MAG to unload in January

By Robert Purchese Published 17 August, 2009

Giant multiplayer PS3 game draws nearer.

Sony America plans to unload MAG on North Americans from 26th January. Europe, however, has "no confirmed date as of yet", a spokesperson for SCEE told Eurogamer this morning.

PS3 exclusive MAG - Massive Action Game - allows a whopping 256 people to fight online at the same time. The game does this by breaking the action into squads of eight, which communicate and co-ordinate with a larger force. This helps promote team work and a more intimate dynamic.

As you become more experienced your rank will rise, and you'll be promoted to a position of command either over one squad, multiple squads or the entire force.

The full MAG E3 trailer can be seen over on the US PlayStation blog.

Alternatively, head over to our hands-on impressions of MAG to find out more.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (17) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • davisorle #1 3 years ago

    I don't own a PS3 neither I'm going to comment on it due to that but just considering the fact of attempt of such game on the console right now... Here it goes:

    Let's say that this was made on the PC that we know that when it comes to FPS and im talking about hardcore FPS like it hapens with somethign more than a COD title which will need the least a bit more than just noobs to yet enjoy the game, including skills and some strategy. Now in order to play such a LONG round in your FPS expecting more than 100 ppl from your team to die is one of the reason why ppl that would take seriously this kind of game wont be putting up with ruining the whole thing due to the noobism around. I know I would be getting frustrated.
    Then its the misscomunications that there will be for SURE across the teams of 8 as stated in the article.

    Those who have played at least a CS:Source should know the difficulties. As an idea is good but like i said in order for such a thing to be put in good use... I don't expect it to last like even the testing 64 player maps in CS didn't :p. Ofc I dont compare those games, don't get me wrong. And lastly it also depends on the gameplay which would also take from such title to be amazing in order to be worth to keep going back to other than the massive scale of players online in each map. Which so far hasn't been that impressive at all as in it's gameplay. If I remember correct doesn't look any better nor exciting when compared with other FPS games.

    Like I said, good idea, good effort but I do believe it won't be worth nor addictive. I get frustrated thinking of so many ppl screwing around, seriously it will be a pain. :p

  • lcmnick #2 3 years ago

    I'm prepared to give MAG a chance, but ironically, the question on my mind is just how the hell are Sony going to make money hosting such a huge game 24/7 for free?

    I really don't understand it at all where the continuing income is going to come from.

  • fjharps #3 3 years ago

    This games has got 'meh' written all over it its just the 256 online players thats going to make it sell but will people stop playing the likes of Modern Warfare 2 after a month for this? Like it was said above it can get quite confusing and frustrating.

  • davisorle #4 3 years ago

    @fjharps
    thnx for understanding my point :)

  • skillian #5 3 years ago

    "200 people - that's too many, it will be confusing!"

    "How can anyone do a big multiplayer game without charging people every month? It makes no sense!"

    Lamest comments ever, sorry guys.

    Edited by 1 at 17/08/09 @ 09:40

  • frugtkompot #6 3 years ago

    lcmnick: The same way every other large online game is making money? By selling the damned thing and DLC in its aftermath, obviously.
    Edited by 1 at 17/08/09 @ 09:42

  • betahoven #7 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:36:16 17-12-2011

  • davisorle #8 3 years ago

    @skillian
    You tell me how many games with tactical bassed capabilities have you played so far ( FPS ofc ) and what were their player limit.

    Give me a tittle example PLS do so cause so far your comment was the lamest one cause it wasn't a comment on the article. And no, I'm not sorry :p

    Now about the service, I don't see either why would you charge for this one if you ask me. They have no reason at all to make subscriptions or anything for this one. It would be instantfail and we know it.
    Edited by 1 at 17/08/09 @ 09:46

  • skillian #9 3 years ago

    Well just because no-one's donethat many people before (in an FPS) doesn't mean that it will suck. I think it's mainly technical reasons that have stopped it happening previously.

    I think the biggest I've regularly played is 64 player maps in BF2, although I think I remember playing on some hacked servers that allowed more people than that.

    edit: Planetside and WW2 Online have hundreds of players too, but it took Google for me to think of those.
    Edited by 1 at 17/08/09 @ 10:05

  • asphaltcowboy #10 3 years ago

    Sorry davisorle, I had to give your first post a -1 because I've read it a few times now and it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever :(

  • davisorle #11 3 years ago

    @asphaltcowboy
    lol its fine dude :)

    @skillian
    I didn't say it WILL suck 100% but from the point of view I see it cause here its purely a matter of opinion and NOTHING else I'm just saying it will not be pleasant in the way a game of the kind should be. That's all :) I honestly was intrigued at first from the ammount of players but when I saw them demoing it I just got all those feelings of dissapointment in a matter of fact that I just wont be able to enjoy such a game in that kind of scale. Like i said its a matter of opinion eitherway.
    & lol @ your googling... :p

  • skillian #12 3 years ago

    @davisorle

    Yeah, you're right I guess, and it could still be a poor game - I just get annoyed when developers try something new and ambitious and people just assume it won't work because they haven't seen it work before.

    I do understand why you have some concerns, but you've got to admit 256-player multiplayer could be great fun if they get it right :p

  • davisorle #13 3 years ago

    @skillian
    I totally agree with you I love FPS and I love also MMO and trust me on the first 64player testive server in CS:Source I made everyone use grenades at the same time under the bridge. Was the most fun lagfest ever.. :p But see I guess mostly made me see it that way for the fact the game is based on tactical gameplay, you know what I mean?
    Lets say it was a COD, not including objective based matches, has way more possibilities for it to work on that scale than on a game like MAG which is tactical based FPS. I'm not sure if you get my point of view yet.. lol

    Ok just imagine a Serious Sam with 256 ppl or a farcry. Now that would be tempting fun :p

  • Johnsters #14 3 years ago

    After watching the demo I wasn't really impressed.
    Looked very chaotic. Though I am willing to give a go as I prefer the bigger theatre of war over the smaller affair.
    My problem with large scale FPS is the scale of the damage. I don't know the 'ins and outs'' of the game play but I guess 128 opponents having a group meeting and then I call on an air raid, in theory I could wipe out the entire army. Also, the odds of being killed by stray bullets may get frustrating, though a tad realistic.

    BF has a different problem, most of the gun emplacements and vehicle mounted guns seem to be as powerful as a normal gun. At least in COD when you are hit by a mounted gun you are killed. Makes more sense.

  • skillian #15 3 years ago

    Letting people easily join squads within a team goes a long way towards promoting teamplay.

    I was always impressed playing BF2 with a squad of 8 at how well people worked together when you had a good squad-leader.

  • inni786 #16 3 years ago

    I think people are getting a bit confused about how the game will actually play.
    It wont be 128 players as a team, its a squad of 8 per team..
    When I first heard of this game I thought it would 256 players in a map at the same time - how the hell would that work but when actually checking the game and how it will work I can see it has potential.
    The main point is, as someone else has mentioned earlier, with modern warfare 2 coming out most people will be playing that game more that this, then again us PS3 users will have more choice as this one is a PS3 exclusive..

  • Bravestinsane #17 3 years ago

    I don't own a PS3 but this could be a big win, however i know nothing about the game only the LARGE number of people playing.

    Unless this is played on servers hosted BY Sony i don't see a way this could really work. I can't imagine people being able to host 256 players, you would need a massive upload speed to be able to do that many people. Something ISP's always look over, consitantly increasing Download speeds but with Upload speeds remaining the same. Although this is being released in US first i don't know how good speeds are over there.

    However if this is to come to the UK, i think its unlikly the marority of people will be able to host people a game.