Support NeoGAF

[IbizaPocholo]

Rainbow Six Siege 2 Unlikely to Be Made by Ubisoft

If you have been holding out hope that Ubisoft might one day create a full-blown sequel to Rainbow Six Siege, the publisher’s popular multiplayer shooter, then it sounds like you should dash those hope. Even though Siege first released all the way back in 2015, Ubisoft has continued to regularly...

comicbook.com

In a recent AMA session over on Reddit, the team behind Rainbow Six Siege was asked about the potential for a sequel to come about at some point in the future. In short, the game's Creative Director, Leroy Athanassoff, explained that this is something that the studio doesn't want to pursue for a number of reasons. "Siege is an evolving game - the Siege of the future will be dramatically different from today's Siege, to the point where we could call it Siege 2. However, as a team, we strongly believe we can bring about these changes in an incremental way, within the current Siege framework," Athanassoff said of the notion of creating a sequel.

"Siege 2 would mean a new game, a new environment, probably a new inventory and maybe a new dev team. We do not feel that this is what is needed for the community," Athanassoff went on to further explain. "We care about your investment in the game, we do not want to move to a new one. Instead, we want to protect your investment and increase its value by making your current “home” (which is SIEGE) even better."

 

[Phase]

 

[R6Rider]

Game eventually needs completely reworked with proper doors and an actual lighting system that is part of the gameplay.

 

[anthraticus]

There hasn't been a really good R6 game since Raven Shield. Bring back Red Storm and proper sp tactical shooters !

 

[Keihart]

No shit they would need a new dev team, when the money started pouring in the whole management of the team that made that game also changed.
Such cool and forward thinking core concept for the game, the only multiplayer game with detailed destruction that impacts CQC gun combat. it's bein bastardized to hell IMO, every update makes it play more like CSGO.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

This is why I generally prefer multiplayer.

Games don't need to be constantly remade with better graphics, the same mechanics, and resold for $70 every 3 years like we see in the single player space.

The Rainbow Six Siege creators can go and make the next thing. It's way more exciting this way.

 

[Imotekh]

They have done a great job supporting the game that is now what, six years old? But the game does need help to keep going I think. The amount of "is R6S dying!?" videos on YouTube is ridiculous but the momentum of support it has gotten has slowed down, new maps are barely released anymore and we're down to one operator per season.

I agree that they have put too much work into Siege to simply move over to a new game but, if they did it they could introduce new elements that would really spice up the gameplay. They should do it but take the time to do it right in a couple of years time.

 

[Jibran#one]

A map editor where people can make their own maps , and everything can be destroyed wood , concrete , steel anything u can see u can break it can be first few good steps towards seige 2

 

[jigglet]

Game eventually needs completely reworked with proper doors and an actual lighting system that is part of the gameplay.

This is the main reason I never want to see a sequel: I don’t want proper lighting.

 

[jigglet]

A map editor where people can make their own maps , and everything can be destroyed wood , concrete , steel anything u can see u can break it can be first few good steps towards seige 2

Siege 1 already had completely destructible environments. They changed it cause it was unplayable.

 

[captainraincoat]

If they could come up with a mechanic that makes a hand jump out of the screen and slap some of the toxic little shits in the face that infest this game that would be great

 

[Kerotan]

No shit they would need a new dev team, when the money started pouring in the whole management of the team that made that game also changed.
Such cool and forward thinking core concept for the game, the only multiplayer game with detailed destruction that impacts CQC gun combat. it's bein bastardized to hell IMO, every update makes it play more like CSGO.

Yep. Haven't touched it in over 2 years and won't again unless they make a siege 2 or a new rainbow six. Ground up for the ps5.

 

[Keihart]

This is the main reason I never want to see a sequel: I don’t want proper lighting.

This opinion and how it influenced the game is why i don't like the current state of siege.
Players that can't handle uncertainty in game and blame it as bad design have no idea of game theory to be making this type of decisions.

I'm still laughing on those flat ass smoke bombs, flashbangs not rolling anymore, sweaties playing with flat textures and how TOD and HDR light effects where removed, not because the game just looks worse, but because they had a real impact on gameplay which could have been leveraged further instead of taken out.

The game got focus tested to oblivion.

 

[jigglet]

This opinion and how it influenced the game is why i don't like the current state of siege.
Players that can't handle uncertainty in game and blame it as bad design have no idea of game theory to be making this type of decisions.

I'm still laughing on those flat ass smoke bombs, flashbangs not rolling anymore, sweaties playing with flat textures and how TOD and HDR light effects where removed, not because the game just looks worse, but because they had a real impact on gameplay which could have been leveraged further instead of taken out.

The game got focus tested to oblivion.

None of what you mentioned I have an issue with.

What I don't want is dark rooms, night vision googles etc.

Smoke, flashbangs, all that is fine. But ray tracing is the current hotness and I could see them going the lights out / night vision goggles route, which I would never want to see.

 

[Keihart]

None of what you mentioned I have an issue with.

What I don't want is dark rooms, night vision googles etc.

Smoke, flashbangs, all that is fine. But ray tracing is the current hotness and I could see them going the lights out / night vision goggles route, which I would never want to see.

Why not? the game could easily have mechanics designed around lighting, in no way breaks the idea of tactical CQC firefights.
Not every operator would need a NVG, NVG could easily be balanced with things like battery, FOV and several more ideas.
Flash light attachments and glow sticks could play a roll in some dark maps.
Eye light adjustment could also be implemented if light was the new destruction of a sequel.

Lets not forget that the sound in siege (which i would say is the second most important feature of the game after destruction) does use some abstraction of ray tracing to achieve the effect, so further use of RTX could undoubtedly bring new mechanics in.

 

[jigglet]

Why not? the game could easily have mechanics designed around lighting, in no way breaks the idea of tactical CQC firefights.
Not every operator would need a NVG, NVG could easily be balanced with things like battery, FOV and several more ideas.
Flash light attachments and glow sticks could play a roll in some dark maps.
Eye light adjustment could also be implemented if light was the new destruction of a sequel.

Cause I just think night vision goggles are a cancerous mechanic. I played a few hours of the night vision mode in Modern Warfare 2019 and wanted to gouge my eyes out after that. I don't see how squinting and barely being able to see anything is a fun mechanic. It's fun in a single player game where the scenario goes for 5 minutes, but for a game you play repeatedly for up to 12 hours a day? Jesus christ no.

Lets not forget that the sound in siege (which i would say is the second most important feature of the game after destruction) does use some abstraction of ray tracing to achieve the effect, so further use of RTX could undoubtedly bring new mechanics in.

I agree with this though. The problem is it's not a compelling enough reason for them to invest the time into a sequel. There's no way they would be able to convince the higher ups to fund such a huge project on the basis of "we're keeping everything the same but just improving the sound".

 

[R6Rider]

Cause I just think night vision goggles are a cancerous mechanic. I played a few hours of the night vision mode in Modern Warfare 2019 and wanted to gouge my eyes out after that. I don't see how squinting and barely being able to see anything is a fun mechanic. It's fun in a single player game where the scenario goes for 5 minutes, but for a game you play repeatedly for up to 12 hours a day? Jesus christ no.

I see your concern, but if they have proper placement of bulletproof lights and new operator abilities they could offset the chance of annoying gameplay issues that happen with lights being destroyable.

 

[jigglet]

I see your concern, but if they have proper placement of bulletproof lights and new operator abilities they could offset the chance of annoying gameplay issues that happen with lights being destroyable.

Let's get to the real issue: if Siege 2 were to come out, Siege 1 would have to be killed off. The market simply isn't big enough for two major tactical shooters that are kind of similar otherwise you split the player base and have insanely long match making times, and then it's a death spiral on both sides. That's why Siege hasn't had a competitor for 6 years; there's no room. It's so incredibly niche. If you assume Siege 1 has to die for Siege 2 to exist, fans will not be happy unless literally everything is ported over. It would have to be like CS:Go where it's an identical game to CS:Source but with an updated engine. I think a CS:Go model is the only way it could work, but it's a tough pitch: "We need $100m to remake all the 75 operators, 20 maps, new engine, and the end result is the same game but more stable and prettier."

 

[Artistic]

Bring us a new Splinter Cell Ubi.

Thanks.

 

[Halo is Back]

Cause I just think night vision goggles are a cancerous mechanic. I played a few hours of the night vision mode in Modern Warfare 2019 and wanted to gouge my eyes out after that. I don't see how squinting and barely being able to see anything is a fun mechanic. It's fun in a single player game where the scenario goes for 5 minutes, but for a game you play repeatedly for up to 12 hours a day? Jesus christ no.



I agree with this though. The problem is it's not a compelling enough reason for them to invest the time into a sequel. There's no way they would be able to convince the higher ups to fund such a huge project on the basis of "we're keeping everything the same but just improving the sound".

I am in the complete opposite opinion. Siege needs a sequel in the future if it wants to stay alive. At this point, they are just constantly dressing up a broken engine. Their current business model is not sustainable for another 3 years and neither is balancing for gameplay. In fact, they just keep nerfing all the popular operators until they are no fun anymore.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

He could be BSing or telling the truth.

Either way a RS Siege 2 wouldny come out for ages anyway. That RS aliens shooter is the next game and the current RS Siege is still going strong.

Who knows Maybe RS Siege 2 in 2025.

 

[jigglet]

At this point, they are just constantly dressing up a broken engine.

Sure I mean that's the most compelling reason I can think of to reboot the game.

neither is balancing for gameplay. In fact, they just keep nerfing all the popular operators until they are no fun anymore.\

Why would this change with a new game though? Changing their design philosophy could happen right now with the existing game.

 

[jigglet]

He could be BSing or telling the truth.

Either way a RS Siege 2 wouldny come out for ages anyway. That RS aliens shooter is the next game and the current RS Siege is still going strong.

Who knows Maybe RS Siege 2 in 2025.

You just have to view this within the context of their new F2P strategic vision. GaaS games generally don't have sequels. It makes no sense. A CS:Go style upgrade where the game is identical but the underlying engine is updated is the closest we might ever get to a "sequel".

 

[Halo is Back]

Sure I mean that's the most compelling reason I can think of to reboot the game.



Why would this change with a new game though? Changing their design philosophy could happen right now with the existing game.

I have said since day one that 100 operators are impossible to balance within the game. I would rather have higher quality than quantity. Their design philosophy could change to greater community creation tools. Now that is how you keep a game going for a very long time. Siege has virtually no community expression or varying game modes.

 

[Ceadeus]

There hasn't been a really good R6 game since Raven Shield. Bring back Red Storm and proper sp tactical shooters !

Are you sure it's not nostalgia that makes you think this? I mean, they're really old and simplistic by now.

But yeah, R6 is so different from what it used to be. Just like anything, everything change.

 

[jigglet]

I have said since day one that 100 operators are impossible to balance within the game. I would rather have higher quality than quantity. Their design philosophy could change to greater community creation tools. Now that is how you keep a game going for a very long time. Siege has virtually no community expression or varying game modes.

I'm curious how long you've been playing? I suspect for many people it's just a game that's not for them.

I'm probably on about 5-6k hours and I can still go for weeks playing 12 hour per-day sessions and not feel bored in the slightest.

This is not me saying I play more hours than you therefore I have more authority to speak on it. I would never say that, my point is I struggle to understand how people get bored from this and are looking for more.

 

[Phase]

I'm probably on about 5-6k hours and I can still go for weeks playing 12 hour per-day sessions and not feel bored in the slightest.

 

[R6Rider]

It's been out almost 6 years and if you play it a few hours a day, that's 5k+ hours. I have almost 2500 myself.

 

[anthraticus]

Are you sure it's not nostalgia that makes you think this? I mean, they're really old and simplistic by now.

But yeah, R6 is so different from what it used to be. Just like anything, everything change.

And a lot of times change isn't always for the better. Especially when talking AAA/mainstream gaming.

And yea, I've been playing recently with the supply drops mod for sp and it's great.

 

[Phase]

It's been out almost 6 years and if you play it a few hours a day, that's 5k+ hours. I have almost 2500 myself.

I was moreso referring to the "can still go for wks playing 12 hr per day sessions and not feel bored in the slightest," especially after already playing so many hrs.

 

[jigglet]

I was moreso referring to the "can still go for wks playing 12 hr per day sessions and not feel bored in the slightest," especially after already playing so many hrs.

It's insane, every round plays out differently. I've never played a game before where every moment to moment encounter could be something you've never experienced before. And the scope for creative play is so broad. Also I'm still learning new things daily even after this many hours. I can't get enough of it, every day I have the urge to jump on. It's not a grind where I feel this compulsion to unlock things or to grind for more points or whatever, it's genuine excitement at the idea of playing Siege. It's like no game I've ever played before in terms of longevity.

 

[R6Rider]

It's insane, every round plays out differently. I've never played a game before where every moment to moment encounter could be something you've never experienced before. And the scope for creative play is so broad. Also I'm still learning new things daily even after this many hours. I can't get enough of it, every day I have the urge to jump on. It's not a grind where I feel this compulsion to unlock things or to grind for more points or whatever, it's genuine excitement at the idea of playing Siege. It's like no game I've ever played before in terms of longevity.

This, but I don't play it as much as I used too.

Siege and Battlefield are shooters I can always go back to since matches always play out drastically different.

 

[Phase]

It's insane, every round plays out differently. I've never played a game before where every moment to moment encounter could be something you've never experienced before. And the scope for creative play is so broad. Also I'm still learning new things daily even after this many hours. I can't get enough of it, every day I have the urge to jump on. It's not a grind where I feel this compulsion to unlock things or to grind for more points or whatever, it's genuine excitement at the idea of playing Siege. It's like no game I've ever played before in terms of longevity.

Well explained. I had this with Tribes years ago. And there's way more content with Siege so that's understandable. Shit if you're enjoying it play on!

 

[Ceadeus]

And a lot of times change isn't always for the better. Especially when talking AAA/mainstream gaming.

And yea, I've been playing recently with the supply drops mod for sp and it's great.

Did you play the advanced warfighter series? I think it was pretty good even if they changed the ghost recon formula.

Then about R6, I really liked Vegas but for whatever reason, I think R6 3 was their best! Loved raven shield as well.

Staying the same for years would become obsolete in my opinion. You can always like the old, classic record of your favorite band but after 10 years, the band would become so sick of playing the same old songs.

 

[jigglet]

Did you play the advanced warfighter series? I think it was pretty good even if they changed the ghost recon formula.

Then about R6, I really liked Vegas but for whatever reason, I think R6 3 was their best! Loved raven shield as well.

Staying the same for years would become obsolete in my opinion. You can always like the old, classic record of your favorite band but after 10 years, the band would become so sick of playing the same old songs.

You know what makes no sense to me? Many people want a return to the single player, narrative driven tactical R6. I don't really want it but many do.

And guess what a lot of the youngins love about Siege? The lore. I find it cringy but they love it. Many would have liked to see this fleshed out in a larger more narrative driven game.

So what do they make?

A zombie game.

lmao I mean who put 2 and 2 together and got 17.

It could have killed two birds with the one stone, or three, if you consider all the free marketing it would have generated for Siege.

 

[Sleepwalker]

Bummer. I wanted a new one.

I played siege for like 3-4 years almost religiously since launch, but i'm entirely burned by now and put it down for good.

After so many updates and released content etc, I have 0 urge to play catch up.

 

[Halo is Back]

I'm curious how long you've been playing? I suspect for many people it's just a game that's not for them.

I'm probably on about 5-6k hours and I can still go for weeks playing 12 hour per-day sessions and not feel bored in the slightest.

This is not me saying I play more hours than you therefore I have more authority to speak on it. I would never say that, my point is I struggle to understand how people get bored from this and are looking for more.

3 years, the meta is stale now and the game has too many problems. Plus, I really disagree with the way they have been balancing this game for the past year.

 

[TransTrender]

What about Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege 2?

 

[Ceadeus]

You know what makes no sense to me? Many people want a return to the single player, narrative driven tactical R6. I don't really want it but many do.

And guess what a lot of the youngins love about Siege? The lore. I find it cringy but they love it. Many would have liked to see this fleshed out in a larger more narrative driven game.

So what do they make?

A zombie game.

lmao I mean who put 2 and 2 together and got 17.

It could have killed two birds with the one stone, or three, if you consider all the free marketing it would have generated for Siege.

They're really making a zombie game out of R6?! Well, I'm confused.

I wouldn't mind seeing them expending siege throughout a single player campaign but I hope they have ideas because I can't bring myself to see how they would create a world and many interesting gameplay features to make it feels coherent and fun.

More power to them if they can though.

 

[jigglet]

They're really making a zombie game out of R6?! Well, I'm confused.

Yeah you couldn't make this shit up.

 

[Shifty1897]

Of course they wouldn't make Siege 2, they're too busy making Tom Clancy's Just Dance Battle Royale with aliens and multiple season passes.

 

[Ceadeus]

Yeah you couldn't make this shit up.

I hope angry Joe to cover this shit up

 

[Keihart]

Let's get to the real issue: if Siege 2 were to come out, Siege 1 would have to be killed off. The market simply isn't big enough for two major tactical shooters that are kind of similar otherwise you split the player base and have insanely long match making times, and then it's a death spiral on both sides. That's why Siege hasn't had a competitor for 6 years; there's no room. It's so incredibly niche. If you assume Siege 1 has to die for Siege 2 to exist, fans will not be happy unless literally everything is ported over. It would have to be like CS:Go where it's an identical game to CS:Source but with an updated engine. I think a CS:Go model is the only way it could work, but it's a tough pitch: "We need $100m to remake all the 75 operators, 20 maps, new engine, and the end result is the same game but more stable and prettier."

well, i would be happy. Kill it.

Edit: Just to elaborate, i think the core concept of R6S is amazing, it works too good and there is nothing much like it. But i dislike the direction that the game took around season 2 when it was finally considered a success by Ubi.
The money started to flow into the game and the creativity out. Instead of further building into supporting the core mechanics that make the game especial they started trying to trim down everything non essential to the status quo of other successful shooter, meaning, CSGO and OW. Killing R6S would be awesome in my book if it entails a rework from the ground up, they know what works and it would be a chance to lose all the baggage carried from engine to players habits...it would take balls tho and i don't think that the same bold team that made R6S is still there to make it. But i wish it was, i loved siege and still play it sometimes just from pure nostalgia, been playing since closed beta.

I have so many fun memories of it

 

[jigglet]

well, i would be happy. Kill it.

Edit: Just to elaborate, i think the core concept of R6S is amazing, it works too good and there is nothing much like it. But i dislike the direction that the game took around season 2 when it was finally considered a success by Ubi.
The money started to flow into the game and the creativity out. Instead of further building into supporting the core mechanics that make the game especial they started trying to trim down everything non essential to the status quo of other successful shooter, meaning, CSGO and OW. Killing R6S would be awesome in my book if it entails a rework from the ground up, they know what works and it would be a chance to lose all the baggage carried from engine to players habits...it would take balls tho and i don't think that the same bold team that made R6S is still there to make it. But i wish it was, i loved siege and still play it sometimes just from pure nostalgia, been playing since closed beta.

I would be happy to kill it off if it was a CS:Go style update where literally everything was the same, just a more stable engine. I wouldn't want to see a restart.

 

[Keihart]

I would be happy to kill it off if it was a CS:Go style update where literally everything was the same, just a more stable engine. I wouldn't want to see a restart.

That's exactly what i would hate. I want new everything.

 

[kanjobazooie]

Can they at least add a real T-Hunt mode for us filthy grubs who love the series but can't do PVP? I'm not even asking for a campaign.
Obviously, I'm willing to pay for it. 20 or even 30.

I still enjoy the older games, but sometimes you want to play something that looks and feel a bit modern, you know.

(I know, it won't happen)

 

[jigglet]

That's exactly what i would hate. I want new everything.

Then you’d have to keep both games alive, double development costs, split match making and have everyone wait longer. You can see why it’s not straight forward.

 

[Keihart]

Then you’d have to keep both games alive, double development costs, split match making and have everyone wait longer. You can see why it’s not straight forward.

You can do it, it just takes some balls. Fighting games do it all the time and the community embraces it (unless you are a melee player ofcourse)
If R6S was able to pull out of the big hole of bad reviews and niche gameplay approach, everyone can. The core concept is good enough and there is no competition.
I would not say that the operators available are the core of the game, you can lose all that shit and the game would still be as good as ever if the core mechanics of destruction, sound and fast kills remained in a siege type of ruleset.

 

[Halo is Back]

Then you’d have to keep both games alive, double development costs, split match making and have everyone wait longer. You can see why it’s not straight forward.

Why do you think this way? Games eventually get old and die out, especially if they don't have community support. Not to mention, the developers are barely keeping the game alive right now. No new maps, guns, or game modes. With this logic, it would be counterproductive for Bungie to have made Halo 3 because it would "split' the player base. If Siege isn't going to make any more new meaningful content, then we need a new game. Just think of all the improvements and added features they could make with a brand new game. That would really bring me back to the franchise.

 

[jigglet]

Why do you think this way?

Cause I simply like the game the way it is. If what you've played in Siege bores you then it's very likely Siege 2 would bore you too after a few years. I don't like GaaS games to have sequels, I love the idea of a CS style game where it's the same thing 20 years later. If you're not a fan of this decades-long lifecycles then that's fine but there are many that love it.