But one other question this welcome “free maps” announcement brings up is what they’ll then replace map packs with in terms of DLC. With that said, it’s possible that Rainbow Six: Siege is just so engaging through multiplayer alone that it actually does feel worth every penny. But the Evolve and Titanfall model (originally kicked off by the ultra-failure Brink, in my estimation) has seemed like something to avoid rather than emulate. Call of Duty, Halo and Destiny are all going strong, but their PvP content is joined by a single player campaign at the very least, and oftentimes quite a few co-op bonus activities. We’re about to see a wave of (probably) free-to-play arena-style shooters in the form of Gearbox’s Battleborn, Blizzard’s Overwatch and Cliff Bleszinksi’s LawBreakers, but that may exist as a completely separate genre by the time those are all released (right now it's most just Team Fortress 2 hanging out by itself).īut I would argue that $60 multiplayer-only shooters have not really caught on to date. But given how expensive these games, including Rainbow Six: Siege, are likely to produce, going free-to-play probably just isn’t an option. Past attempts at this with Evolve and Titanfall have not exactly resulted in stellar success stories, with both feeling like they’re a free-to-play game stuck in a $60 box copy’s body.

Still, when we start talking about another single-player-less title priced at a full $60, the question of “value” always seems to come up.

Rainbow six siege maps