this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2024
76 points (100.0% liked)

PC Gaming

8563 readers
695 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
UncleBadTouch@lemmy.ca
EXiLExJD@lemmy.ca
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
76
Rainbow Six Siege director says making a sequel after 9 years would be a mistake: 'I'm not going to name names, but you see games go through sequels and just completely drop the ball' (www.pcgamer.com)
submitted 8 months ago by alessandro@lemmy.ca to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BmeBenji@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You gotta elaborate what that ellipsis means. Why would you want a sequel that splits the playerbase? If the game is still fun, and there’s good reasons to come back to it week after week, why are 10 years of updates bad?

I’m looking forward to the 100 operator mark because the dev team has more than proven their capable of making new operators with abilities that interact with the existing core mechanics in exciting, deep ways. I hope they go far beyond 100 as well.

[–] Winged_Hussar@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's fair, I left that very open ended.

I didn't mean it in a "This is bad, I think they need a sequel" way. I more meant it in a "This is Ubisoft and committing to 10 years on anything seems impossible" way.

I definitely like the Siege development team, they consistently have pretty solid updates and balancing choices to address issues in the game.

[–] BmeBenji@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Gotcha gotcha. I think you have a point, but Ubisoft seems interested in letting their dev teams take enough risks to prove whether players enjoy stuff. Case in point: Ubisoft didn’t pay for dedicated servers for For Honor until players proved resiliently interested in the game. Adding dedicated servers later then increased the playerbase. Furthermore, Operation Health with Siege was a period of time when players were deprived of meaningful content additions but players remained through and the game came out better for it. Fair enough to say that neither of these were a 10-year commitment, but Siege has already proven to be a worthy investment for the past 8 years so maybe it could continue to be for the next 12 ¯_(ツ)_/¯

[–] Winged_Hussar@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

That's a good take - and I do hope they continue to treat Siege the way they have been in the past.