Top
520°

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.

Read Full Story >>
whatculture.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Canthar2185d ago

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.

JJShredder2185d ago

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.

Canthar2185d ago

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.

freshslicepizza2185d ago

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.

saywat2472185d ago (Edited 2185d ago )

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?

MysticStrummer2185d ago

"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_2185d ago

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

Lennoxb632184d ago

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.

Mulletino2184d ago

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.

rainslacker2184d ago

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.

XBLSkull2184d ago

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?

quaneylfc2184d ago (Edited 2184d ago )

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.

indyman77772184d ago

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.

2184d ago
ifistbrowni2184d ago

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

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 2184d ago
Bigpappy2185d ago

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.

Gazondaily2185d ago

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

s45gr322185d ago

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 😸

s45gr322185d ago

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?

shadowknight2032184d ago (Edited 2184d ago )

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.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2184d ago
jb2272185d ago

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.

ILive2185d ago (Edited 2185d ago )

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.

user99502792185d ago

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_Leone2185d ago

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

solid_snake36562184d ago

Yup buying online only games feels more like a rental.

kyzer19782185d ago

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-_2184d ago

"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?

otherZinc2185d ago

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

Detox0242184d ago

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.

overrated442184d ago

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-_2184d ago

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.

jholden32492184d ago

No, not "tack it on"

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

TonyPT2184d ago

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

jholden32492184d ago

Yep.

Going to cancel preorder now.

cheapness12184d ago (Edited 2184d ago )

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_242184d ago

@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.

3-4-52184d ago

* 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-_2184d ago

"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.

Tzuno2184d ago

Wonder if they would still charge full 60$.

+ Show (14) more repliesLast reply 2184d ago
JJShredder2185d ago

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.

JJShredder2185d ago

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

Yui_Suzumiya2185d ago

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

DOMination-2185d ago

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

jb2272185d ago

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.

Dissidia2185d ago

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

TKCMuzzer2185d ago (Edited 2185d ago )

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.

holdmyown832185d ago

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

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2185d ago
stuna12185d ago

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.

Pandamobile2185d ago

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

stuna12185d ago

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!

Pandamobile2185d ago (Edited 2185d ago )

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.

-Foxtrot2185d ago

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.

Pandamobile2185d ago

"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.

Bigpappy2185d ago

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.

4Sh0w2184d ago (Edited 2184d ago )

"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.

MrBeatdown2184d ago

"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.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 2184d ago
maniacmayhem2185d ago (Edited 2185d ago )

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-akaB2185d ago (Edited 2185d ago )

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

jb2272185d ago

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-akaB2185d ago

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

Mulletino2184d ago

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.

4Sh0w2184d ago (Edited 2184d ago )

"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-akaB2184d ago (Edited 2184d ago )

"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

4Sh0w2184d ago (Edited 2184d ago )

"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-akaB2184d ago (Edited 2184d ago )

"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

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2184d ago
stuna12185d ago

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!

MysticStrummer2185d ago

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.

stuna12185d ago

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.

Mulletino2184d ago

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.