In deciding whether to build their own solution or outsource the work, Ubisoft considered a number of factors. Yet the time constraint for replacing the existing voice component was exceptionally tight, and overall the wholesale change from P2P to client/server architecture was by no means trivial. Voice chat is essential for a cooperative, competitive shooter, and coordinating team strategy is one of the joys of the game. They gambled on the long run and dedicated the three months of Season 2 to improving the game with Operation Health. Or, they could take a more radical approach, delay new maps and characters, and invest in the long-term success of the project. This would represent a short-term patch and would not be a sustainable solution for the game. They could incrementally fix some Rainbow Six Siege issues while continuing to create new content and updates, the essence of a games-as-a-service (GaaS) strategy. The team realized quickly that some issues were caused by those elements that were using a P2P architecture, and they couldn't be fixed without fully transitioning to client/server. Networks weren’t sufficiently stable and net neutrality was a big concern. Unfortunately, live play showed that P2P wasn’t great for a highly competitive shooter like Rainbow Six Siege. For example, its player vs environment (PVE) play, party sessions, and voice chat all relied on P2P rather than a client/server model. Rainbow Six Siege shipped with a mixed network architecture: a client/server model that used some peer-to-peer (P2P) elements. Their game won the Game Critics Awards’ Best PC Game and three nominations in its first year, yet the team quickly realized that some of the technological choices made prior to the launch were not ideal for a competitive multiplayer game. The development team for Rainbow Six Siege had a strong creative and technical background in AAA games, but had less experience with operating a live, multiplayer title.

Uplay unity