[QUOTE=ntzu;49626437]Maybe to you, but in an age where games are always on sale, and key sites are able to drop games several months away from release down to prices like $35, it feels like to me that no matter how amazing the gameplay is, what you get just doesn't add up to the price tag.
I would say Siege is a $39.99 game maximum, and this is coming from someone who bought it. (though not at full price)
I mean 'free' dlc is nice but all that really comes down to is a few free character models with a new ability every few months that you have to grind for.
They're just dressing it up as 'wow free DLC!!' when in reality its basically just content updates that are required to keep the game alive, if they didn't then Siege would be dead within a year, unless they somehow cultivate an e-sports scene which I HIGHLY doubt they can. It also gives them an excuse to shill out with the ever-present season pass even if its merely for early-access to that content and some shitty skins and boosters.
I'd personally love to see new maps, new game-modes that mix the gameplay up and change things around, and perhaps an expansion on the really meh terrorist hunt mode, but alas im not expecting much.
I have to agree though on paying full price, if I can secure a preorder for dark souls III only paying around $38, why the hell would I pay $60 for something like Siege, lol.[/QUOTE]
Correct me if I'm wrong but iirc that line up of dlc is not only new classes but also new maps and gamemodes. Sure you could just label it as free content updates, but it's still better than paying for those updates like every other games is making you do now. Between this and Battlefront, I'd say this is the better buy.
[editline]28th January 2016[/editline]
Perhaps not worth the 60 on release price. I personally bought it for 45 instead of waiting for it to be $5-15 like I usually do. Point is, the game's a pretty good value even if you buy it for more than $30. Not as good as gmod or csgo, but still good enough.
[QUOTE=Cl0cK;49625837]I think the real problem with R6 Siege/Battlefront/and most AAA online-only games is the fact that the games have a price tag of $60.
And that's without all the DLC and the expensive season passes.[/QUOTE]
You hit the nail perfectly with what I (and others) have a problem with these types of games.
Yeah Siege is shockingly consumer friendly for an Ubisoft game.
Siege is an exception, not the rule. Plus Siege still seems way too overpriced for what you're getting, compare this to CSGO's $15 release price. It's Siege's direct competition yet it's tons cheaper, siege would've been fine at a $40 release.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;49627163]i'd say the presentation and tech makes it worth it + valve can do whatever they want when it comes to game prices, they could give people money for playing a game and still make a profit if they wanted to[/QUOTE]
Actually, CS:GO bombed terribly and was basically dead for the longest time, up until the point they decided to invent a new way to print money, and viola an e-sport is born.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;49627163]i'd say the presentation and tech makes it worth it + valve can do whatever they want when it comes to game prices, they could give people money for playing a game and still make a profit if they wanted to[/QUOTE]
That part is only because of Steam. Ubisoft is bigger than Valve and they could afford to have taken a risk in making Siege cheaper. Hell, there's already a bunch of microtransactions within and the game is only really playable online. Why have a boxed copy in the first place? They could've made this game downloadable only and cut down the price for no physical manufacturing.
[QUOTE=ntzu;49627188]Actually, CS:GO bombed terribly and was basically dead for the longest time, up until the point they decided to invent a new way to print money, and viola an e-sport is born.[/QUOTE]
I didn't really follow CS:GO when it launched. What happened? Did [del]hats[/del] knifes save Counter Strike?
I'd love to read some kind of post mortem or analysis about that.
I feel like there was a lot of cherry picking. There are games that have great campaigns AND great multiplayer games, like Bad Company 1 for instance. Siege feels like it should be multiplayer only and I don't understand why people want a singleplayer Siege. I agree with Bunnyhop on most points, but I feel like he's missing some crucial examples of games that can do both well at a $60 price point, as well as understanding that there can be good singleplayer games and good multiplayer games seperate from each other. If he were a bit more balanced and explored those kinds of games, and what games did both well, I'd feel a little more justified, but this is too biased for me.
Sometimes there are also games that are singleplayer, but feel like they'd be way better as a multiplayer, and vice versa. Remember Just Cause 2/3? How much greater those games became when someone pushed multiplayer into it? Even if it was a hacked together mess, it made that game seriously worthwhile for a lot of people. Not all games packaged with Multiplayer in the box are gonna suck as one or the other, and I feel like Bunnyhop focused too much on the negative bias of this situation, forcing the opinion that mutliplayer/singleplayer packages are a waste of both game's potentials.
Online only games are more of an investment than most single player games because they're designed around playing them for a really long time. If it fails to accomplish that, it bombs harder than any single player game ever will, and because there can only be so many players at once, the majority of them are bound to bomb really hard.
[editline]29th January 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Robber;49630244]I didn't really follow CS:GO when it launched. What happened? Did [del]hats[/del] knifes save Counter Strike?
I'd love to read some kind of post mortem or analysis about that.[/QUOTE]
Practically speaking, yes. Upon release CS:GO was not very popular. When the cosmetics updates started rolling in and all the creates were added to the game with weapon skins and everything, the game gained significant traction because people found more reason to come back to it than previous iterations of the franchise.
I think the original lack of popularity it had was undeserved, but adding cosmetics helped with the game's popularity tremendously.
[QUOTE=Robber;49630244]I didn't really follow CS:GO when it launched. What happened? Did [del]hats[/del] knifes save Counter Strike?
I'd love to read some kind of post mortem or analysis about that.[/QUOTE]
The Arms Deal update put CS:GO on the map, before that it was pretty niche. I was into it back then, the noticeable differences were fewer updates, longer queue times and a less toxic community. The update brought in a bunch of new people who came for the cosmetics and stayed for the great game. Problem was guys like my old friend who refused to play the game because "it's not CS:S".
The thing is those $60 multiplayer-only games don't seem to offer more mp content than the $60 multiplayer games that also have a singleplayer mode. Meanwhile there are other competent multiplayer games that cost less than 30$, or even f2p these days.
I just don't think we need full-priced AAA multiplayer games, unless they're truly ambitious. When it comes to your average shooter having a low barrier to entry is so much more important that a big budget and fancy graphics.
I get bored of multiplayer shooters really quickly. The only ones I ever put a good amount of time into are the ones that get a steady income of free updates, or have a really good custom mod userbase like TF2 and CS.
I feel more confident buying these types of games if there is a SP campaign because I'll have something to fall back to once I eventually get bored of the multiplayer, or something to prolong my overall time with the game. I didn't get Siege even after I found out it was a good game because I know the gameplay wouldn't appeal to me very long, and it's just simply not worth the money while I know that. If it had a singleplayer, I could hop between MP and SP in order to mix things up and prevent myself from getting bored as quickly.
Only exception to this is Overwatch and that's just because of it's moba-like nature that separates it from most MP shooters. Mobas have kept my intention much longer than most shooters have ever come close to and that's simply because of the variety they involve.
That said, I don't think Siege needed one, generally. Unlike Battlefront, it seems to be really fleshed out and in-depth while requiring a lot of teamwork. Battlefront just has no excuse due to how shallow it is. Their entire budget went into making the game look good.
[QUOTE=Cl0cK;49625837]I think the real problem with R6 Siege/Battlefront/and most AAA online-only games is the fact that the games have a price tag of $60.
And that's without all the DLC and the expensive season passes.[/QUOTE]
This.
SBH is barking up the wrong tree. If R6:S was $10-$20 sure I'd give it a shot but in terms of hardcore tactical shooters, I have CS:GO sitting in my Steam library that I bought for $15.
Another thing about the price on multiplayer only games is the sheer amount of multiplayer games there are. It seems that these day the majority of games released have a focus on their multiplayer. Why would I buy a €60 multiplayer only game when it could be dead in a month?
I played the Titanfall beta and I loved it, but I never bought it and it died very quickly on PC. That along with the fact that multiplayer only games don't seem to ever have more multiplayer content than games with both multiplayer and singleplayer.
It is entirely possible for a multiplayer only game to be worth €60, but none of the ones I've seen are even close to worth that much.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;49642216]if the game is fun and you consistently play it does it matter if it's full priced or not? siege isn't trying to compete directly with csgo, but rather offer an alternative for current players or people who don't like the more precise/map knowledge heavy nature of csgo[/QUOTE]
if you like r6 then sure it could be worth $60
but you don't know if it's worth $60 unless you played it before and that's a big risk when there are similar games that are much cheaper.
it is much much harder to justify a $60 price tag in 2016 because there are games that are cheap or even free that offer hundreds if not thousands of hours of gameplay. Some of the most popular games on PC/Steam are free.
Rainbow six should only be coop or single player.
Team Rainbow is comprised of the leading counter terrorist operatives from basically every western country. They are the elite of the elite of the elite. Literally millions of dollars would have gone into their training.
In siege they fight against some random international terror group in generally one to one conditions. Somehow random terrorists are going to go toe to toe with a counter terrorism unit.
Siege may be okay as a game, but it has no business being rainbow six anything. Talk about missing the fucking point.
[QUOTE=GunFox;49642286]Rainbow six should only be coop or single player.
Team Rainbow is comprised of the leading counter terrorist operatives from basically every western country. They are the elite of the elite of the elite. Literally millions of dollars would have gone into their training.
In siege they fight against some random international terror group in generally one to one conditions. Somehow random terrorists are going to go toe to toe with a counter terrorism unit.
Siege may be okay as a game, but it has no business being rainbow six anything. Talk about missing the fucking point.[/QUOTE]
then play the terrorist hunt gamemode????
[video=youtube;I7zuzGTMW8s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7zuzGTMW8s[/video]
[video=youtube;45q7xU2K3G0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45q7xU2K3G0[/video]
Siege is the best MP shooter i've played in literally a decade.
I wouldn't want anything significant about it to change. It's better off as an MP only game doing MP better than any other FPS out there.
5 on 5 gameplay where communication, not skill becomes the leading factor is literally what the series has been begging for for years.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
