not sure what scares me more, this comment or those who are agreeing with it LOL!

Sooooo lets just add a mode in any game just because huh? I'd rather they spend that money on focusing on the main concept of the game.

Same games are GREAT MP only titles ie Team Fortress, Counter Strike, Planetside, etc.

Some games are great SP only titles, ie Fallout, Skyrim, Evil Within etc.

Sooo no. ALL GAMES do NOT need a MP mode....sooo all games also ALL don't need a SP mode either.

We actually have more bad SP modes in MP games, then we do bad MP modes in SP games.

I mean...I keep hearing this excuse of pricing as if its 60 because both modes.....

Might be the dumbest thing I've read in a while, what is a value if its bad and just thrown together? Those SP modes where not Half Life 2, Doom 3 or Bioshock worth LMFAO!

So Witcher 3, Fallout 4, Batman Arkham Knight, etc should all be less then full price? LMFAO! Really/

Yet...we are deeming this um "complete"? LOL! So in order for a game to be really full price it needs to have MP, SP, be an MMO, racing edition, co-op etc?

Nothing is wrong with a game being MP only, your not getting "less" your merely getting what they intended the damn game to be.

Because years prior ALL GAMES HAD MP? Yet we lived lol.

Final Fantasy has yet to go MP (in the main series) sooooooooooo make them all half price?

Forza, I mean...it has a career mode, but might need a story mode to be complete so EVERYONE WINS! RIGHT BRO?

Dat kid logic.

We've had MP only and SP only titles LONGER then we've EVER HAD BOTH! MOST games don't even do BOTH correctly anyway.

For a long time, only Halo and Call Of Duty truly had best of both in that area (Call Of Duty now just awful in SP lol, Halo from what I hear still has a great SP every entry)

But my point is, its not the norm for both to even be good, many times we go in it KNOWING its a MP game WITH a SP lol, not both. We expect it...we don't expect it to be good lol.

Let them save the money, focus on MP as they likely feel, why spend millions on a feature no one is using? That extra money was likely put into those free maps too!

I'd rather have them ONLY focus on MP to be the BEST vs have part of the team wasting millions for a 5 hour SP that sucks...

Let them focus on its core concept which is clearly MP.

Mind you, we can still get another RS game with a different subtitle with a story mode..

[rainslacker]

Price to me is more dependent on the content than the mode. I think if a MP/SP only game delivers $60 in content, by my own assessment on what that content is worth, then I couldn't care less if it offers one mode or the other. If a game is MP only, I don't think it should be priced lower, but I expect the content provided to be abundant and more content in that MP than a SP/MP combo.

Personally, I'm willing to spend $60 on a SP only game if it has a good game behind it, and it can have less content, but that's just what I'm used to.

[DarkOcelet]

So lets see here...

Underwhelming visuals for a current gen game.
11 maps at launch.
No Single Player.
Ubisoft.

Hmmm, i don't like to judge a game before its out but this will definitely be forgotten so quickly just like Evolve.

Damn you Ubisoft, you had us hyped with the amazing 2011 Rainbow Six Patriots just to get this?

[DragonDDark]

And it's $60

[Dario_DC]

As dragonddark said it's full on 60$!
How boring it's gonna get with just those maps?
In this game you don't respawn, so how annoying it's gonna be when you just get home from work and you want to drop in and play a few matches and end up with stupid team mates/trolls? People will rage more than they do in COD lol
I will never buy this game the same way I never bought Evolve...

[_-EDMIX-_]

? Its a MP only title...who cares? It has value to those who play MP titles.

That is like saying.

So lets see here...

Fallout 4

Underwhelming visuals for a current gen game
no Multiplayer
Bethesda thus likely to be buggy and for 60 bucks to smh /s

If you don't like Single player.... Fallout isn't for you, if you don't like MP ,Team Fortress, Battlefield prior to Bad company, Planet side, Counter Strike, ARMA series...isn't for you.

BOTH concepts are worth the $60 as its a EACH HIS OWN situation, it isn't a 1 is better then the other.

For WHOM? LOL! That is like saying, the film 300 is better then XYZ film based on some stats.....disregards what the person even likes lol.

I might like westerns for all you know.

So how could you downplay this title if its clear your not even a fan of the MP only concept?

Could I not hate the SP only concept and keep telling you have "Man bro 400 hours in MP is better then your stupid short SP game bro" ?

I'm not right to say that...but neither are you.

I actually play BOTH SP and MP, action and RPG etc. Thus...I'm one of the few that can very much tell you, both are a value to the consumer that seeks said genre.

That is like an MMO gamer telling you how all non-MMO games must be a rip off lol.

Some of you on here are legit very, very self centered and don't really try to get why one would want something like this...

Do we not want Fallout 4 (those that do anyway?) Where is the article asking for its MP?

I mean...still waiting on that Counter Strike hate about it not having a SP....

Don't you get they are not the same game?

Mind you, you state 11 maps at launch which is the norm and still good, this game is getting free maps after its release, not paid , all free maps.

http://www.gamespot.com/art...

That is a good deal to me, that is a FAIR deal to me as I play at least 300 hours EVERY Battlefield game and I've never beat a BF single player LOL! I'd rather EA go this route as I don't care to be paying $60 for a feature I don't use...but I will pay $60 for MP only WITH FREE MP (if it was a choice) Why get a feature JUST because? I mean...even if its bad? lol

As a BF fan...I again don't play its SPs because they are bad...they are NOT a value to me , not because I play MP only...because they are BAD! I've played BETTER FPS games with stories over the years then ANY BF's games SP, they are embarrassingly bad. Killzone, Halo, early COD had great SPs.

[gangsta_red]

I usually don't agree with you but you are super spot on here, I can't even believe the comments I am reading from a lot of people here.

Where is this notion of MP only games should be sold cheaper than their single player counter-parts?

[JohnathanACE]

Ubisoft is becoming as bad as EA. Lately they've just been terrible.

[-Foxtrot]

Easy pass

Sick of multiplayer games without single player, it's so lazy.

It's like developers expect us to create our own replay value because we are playing on the same maps online over and over.

Least in single player they actually have to create a single player to keep us interested. They do the work...not us.

[maniacmayhem]

How is it lazy? You would rather they tack on a garbage single player?

Just as much time, sweat and hard work went into making this multiplayer then any other dev would a single player game. In fact more work has to go into a multiplayer game just because of the many more variables that could happen.

I mean seriously, you think single player games have something more than a multiplayer game would have?

"Least in single player they actually have to create a single player to keep us interested. They do the work...not us."

You have to be kidding right?

So multiplayer just makes itself and they never have to work ever again?

Maintaining servers, fixing exploits, QA testing, balancing weapons, creating maps, hosting alphas and betas, stress testing, DLC, etc, etc...all that just comes without them lifting a finger, all these years of them creating this game and because there's no single player they're lazy.

If you don't like multiplayer games then that's your deal, but don't leave ultra ignorant comments like "lazy developers", especially when you have no idea the amount of work that DID go into making this game.

[Baka-akaB]

I wouldnt go as far as lazy . But since when isnt SP a big component of a Rainbow 6 ? If they can't pull it off this time , then it's their faults not ours .

It's hardly something as easy to brush off as some of the current fps' sp .

[-Foxtrot]

"How is it lazy? You would rather they tack on a garbage single player?"

See that's the problem, people just think it's going to be garbage because they feel they won't be able to do it.

NaughtyDog has shown you can have a great single player and a fun multiplayer. So if they've shown it can be done then they just need to actually try harder.

"I mean seriously, you think single player games have something more than a multiplayer game would have?"

Right.

Two people buy a game, Player 1 buys Rainbow Six Siege and Player 2 buys Fallout 4.

After an hour of non stop playing Player 1 has experienced most of the maps and modes his game has to offer on his online only experience.

HOWEVER

Player 2 is just busy looking around and finding his place. Hell he probably spent a good deal sorting his character out.

After 3 hours of non stop player Player 1 has experienced all the maps and played all the modes. He's now doing a standard online match in Map #1 for the 10th time.

HOWEVER

Player 2 has explored and done a few side quests on the way.

In roughly a small space of time (3 hours, 6 or even 8 etc) Player 1 has experienced most of the game while Player 2 hasn't barely scratched the surface

The funny part of it? THEY BOTH PAID THE SAME MONEY

So yes, single player games can offer more and it is lazy for developers to do the same, old online matches with their maps and that yet expect us to get our replay value out of that instead of actually working on some other features for people to sink their teeth into.

[4Sh0w]

Youre right maniac its not lazy, this game is built for the crowd that loves MP focused games.

Despite the feelings of those who might have enjoyed past iterations SP, myself included -its likely that the data they have suggests not only that most gamers didnt finish the SP but the hardcore fans who played the game for 6months+ only cared for the MP. I like both but a tacked on SP to put a check in the box isnt what I want and clearly thats what we would have gotten given they didnt bother putting resources to the SP for this game, hopefully that time was well spent on making the MP better and delivering more MP content.

[rainslacker]

I'd prefer they "tack on" GOOD SP content. Just because some may not care for the SP content does not make it garbage.

@4Show

If their data is showing that people didn't finish the SP, then it's likely they need to look closely at why, and maybe address why their SP content is not that compelling. I don't think that's a problem with the players, but the content itself as I don't know many people that only play MP games.

I know there are people that don't get into the SP in some combo games, but most people play through it as they tend to be short. Some do it as a primer on the game mechanics, others when their internet or servers are down...or on day one when they can't connect to a game due to being day one.

[4Sh0w]

"then it's likely they need to look closely at why, and maybe address why their SP content is not that compelling"

-OR take the money & resources that would have been allocated for SP and "blow it" all trying to make a helluva MP focused game thats targeted at the hardcore R6 crowd who will support/play the game long after its launch.

-Im not saying that they shouldn't have tried both Im just saying MP only can be a worthwhile experience just like SP only can be...personally although Im not a fan of The Order I think the devs missed a PERFECT opportunity to expand the replay value & feature set of that game by NOT having some sort of online co-op, I mean given the linearity and accompanying charachter it seems like an obvious inclusion but the devs chose not to, if it didnt have so many other flaws it might have faired better but even if that were true for such a short game I think lacking a co-op or any sort of online ultimately hurt its potential for a $60 title, but understanding game dev as I do I dont think devs should be tacking on any part of a game IF they are not fully committed to the quality of the finished product, no matter how bad I or we wish they added it, -No the devs made a choice so we just have to be adults and make a choice to buy or not buy it. Dont get me wrong those saying it was the wrong choice or expressing their opinion about MP only games not being their cup of tea is great, devs NEED proper feedback to progress, they are afterall making games for gamers but calling them lazy or saying ALL games need MP is just spewing BS based on personal bias.

[rainslacker]

I think my point was more that if they can't get people to finish the SP campaign, then they are just creating a crappy SP component to begin with. I don't think that has anything to do with what resources are delegated where. The SP component of many MP focused games are generally half-assed, with a weak story, short campaign, and generally uninteresting maps...unless they just use the MP maps.

There is nothing to indicate that the resources would be better used if they were just put into the MP component of the game. If a MP game comes out, yet offers the same amount of content as a combo game, then the more likely scenario is they are just looking to save money by not producing the SP component, and feel that the savings will be justified as it may not result in lower sales, or the loss of sales is made up from the savings of not creating a SP campaign.

IMO, if they produce any content at all, and people aren't playing it, then they need to assess if they are actually making compelling content, or just throwing it in for the sake of customer expectations. MP content tends to get played over and over due to the nature of MP, so it's not really a fair metric to judge the content by.

Fron the comments on here, for the $60 price tag, people are expecting there to be enough MP content to justify the price, or they don't feel that price is justified without a SP campaign. From the description of what comes with the game, it doesn't appear that any more content was offered over the average SP/MP game combo. Free DLC maps are worth considering however, and I make no judgement either way since I have no desire to play MP to beging with, and it's a mere phylosophical discussion for my part.

I could accept the argument of the money could be funneled into the MP component more readily if publishers in general were not racking up extensive examples of their own ways to cut costs and still retain the same revenue. The mentality of "greedy" publishers is nothing new, and is one reason why I feel your argument tends to fall short of it's intended purpose, even though in theory(and ethically speaking) I believe you are in the right that that is what should happen. However, that is not what usually happen.

Truthfully, a MP only game is much cheaper to produce, more expensive to maintain. Given that, a MP only game should provide abundant content over a combo game, but they typically do not unless they are MMO's where competition dictates they do so for it to remain interesting.

I do however agree that the dev should not be making something they don't want to create, and that they shouldn't be compelled into making content just because they feel it's what they have to do. In this case, that's fine. As consumers we have the right to decide if it's right for us, and purchase accordingly.

But here's the kicker that kind of derails either of our arguments. Most people don't actually complete a SP only game either. Even fewer actually experience all the content a SP only game has to offer. There was an article about it last year, but can't seem to find it to link it, but one can also research this themselves just by looking at their trophy lists now with the percentages for the completed game trophy(Not plat, just the one that shows the final stage completion). Generally they run between 20-30% for the average game.

[4Sh0w]

Rainslacker,

I pretty much agree with everything you said, also I wasn't saying as a matter of fact that devs will alocate all SP funding to MP game if they chose not to do a SP campaign, no only that its something they COULD do to make the MP worthwhile. I mean if I were a dev and I were creating a game purposely with no SP campaign common sense would dictate that I would at least put more content in the MP than the average SP/MP combo game. I believe lack of robust MP content right out of the box really hurt games like Titanfall and Evolve, loved Titanfall but it needed more weapons and customization day 1

[rainslacker]

No doubt. Without a solid MP experience, it gets old to replay the same maps over and over again. TF tried to integrate a story into the MP, and that's a good start, but even then, if it's like most online games with a story, once you see it once, it just breaks up the action. Having some sort of dynamic story in this sense which keeps things fresh would be awesome, and may even drive me to try more MP games.

I just see some of these MP games coming out with no more content than you'd get in a SP/MP combo game, and it feels like they're just cheaping out. I also feel that they are rushing these games out...particularly when they give free DLC for a period of time, but I suppose I'd rather have the free DLC than have them supply the bare minimum and charge for it later.

[SnotyTheRocket]

Yeah, just compare an RPG to a shooter, that makes sense. I never touched the single player in BF4, literally never played it, and BF4 is a game I still play. You wouldn't compare a Jeep to a sports car, would you? Two totally different things, classified in the same medium.

[WellyUK]

Just like how 6 hour SP games are a waste of money...

[gangsta_red]

"See that's the problem, people just think it's going to be garbage because they feel they won't be able to do it."

But it's the same as your past comments when you even stated how devs tacked on MP to a predominantly SP game. Why is it different the other way around?

"NaughtyDog has shown you can have a great single player and a fun multiplayer."

But weren't you extremely disappointed with Uncharted 3's MP?
And not every dev is ND and not every dev wants to concentrate or make time for a SP mode when it will bring nothing to the table or add anything to gameplay. Rainbow 6 has always had a strong online focus and it's obvious these devs know this so why waste time making a SP when they can devote 100% of their time making the best MP game they can.

Player 1 has bought Fallout 4 and Player 2 has bought R6

Both players are endlessly having fun with both games.

Player 1 is enjoying a single style story that will last hours depending on how much he plays.

Player 2 is enjoying a different experience every single time he plays with different team members or going against different people in every match.

Player 1 will finish his game and have to wait for DLC missions to experience something new.

Player 2 is still enjoying an active online community, getting more skilled in each game and is waiting for DLC to further his enjoyment for years to come.

And guess what...they both paid the same amount of money. ANd each dev spent about the same time developing and making this game for player 1 and 2.

"...instead of actually working on some other features for people to sink their teeth into."

So are devs lazy for making SP games only? Fallout 4, The Order and any other SP game only? None of your arguments make sense especially when they can all be applied to SP games too.

Some games are made for MP, this is what the devs intended. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand or accept. Not every game needs SP especially team base shooters with a heavy focus on multiplayer anyways.

[ZayZay_11]

No buy then.

[AizenSosuke]

No buy sorry!

[Paytaa]

Enjoyed playing Vegas 1 and 2 co-op with my dad years ago. Shame this doesn't have a single player component. The game didn't really seem like the older Rainbow 6 games anyway.

Rainbow Six 3: Black Arrow was my favorite.

[Whirlwind_Fanfare_08]

MP only? no thanks! pass.

[Mulletino]

Ya! Show em what for!

[Kalebninja]

Man that's unfortunate because the Multiplayer has been so good in the beta but, no single player just doesn't make me want to play full price.

[Perjoss]

Well said, im sure this will be priced like cod and battlefield except those games at least always include a campaign. I think this is just unacceptable and terrible value for money imo.

[Mulletino]

And they'll charge full price at first for the suckers who will buy it and then charge next to nothing like bf4 and titanfall a few months later... Just wait to buy it.

[GrimmQuiorra]

Welp. Not that I was gonna buy it anyways, but this just makes the pill that much easier to swallow.

GG Ubisoft.

[PR_FROM_OHIO]

I can't believe developers think this is a great idea! Smh I guess they will learn when it flops! I'll be passing on this

[Summons75]

What? They had a trailer for the campaign at E3...what the hell happened? I was looking forward to that. I mean the beta has been a blast and there are clear elements of a story in the multiplayer so what happened to the story?

[Baka-akaB]

Are you sure ? Unless my memory is hazy , i remember a multiplayer session with scripted dialogue

[Summons75]

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

They showed this trailer followed by the lady from the trailer and the annoying host discussing the story and how it was interesting to go from going movies/tv shows to a video game.

[WellyUK]

that's not a SP trailer... Once again people are being stupid. AT NO POINT HAVE THEY SHOWN ANYTHING SP RELATED ABOUT THE GAME.

[RiseofScorpio]

Not interested. It'll be 20 dollars in 2-3 months just like Evolve and these other online games.

[Sokol]

Hmm, easy decision for me and my friends then. No single player equals no purchase, as simple as that.

Are we still getting charged full price for the game?
How convenient.. If we support this with our wallets it will only get worse..

See how micro transactions are now in almost every full retail game?

Ridiculous..

[Baka-akaB]

Thanks for the info , and one less dilemma , without even the need to try some demo or beta .

I can easily play mp only with some franchises , but i have zero interest in an mp centric rainbow 6 .

Feels like Ubisoft wasted people's time , when it's something you could have said from the get go

[Perjoss]

Not really a Rainbow 6 game then, not for me it isn't. This is just lazy, not talking about the devs, after all they just do as they are told and they work really hard, but the people in charge need to stop poking their nose into things they dont understand.

Rainbow 6 has always had a campaign, and a good one I might add...

[triple_c]

I was going to get this game until I found out that it wouldn't a campaign and no splitscreen terrorist hunt like Vegas 1 and 2 did. It's a shame.. Looks like I'm going to have to wait a couple more years for Ubisoft to pull their head out of their a** and make a proper Rainbow Six game and we all know that might take a while...

[BitbyDeath]

And they expect people to pay full price? Ha, what a joke.
MP only games should be half price,what a scam.

[_-EDMIX-_]

"SP only games should be half price,what a scam"

fixed.

Some of you are pretty narrow minded.. Should Witcher 3 and Fallout 4 be half price because they have no MP?

[BitbyDeath]

MP games aren't even a quarter of the effort you would get from an SP game. Do you really expect a single episode of The Walking Dead to cost as much as a season of The Walking Dead?

[_-EDMIX-_]

"MP games aren't even a quarter of the effort you would get from an SP game"

Nope. It takes months and months to craft a actual map, before balancing, testing out features etc. Its a task that takes a very, very long time. We paid full price for Fighting games before they had story modes which are just padded on BS that literally only has some narration lol.

The reality is...MP only is a value to those who want to play MP only as to why Counter Strike GO was FULL PRICE! As to why L4D WAS FULL PRICE! As to why fighting games back in the day and even now with no SP ARE STILL FULL PRICE!

Mind you, an example of the Walking dead is pretty weak if you consider the team charges that because of the quality of the game, they can get more sales and don't demand a $60 fee for a 12 hour or so game.

Witcher 3 is full price, lacks a MP, Fallout 4, full price, no MP, Skyrim full price no MP, Evil Within, Bayonetta, DMC series, God Of War 1-3 and its PSP versions, Deus Ex, Half Life, buddy the list goes on and on and on.

Many, many games DON'T HAVE MP! Many games are Single player only games...that are full price. Many games are Multiplayer games....that are FULL PRICE!

Where is the single player in Counter Strike? In L4D? In Team Fortress? H1Z1? ARMA? OH...those are magically not worth full price now?

Sorry bud, they where full price generations ago for good reason and I see no reason to charge half price for a product because YOU want a SP mode...well go play a SP game if thats what YOU WANT! That isn't their issue or problem.

That is like crying that a game doesn't have a racing or co-op mode...never mind that its concept has NOTHING to do with that.

Bought Alien Isolation, Evil Within, Shadow Of Mordor last year...should I have not spent full price on them? LOL!

Bud...many on here have made way better examples them me too that you don't price a game based on such bullet points. Some games are SP only, some are MP only and its been that way for a pretty damn long time.

Like the Order? Well that game is longer then the SP modes in MANY, MANY of the games some are asking for to be added in. Would MP some how make it worth $60 even if it was bad and tacked on? LOL!

I'm sorry but a BAD MODE is a value to NO ONE!

As a BF fan, I've NEVER finished a SP mode, they are bad and just waste of time, I'm their for MP, its not a value for me. I wouldn't even noticed if it was removed on day lol. I paid full price for BF before SP....had zero problem with it.

That is like crying that you beat an action game, yet its not longer then an RPG...shouldn't be full price LOL! That logic just doesn't make sense.

[BitbyDeath]

"Nope. It takes months and months to craft a actual map, before balancing, testing out features etc."

C'mon, you never made a MP map before? Making maps is the simplest thing ever once the initial tools are in place. Getting that ready is the hard part.

"example of the Walking dead is pretty weak if you consider the team charges that because of the quality of the game"

This is my argument, MP games aren't quality.
Evolve is no where near Skyrim or even The Order.

"Where is the single player in Counter Strike? In L4D? In Team Fortress? H1Z1? ARMA? OH...those are magically not worth full price now?"

No definitely not full price. $40 would be much more suitable price point for those games.

MP games are cheap to make, therefore they should be cheap to buy.

[WellyUK]

this way of thinking is 100% stupid. So your saying games like The Order 1886 should be full price? Sorry but that's just utter BS and wrong...

You can have a SP or MP only game as long as the content is there and the gameplay is good.

MP games are the most played games consistently for a reason... Because it gives games replay value unlike SP games which mostly die after a week unless it has a active modding scene on PC. On consoles most SP games die off very fast.

[BitbyDeath]

Music has more replay value than movies and cost less, it should all come down to budget and time spent not how much you might play it.

[4Sh0w]

Music and movies are two different mediums which is why they have a cost difference and theres a clear difference in how often consumers use each medium.

SP and MP games are still both games.

MP games when good are just as much worth $60 as a good SP game, if anything it could be argued a good MP game is worth more given how much more millions of people will play it.

[_-EDMIX-_]

http://blogs.battlefield.co...

"Making maps is the simplest thing ever once the initial tools are in place"

Nope.

6 months on 1 map doesn't sound like the "simplest thing ever" I don't think you know what your talking about.

"This is my argument, MP games aren't quality.
Evolve is no where near Skyrim or even The Order"

Could you not state that neither of those games are quality like MMOs in comparison? Do you see how stupid basing quality on comparison to different genres is?

Those MP games came full price and it wasn't questioned as its the norm.

Thats nice you don't play it or get it....

I don't get MMOs...doesn't mean they are worth less, they are merely worth less to you. Did we not have fighting games at full price with zero story? Mario Kart doesn't have a story bud...Smash Bros 1 had no adventure mode. lol

Your trying go convnice folks that SP means more quality when its really subjective and based on what gamers actually like. Can't I say Madden has no story, thus should not be full price? I mean....I didn't to see how my player uses his funds in a RPG meta game..thus it must be lessor.

Halo..sad, not longer then Skyrim, it must be cheaper.

Alien Isolation, should not have been full price bro, an MMO is longer thus it shouldn't be full price because another unrelated game in a different genre gives more hours.

"MP games are cheap to make"

http://webcache.googleuserc...

You sure?

http://kotaku.com/5986592/i...

Small team to, you could imagine how much it might cost Capcom to add fighters to SF series.

http://whatculture.com/gall...

Funny enough...I wouldn't even say Destiny even has single player as much as it has narrations for horde mode...so it cost $500 for that narration and walking shooting gallery? You sure? Because it sounds like the game that is most notorious for having a slapped together walking narration gallery is also one of the most expensive projects in gaming.

I can tell you right now that the majority of Destiny was not its single player....

[Sir_Simba]

Eh, beta was alright. But I'll honestly just pass.

[Chinkyinc18]

I like the MP in the game as I have played the Alpha and the Beta, but for $60, no. I'm not real big into MP games, either; this one is actually enjoyable to me. It should be no more than $40 at launch if it's MP-only.

[Psychotica]

And after they shut the servers off in a couple of years the game will be useless..

[Perjoss]

This is exactly what they want. If you're still playing and enjoying R6 Siege in a couple of years when they decide to release a sequel you're a lot less likely to buy that sequel. But turning off the servers and block your access to the game solves that problem.

[Masterchief_thegoat]

rainbow six always about story now ubisoft wanna go online only wtf man

[raggy-rocket]

Want to make a multiplayer only game? Go for it, then make up for no single player by giving me more than 10 maps. Inexcusable for multiplayer only. Titanfall, Rainbow Six, and it looks to be battlefront as well just aren't giving us enough content for a full priced game that is ONLY multiplayer. Look at GTA, look at Halo, even look at battlefield. They provide more content for multiplayer (WITH huge and immersive single player experiences as well) than multiplayer only games for the same price. How is this amount of content for a multiplayer only game acceptable?

[slappy508]

No buy and I'll be letting Ubisoft know why I won't be buying

[Bathyj]

Bathyj confirmed to be passing on Rainbow Six for the first time.

Grave fears held for Ghost Recon.

[lastking95]

This is getting worrisome, Especially since they charging full price. Halos the only fps I play (or buy per say) I couldn't imagine a $60 Halo without campaign. More and more fps are going mp only and it's not right. You buy for the story and stay for the mp that's how it always should be.

[GranTurismoFan]

Single player Tom Clancy games were awesome, such a shame. I'm sure it's gonna be a killer multiplayer game though.

[Bathyj]

Well considering the basis of the premise of the whole Tom Clancy franchise was it came from intriguing storiesd characters, not having a story mode in the game is just a slap in the face.

I've supported this whole franchise, I think I owned every game, or at least most of them, and I bought them all for the campaign and the squad mechanics. Now its just another virtual shooting gallery, like all other shooters are going.

Online gaming is cancer. Consoles going online have bought way more negatives than positives. Incomplete games, unstable, microtransactions. Every single player game needed a tacked on MP and now franchises dropping Single player all together. Bring back offline consoles and demo disc I say.

[Sm00thop]

Have you even played the game at all? I get that it's not nice having no single player, but its a damn good game with great gameplay mechanics. It's one of the best multiplayer games I've ever played and I'm comparing it to the likes of Counter Strike and Halo.

I would have liked a single player campaign myself, but I understand where they're going with this game and I'd rather them focus their energy on getting the multiplayer perfect.

[rainslacker]

I think that the online revolution has brought good things to consoles as well. I know it's brought some bad things, but I think the good things outweigh it overall.

Biggest problem is that many publishers are abusing the bad things and making it less attractive to the end user. If these abuses stopped, and they operated more ethically and in the interest of the consumer, then it would be hard to be upset about it...even if games were MP only.

I do agree though, it sucks that this franchise isn't getting a SP mode considering the source material. Seems more like they're marketing off the name, instead of taking the risk of just creating a new IP. Not sure why the author would agree to such a thing as it does nothing to serve the brand. It's like making a Tolkein based game online only with no story to go with it.

[Blank]

Hmm interesting so no SP? And it comes with 11 maps? Plus its UBIsoft yeah im skipping this one. If it had atleast 15+ maps I would rethink it but nope having only 11 maps killed it for me, with this SP announcement slaughtering what interest I had left.

[SnotyTheRocket]

Maps down the line are free.

[bestofthebest]

They need to make Vegas 3.

[Tsar4ever01]

I second that! No RB6: Siege for me. F**k these Multiplayer centric online games.

[deathtok]

Rainbow Six Siege Confirmed to Not Be Purchased By Me

[OC_MurphysLaw]

I will be waiting on this...just like Battlefront.... Story over MP only games for me. This news helps make my holiday spend a little lighter.

[TeamLeaptrade]

It kind of makes sense. This one reminds me a lot of Payday, which if I recall has no single player correct? Either way, I think I'm okay with this.

[Germany7]

Easy pass here too. So many games are still coming this year with great SP experiences.

[RJ92009]

I always thought it was mp only that's not to bad.. Hell warhawk was mp only and that game was great. I love me some rainbow 6 mp that all I play in rb6 anyway.. so does not bug me at all

[USMC_POLICE]

Man I would love a new warhawk or make it free to play on ps4

[RJ92009]

Me to I love warhawk but not free to play tho. I hope they make a warhawk 2 so much fun on the first one. Just make it bigger more maps more players and just more of every thing warhawk was .

[Tedakin]

Ok, starting to not like this trend....

[alfcrippinjr]

WTF No Single-Player Story

ok these software companys are getting very lazy now.

this game should be a $40 and not the price of a full cost game.

the beta is so boring same again and again.

the match making is the worse i have seen for online play

should had left it basic

its a big pass on me

hopefully other people will follow
as they are taking the piss with no story mode only online only type of game.

rainbow 6 las vegas ps3 is better then the new version

[ExplodingJuice]

Well they just lost my money. I am playing the beta and I have to say while it is fun it will die out quickly just like TitanFall. I guess Call of Duty gets my money for my shooter fix.

[holdmyown83]

Is it mostly the Older Generation that hates multiplayer games? I don't see anything wrong with it EXCEPT it should only be $30 and not $60. I also wish they would start selling multiplayer components on psn if we don't want the SP example: cod and battlefield type games.

[s45gr32]

What about Angela Basset, did she got caught off or something.

[just-joe]

So what was with the trailer with Angela Bassett at E3?

[Yui_Suzumiya]

Thank goodness for Assassins Creed: Syndicate. Single player only and due to the setting, it's the first A.C. I'm truly interested in.

[q8kik]

For Honor for me.

I just hope it has single player.

[s45gr32]

Sorry but this has made me decide not to purchase this game. I will admit, I enjoy games that have a solid rich story like "To the moon" The Walking Dead Life is strange, etc.

[Excited2play]

No buy for me then.

[Twinblade]

I played the beta and honestly, I didn't had that much fun, maybe it was the fact that people I was playing with, didn't have mics or just doesn't listen to orders.

[Trekster_Gamer]

No single player Campaign..
No purchase. It's that simple for me.

[Antifan]

Like all the rest of MP only games, it will be forgotten in a month.

[Xavior_Reigns]

And suddenly I no longer have interest in GRAW3. Ah ubisoft... its amusing to see publishers/ developers that obviously have talent become so lazy. I'll forever be proud of being a gamer of the golden era while younger or stupid experienced gamer bends over, accepting all the BS these companies spew.

[Sm00thop]

I've been playing the beta since Monday, was lucky enough to get in early and stress test the servers. All I can say is that the game is amazing, the attention to detail in the gameplay is top notch. Anyone that likes hardcore tactical shooters is going to love it. People are moaning that it should be cheaper because it has no single player and only so many maps, but you can see they have put a lot of effort in to this game and they should be praised for bringing something fresh to the table.

Half the people moaning here went out and bought The Order and defended that pile of garbage, that says it all really.

[Pathogenic]

I am playing the closed beta right now and I'm telling you it's a rushed product and looks last generation. Here's the details and I've played all the Rainbow six games.

Pros:

Tactical Immersion is authentic
Team based gameplay required for successful breaching
and clearing the objective.
Terrorist Hunt is back and I played it a lot against the AI
There is normal, hard and Realistic mode which gives variety to
the player.
Breaching buildings is awesome

Cons:

Characters feel heavy and clunky and have a more Call Of Duty feel
instead of the classic Rainbow Six games

Can't create your own operator or choose cosmetics like in Vegas 2 which
is disappointing because I don't like to look like everyone else.

Guns are way overpowered such as the shotguns and The AKA. Don't even need to aim just fire the weapon in the direction of your enemy and bam dead.

Graphics took a nose dive and it looks washed out. I would compare this to Ubisofts game with the cellphone (Watchdogs)

In the end after playing both the multiplayer and terrorist hunt I can say I'm not impressed with Ubisoft. Instead of taking the time to create a place for tactical players this generation they rushed a game that could've been a game of the year winner. Instead they captured a semi-authentic tactical shooter mixed with Call of Duty. I'm clearly not impressed and that's my opinion from being a past Rainbow Six player.

I give this game a 6.9/10 for the beta and I hope them the best in the future.

[Sm00thop]

It feels nothing like CoD, every character is unique in some way as well. Some characters are more agile than others, but have less armour so it evens out. The only thing that's over powered in the game right now are the characters with shields because they have ridiculously accurate hip fire and don't suffer any knock back or distorted vision when being shot at. I think it's a little frustrating at the moment because not many people have the beta and you're always lumbered with some noobs. Some weapons could do with some balancing like you say, but that's why there's a beta and I'm sure it'll be addressed.

[urwifeminder]

Nice am more interested now that they are just focusing on multi but the team work is turning me off it means i have to talk to people count me out lol. Then a gain may be fun letting your team down and hearing the whinge after and during game play . Some gamers are more upset as their service drops out too often for them to enjoy online.

[forgetmenot]

freaking sad an even worst people agreeing with this crap. 7th gen local multiplayer was opp out this gen the aim is for single player/ offline in general. hope this flops

[poor_cus_of_games]

Must be half the price of a regular new release. Since it's half a game.

[Meltic]

lazy ass ubishit... first The Division and now this ?? screw you ubishit.. like people say. Must be half the price of a regular new release since it's a half game.

[BattleAxe]

Very disappointing indeed. I actually just played through Vegas 1 single player again in anticipation for this game. I wonder if Ghost Recon is going to be the same thing...

[SaveFerris]

From some of the comments here, many disagree with the game being full price despite no single player story. Many single player only games are full price, so what is the difference? If a developer chooses to make a multi-player only game, that is their choice. My choice as a gamer would be deciding whether to buy it or not.
I'm not going to call the developers lazy, sign a petition, and wish the game flops. I'll leave it to the gaming market to decide if it will be successful or not. Meanwhile, I'll look for another game that interests me.

[Deios]

Ouch! I just cancelled my pre-order after reading this. I will be buying it when it hits the bargain bin now.

[BlindMango]

This was confirmed months ago.

[scark92]

Passing, just like with other online only games.

[extermin8or]

Shan't be picking this up at full price then... Shame. I've heard what's in the game and there's not enough maps and content for me to consider it an mp game worth full price. Battlefront on the Otherhand has alot of content from the sounds of it.

[cfc83]

If it had a story mode it wouldn't have so many maps and support. It's a full price game from that point. Beta is alright, but having only 1 life in a 4 vs 4 or 5 vs 5 scenaroi is kina empty. I'm not sure what other modes there will be. Anyone know ?

[darthkai]

So many maps? You know it'll just have 10 maps, right? The first modern warfare had more maps, more modes and a brilliant full-fledged campaign. Same with Halo.

For your question, to my knowledge there aren't any modes that aren't 1 life only, unfortunately :(
I believe the main modes are team deathmatch and rescue the hostage. IGN has pretty good coverage of Rainbow Six at the moment.

[cfc83]

Aren't maps being added at no further cost ?

[ocelot07]

Not to bothered my self. I very rarely played the single player of any of the Rainbow Six Games.

[noxeven]

Not really surprised. Especially if we consider if this game was originally supposed to be patriots. I believe that is what it was called. I remember the leaked alpha footage looked interesting. The only issue is if that was the story at least what I grab from the footage I remember watching would have probably pissed people off and while a step in a different direction probably would have given the game an ao rating. I feel like this was multiplayer meant for that game and they decided to write the single but then it took to long and all the assets had been dumped into the multiplayer at this point. Its just an theory. Still gonna give it a shot during beta see if it holds my interest.

[KillerPwned]

I was gonna pass on this anyway till it gets cheaper so now I will surely wait till its around the $20 mark.

[USMC_POLICE]

Wow that was a slap in the face, I've loved the series since rouge spear. Guess I'll wait for ghost recon, how can they put Tom clancys name on this? He must be thrilled!

[Artemidorus]

He's dead....

[USMC_POLICE]

Thanks I knew that sorry I guess next time I have to be specific and say he must be rolling in his grave.

[JamesBroski]

If at least the MP was good.

[FlexLuger]

Hey, whats the cover system like? I was hoping it would work like R6:vegas but I am not sure if that is the case.

[darthkai]

There is no cover system. I think there might be a lean but I'm not sure. It's First Person only so doing a cover system would be difficult.

[Pathogenic]

There is lean but again you don't need it. Just use an op weapon like the shotgun and aka and you'll be fine

[FlexLuger]

Im disappointed to hear that. I like the old third person switch to cover. I am not bothered by the lack of single player as I mostly played R6 games online. Dissapointed to hear they droppped the R6:Vegas style cover system.

[DillyDilly]

Why didnt they say this in the beginning ? Watch a lot of pre orders get cancelled now

[NickAwesome]

Sad they cancelled rainbow six patriots to release a multiplayer only game, no single player=no buy for me

[BludoDaSmelly]

Spend development on making mp great instead of two components that are not ready or solid, ie battlefield 4. Good idea in my opinion.

[darthkai]

1) Due to lack of single player campaign and an extreme emphasis on teamwork in the multiplayer, this game is catering exclusively to people who have a group of friends to team up with. Titanfall's multiplayer allowed you to play as a lone wolf and do just fine, and Evolve let you play as the monster if you're more of a loner. But if cooperation is a must, then people who just want to jump into a game with a bunch of random people are screwed, as cooperation with people you've never met is extremely difficult. The only other games that do this are MOBAs, and they're free to play so there's no barrier of entry for you and your friends to hop in and try it out.
"I want my shooter to be more like DOTA" said no FPS player ever.

2) If you want to make a multiplayer-only FPS priced at 60$, put in more than just 10 maps and a handful of game modes! What happened to the days of Unreal Tournament where you had 50+ maps, great mod tools, and more game modes than you knew what to do with?

[glenn1979]

how much is going to cost?? I mean are they going to fucking milk it wit dlc content?? I hope the dlc would be free, or the game must cost at least 30$

[ParanoidFreak]

Let down, no doubt... but fine, you want it MP-only Ubisoft... then don't charge gamers full price. They should have said something a long time ago.

[VerdicLinwe]

Just did some of the beta. It's pretty trash. It plays like Counter Strike: GO with light destruction. You could literally get a better experience with CSGO right now for 20$.

[Artemidorus]

Very disappointed with this game, playing on Playstation 4 with beta and it felt like I was playing a Playstation 3 game. Gameplay is excellent though.

This had better be 19.99 new or no buy. I've seen more free to play games offer more.

[masterfox]

So I can confirm I won't be playing it then :D

[MAULxx]

I'm in the definite pass camp. Multiplayer fans can rejoice. This is not the R6 game I'm looking for.
GR Wildlands is our only hope.

[BattleAxe]

Wildlands could be an online only game also. They haven't shown any kind of storyline yet.

[MAULxx]

I was speaking of the coop aspect. Open world coop, pick your missions. Actual coop missions is really what I was getting at.

I don't buy competitive MP focused games. They just don't interest me. Co-op campaign/missions can be tons of fun and I can get into that. Having what looks like a map full of coop missions to approach any way your team likes has great potential for fun, tactics & replayability. We need a good tactical style shooter & this R6 is a waste to me.

[Relientk77]

My chances of getting this game just went from slim to none

[jznrpg]

I enjoyed the SP campaign with coop in other RB6 games. I will pass on this because I am not into MP only games that much and never got into the MP for this game. If they were always MP only games I would guess people wouldnt be upset .

[KontryBoy706]

NEXT!!! My money is staying in my pocket lol

[annoyedgamer]

No sale. Keep your boring scripted co0op shooter. Watch Halo 7 end up like this. Same with Ghost Recon. RIP shooters

[Kyizen]

Gonna miss that sold story...

[spence52490]

Fantastic! More excellent MP for people like me who never touch the SP on multiplayer focused shooting games.

[Velasquez805]

I'm bummed that this game will be MP only, but I can live with that. What gets me is paying for a MP only game that launches with 11 maps and asking $60. I have been playing the closed beta and i've been having a blast, but I feel like if you're going to release a MP only game either ship the product with more maps to keep the variety up and expand the longevity of this game, or lower the introductory price.Just my 2 cents...

[snoopgg]

Man, I'm disappointed in this news! I always bought this series for its story and its coop mode. Multiplayer was always an enjoyable option, but it wasn't the only option like now. Last gen they did this with So Com Confirmation, multiplayer only, and now they shut down the servers, so all I have left is a worthless non playable multiplayer blue ray sitting collecting dust. If there was a worthwhile single player at least I could go back and play it every now and again. This is why I am passing on this game. Bring out another advanced warfighter game

[no_more_heroes]

I prefer single player games myself. I only ever play MP with good friends, whichever game is the order of the weekend. That being said, there's absolutely nothing wrong with MP only games. Anyone who says they shouldn't exist is being selfish. Different strokes, different folks.

The world actually doesn't end with you.

The only question that should be asked is: "Does this game offer $60 worth of content?" Obviously, those who prioritize SP will say no, but this game isn't aimed at them. What's far more important for Ubisoft is what the answer is from big MP fans.

[acemonkey]

im playing the beta enjoy some of it. but its going to be this years evolve. people will play it for a few weeks maybe a month and stop.

i miss rainbow vegas

[Father__Merrin]

I can personally promise I won't be buying R6 - the previous R6 games were amazing especially Vegas 1 and 2, loved playing through campaign and jump onto multiplayer and vice versa....

this has now all gone, I would half forgive them if the game launches £29.99 new but no it's full price. R6 was one of my face console games, I guess if I do get it it will be in the cheap G2A CD key for my PC

rubbish direction, I think battlefront is similar with no campaign.

is it just me or does everyone else love campaign's with multiple difficulty, collectables, achievements/trophies, unlockable etc

[ThePresentIsAgift]

I think it's a dick move, they handled all of the games elements historically perfectly well and as such set a precedent.

It has also been a very long time since Rainbow Six Vegas 2 not to mention the extreme saturation of shooters and Battlefield's considerable rise to multi platform success.

Personally I am a little gutted, don't get me started on Star Wars Battlefront either DLC used to be a great edition and sometimes still is. When its being advertised left right and centre many months before the games release then colour me suspicious.

[MrBeatdown]

It's a shame... in gaming communities, people like us are the first to stick up for a developer's vision, and don't want it to be compromised by an out of touch publisher, or allowing it to be dumbed down.

Yet the second it's something we don't like, it's "lazy" or "not worth it", and we complain when something like a single player campaign isn't tacked on to tick a box for the sake of appealing to some demographic that isn't the target audience in the first place.

Seems like it's always "let the devs make the game they want to make", right up until it's not the game we want them to make.

[thricetold]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Tired of shoehorned components taking valuable resources away? Do away with said component. If it's cool for sp only games its cool for mp only games.

Especially seeing as there is this thing called data that can be tracked and complied to give you a better understanding of what your CORE fanbase wants. More power to them.

[XhiXExtreme]

GET SOME YOU COMPLAINING SP PLAYERS... Finally a game dedicated to us MP players when all you people complained about games having mp.. GEEEET SOOOOOME!!!!