I pay $60 for single-player only games. So at worst I can say "maybe". I don't like to think of SP or MP only games as somehow incomplete. The question is whether or not I'll get a lot of entertainment out of the multiplayer, and I don't think there is enough variey of maps and objectives right now. I'll buy it if some friends do, because we love Terrorist Hunt mode. This would have been a perfect summer game. Fall and Winter are a bit crowded for this. I'm on the fence. If I decide against it, that will have nothing to do with it lacking a campaign.

Yeah, I never said a MP only game is automatically bad - in the original post I said there needs to be 2 or 3 more game modes, more characters, and maps. They haven't done a good job of selling/justifying the price tag. They need to do videos on the other game modes ASAP, since the game is close to coming out. Siege itself isn't that fun, and Terrorist Hunt isn't worth $60 alone.

I won't blindly trust "we'll support the game with free content, don't worry" lol. If the game flops or doesn't do great Ubisoft might not want to put anymore money into it. Past Tom Clancy games were a better package since you'd get a campaign, co-op modes, and versus modes - similar to certain Gears games. I'm guessing a lot of the "I wouldn't have played the SP anyway" people in here didn't play the past games or they're now used to shooters having crappy campaigns when that doesn't have to be the case.

I don't see a problem with a multiplayer game being $60, but just from what I've read about this game it seems lacking in content for it. I don't know whether that's the case but it's my impression. As long as a game has good enough content and enough of it then sure go for $60.

Now what I would really want is a real Rainbow Six game like the old ones. Amazing co-op games all of them.

Or... and I know this is crazy logic on the internet - someone just has a different opinion than you. Vegas 1 had a good campaign to my friends and I (apparently most reviewers too). Vegas 2 was a step down, but still miles ahead of crappy campaigns like in certain Battlefield and Killzone games. Them dropping the campaign seems like mistake to me. Something persistent and a blend of SP/MP like The Division and maybe the next Ghost Recon seems interesting, but not this R6 move. For now, I'll put this in the same boat as Evolve until they release more info.

I think the other big issue here is that these "multiplayer-only" games are online only and therefore, like Evolve and Destiny, will eventually not be able to ever be played. You technically don't own it. When the servers get shut off the game will cease to exist. If there was at least a single-player mode then there would at least be a record of the game for posterity and users could pop the disc in and play 15 years from now to check out the art and gameplay. I like to pop-in games from the ps1 era (20 years ago ) to relive and play games I enjoyed all those years ago. If it were games like Siege or Destiny 15 years from now, I would not be able to do that.

Also, with the rise of first day patches and games that patch continually after release, games that are purchased years from now and played for the first time may not work at all. If the server issuing those patches is gone then you may not be able to play that awesome single player game that won game of the year in 2015---years from now.

The trend is troubling and not good for the industry. Multiplayer games are fun but should accompany a full-fledged game, not replace it entirely.

That's my rant and I'm sticking to it.

For me it definitely won't be now as I don't have a group of friends who'd play, but YMMV if you like multiplayer games.

Too bad I was really intrigued by the concept.

Same for me. I had no idea these games had such a large multiplayer scene that they'd make one that's ONLY multiplayer.

Look at the amount of shooters this gen that are dropping single player campaigns all together. This isn't a mistake, it's a trend created by real world data. The amount of people actually playing the campaigns of these games is small compared to the players playing the multiplayer. I am sure there are a bunch of reasons why; I know for me personally it was because they were all the exact same thing(kill bad guys, usually terrorists of some sort, to save the world).

I'm probably not the target audience but the beta didn't convince me it was worth my time, let alone $60.

Yes, if companies are following a trend based off what they think we want in the future then it must not be a mistake... 3D TVs lol. It depends on the shooter if people play the campaign. COD and Battlefield are more known for their versus - much like Quake or Unreal. Something like Halo... and Brothers in Arms, R6, etc are more campaign focused. I'm going by what I like, my friends liked, what I know, and from reading reviews people liked R6 campaigns well enough - not how you may have loved or hated them. I'm not even sure what there's to argue or debate about. Ubisoft should be showing more modes, maps, and characters if they want to sell this MP only game. I never said MP only is automatically a mistake, they haven't proven there's $60 worth of content yet.

No multiplayer only game is ever worth $60. Ever. No matter how good it is.

I only played terrorist hunt in V2 so I might be down for it.

Trying to release a multiplayer-only game at $60...unless that multiplayer is SUBSTANTIAL (like, to the level of an MMO or something)...is just a ridiculous idea. Ubisoft is daydreaming again.

This is actually the first game I got a steam refund for. I might pick it back up once it's cheaper, but no, after actually playing it, it doesn't feel like $60 worth of game to me. It totally feels like the MP mode of a larger game given how limited the actual scope of it is.

It's not a bad game. The gun play is good and the destructible environments are cool, but the "operator" class system left it feeling really bland to me. I bought it knowing that it was set up in such a way, but once I saw how limited the amount of actual flexibility and kit customization each operator had was, it really lost a lot of appeal. Fixed speed/armor, very few choices for weapons per character, and only a handful of weapon attachments. It comes across to me as being something that was just easier to balance and implement than any real asset to tactics (which probably isn't the case...), but there were several instances of head scratching on my part as to why they made certain decisions for any other reason. I can only have smoke grenades, not explosive grenades on Ash because.... reasons.... even though she uses a HE grenade launcher as her "ability." It's not like her "unique character personality" doesn't like explosions or something. In fact, it's kind of her thing.

Compounded with the fact that each operator is split into Attacker and Defender designations, and can only have one on the map at any given time means that even if you do find an operator/kit that you really like (which I didn't), there's still a good chance you won't actually get to play as them all the time.

People seem to be liking it a lot, which is great, because my first multiplayer experience was the original Rainbow 6, and I don't want the IP to just fizzle out, I just wish there was more to it. And I'm not holding my breath for any sweeping additions with future content. But if there is, then sure, I'll pick it up again.

You know, I thought the same thing... Until I saw the Unfinished video for Overwatch a while back. Now that's a game that looks like its worth 60 bucks.

If multiplayer-only games aren't worth 60, then neither are single-player only. I think both can justify a full-priced release if its scope is appropriate. I definitely get more time out of a multiplayer game. It's difficult to determine the value of something subjective. There's no magic number of hours, maps, modes, etc. that will change my mind on something that seems fun. Will it keep me entertained for longer than it took to earn the money to buy it? Yes. Is there anything else to buy with what I budgeted for entertainment this month? Nope. It's a buy (I spent $40 on the PC version).

@l33t_haxor: ...except it's $40 on PC. I honestly don't understand the point of only releasing the $60 version to consoles, other than the money grab of it. Wish there was a more detailed explanation behind that. I have a feeling the $40 version will happen within six months after the $60 edition releases.

Also, I still think my idea for the next Rainbow Six game was vastly more interesting and unique...