If you read the reviews some of them do talk about the unlock system and under what conditions they reviewed the games.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Rainbow Six: Siege | Review Thread
- Thread starter nynt9
- Start date
If you read the reviews some of them do talk about the unlock system and under what conditions they reviewed the games.
Nightshade
Member
IGN's review stated that they would update once they were playing with a retail build so they could determine how aggressive the micro transactions are. However, they did point out in their review that Ubi intends to release a good deal of maps for free.
spindoctor
Member
It's confirmed that they were playing at a Ubisoft LAN event. Their experience is not indicative of the live game yet, especially considering how the beta was until yesterday. Whether or not they had all the unlocks, you should be cautious with these early scores.
Generalpsyduck
Banned
They should not be in a full priced game. It's dumb how people keep defending shitty practices
I mean, many AAA releases over the past 2-3 years have had microtransactions over a full price, and publishers have learned time and time again that they can get away with it. At this point it's too prominent and here to stay, unfortunately. I don't think we can stop it anymore, as publishers use the Trojan horse tactic of putting them in big entries in established franchises that people can't help but buy.
I don't like it at all, but I just can't seem to get upset about it anymore.
Here's a list off the top of my head:
Dead Space 3
Mass Effect 3
Battlefield 4
Fifa/NBA games
Dragon Age Inquisition
Ryse
Halo 5
Crimson Dragon
Forza 5
Rise of the tomb raider
ACIV
AC Unity
AC Syndicate
R6 Siege
Destiny
Call of Duty
Mortal Kombat X
TLOU
GTA V
MGS V
Phanatic8390
Member
If non-pay to win microtransactions need to be in games to abolish content locked behind season passes and splitting playerbase I'm all for it. Obviously I'd rather neither exist but I don't think we're going to see the industry turn back now.
TheSlySoul
Member
I wish I can feel that way. I just cannot get invested in games with these tactics.
It is a shame, I would like Xbox-caliber RS because I loved them when younger.
Zurick
Banned
To be fair, my experience so far in Beta hasn't been bad with unlocking things. If pay for cosmetic is the cost of free maps I'm ok now a days with that.
Not defending them, just saying don't buy them. Doesn't effect my time with the game.
I mean, I agree, and it always makes me feel that the game will be unfairly designed to nickel and dime players, but when every big publisher is doing it, you either have to swear off AAA gaming or just "deal with it"
Lionel Richie
Member
I understand your argument, but shouldn't reviewers be the ones to fight against that tendency? I mean, Titanfall and Overwatch are new IPs who are online only, that's different than Battlefront and Rainbow Six cutting off the single-player. For one, I enjoyed the previous RS campaigns and got disappointed at the direction they were going with Siege. Why can't the critics feel the same?
Consumers and critics need to accept whatever they're thrown? Why should the public be the ones to accept this new thing of previously existing franchises becoming multiplayer only instead of the publishers being the ones to stop doing it?
Broadbandito
Member
People worried about Microtransactions.
It's for skins
I'd rather have optional paid cosmetic items then for them to charge for future maps/operators so I will defend it.
It's for skins
I'd rather have optional paid cosmetic items then for them to charge for future maps/operators so I will defend it.
Zurick
Banned
I feel my previous response was crude, so I'm going to elaborate a bit further.
This is based on just my experience in Beta. I am now level 17 on Beta.
Every full match I play seems to net me between 300-500 with no boost on average. With boost between 400 and 650.
Operator's begin their cost at 500 per Type, and end at 2000. To unlock all Operators of a type like FBI it'll take 5000 Renown. If you want 1 Attacker OR Defender from each group it's a total of 3500. If you want both an Attacker AND Defender from each group it's 10500 as the costs increase per group by 500.
Example is FBI 1 is 500, FBI 2 is 1000, FBI 3 is 1500, FBI 4 is 2000.
Total Cost of all Tier 1 Operators: 3500
Total Cost of all Tier 2 Operators: 7000
Total Cost of all Tier 3 Operators: 10500
Total Cost of all Tier 4 Operators: 14000
Total Cost of all Operators: 35000
Now you also want Attachments for your guns. These range from 50 Renown to 300 for one of the sights. These do not share per gun, but do share if multiple operators have this gun. Each Operator has between 4 and 5 guns, again some are shared between Operators. Primary costs between 550 for a Shotgun with 1 of the 3 sights, and a laser sight to 1500 (give or take, servers are down on beta) to buy everything for an assault rifle.
Sidearms however cost between 600 for the basic Sight+Silencer+Laser to 1100 for ALL sights, Laser, and Silencer.
Each game takes about 15 for the shortest and 30 minutes for the longest to complete. However in the games of length I averaged about 600 renown without a boost and up to 900ish with.
The problematic bit is Skins. Skins start at over 1000 renown and get up to 6000. Each Gun has 3 skins you can buy with renown -or- their f2p currency, and 1 skin you can -only- buy with the f2p currency. It's no coincidence that these skins also look the best by a long shot, While the skins you can buy with in game currency are all patterns/flowers, the skins you buy with real money are all real solid paint jobs. The Revolver for example gets an Ivory grip and designs added to the chamber and such.
Keep in mind, this is only beta experiences. I don't know if there are even more skins and guns. I do know all the operators however.
It is of my estimation from my experience in Beta that obtaining everything in this is about as long as it is in, say, a Battlefield game without the boosts. It is a grind, and it is aimed to encourage you to contribute more of your wallet to them. With that said, I still feel that it is a fair price to pay for not having to see "Season Pass" on my game ever again.
This is based on just my experience in Beta. I am now level 17 on Beta.
Every full match I play seems to net me between 300-500 with no boost on average. With boost between 400 and 650.
Operator's begin their cost at 500 per Type, and end at 2000. To unlock all Operators of a type like FBI it'll take 5000 Renown. If you want 1 Attacker OR Defender from each group it's a total of 3500. If you want both an Attacker AND Defender from each group it's 10500 as the costs increase per group by 500.
Example is FBI 1 is 500, FBI 2 is 1000, FBI 3 is 1500, FBI 4 is 2000.
Total Cost of all Tier 1 Operators: 3500
Total Cost of all Tier 2 Operators: 7000
Total Cost of all Tier 3 Operators: 10500
Total Cost of all Tier 4 Operators: 14000
Total Cost of all Operators: 35000
Now you also want Attachments for your guns. These range from 50 Renown to 300 for one of the sights. These do not share per gun, but do share if multiple operators have this gun. Each Operator has between 4 and 5 guns, again some are shared between Operators. Primary costs between 550 for a Shotgun with 1 of the 3 sights, and a laser sight to 1500 (give or take, servers are down on beta) to buy everything for an assault rifle.
Sidearms however cost between 600 for the basic Sight+Silencer+Laser to 1100 for ALL sights, Laser, and Silencer.
Each game takes about 15 for the shortest and 30 minutes for the longest to complete. However in the games of length I averaged about 600 renown without a boost and up to 900ish with.
The problematic bit is Skins. Skins start at over 1000 renown and get up to 6000. Each Gun has 3 skins you can buy with renown -or- their f2p currency, and 1 skin you can -only- buy with the f2p currency. It's no coincidence that these skins also look the best by a long shot, While the skins you can buy with in game currency are all patterns/flowers, the skins you buy with real money are all real solid paint jobs. The Revolver for example gets an Ivory grip and designs added to the chamber and such.
Keep in mind, this is only beta experiences. I don't know if there are even more skins and guns. I do know all the operators however.
It is of my estimation from my experience in Beta that obtaining everything in this is about as long as it is in, say, a Battlefield game without the boosts. It is a grind, and it is aimed to encourage you to contribute more of your wallet to them. With that said, I still feel that it is a fair price to pay for not having to see "Season Pass" on my game ever again.
Are the skins purely cosmetic? If so there shouldn't be an issue, right? And as you say I'd rather have this than a season pass.
Nestunt
Member
I understand what you are saying. The problem is that these IPs are owned by corporations that do not see the value of investing in an offline mode. The alternative would be to not have these franchises at all revived (when was Vegas 2 released? look at what happened to Patriots)
I am speaking against my instincts. For Honor appears to be my "dream" game. And I hate online gaming. I bet that the so called "campaign" has little chance of ending up in the game if it is to be released in 2016. Especially bearing in mind the fact that is a risky game to release. I am a bit divided: will I buy it because I love the concept and understand they could not risk more money and time to implement a strong campaign to that type of game or do I go by principle and do not buy an online only game?
I imagine that Star Wars fans and Tactical Shooters (one shot kill) fans live in the same conundrum. In the end the market will speak. And in recent years it clearly has spoken in favor of moba-ish online gaming and open world offline gaming
Kabuki Waq
Member
This might come down to preference but I don't mind this. Games usually devolve into playing just one or two maps and can get easily monotone, if you implement map picking. When your game's longevity depends on tactical variety I think it's in your best interest to use as many maps as possible. I can see this game getting old pretty easily if all that people ever play is one or two maps.
Hell, I wouldn't mind no campaign if the solo options were vast, all modes with a host of bot options and AI team-mates ala the early games, much like BF2 solo stuff was or RSV.
It seems there is just hosts of limitations and word is the solo mode needs online also...
Anton Sugar
Member
So depressing. The premise is fine - devs need extra funds to develop new content and making games is more expensive than ever. However, it is almost impossible to not develop content in a way that accommodates these. We inevitably get games that are shittier for the inclusion of these. Look at MGS, for example. We got stuck with those shitty timers and a bunch of resource management nonsense purely to sell shortcuts. I don't want developers including bad stuff in games solely so I can pay them again to remove those parts.
Special fuck you to any game that includes a bullshit card system. They are not, and have never been, good. It's just an extra thing to manage that adds randomness and RNG to games. Seriously, fuck card systems like Titanfall and Halo 5's Warzone mode.
xXxDieselxXx
Member
My only complain as an old R6 gamer (Since the first PC version) there is no classic TDM
Anton Sugar
Member
Watch this: "Think I'm Addicted to Siege"
He goes over some positive/negative aspects, including a huge one: the inherently satisfying gameplay. When you kill even just one person, it's satisfying and you feel like you've made an impact. Often, because of all the different breaching methods and the way encounters/contact can be handled, it's really exciting, too. It's like the game is full of Battlefield moments but on a micro scale.
It's really not, and it doesn't cripple experiences at all. You can use real money to speed up operator unlocks or buy weapon skins.
The Elite
BOSS
I could not care less about cosmetic micro-transactions as long as map packs are free.
Enter The 36 Chambers
Member
How can anyone complain about microtransactions? I really don't get it.
I'm more than happy to have skins and other cosmetic bullshit be tied to microtransactions if that means I don't have to pay for maps.
Huge fan of devs doing this lately. I won't buy skins and other useless shit so my investment in the game stops at purchase. I'll happily take free maps that other players have paid for.
Special thanks to the folks who do buy these skins and essentially buy me the season pass.
I'm more than happy to have skins and other cosmetic bullshit be tied to microtransactions if that means I don't have to pay for maps.
Huge fan of devs doing this lately. I won't buy skins and other useless shit so my investment in the game stops at purchase. I'll happily take free maps that other players have paid for.
Special thanks to the folks who do buy these skins and essentially buy me the season pass.
Because if they are tied to non cosmetic upgrades it hinders the balance of the game and pushes people towards either grinding forever or having to pay.
Think they have said that will be added later.
But....CS has microtransactions.
At least these are just for gun skins, which are pointless anyway.
That's not a positive.
In a multiplayer only game I want the best experience from minute one, not mess about for hours because the game graciously lets me pay even more to unlock crap.
This game has a severe lack of content, asking me to throw more money into the experience isn't good.
And it sucks there too.
But CS is $15, not $60.
Zurick
Banned
They are purely cosmetic as far as I can tell. This game attempts to get you to buy skins, and faster progression via IRL money. The trade off is that we get all maps for free. The basic game with no boost progression seems to better than leveling in Battlefront at the moment so that's a plus.
Edit: To be honest, I think I'm sick of progression systems in FPS games in general. It was novel and fun the first time Modern Warfare introduced me to it. Even a few games up to and after MW2, but I feel it's run it's course. My best experiences in Black Ops III have been in the Arena matches where it's all already unlocked. I feel that more games should do this for it's "pro" match types.
John Caboose
Member
7-9 scale is alive and kicking I see. From the couple of hours I have played this game it definitely doesn't feel above average.
xXxDieselxXx
Member
Anton Sugar
Member
From the couple of hours I played the game, it definitely felt above average.
I liked it better than SW:BF, simply because the operator and levels encourage playing the game in different ways each round. At first I really didn't like that operators "exist" as a single character, but now I really appreciate it, as it forces you to learn other play styles via the less popular operators.
Or those reviewers liked it. As you can see from the threads on it, plenty of people love it. Opinions, etc.
It's a shame, but I think Ubisoft must have decided that they needed to pick out of Splinter Cell and Rainbow Six. My only complaint is that this should have a lower rrp.
Anton Sugar
Member
One thing I really appreciate in this game is how hip firing=stinking hot garbage.
Always-honest
Banned
Are you trying to sound cool or something?
Not really. Hip firing with the shotgun is arguably better than ADS, especially with the laser sight.
TheCanisDirus
Member
Not calling you out but i've heard this as well but nothing from the developer or official channel....
anyone else hear anything "official" about any re-spawning TDM modes? Or even non-objective no re-spawn modes with open map restrictions?
I read it today but honestly I couldn't tell you where, could have been on here, could have been one of the review in progress.
Woo-Fu
Banned
You have a lot more faith in Ubisoft than I do.