Rainbow Six Siege halts plan to replace standard edition with pricier one

Ubisoft have reversed plans to replace the $40 Standard Edition of Rainbow Six Siege with one that cost $20 more but offered only some virtuacash and a few of the new cosmetic-only loot crates in return. This $60 ‘Advanced Edition’ did not seem a good deal and, with Ubisoft having managed to rebuild and improve Siege to become an actual hit, it seemed daft to make the game less welcoming. Well, having announced the price hike on Thursday, by Friday Ubisoft were convinced that it was a bad idea and changed their minds. The Standard Edition will stay.

So! The Advanced Edition, is still coming, containing the game plus 600 Rainbow Six Credits (sold separately for about £4), which is the paid microtransaction currency existing alongside a virtuacash earned by playing, plus ten Outbreak Packs.

These are upcoming loot crates containing purely cosmetic items, which will be sold for 300 R6 Credits – so for about £2 in real money, basically. Items include new weapon skins, hats, uniforms, charms, and so on. Ubisoft do say players will not get duplicates of the Outbreak items as they open packs, but that’s still a worse option than just letting people buy exactly which items they want.

Anyway! They will not railroad new players into buying the Advanced Edition.

“For our newcomers and those of you concerned about introducing your friends to the game, we will be keeping the Standard Edition in the store at the current price,” Ubisoft said in a post on Reddit on Friday evening.

The price of the Complete Edition will still go up, mind, as it will include the Year 3 season pass as well now.

It sounds like Ubi also recognise that Siege’s cheaper Starter Edition is trash. This is the version which costs only £12/$15 but takes far longer to unlock new characters, which makes it initially seem a great way in but then just awful.

“We recognize that this has been a point of frustration for new players,” Ubisoft say, “as well as existing players bringing their friends into the game, and have been working on how to make this process more fluid.”

It is weird how Ubisoft do some parts of Siege so well then muck up others. A steady string of updates, improvements, and additions (partially supported by the sale of season passes instantly unlocking the new characters) have really improved the game, making it one of the most-played games on Steam (and therefore PC). Steam’s public concurrent player counts over the past day show it’s behind only Plunkbat, Dota, CS, and GTA V – esteemed company. And then they make rubbish editions and loot crates and ugh. I assume The Suits in management are handing down some bad decisions down from on high and the dev team just have to try to make it work.

As an apology for the Standard/Advanced foolishness, Ubisoft will give the upcoming Ash Sidewinder Elite skin for free to everyone who plays an online match by March 6th.

Oh, and Outbreak itself? That mysterious new cooperative mode, set inside a small town quarantined due to a mysterious infestation, is coming alongside the Year 3 Season 1 update. It’ll be available for four weeks. I believe the update launches March 6.

17 Comments

  1. HiroTheProtagonist says:

    How long until they institute a monthly subscription fee?

  2. Banks says:

    I don’t want an apology, I want a game with a fair monetization system, which is why I bought the game in the first place and also bought the yearly season passes. That was the deal. You can’t have a 130$ + game (for the full experience) and then have 500$+ on cosmetics, and on top of that have gambling lootboxes (removing an entire map for this “event”).

    This is an insult. Sorry, but you can’t have everything. Either you have a fair value proposition or you build the game to exploit the worst impulses of certain players.

    I won’t keep supporting the game if this is the way they want to take. Just my two cents.

    • vaivars says:

      IMO its tricky.
      There generally has to be some form of monetization to keep the servers running, considering unlike the likes of the BF series – all of the server-management burden is on Ubi itself.
      Upping the price of the game was a superbly dumb move, and kudos to them for quickly rectifying that mistake.
      On the other hand – i have 0 objections to actually having the lootboxes – especially considering that you *can not* get duplicates, so by just playing the game, you will get your useless paintings on your items. You can even get all the operators that you would get by buying the season packs just through gameplay. And you get all the maps without even *any* grind.

      Overall, apart from this + the shitty starter pack blunder, their monetization apporoach is fine (IMO ofc).

      The game *is* great. Its basically the *only* competitive thats not based on pixel-perfect aiming style like quake/CS:GO.

      • Banks says:

        You can only get those loot boxes by paying for them, they are not rewarded regularly. But even then that is not the point.

        You also need to play for 500+ hours to unlock all DLC operators. And for those with the started edition, just getting the base operators is a chore.

        The point is, the monetization that was there, while in need of some improvements, was transparent and fair. You payed for the cosmetics you wanted, and if you didn’t feel like paying for the new characters you could just unlock some of them with the ingame currency. If you payed for the SP, then you spend the renown on increasingly silly hats.

        But lootboxes change this. They are opaque, random and deny the player of the ability to buy just what he wanted. It is a problem because the players have payed up to 130$ to get a fair experience, and this is clearly unfair.

      • aziztcf says:

        Gee I wonder if there could ever be a solution. Wot if you could like, run your own servers?

      • ludde says:

        “Keep the servers running”. This is pure nonsense. Maybe you’re young, but servers have always been run by the developer/publisher at no extra cost than the initial price of the game.

        It’s only in the last couple of years that publishers have discovered that they can put micro-transactions and extra fees everywhere, and it’s not to pay server bills. It’s because it’s massively profitable. Free, easy, low-effort revenue.

  3. noxohimoy says:

    No campaign == I never cared.

    Also, I feel cheated by being baited to this garbage by using the same name as an entirely different kind of game that I actually liked, as Rainbow Six Vegas and Vegas 2, whose sequels I miss.

    • Lord of Beer says:

      Single player shooters are dead. Piracy killed them :-(

      We are lucky we even got Prey and Wolfenstein last year.

      • 111uminate says:

        “Single player shooters are dead. Piracy killed them :-(”

        Of course, that’s what they’d like you to believe. Studies have shown over and over again that piracy has little to no effect on a game’s success or sales. This is old hat.

        If single player shooters were to die (Which isn’t even true), it’d be the runaway over inflated budgets that AAA developers insist are needed, and unstable releases that require a ton of clean up post launch.

        We’ve had Doom, Wolfenstein, Far Cry, and even a rerelease of Bioshock recently. Single player shooters are dead? Pay more attention.

      • Artyparis says:

        “Those types of games can continue to sell for a long time.”

        link to gamespot.com

        xD

    • lepercake says:

      Did people like Vegas? For most of us (fine whatever just me who gives a fploop) that’s when the rainbow six series went right down hill. Siege was a way to reinvent a game series everyone loved (right up to about Athena’s Sword I imagine) into something new, more stream lines, fast paced, awesome, and wall-shotgunny.

      I think it’s great. Really great. I hate Vegas. To each their own.

  4. satsui says:

    Fuck that. I want this game, but I’m still not going to spend $40 on it, especially after 3 years.

  5. FriendlyFire says:

    It is weird how Ubisoft do some parts of Siege so well then muck up others.

    It’s not weird at all though: the parts of Siege that are doing well are handled by the devs and community management team. They’re obviously passionate about the project and want to make it the best it can be. The parts that are doing less good (like this price hike or the existence of the starter edition) are calls made from the suits higher up who don’t care about the game and just want to make money.

  6. Mystic999 says:

    It will be so useful,if they change the prices of ops in starter edition…

  7. ludde says:

    Looked at maybe getting this recently. Sort of a turn-off having to decide what package to get and if I pay some and then grind more, or pay more and then grind some. Then there’s the micro-transactions and having to research how much pay-to-win those are and it’s just… paaaassss!

    Jesus Christ I’m too old for this shit. Not that everything was better in the past, but this is certainly one of them. Back in the golden age of gaming you knew you’d get a good deal. One cost up front and you got everything. The idea that you pay and you get good value in return was integral. Now it’s you pay and let’s see how much the publisher can fuck you over. How deep are your pockets because they’ll certainly get their hands in there to find out.

    Looking at the guy above that’s paid $130 for “the complete experience” minus cosmetics, it’s just sad.

Comment on this story

HTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>