Rainbow Six Siege will not see release on the Switch, says Ubisoft

Are you hoping to see more support from Ubisoft on the Switch? More might be in the works, but that support won't include Rainbow Six Siege. The Metro recently interviewed Rainbow Six Siege brand director Alexandre Remy, and he had this to share on the potential of a port.

[It’s] not possible with the technical constraint and especially the frame rate of the game; 60 frames per second plus destruction is a bit CPU heavy and Switch is not yet the Nintendo console where it’ll be.

Categories: Interviews, Consoles
Tags: ubisoft, eshop, switch


Top Rated Comment

Then buy an Xbox or PlayStation. Or build yourself a PC and put all the specs you want into it.

The Switch is what the Switch is. What you want isn’t a Switch. Simples.

Sun Aug 19 18 12:58am
Rating: 2

It would be more surprising if they announced that it would release on Switch.

I would have fully expected them to announce it and then cancel it at a later date

You mean like they did with the Wii U?

Does the game run at 60 fps? I kinda felt like it ran at around 30 fps on my standard Xbox One, so I figured it had no chance of coming to Switch.

Sun Aug 19 18 01:31am
(Updated 1 time)

It does indeed run at 60. It occasionally drops a bit if there’s a lot going on at once (not noticeable).

A. If the game's biggest bottleneck is CPU, then I have no doubt that a port would actually suck, Switch's CPU is well under clocked in docked mode.
B. Of all the games to miss on Switch, an online multiplayer shooter isn't the worst multiplat to skip, considering the main reason most Switch owners would get it on Switch is portability, which is a bit less useful for an online shooter.

Thanks again, Nintendo.

Sun Aug 19 18 04:33am
Rating: 1

I'd like to see you produce a hybrid with better specs for a similar price.

Lol get one of the many other options as a second device.
Want to play this game where ever? Get a gaming laptop.
Otherwise get any other console or system that suits you the best..

No shame or problem with owning two gaming devices..

I'm not alone in saying this, I'd like to see a new Switch model released, one with current gen specs. The current Switch is barely more powerful than the Wii U, which was lambasted for its lack of power back in 2012. Can we drop the charade about the Switch being a home console and a handheld? It's Nintendo's job to promote that nonsense. It's a handheld with TV out. Technology has allowed the portable market to catch up significantly on the home console market. Nintendo have used Nvidia's previous efforts and coupled it with their own household name and king of the portable market.

Put it like this about the current Switch, same specs. If it was a dedicated home console like the Wii U, would it have succeeded? Absolutely not. If the Switch was a handheld only, would it succeed? Chances are, yes. But why just have it be a handheld, when you can cheaply add TV out and add a string to your marketing bow? Everything about the Switch is compromised towards it being a handheld, not the other way around.

Look at all the companies when they talk about Switch. What is it that they mention about it as their reason for bringing their game over? Portability. Portability. Portability. Look at Diablo 3. Why would they bring a 6 year old game over? They said the same reason as everyone else. But we're getting hardly any current gen games. Doom Eternal? You know it's going to be heavily compromised.

I'd like to see a new Switch model released, one with current gen specs.

You do realise that putting the specs of the Xbox One X in to the form factor of the Switch isn’t possible right? Like it’s not a matter of “why won’t Nintendo do it”, it’s a matter of physics wont allow it.

I couldn't care less about portability. And definitely not at the expense of great specs and proper AAA 3rd party support. Having a dedicated home console would eliminate so many handicaps that the Switch has, e.g. limited specs, awful controllers(Joy-Cons), limited capacity expensive cartridges, expensive micro SD cards(HDD's have way more capacity and are a lot cheaper), rubbish support from established 3rd parties, etc.

Sure, HDDs have way more capacity, but on the X1 and PS4 you are required to install every game no matter the format. The Switch only needs to install the full game if its digital, otherwise it goes the way of the Vita where it installs basically nothing but still uses up some space. I had to buy a 2TB HDD for my PS4 just to be safe. On my Switch, a 128 GB SD Card is probably overkill. Of course thats only if you buy mostly physical like me.

"The Switch only needs to install the full game if its digital".

Not true. There are numerous physical Switch games that require a partial, in some cases, quite hefty, digital download. The blame of which lies in the Switch being portable and the expensive, limited capacity cartridges.

Oh right, I forgot about those because I haven't bought one yet. My mistake.

Then buy an Xbox or PlayStation. Or build yourself a PC and put all the specs you want into it.

The Switch is what the Switch is. What you want isn’t a Switch. Simples.

Sun Aug 19 18 03:22pm
Rating: 1

Look man, you need to move on. Nintendo's obviously not for you anymore. They have been putting out relatively under powered machines since they started with the NES back in 1985. Power doesn't mean more or better games. If you want all of those "AAA" games, then buy a machine that plays them. Just please, stop bitching about how Nintendo does their business.
Also, the Switch may have a few problems, but it's a great piece of hardware. There's nothing like it. Maybe it won't run games in 4k, but I knew what i was getting into when I bought mine. To be honest, I'm not disappointed at all. I have too many games to play.

To be fair, their following 3 systems after NES were all technically superior to the competition. Yes, SNES, N64 and Gamecube (vs PS2 that is) were relatively more powerful than their competition. It's funny how so many have this bent angle of history. So what he is obsessing about is understandable, if not played out, and could at any time go in said direction.

Wed Aug 22 18 09:34pm
(Updated 1 time)

The NEO GEO won the hardware specs race, hands down. The SNES could do things the Genesis could not, like Mode 7 - scaling of a single plane and could display more colors. But, Genesis Had a better Sound chip and had a faster processor. There was also the 3DO, which was 32 bits and a relative powerhouse of a console.

N64 was more powerful in raw specs over the competition, but It also had the cartridge limitation(max size of the carts were 64mb), while the original PlayStation and SEGA Saturn had a CD drive.
other limitations of the N64 hardware:

"While the N64 had some impressive specifications compared to the PlayStation and Saturn on paper, the reality was much different. The RCP, while a very advanced design for 1996, had a serious crutch in that it only had 4Kb of texture memory (compared to the PlayStation which had 1Mb of dedicated video memory, a variable amount could be dedicated to textures). This meant that developers had to make serious concessions in texture design. Two common solutions were to either tile small textures across a surface or resort to Gouraud shading of polygons instead of proper textures."

"When it comes to the actual specs, the Xbox is the most powerful with a 733-MHz processor, leaving PS2 and GameCube in the dust at 295 and 485 MHz, respectively. It also comes with a 233-MHz graphics processor and 64MB of total memory. But instead of dial-up capability, the Xbox allows only a broadband connection for Internet gaming."

"Raw GPU power and feature set does go to the NV2A core that is in the Xbox. Games such as Dead or Alive 3 are perfect examples of how easy it is for developers to write these custom pixel and vertex shader programs as well as how great the results can be.

Both Flipper and the NV2A support texture-compression which plays a major role in the use of higher-resolution textures in games. On the launch titles for the GameCube we've seen a number of lower resolution textures being used compared to the Xbox launch titles. That could just be a sign of the early adopters not taking advantage of the technology yet or it could be due to a lack of main memory bandwidth, it's too early to tell."

Mon Aug 27 18 01:14am
(Updated 1 time)

Let me rephrase, SNES, N64 and Gamecube were all technically superior to the competition that actually mattered (no one had a Neo Geo). There's also no question that the quality of actual playable real in game content was vastly superior on N64 than PS1, regardless of its' shortcomings. As for the Xbox, that's what the " (vs PS2 that is)", was for, but even then, RE4 begs to differ. As for the Genesis sound chip being better. HA Don't make me laugh and if on paper it somehow looks better, go listen to SFII on each system to understand which one was better in real world use. lol Genesis sounds like a garbled mess while the SNES version is clean as hell. Also, the Genesis clock speed being faster was a moot point as the actual route the information had to travel within each system was key. For example SNES had to go from say A to B to C, while Genesis was A to B to C to D.

Point is Nintendo used to own their competition in every category (including price, N64 was a little pricey) including power until Wii, period. No one will agree with me when I say Sony basically flipped the industry on it's head by charging $600 for PS3 and all the mind numbing idiots that bought into it. At that moment Sony was able to make the idea of the notorious pricey console that only the rich owned, like Neo Geo, the new accepted norm, and yet no one even noticed. Absolutely fucking ridiculous.

My point is that better hardware doesn't mean you will have better games. The 3DO failed despite the fact it was far superior to anything on the market. NEO GEO was a great piece of hardware, but it mostly was home to a few types of genres. And, it didn't have great 3rd party support. But, yes, if we are not talking about anything but Nintendo and SEGA, Nintendo had the superior hardware for that generation. My point still stands.

Yes, better games doesn't necessarily rely on better hardware, good point. However, the SNES being superior than Genesis, N64 > PS1, and GC > PS2 (and not too far from Xbox), show Nintendo had released the most powerful systems against their direct competition during the console races that mattered. That's all I'm pointing out, which is unlike your revision of power.

Is that fan art or is Rainbow Six Siege really that cartoony/anime looking? I didn't figure from the trailers that the characters and art direction would actually be anything interesting to look at. If so I may have underestimated the game, because that image is awesome.

Sun Aug 19 18 03:51pm
Rating: 2 (Updated 1 time)

Switch is not yet the Nintendo console where it’ll be.

Hmmm. Interesting choice of words there.


Today's VIP

fotis's avatar
Joined: September 2017

Social Services

Want to join this discussion?

You should like, totally log in or sign up!