Rainbow Six Siege $129.99 but Wait There's MORE!

[focbde]

Basically "Fuck you here's a new shirt, shut up"

Only if you don't read it all and jump to the comments section... if so, then yeah sure, why not.

 

[ep0x73]

I love RB6 and have the 1st up to almost the latest but I won't buy a game and then purchase access after the fact for "upgrades".

 

[Satyrist]

Well, between NOT buying anything from EA or Ubisoft ever again, I'm not seeing a problem here.

Fuck the both of them. You hate their tactics? You vote with your wallet - And you convince everyone to do the same. It's the only way these fuckheads will even remotely begin to listen.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I've never been a fan of the Rainbow Six franchise, so I'm probably never going to play this anyway, but if I were I would be outraged.

This is absolutely ridiculous.

There are a select few game series I would be willing to pay full price on launch for in order to support. Anything in the Deus Ex franchise is a possibility. Sid Meier's Civilization is on that list. If a new Red Orchestra were to come out, that would be on there too, and maybe if a new S.T.A.L.K.E.R were to come out as well, but that's about it.

And when I say "I'd be willing to pay full price" I mean absolutely no higher than $59.99, but probably less, and this is if, and only if, there are absolutely no in game transactions, and only very limited DLC.

For this price I expect to get at the very least 40 hours of high quality content for a single player story game, and much much more for something multiplayer or like Civilization.

I don't understand how on earth they can justify something like this, and who on earth would be willing to pay it. Are they TRYING to get people to go back into piracy?

I think the games industry would be better off if the giant studios would all be shunned by consumers and go out of business, so we can get some interesting and innovative little PC Exclusive startups in the fray again.

I know they will probably argue that game development costs have gone way up with modern expectations of content quality. Gone are the days where 4 guys can develop a game in a basement and have it be the next AAA hit, but other things have also changed. Distribution costs are a fraction of what they once were. You no longer have to print boxes, and manuals and CD's (or floppies) and the market is MUCH larger than it was back in the day. You can expect to sell hundreds or thousands of times more copies of a PC title today than you could in the 90's.

I have some insight into the game development industry through a friend of a friend who works in one, and it is all a sham. The business model appears to be as follows. Start a company with some seed money. Market the shit out of it and get some investors. Pay yourself and your fellow founders outrageous and undeserved salaries while your company develops a shitty ass streaming based title, while marketing the shit out of it to try to generate buzz, so one of the big guys buys you for millions before the investors know how scammed they've been.

The few good titles that get developed then have to pay for this extreme cost.

 

[Flogger23m]

For this price I expect to get at the very least 40 hours of high quality content for a single player story game, and much much more for something multiplayer or like Civilization.

And this is part of the problem. In their attempt to appease customers demands they'll do anything to length the game. That means shitty repeating fetch quests or loading MP games with immersion breaking cosmetics like CS:GO and R6 Siege do. They'll throw anything in there to make the game longer.

Gamers need to step back and realize the value comes from the quality of the experience, not the hour counter that appears in Steam/Xbox LIVE or whatever. Until that changes expect more of this. You're the ones asking for it.

Also, Rising Storm Vietnam is out which is essentially RO 2.5.

And shameless plug for Ready or Not, an indie game that is supposed to be a spiritual successor for SWAT/R6:
http://voidinteractive.net/

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

And this is part of the problem. In their attempt to appease customers demands they'll do anything to length the game. That means shitty repeating fetch quests or loading MP games with immersion breaking cosmetics like CS:GO and R6 Siege do. They'll throw anything in there to make the game longer.

Note that I expected 40 hours of high quality content. Not just drudgery.

Gamers need to step back and realize the value comes from the quality of the experience, not the hour counter that appears in Steam/Xbox LIVE or whatever. Until that changes expect more of this. You're the ones asking for it.

I'm sorry, time absolutely has to be part of the equation, or it will be a slippery slope down to the point where we are being asked to spend $60 for a 5 minute game.

The mistake.many make is that time can't be the ONLY factor.

Also, Rising Storm Vietnam is out which is essentially RO 2.5.

Yeah, I'm aware, but to me the Rising Storm franchise lost one of the magic of the cold grim Eastern front in WWII. I didn't like the WWII in the Pacific game, and didn't even bother with the Vietnam game.

Now if they redid Darkest Hour or Mare Nostrum in the lastest version of the engine, I'd be in in no time.

A Finnish Winter War expansion would also be bloody amazing. Finnish regulars, swedish volunteers vs. under-equipped early WWII russians in a beautiful winter landscape. I'd pre-order that shit.

I also would likely enjoy a Korean war version, but primarily I'm into WW2 era, primarily in Europe.

 

[SighTurtle]

And this is part of the problem. In their attempt to appease customers demands they'll do anything to length the game. That means shitty repeating fetch quests or loading MP games with immersion breaking cosmetics like CS:GO and R6 Siege do. They'll throw anything in there to make the game longer.

Gamers need to step back and realize the value comes from the quality of the experience, not the hour counter that appears in Steam/Xbox LIVE or whatever. Until that changes expect more of this. You're the ones asking for it.

Also, Rising Storm Vietnam is out which is essentially RO 2.5.

And shameless plug for Ready or Not, an indie game that is supposed to be a spiritual successor for SWAT/R6:
http://voidinteractive.net/

I don't get how adding immersion breaking cosmetics "lengthens" the game. If the core gameplay loop loses a person's focus, most people should be walking away from the game.

 

[Flogger23m]

Note that I expected 40 hours of high quality content. Not just drudgery.

Very, very few games are 40 hours long and actually great throughout. Even if the game is awesome it can get repetitive over 40 hours and hurt the experience. Setting a hard requirement is just foolish and results in attempts of stretching the game.

I'm sorry, time absolutely has to be part of the equation, or it will be a slippery slope down to the point where we are being asked to spend $60 for a 5 minute game.

9-10 hours is very different from 5 minutes. That just isn't reality. If it was $60 for 5 or 60 minutes the market will decide very quickly if that is sustainable or not. Because even if it is a perfect game, $60 per hour is pricey for every day people. 9-10 hours or a solid 15-20 is perfectly reasonable.

It will be interesting to see how long Ace Combat 7's campaign will be. From the sounds of it the length will be around 5-6 hours. A bit shorter than I'd like, but it is in line with the older titles which were traditional story based campaigns with no online aspects. I am very interested to see how people will react to the length, including long time fans.

Yeah, I'm aware, but to me the Rising Storm franchise lost one of the magic of the cold grim Eastern front in WWII. I didn't like the WWII in the Pacific game, and didn't even bother with the Vietnam game.

I'd say Vietnam is a lot better than RO2, which I hated until they made some semi decent maps. I liked RS a bit but it had the same flaws. RS2 Vietnam is a good step up IMO. RO1 is still the best though.

Now if they redid Darkest Hour or Mare Nostrum in the lastest version of the engine, I'd be in in no time.

A Finnish Winter War expansion would also be bloody amazing. Finnish regulars, swedish volunteers vs. under-equipped early WWII russians in a beautiful winter landscape. I'd pre-order that shit.

I also would likely enjoy a Korean war version, but primarily I'm into WW2 era, primarily in Europe.

I never liked those mods. DH started the horrendous trend of over done suppression. Plus the spawn & teleport system never made sense to me at all. Mare's quality was always lacking. Korea would be interesting but it would play similar to RS which you didn't like. The weapons were all the same; both sides used WWII weapons.

 

[Squall_Rinoa89]

I haven't played a Rainbow Six game in many years. Looks like the trend will continue...
I spend my limited time and money on games I know I will like. Maybe I would like this one - without the rip-off stuff. Since it is in the game, I will pass.

While I personally cant speak of the PC Version of Rainbow Six Siege. PS4 version is an absolute blast, but then again me and a few friends dont play competitive.. Making you pay $129 ia Nuts, but understandable given it's DLC's.

For the PS4.. I have purchased Season 2 and 3 to date, making the Complete pack cheap versus price + 2 years worth of season basses for like $30 each. What I dont agree with, is making a starter edition and making it harder to unlock operators where as if you have the season passes, you get them Free for buying it.

but.. that's just me. I'm stoked for this game on the PS4, PC... Pass.

They have overhauled the game sense it's release by a long shot, and actually supporting the title...

 

[Comixbooks]

Insurgency Sandstorm is going to be way better I bet it tops the charts for months.

 

[tetris42]

You vote with your wallet - And you convince everyone to do the same.

That will never, ever, happen. You may as well say "there's nothing you can do." For every informed consumer making a decision against a practice they don't like, 100 other players buy it anyway. The only time voting with your wallet ever changes anything is if the game itself is bad. If the game is great, but it involves shitty practices towards the consumers, it will ALWAYS be reinforced by consumers. Every time. I say this as someone who completely thinks Ubisoft has the right to charge whatever they want. I'm saying "vote with your wallet" just about NEVER works pushing back against unwanted industry practices if the game itself is good.

 

[bigddybn]

That will never, ever, happen. You may as well say "there's nothing you can do." For every informed consumer making a decision against a practice they don't like, 100 other players buy it anyway. The only time voting with your wallet ever changes anything is if the game itself is bad. If the game is great, but it involves shitty practices towards the consumers, it will ALWAYS be reinforced by consumers. Every time. I say this as someone who completely thinks Ubisoft has the right to charge whatever they want. I'm saying "vote with your wallet" just about NEVER works pushing back against unwanted industry practices if the game itself is good.

Agreed. People ARE voting with their wallets and it's overwhelmingly in favor of "pay to win" DLC.

 

[motomonkey]

Hot enough to make you itch

Is that burning when I pee a DLC?

 

[SirMaster]

I'll admit that I use "pay2win" as you guys call them. Though I simply think of them as pay to keep up.

As I have gotten older, I find that I have way more money than time. (For instance, it's way more efficient for me to work and make money and buy the content than not work and sit there and grind to unlock the content). I still like to play games though, and the only way I can keep up competitive wise / gear wise with the younger people who have hundreds of hours to grind away unlocking everything is by "pay2win" mechanics.

I guess it would be better for me if everyone simply got all items and content unlocked by default as it was in the "old days". But I hear from younger people that they will get bored and stop playing a game if there is no progression, and nothing to unlock.

I'm not sure what the best solution is then. How do you keep the younger people engaged with progression and unlocks, but yet allow people with little time to play the ability to keep up with unlocks for the sake of fair competition?

 

[Sikkyu]

To All with the burning torches and pitchforks,

UBISOFT has already walked back their decision for change the "advanced edition" last week which is basically just the standard game with the release ops. I highly recommend every avoid getting the "starter edition" as the grind is far to long as well as possibly picking up a slightly more expensive version for the year 1 and year 2 ops as they are 100% worth it. I'm around 900 hours in the game for referance and did not buy the season pass for year 1, however I bought the season pass for year 2 and 3 because I want to use my renown for cosmetic items instead of the operators.

In regards to the "loot boxes" these are 100% cosmetic only and were never in the game until just recently as a way to freely unlock skins that you cannot buy with renown anymore. You can buy these with renown only and cannot pay for these. You will also get free loot boxes by simply playing the game.

rb6 is a fantastic game and unlike most ubisoft titles, it seems the devs and management are listening to players.

 

[SighTurtle]

I'll admit that I use "pay2win" as you guys call them. Though I simply think of them as pay to keep up.

As I have gotten older, I find that I have way more money than time. (For instance, it's way more efficient for me to work and make money and buy the content than not work and sit there and grind to unlock the content). I still like to play games though, and the only way I can keep up competitive wise / gear wise with the younger people who have hundreds of hours to grind away unlocking everything is by "pay2win" mechanics.

I guess it would be better for me if everyone simply got all items and content unlocked by default as it was in the "old days". But I hear from younger people that they will get bored and stop playing a game if there is no progression, and nothing to unlock.

I'm not sure what the best solution is then. How do you keep the younger people engaged with progression and unlocks, but yet allow people with little time to play the ability to keep up with unlocks for the sake of fair competition?

Rainbow Six let's you grind in-game currency or pay with real money to unlock the operators. I've always felt it was a fair system overall. Yeah, theres a segment of gamers who are driven by progression. Don't know how they measure overall in percentage of total gaming population, but most games have some form of progression and do well despite it.

The Battlefield games had unlock packs you could buy, in lieu of grinding. In my opinion, it was not a big deal since most guns were equal enough to not give a significant gameplay advantage.