Think it'll be worth $60 with no singleplayer now?

I'm kinda surprised there's no story or campaign since past R6 games were good at them (compared to its peers like Battlefield and COD). Also, they bothered to get Angela Basset for their E3 trailer. I like the beta, but I'd rather not regret buying a MP only game like I did with Evolve, Destiny, and Titanfall - all three of them lacked content at the start. I'll give Titanfall some credit for making its horde mode free.

In order for me to buy this game without regret it'll need at least a dozen maps, this better be some of the operators and not all of them, and it needs 2 or 3 more game modes that are fun. I like Terrorist Hunt, Siege is okay (it takes too long to find a match in the beta and you need friends online). I'd guess there's going to be a defender parallel to Terrorist Hunt where defenders protect against AI. Some type of story mode like what Evolve tried to do with Evacuation would be good too. Tom Clancy games used to have a good campaign, good co-op, and good versus - so I can't say I like this change at the moment.

Anyone else like the beta and gameplay but worried about the value?

I haven't played the game ,but from the streams i've watched and the video giantbomb placed, this game seems prime candidate to suffer the same fate as Evolve.
Actual game seems enjoyable, but i doubt that there will be a substantial userbase after the initial months. Especially with cheaper alternatives in CSGO, TF2, Dota2, LOL, HOTS, Smite, Killing Floor 2, Insurgency ( Some might have more overlap with Rainbow Six than others) .

Why wouldn't it be? I would rather all of the development effort go to MP when that's the main focus, rather than get a half-assed story like in Battlefield.

Jokes on you

This game is 79.99 in Canada

So far it's shaping up to have less features, maps and modes than Raven Shield, which is to be expected, I suppose.

I've played a few of the betas now (closed technical and the current closed beta) and man, I'm sorry but I just won't be picking it up. It's a great idea, and it's totally fun, but I've been burned on multiplayer shooters before.

Titanfall has taught me that the community is not ever going to last and then this full priced multiplayer only shooter is useless. Evolve had the same exact issue, a fantastic idea, even a great free map/dlc policy, but for whatever reason the community did not stick around very long.

It's a bummer!

Rainbow six games have always been single player games to me so this has zero value to me now.

No. When Ubisoft hiked prices in canada all of their fall games fell off my list. Multiplayer shooters invariably end up with dead communities several months later and its just not worth it.

(Exchange rates are what they are, but this game was made in canada, and I dont think they pay people in US dollars.)

Having played the alpha R6 has a laundry list of problems the lack of campaign being nowhere near the top, not sure how this is news now was mentioned months ago.

This game being full price just seems like it is signing its own death warrant; the game being a teamwork focused multiplayer game with no campaign sets the bar high enough as it is.

It's a shame, because I think it seems like a game with ton of potential. I just think there is no way in hell this game is going to have a sustainable playerbase in this competitive PvP market.

Do you think single player only games aren't worth 60 bucks?

It being worth full price has nothing to do with having both single and multi player.

This video captures my impressions so far perfectly. I loved the series when it was at least somewhat grounded in realism, now it is becoming more and more like the main-stream run and gun shooters. Developers describe it as a tactical shooter, as I guess what goes as tactical experience or not is very much up for debate. There can be no doubt that what the first Rainbow Six tried to do, was something entirely different, and that the newer games should have been named something else mainly to avoid that constant comparison.

@funkydupe: R6 plays nothing like that, running in Siege is a brisk walk.

Ugh, no thank you. From watching the game, it doesn't do enough to separate itself from CSGO to justify a $60 price-tag. Its a shame, I could really go for a methodical, tactical single-player shooter right now. I never actually played the old Rainbow Six games but I played a ton of SWAT 3 and it had a really nice feel to it.

They're saying 11 maps at start, with all future map packs to be free.

I'm a little disappointed they're leaving out the SP as that's mostly what I played in the other R6 games, but the foundation seems so good and it's been soooooo long since there was a good shooter that was somewhere between call of duty and a simulator. This also seems like the kind of game where you'll need to know people who play to get much out of it, which is weird, but I'll probably end up buying this pretty near to launch.

Absolutely. I'd love to see the SWAT3/4 experience refined and brought to life in something like the Unreal 4 engine. I don't care if it was SWAT 5 or a new Rainbow Six, just to see project with an actual budget try to bring that type of gameplay back would have been be very positive in my opinion.

The problem is that I don't think a game like that would sell enough to be worth the developer/vc/publisher's investment.

I tried to understand your reply to my post, but I failed. Please explain your point. My main irk is that a game like this is called Rainbow Six, way more so than the actual gameplay it delivers.

Wait...I thought that was why Angela Bassett was in it? Is she just there for a couple of voice overs before missions or something?

I watched hours of streams for it yesterday and people (itmeJP, SirScoots, Eat My Diction) were having a total blast with the game just playing against AI. COD and BF have done the campaign thing. It's a short distraction when the bulk of the game comes from the multiplayer gameplay loop. Let's be real, when has anyone ever played a Tom Clancy game for the revolutionary narrative? If you want that you can read his books.

Questioning whether or not there will be a solid user base in a few months time from release is totally valid because we've seen plenty of games suffer from that. Then again, how many games are able to maintain a massive player base? And do they need that massive player base, or just enough guys to keep matches flowing smoothly?

Again, from what I watched the game seemed totally fine.

Saw AngryJoe play the beta last night and it looked preeeety rough in that. I was pretty excited for it around E3 but the more I see of it, the more I dislike it.

Not too sure what they'd do with a story mode anyway from what I've seen of the gameplay...

"John Rainbow, we've sent you to take down terrorists and traitors across the globe where the government can't officially act, but now we need you to act as a SWAT team in Podunk, USA. Don't take more than five people with you, we want this to be a fair fight."

"John Rainbow, thanks for saving the girl, but it turns out her dad was in a villa down in Southtown, go rescue him from the same terrorists."

"John Rainbow, thanks for rescuing the man, but the terrorists reincarnated and took over a mountain villa where his mistress was taken hostage. Go take them down again and save the day."

A "story" in this could be a quick video/cut-scene for each individual map, explaining why there is an encounter and who the combatants are.

@funkydupe:

This video captures my impressions so far perfectly. I loved the series when it was at least somewhat grounded in realism, now it is becoming more and more like the main-stream run and gun shooters.

Siege is more tactical than any previous R6 game in a long long time, to say its becoming run and gun couldn't be further from the truth

My main irk is that a game like this is called Rainbow Six, way more so than the actual gameplay it delivers.

Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six is a media franchise created by American author Tom Clancy about a fictional international counter-terrorist unit called "Rainbow." Google

The FBI Hostage Rescue Team (HRT) is the counter-terrorism and hostage rescue unit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The HRT is trained to rescue American citizens and allies who are held hostage by hostile forces, usually terrorists and/or criminals. Google

Wanting the older titles back or not liking Seige singular focus is ok, but Seige is grounded in reality more than any previous R6 game.

It has about the same content as Vegas 1 and Vegas 2 which is a better comparison. Also, the story in Vegas 2 wasn't great. Besides, counting maps and modes into some magical number to determine value doesn't work out. If all maps are great and there are 10 vs say having 15 maps and half of them are just ok or bad, I'd rather have less content and better maps.

I dunno this is the same as any question about multiplayer-only games. Impossible to say one way or the other, depends how much you like playing it. I think for the vast majority of generalists full price for multiplayer doesn't work out unless you have lots of disposable income. But if you get addicted to Siege and play it every week for a year, sure, duh, it's totally worth $60.

The lack of a single player campaign means I have one less game to buy. I just can't get worked up about MP shooters at all, even if I loved Vegas and Vegas 2. I figured Titanfall and Evolve would have been pretty clear warning signs to developers but apparently they're convinced that things will be different for them. The truth is that if I want a good MP shooter experience I have much cheaper and much more robust games to choose from. Whether it's something free like Warframe or something cheap like CSGO, a sixty dollar price tag for an MP only game is probably going to turn off more people than it attracts.

It's a shame, because I found myself really missing Rainbow Six over the last year or two. Nothing else plays quite like it. From the beginning of the series until Vegas 2, Rainbow Six was its own unique thing that I appreciated a great deal.

He speaketh the truth :(

The Joke's on Canadians.

The game never held any appeal to me, though I never envisioned it would have a single player aspect. From what I've seen of it, that would be pretty difficult to envision. Anyway, there are all kinds of "I don't like this" boxes that this game checks for me.

I doubt it. Even if it is fun, it lacks two distinct things that other online shooters have to keep their fan base and/or build on it. For CSGO, beyond its legacy, the online community and support for user-created content still drives that soul strong (besides the cheap price). For Battlefield, it's the level of unpredictability provided by the scale of levels, inclusion of vehicles, and physics (limited, but still adds depth). And CoD has the feel of console shooters on lock so well, while providing a variety of maps and modes, that it's an easy choice for anyone who just wants to go in and shoot dudes.

The only thing I can think of that could extend appeal of this game is if there is constant support and additions from the developers, and the proposed content won't appear like highway robbery. But I could be wrong. Playing a beefed up version of Counter Strike seems fun, but if it's not raining new content often, I won't stick around long.

Yo dawg... All I`m doing here is continually trying to keep my fiber cables from freezing over, and my goddamn polar bear keeps devouring those pesky beavers trying to chew down my house.

Is it a better comparison? R6: Siege seems to be trying to trying to go back to its roots in a roundabout way. R6:Vegas was much closer to a cover shooter and its multiplayer modes were extremely stripped down versions of those found in the older games.

In any case, the maps in the beta are relatively underwhelming so colour me unconvinced.

That "magical number" would be what I consider to be fair/decent for $60. I don't want to support developers who are shortchanging us to make their jobs easier or their companies more profitable. The only way to stop bad trends is to not support them with $$$. I can't say that R6 falls under that yet, but the way they've handled it so far has been bad - they should've said no campaign from the beginning and they should have videos on the other 1 to 3 modes that this game will have by now - it's supposedly coming out in two months, but I'm sure it'll get delayed to March.

I'm not sure how this has the same content as the Vegas games when that had a good 24-style story in its singleplayer plus campaign co-op, terrorist hunt, and versus. R6 was good at campaigns unlike Battlefield. I'd happily take Battlefield as MP only if the maps/modes reflected that. They should put time into their horde mode (Onslaught), not waste time/money making a campaign when they're not great at it.

That video is dumb and has some straight up lies. No one is going to stand there and get shocked by a drone - that and other actions in the video are people being idiots and/or trolling. It saying there's no recoil, HUD clutter, etc are lies. This isn't a sim at all, but it's not run and gun like COD or Titanfall either. You have to sweep each room in terrorist hunt because you can die fast and in siege you just don't run into a room - you try to get intel first. I've played dozens of matches and never saw the silly stuff that's in your video.

I think you got some rose tinted glasses on. Both Vegas 1 and 2's campaigns were by the numbers modern shooter campaigns; completely serviceable but uninspired and forgettable. People came to those games for the multiplayer.

I'm ambivalent here. I don't think RS could exist in the old format since there are just too many other military shooters out there. So, I think they had to take a risk and be different. Big risks are often scary, so I doubt they could go all in with a campaign mode as well. That said, the ideal scenario playing this game is two coordinated and communicative groups battling each other, and really, that won't really often happen beyond the marketing. I think it will still be better than Evolve which, though it was unique, was hurt by the lop-sided nature of game play. I suspected the game might be a little thin when they threw in previous versions of Rainbow. Will I get this game? Unlikely.

This will probably fall off my radar entirely now, sans possibly watching some people play it on YouTube.

Oh well.

Noooooooooope. Well, maybe for some people, but not me. The single player is why I fell in love with the series in the first place. I enjoyed the multiplayer in past games, but no single-player is a deal-breaker.

Bummer, obviously there will be a contingent of people who couldn't care one way or the other about a single player campaign. I'm definitely one of the folks who do care though, won't be picking this up.

No. I wish companies would stop trying to be the next COD. There will only be one, all the others look like cheap knock offs to these kids.

So I finally got into the beta and I have played it a bit. The game is not worth $60. There is a layer jankyness to the game that makes it feel kind of cheap. It is hard to explain, but the game just doesn't feel right in some spots. Then there are the server and netcode issues and my biggest problem is that you can often be killed by people in front of you that just came around a corner or something on their screen but you never saw them, or you run behind a wall and die.

No, it won't be worth it for me. I won't be getting it. It's unfortunate. I really wish it maintained a story as they were going to do with Patriots. It's super disappointing to me. I think they could have done something cool.

To me this feels to me that this should be free to play instead of 60$. This will be lost in the sea of holiday releases.

Been playing the beta for a solid week now and I love it. This game will be fine. 10 maps, multiple game modes, and free DLC will keep it going. The core gameplay is already unique enough to set itself apart from the FPS pack with the verticallity, destructible environments, and unique class abilities.

But they really aren't being different at all. R6:Siege is just another military shooter with gimmicks tacked on (e.g., the destruction). So were the Vegas games for that matter. Prior to that (let's just forget Lockdown exists), the series actually had something of an identity as a hardcore slow-paced tactical shooter with mission planning, customisable teams, weapons, modes etc. Whether a throwback tactical shooter would even function in the current market, I have no idea. Arma seems to do ok, but it's no cash-cow and Ubi seems to regard anything under 3 million sales as a failure.

Isn't Sniper Ghost Warrior 3 akin to the older R6 games.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgRdJmBa95o

24min Developer Commentary Gameplay

Meh, I don't think I would have played any single player even if it had been offered. This seems like a game where the entire point is to play with other minds in multiplayer.

I'm referring to MP content. Yes, R6:V had a good story but V2 was kind of terrible. It was also stated that there is going to be a lot of free content to come out over the coming months. I'm not saying that it's a game worth the money but if all the modes are great and all the maps are good, I don't see a problem with them charging $60. Besides, it's an Ubisoft game, there will be a sale probably around Christmas.

I'm in the beta and agree with post 1 and 2. Terrorist Hunt is fun, but from what I've tasted, there is a lot of empty space on a $60 plate. It reminded me of Evolve just like post #2. I really wanted a tactical, co-op campaign FPS.

(BTW, Evolve is pretty good for the money now. They need a big relaunch marketing campaign to be successful IMO. They have added a lot of content and the price is lower than it used to be. They shouldn't have released until there was more content.)