Rainbow Six Siege

I just picked up this game the other day and I've already spent way too much time on it. Easily one of the best fps games I've ever played. My only complaint are that the servers can be frustrating and so is uplay. I highly recommend this shooter for anyone looking for a serious competitive fps.


I'm also interested in getting a squad together if anyone's interested.

Lastly, I'd like to thank @Fellere825 for telling me about it!

 

Who would you recommend it to? I figured I'd like it since I found CS:GO pretty entertaining.

 

I came from CSGO. I liked csgo because I was above average, but I hated the aiming system in the game. I wanted to find a more serious competitive shooter that was more skill based. It's extremely difficult, but I find it a lot more rewarding and addicting. I wouldn't recommend spending more than $45 on it because the servers are bad. It's tactics and skill based. If you are looking for a run and gun game than it isn't for you. It's relatively slow paced and really intense

 

Don't pay more then 45$ if you are a budget gamer and tight with money. Or if you are a real stickler about price, because this isn't worth a full 60$ it goes on sale semi often. So just check on isthereanydeal.com every once in a while.

I bought about five copies or so? And I feel it was worth it for me because having a full five man squad is an awesome feeling. Having that strategy and intensity, it brings back early competitive KAG days when everyone was still hyped for it.

It gets scary when you know your gunplay sucks and you're camping in a room and they are slowly coming to you. All these explosions going off creating a bunch of openings and then when you clutch it with that laser sight hip fire cause you don't really care if it gives away your position... It's a good game. Hands down my favorite game in the past years since KAG.

If you want the discord for it message me, I made one so that the new people I meet in rainbow have a place to play too without crowding the old discords.

 

Check out this video if you are still debating whether or not to get it

 

Music link please, awesome vid btw. Considering getting Six Seige by I might wait for a sale and the server fix. :>

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0H6ycm4szk
The genre is called cloud rap and I have a feeling you'll like that kind of music if you like this song.

As far as the servers go, I have no idea when they are getting fixed. They've only been an annoying problem every once in a while.

I would definitely wait for a sale where you could get Siege for $45. I have put in way too many hours because this is such a great game. The only downside is the servers. Let me know if you have any more questions. And don't forget to look out for new videos!

 

Sorry for the late response. Cloud Rap is surprisingly very nice, I used to listen to rap intermittently but it lost it's novelty pretty quickly as I buried it under downtempo chill beats, akin to what you find in cloud rap as accompaniment to vocals. Really enjoying it, thanks.

As far as Six Siege goes, I have been searching around threads spanning from reddit to here (big variety right?) and pretty much everyone says wait for a sale even though it is a great game. The server thing appears to be a serious enough problem for many people to hold back, rightly so because "Multiplayer game = Servers" its prerequisite, so that is a bummer. I guess I will keep my eye on it and keep salivating whilst staring at my wallet with contempt. Sigh.

 

It was 45$ on steam yesterday.

 

overpriced tbh.

There are games that can most likely provide you with more fun and playtime that are $15 or less. ANY game that thinks it's worth $21 or more better have something revolutionary to show (like Undertale). Some of the best games I've played are free and come from Gamejolt.

 

It's all about personal taste. There are great games for a variety of prices. I think R6 is a fantastic game. I have already logged over 140 hours in the last month. It comes down to what games your looking for and your budget

 

Amazing game*

 

People are allowed to spend their money how they wish. If you personally feel that it is not worth buying at 45$ no one is faulting you for your decision. Nonetheless for a game made by a Triple A company the price will most likely not go down to those levels anytime soon. If someone wants to budget their purchases to 15$ no problems there mate. It's a very fun game and worth a play if it is within people's budgets. In my opinion no game is worth going over solidly set personal budgets... But that's just my opinion on responsible living.

 

While I do agree, unless the top rated game of the year was 1 cent or something you should base your prices off of what's currently socially accepted. When a lot of top rated games are $10-20 you should take a hint.

If most companies sell their tricycles for 2.50, how do you think a company will fare that charges 7.50 for a tricycle that is the same or worse to their competitors in quality? Amazon is a good example of this, they are worth more than Walmart and have cheaper prices. (I don't think that's the only reason, but it definitely is one)

The point I'm trying to make is you don't sell a game that's decent for $60 when someone makes a great game for $10, it's a bad business decision and is unethical.

 

Not really man... While selling a product at a higher price then your competitors may be "unethical", no one ever said capitalism was about what was fair, it's about making money. If charging a higher price for their game makes them money they will do it, "ethics" be damned. (Also your argument that selling their game at such a high price being unethical is kind of flawed... Games are a luxury good. In terms of ethics... No one is forcing anyone to buy these products and they are not necessary for what is widely believed to be necessary for human living... So ethically they are in the right to charge as much as they want for their product. Unless you think that ethics are universal and these universal ethics state that video games are necessary for human life thus consumers are entitled to the cheapest price for such "necessary" products. In relativistic ethics it would be unethical to force a business to charge for a product at a price that, while beneficial to the consumer, would be detrimental to the business. Businesses and consumers have a relationship that is mutually beneficial. They have a product you want and you have the money they want. So they charge what they feel would make them most profit.)

While you feel charging 10$ is a better business decision most companies will not charge 10$ for a AAA title during the first year of sale unless things go very wrong. In reality it is a bad business decision to match the price model on your product around what the current highest rated games are priced. These are a NEW product so they will be priced higher and the desire to purchase a NEW product will justify the higher price as that desire is noticeable within consumer markets. They have had different development budgets so the price will reflect that if they spent more money to make they game they will reflectively try to charge more to earn it back. They will have different market populations so the price will reflect that. Basically your belief that it is a bad business decision and that it is unethical is flawed. They know their markets and they know that they will get sales at those high numbers. If you are a business owner and you sell a product, you sell it at the highest possible price that people will reliably buy it in order to make the highest profit.

Budget wise they would not be able to afford it even with the potential added sales. If they priced it at 10$ they are getting a minimum of 4 times less of a return they would if they charged 40~60$ at launch. So they would have to at minimum sell 4 times more copies of the game in order to catch up with their budget. It's more difficult to sell a lot of games at low price then it is to sell a few games at a higher price when the consumer population is at its current size. (It's easier to convince one person to buy something then it is to convince 4 people to buy something.)

They already know that people will still buy a game even if it is 60$ because that has been the industry standard. It might change but right now that's the industry standard and people still buy games at that price model, so they'll follow it because of budgets, projected sales models, and short term it allows them to break even faster then selling it at a lower price. Businesses want to break even as fast as possible in order to maximize profit.

While this might be unethical (a really big stretch for it to be unethical) but it is a sound business decision because people will buy it at that price and for the people that can't afford it they can pay for it later when the business is done selling their product at higher price points.

Another thing... Video game development companies are all for profit businesses. A for profit business is about making profits. If it were a non profit it would be different. But it's not. They don't sell their luxury goods to appease their consumer. They sell them to make a profit, and appeasing your consumer is a secondary objective because appeasing your consumer helps to make a profit. That's the reality we live in and that is the industry standard mate.

Edit: Also the company that charges 7.50 for their tricycle do so because they calculated that in order to make the biggest return we will sell our tricycles at this price because we know someone will buy it at this price. They are focusing their product on the populace that shops at Walmart. Amazon is a different market with much higher competition. If they were selling their product on Amazon then yes it might be prudent to sell their tricycles at a lower price... But they aren't. They are selling it at 7.50 to people who go to Walmart because some people want to ride a real bike instead of trusting someone's word that the cheap Amazon bike is better. Different markets... Different prices. Flawed argument.)

Edit2: You can argue that it is greedy though! I'm all up for that! But greed in and of itself is not unethical. So you can't really define their actions as unethical, just greedy and dick moves.

 

>tfw wall of text

I didn't say that the tricycles were from Amazon/Walmart. They are theoretically both from near identical stores and both tricycles have identical value but one is more expensive. Which one do you think will profit?

In the case of games, sometimes AAA titles are less-consumer friendly than games on say, Steam! You have to buy a console specifically for games, in a day and age where most adults in first world countries that have enough money to spend on luxuries have a computer? And it costs more and may have less favorable reviews than a $10 game on Steam? People will catch on, no doubt. It's already started to happen. I think AAA publishers forget that they actually have competition, namely Steam, so they think they can be as un-comsumer friendly as they want since they are the only ones in the market, and in fact they aren't.

What really kills me is none of these businesses (besides Valve) are actually trying to become more consumer friendly and fight their competition. Steam has had more users than Xbox Live since late 2013. I can assure you that most people will agree that Steam beats out any other game service, and for good reason.

I'm not saying Steam is perfect, they certainly aren't and still do crappy stuff, but they are way better than other businesses and thrive because of such.

 

Basically yes. It's still different in that they are selling this game on consoles as well and that creates a different market. If PC was the only market your explanation would stand as an oversimplified explanation. But yeah it's poor practice if everything during development and quality was the same as/lesser then other games and they charged more, but there are too many other factors to make that such an overly simplified explanation stick.

 

add tags man to help people find it

 

been debating this purchase for a while..