Ubisoft Tells Rainbow Six Fans to Forget about a Solo Campaign

Tsing

The FPS Review
Staff member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Messages
11,072
Points
83
“No, no, no. The Rainbow Six solo/singleplayer experience is dead.”

That’s what the franchise’s brand director, Alexandre Remy, told journalists when he was asked about a new single-player Rainbow Six game. Ubisoft had one in the works called Patriots, but it was canned for the multiplayer-oriented Siege.

The possibility of a new solo title was drummed up again earlier this year when the company sent out a survey gauging the interest of a campaign mode, but the responses evidently fell on deaf ears.

“For Siege, forget about a solo campaign. We want this game to be a pure competitive multiplayer experience. All of our resources are going in that direction and to invest those resources elsewhere would be a digression.”

“When you have a game that requires so much support, and so much caring in patching and balancing, I don’t think you have the luxury to divert. “

“Our fans expect a certain level of quality and a mastery in our games that is extremely high. Why would you only make an OK-ish solo campaign?”
 
Unfortunately, everything is moving towards a game as a service model where its all about player retention. That's obviously something that's desirable for the purpose of micro-transactions. That's just not something you typically get out of single player only games and certainly not games that have highly scripted and very static experiences like Call of Duty's usually are. If its a game you can finish in under 20 hours, you aren't going to keep coming back and spending $10 on armor or weapon skins.
 
WTF does everything have to be MP. I think they should be making it an option.

Again, its about player retention for the purpose of making money on microtransactions.
 
Back when i was younger I used to play quite a bit of MP games, but as I've gotten older I have no interest anymore. I still enjoy the heck out of FPS games, but I like the ones where you can use a more methodical approach, not just run and gun - Deus Ex for example.
I guess now that I'm not in my teens or early twenties I'm not the target audience anymore though.
 
True, but if you have both, the option is there for them to make money?

In a perfect world, yes. Unfortunately, when developing a game choices have to be made in how they are going to spend their limited resources. When companies set out to make money, they'll concentrate on the things that make the most money. Single player isn't it. Mass Effect 3 is probably a good example of it done right. You had a single player game with a great deal of variability (aside from the endings) which kept people replaying it. But more than that, you also had a die hard mod community that extended the life space on the game. EA/BioWare offered a variety of single and multiplayer DLC throughout the first year of the game's release.

However, as good as Mass Effect 2 & 3 were on that front, they probably pale in comparison to the cash that can be made in games like Battlefield, Call of Duty, or even Destiny. Games as a service, such as Destiny have a stronger ability to cater to everyone by creating both content you can do alone and with other people, but it isn't strictly a single player game in the traditional sense. Anthem works in much the same way. Unfortunately, Anthem was screwed up so bad that EA and BioWare are going to lose out on a vast cash cow opportunity with that one.

Again, single player games are typically things that people play through once or twice and then put the game away. They might never play it again. This model just isn't profitable. People will only buy the DLC's and add on stuff while the game is fresh and still being played. After a couple of months, that opportunity is gone. The more variability in the SP game, the longer the window for making money is there but it can't compete with multiplayer focused games which can be cash cows for 3 years or more.
 
Become a Patron!
Back
Top