MAG Could Support More Than 256 players – Zipper

"We built a technology that can support a huge number of players - we picked 256 because of gameplay balance, how we divide squads up, etc. But with our infrastructure, we can increase the number of players to beyond even 256 if we wanted to. There are trade-offs that would have to be made, of course, but the technology supports even more players if the need was there. That's why MAG only runs on the PS3 [...] – because the system's SPUs are so powerful that they give us the technical capability to simultaneously run 256 players in the way we do."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
PimpHandHappy3224d ago

imagine a game like Warhawk

with 500 ppl

kaveti66163223d ago

I don't care if MAG supported 1000 players. It's major draw is the size, but everything else was not well thought out. I was so excited to see what MAG was going to be, but the problems far outweigh the pros of this game.

What's the cache of having 128 players on a TEAM, if that entire team is divided into smaller independent squads? That's like admitting, "Well, we realized that a small number of people was actually more optimal for the game's missions." That in and of itself defeats the entire purpose of MAG. I would rather Zipper just made the game a 50 vs. 50 kind of deal, added much better visuals, and just made the entire thing a CTF or Team Deathmatch sort of thing.

Because as it stands, the whole tactical shooter goal that Zipper is going for is gonna fail. Every single match is going to dissolve into a bullsh!t free for all. No cooperation, no teamwork. Just a bunch of single-minded players ambling around the maps and shooting enemies.

And do you know how I know this? Simply because no matter how hard you tried, you're always going to end up with a bunch of strangers on your team who think they know how best to handle the missions.

Let's say you made a clan of 128 people that you knew, and you all agreed that you were always going to cooperate and do things right. Guess what? The chances of all 128 people meeting together and playing together are very small. And even Zipper admitted that matches don't have to be 128 versus 128, which means that now you have large maps that are built for 256 players, but you only have 100 people in the game.

I'd like to be optimistic about this game, as I am with most unreleased titles, but this one just smells like failure from a mile away.

Zipper is a talented group, but they are being a little too ambitious here. They should make another Socom and have something around 40 versus 40. That's larger than any current console online multiplayer. And the graphics could have been much better, not that they matter, but most importantly, it makes the game more stable.

Gamers play games to be heroes. They don't want to be subordinates in a game. No one wants to be Robin if they can be Batman. I don't imagine people wanting to take orders.

raztad3222d ago (Edited 3222d ago )

Reading through that wall of text I got the feeling you didnt try MAG beta. MAG is not a big question mark or bs speculations anymore, it's a working system that has been fine tuned to provide a fun experience even if you are playing with random people.

I played MAG alone, no mics, and I still managed to have a lot of fun, no trying to be a hero (it's impossible because the scale) but accomplishing objectives, thats enough to keep you entertained. You definitely can go the RAMBO way though, but I'm sure you wont last long, there are way too many weapons trying to score kills.

Tactic, slow paced but very rewarding at the same time. MAG is a must buy for me.

Simon_Brezhnev3222d ago


I guess your a pro-MW2 player

TheDeadMetalhead3222d ago

Something to think about for the sequel, perhaps?

Bungie3222d ago



i rather play a super cool shooter with 30 player online than generic shooter with 10000

and i'm sure the lag will just ruin it just like what happened in the beta

DavidMacDougall3222d ago

I got zero lag in the beta, i get more lag in MW2.

lokiroo4203222d ago (Edited 3222d ago )


How many accounts does it take to keep that bubble count up?


funny none of that is in your first post. troll on.

Bungie3222d ago


you guys get defensive about anything

i'm just saying if the gameplay is good the game will be good

it have nothing with the numbers of players

it's all about fun and innovative gameplay

i'm not bashing the game

DavidMacDougall3222d ago (Edited 3222d ago )

"....i'm sure the lag will just ruin it just like what happened in the beta."

"i'm not bashing the game"

Raf1k13222d ago

I agree with you about people wanting to go it alone and play Rambo. Happens in Battlefield games quite a bit but what you said about it being split into teams isn't quite right. It doesn't make sense to have 128 people in one group as co-ordination will be next to impossible.

It's tough enough getting 25 people in a raid to work properly together in WoW where boss encounters are scripted. Breaking the teams up into smaller groups makes them more manageable and doesn't defeat the purpose of MAG in any way since it's a modern warfare game where different squads take on different objectives.
Even Rome: Total War has it's armies broken into seperate groups.

About the large maps with small numbers of people. That's just an assumption on your part as parts of maps can easily be closed off like they are in Battlefield games.

I've not played the game but I'm willing to give it a go before deciding whether or not I like it.

DRNU203222d ago

try playing it first.

NecrumSlavery3222d ago

You would rather to play a super cool shooter with 30 online?

Give me an example of some of those?
Any on 360?
Is Halo, L4D, or COD 30 online?

No? Oh then STFU

Cause I know both Killzone 2 & Resistance 2 handle that nicely.

ThanatosDMC3222d ago

Drool Fest for a Warhawk game with that many enemies. But it better be a super gigantic map way bigger than the Ice Map.

Limited_Vertigo3222d ago

Everyone that's jumping on kaveti6616 need to be more understanding. I'm a PS3 user and I was looking forward to this game when it was first announced but I've had my doubts. I'm a PC gamer when it comes to FPS and nothing kills an online experience more than teamates that dont listen and do their own thing. 256 players makes those odds quite high. I think MAG is an interesting project and since most of my friends have already confirmed they're getting it I'm sure I will follow the trend but I'm keeping an open mind and I don't think it's going to revolutionize anything.

In my book Battlefield2 is the benchmark of squad based online gaming, if MAG is half as fun as BF2 I'll be happy.

kaveti66163222d ago (Edited 3222d ago )

I hate Modern Warfare. My problem with MAG isn't with the game itself. It's the fact that Zipper is relying on the players to be cooperative. That is where my skepticism lies. I don't think people are going to cooperate. The more people there are in a match, the greater the chance that people will go off on their own. And to me, the fact that the team of 128 is divided into smaller squads is an admission on behalf of Zipper that 128 people on a team cannot work fluidly together. 8 people can work together on a mission, and 8 other people can work together on another mission, and the whole point is that if all of the squads complete their objectives, their side will win. The players don't really have to think about it because Zipper has already pre-coordinated the whole game.

Chubear3222d ago (Edited 3222d ago )

Can you imagine 200 player MP online battles with swords, axes, bow & arrows, horses, spears. Yes, this can easily happen by year 5 of the PS3 if we show we want and support games like MAG.

If we don't then we tell developers "meh, just give us 4player co-op thingy and do so awesome graphics with copy n' paste of some other cool game and we're down."

Damn, all I can think off is Lair having thousands of NPC Dragons and a hundred dragons of actual players flying around doing battle. Gad, I hate the same ol' BS type gaming; I want true current gen gaming not last gen gaming dressed in sub current gen graphics and sub HD resolution.

dude, that's not even an issue. This is Zipper, they're known for creating games that promote team gameplay. You won't have a good time with MAG if you're the type of CoD4 rambo "I don't care if my team loses as long as I get the most XP" type gamer.

Are there gamers that want to go rambo on the game? yes but they are in small numbers and they quickly learn if you go of without following orders, you'll level up like molasses. In this game, Medics and Engineers have as good a chance at being MVP was any foot solider that goes 20K/5Deaths in a sabotage match. Most people co-operate for objective matches and those that want rambo type stuff will gravitate to modes like Domination and have a blast their.. literally :)

raztad3222d ago (Edited 3222d ago )


Dude pay attention pls. There is no place for skepticism. In the beta people actually played their role, everybody was doing what they were required to do and most didnt even have mics, so they were just following the squad leader instructions or the preassigned mission by the game.

In "small" 32x32 sabotage maps if you were on the defending side, there were 16 players defending one spot and 16 in other. If the attackers were successful a third spot opened and everybody needed to defend/attack it. It was crazy to see everybody rushing to defend the third place, the system work because 1) in those places is where the action is (map is huge) and second nobody want to lose the match.

pixelsword3222d ago (Edited 3222d ago )

Not to sound cruel, but it's so obvious you haven't played the beta it's pathetic, everything you said is undermined by a little thing called truth.

I'm not even going into detail on how a wall of fail didn't make a point because it's all based upon ignorance.

I've been in the MAG beta for months; there's rarely people going solo because they're the ones getting shot to crap because they have no back-up.

And since there's FRAGOs, people wouldn't rank-up nearly as fast because they aren't following orders. Compliance is assured due to reward; and bad leaders, team-killers, and screw-ups are generally kicked within minutes of their actions; I've seen it happen time and again.

Am I saying the game is perfect? No; it's a beta, and they need a little more tinkering in my opinion, but if they keep to that formula and have a decent variety of boards to support that game, it's pretty much a day one purchase.

Apocalypse Shadow3222d ago (Edited 3222d ago )

i can see what Kav is saying,but that's the same excuses that people use when they hate on something they don't understand,or care for.

Kav,your comments are nothing but excuses.

"there's too many players in warhawk."
"there's too many players in killzone2."
"there's too many players in uncharted2."
"there's too many players in GT5."
"there's too many players in resistance 1-2."
"there's too many players in motorstorm 1-2."

"one to eight players is enough for gaming."


and i'm not saying you're biased towards 360.sure there will be people that drive backwards,friendly fire,and don't want to play correctly with others.but what usually happens is that player or players will NOT be playing with everyone else again.they will be locked out of certain groups who don't like idiots.

i'd bet if microsoft had the system power,they would have matched sony and said we can do it too.they didn't.and won't.because they can' did it at launch with 20vs20 and said "why stop there?"

also,clan creation will also give players the ability to lock those idiots out.some may play outside the clan just to look for new recruits who also play correctly and ask them to join the larger force of players.

nothing but excuses buddy.ps3 allows bigger sizes and i'm glad that ps3 developers are at least TRYING to be next gen for consoles and not just put on a pretty face and give us the same as before.

your saying that 256 is too many is just like saying dvd is enough for games for next gen and THIS gen.let's just keep everything the same and make ps4 and xbox720 dvd based systems.

war isn't 4vs4 or 5vs5.but the name says "gears of war."ps3 fans laugh at that.

UltimateIdiot9113222d ago

I understand what you're trying to say but you have to remember the PS3 caters to everyone. Yes, there will be people who think MAG is the type of game that you can easily go Rambo on. If you try out the beta, you can realize it teamwork focus. Eventually those who are Rambo player will disappear and leave only the teamwork players.

I hate games where it's about me, myself and I. I want a game where I feel like I can work in people who can act in a team. MAG seems like the title that might the one for me. Sure there maybe more Rambo players unfortunately but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a game for those who enjoy teamwork and clan matches.

kaveti66163222d ago (Edited 3222d ago )

Okay, now you've f*cking crossed the line, and I have to call YOU out on YOUR bullshit.

Once again, the argument turns into a fricking flamebait about 360 v. PS3, and you started this.

I am in no way biased towards the Xbox 360. My post about MAG is not a stealth troll. I'm obviously willing to talk about it. Don't you EVER put me in the same category as that guy Bungie.

You're a goddamn liar and you know it.

What the hell is this?

"Kav,your comments are nothing but excuses.

"there's too many players in warhawk."
"there's too many players in killzone2."
"there's too many players in uncharted2."
"there's too many players in GT5."
"there's too many players in resistance 1-2."
"there's too many players in motorstorm 1-2."

"one to eight players is enough for gaming." "

Really Shadow? You think if you put quotes around some bullshit writing you can claim that I said those things? Setting aside the fact that Uncharted 2 is a 5 on 5 game, you need to shut the hell up, because my only problem with MAG has to do with the increased probability of individuals not following orders.

I don't know how your mind works, but I'm still conscious enough to understand that MAG is going to be a GAME and the people who will play that game will most likely NOT be accustomed to following orders.

My opinion stems from my personal experiences playing many online team games on multiple platforms. This has nothing to do with the PS3 or the 360, it has to do with the fact that players are used to playing games where they ARE the hero most of the time. You're thinking that the only people who will buy MAG are fans of Zipper and therefore they will be accustomed to playing tactical squad-based games.

That's where you guys are wrong. Sony is going to market this game to a larger audience because of the fact that this game does something no other console online game does; it puts a large amount of players in each match. So, in reality, I think A LOT of people who buy this game will not be people who played Socom.

If you don't agree with me, fine. I don't care. But you guys are idiots if you're going to label me a biased fanboy and put words in my mouth.

If MAG ends up being successful at what Zipper aims to do with it, then great. I will eat crow.

And one more thing. I DID NOT play the BETA. I wasn't trying to hide that fact, either, so it's not "painfully obvious." Others have played the beta and said that yes, people do go off on their own.

sikbeta3222d ago

I want to play what PimpHandHappy said, well not necessarily 500 players on Warhawk, but 256 will be GREATNESS

Gamers FTW!!!

Microsoft Xbox 3603222d ago

Only possible on the PS3. No other console can do it. FACT.

Apocalypse Shadow3222d ago (Edited 3222d ago )

that would make you an idiot for thinking so.

my post IMPLIES that YOU ****think**** that all games that are smaller in size for combat is okay.YOUR mentality and comments are basically saying that you don't believe that larger force games can WORK.

I SAID that they CAN work and HAVE worked on ps3.there is a difference.but people like YOU think that because games like halo or splinter cell or gears have smaller sizes....


but sony believes that with next gen,you have to push don't have to like bigger sized games and can comment on it.i'm not holding your tongue.i'm just saying just because YOU don't think it will work doesn't MAKE IT TRUE.

it has for warhawk,killzone,uncharted,res istance and every big online game for ps3.if other devs are too scared or capable on the 360 side or ps3 side,that's their loss.they should ****TRY****as it pushes online combat games forward.

and as for putting words in people's mouths,you are saying that i put you in the same category as bungie

read the sh!t above again says clearly:

*****and i'm not saying you're biased towards 360*****

guess you are blind too.i didn't say you said those things but your words speak volumes on what YOU THINK.

and i don't even know or care what bungie said as he's been on ignore for a long time. and i don't care where i put you as you mean absolutely nothing to me.but i didn't put you there.

randomwiz3222d ago

You obviously have not played the beta. Every statement that you make is null and void.

You cant have a 128vs128 without squads. A 128vs128 free for all DOES NOT WORK WELL. Example: Resistance 2(30vs30) And trust me, it really does feel like your part of an epic battle.

You say there is no teamwork, but people really get into MAG. Squad Leaders can only be Squad Leaders if they are well experienced in the game. People won't go their own separate ways, they will follow the squad leaders frago. (they get double exp if they do) Sometimes people get really into the game and act like its a real war.

The maps are well balanced. It wont be 64vs64 on a 256 player map. There are other modes like acquisition with different scaled down maps for the 64vs64.

And a clan of 128 very well could co-operate and dominate the game which is why MAG restricts your party size, but also if it just so happened they got in the same game, The OIC(i think they changed the name), could tell the Platoon Leaders what to do and the Platoon Leaders tell their Squad leaders, and the Squad leaders direct their squads.

Bottomline: MAG beta really worked out well. Being a Squad leader is extremely fun. The command hierarchy is set up EXTREMELY well. Its hard to explain but MAG just works out. Take my word for it.

agentace3222d ago

Just listen, people dont go solo because they will get ALOT LESS points and kills than if they work together the system works amazingly and your see that when you actually play it.

theres no such thing as lag on MAG or any other PS3 exclusive for that matter because of the dedicated servers (apart from uncharted 2 but thats only 5v5 so there no lag either)

DaTruth3222d ago (Edited 3222d ago )

It may appear that MAG has poor graphics; But from what I understand having read articles of interviews with the developers, MAG needed to put more levels in the beta than the average beta and it is not like they are going to make you download 25-50 gigs(6 is already a lot). The networking and gameplay are the testing ground, so they compressed the hell out of it and sacrificed the graphics, because they are not testing for graphics; They can do that with their own 256 people on site!

The 50 gig Bluray release will likely not look like that!

@Kaveti: Understand, they probably just realize that nobody wants 128 people screaming in their ear! That just won't work!

loslonelyman3222d ago

I played every stage of the MAG beta. I agree its a good CONCEPT. Yet it never translates to a TRUE strategic battle. Better Graphics and sound and making all matches top out at 50 vs 50 would have been ideal. Maybe if Zipper made having a mic activated MANDATORY to play 256 player matches would make it better. I liked the game,yet it never had that WOW factor. I had 25 friends in the beta, maybe had 5 on at any given time,so strangers with no mics were WORTHLESS.

Redempteur3222d ago

i don't understand you're not happy that a team based game use a chain of command and team action to work ?
yo'll never see 128 people in a war together ..but smaller groups with each one a spécific task .Mag was made this way because it's how war works

and besides because of the objectives based icons ( not even counting the commander objectives )are clear enough that i played 4 days ( beta times were awefull ) without a mic and i won most of my games ..

pimpmaster3222d ago

i was looking forward to this game and even thought of it as a AAA game in the ps3s library, but after playing the beta , meh its nowhere near AAA. it feels so generic and the graphics are laughable. they should of people fall for that trap where bigger numbers means more fun but this is one thing that doesnt with multiplayer. 256 players? who cares when its only really 1v1 encounters. i feel like they need to really re arrange their priorities with this game and made it a MMO FPS, like borderlands but bigger an with xp and all that. a raid team of 12 people going into a dungeon type thing would own so much! too bad they didnt do that, instead we get some lame versus shooter :(

that reminds me, WTF ever happend to that FPS online game where you plaed as spies. that sh1t just totaly dissapeared off the radar

Proxy3222d ago

There's plenty available. Fortunately some developers try new things.

If it's successful, we can expect to see some new (read: new) game elements brought to the FPS genre. Otherwise, we have MW3 to look forward to.

gololo3222d ago

they probably havent even played the beta. i havent really seen more cooperation in a game lately, since the maps are designed in a way that choke points promote cooperation, since that is where the most action goes fact no even on BC2, I tended to run on my own, not caring about defending a post since most people were just sniping caring only about the any case i love MAG and i wish the beta was still going on cuz i cant wait

pixelsword3222d ago (Edited 3222d ago )

"I played every stage of the MAG beta. I agree its a good CONCEPT. Yet it never translates to a TRUE strategic battle. Better Graphics and sound and making all matches top out at 50 vs 50 would have been ideal".

So Better Graphics and sound will make a true strategic battle.

the numbers are fine; it's pretty balanced all the way around in terms of confrontations, or what examples do you have of it being unbalanced?

jjohan353222d ago

After playing over 30 hours of MAG beta, I got really bored of assaulting the same maps over, over, over, and over again. I got sick of defending each map regardless of game mode. I got sick of running to the exact same objectives over and over.

Pricey3222d ago

"What's the cache of having 128 players on a TEAM, if that entire team is divided into smaller independent squads? "

Warfare has moved on since 1914, lots of people split into squadrons. You don't walk slowly towards the enemy on mass.

+ Show (33) more repliesLast reply 3222d ago
Bodster3223d ago

I have to admit that sounds amazing, Warhawk (or Starhawk) with 500 players with seamless ground to space battles.

The possibilities are endless!

DaTruth3222d ago

That does sound amazing!

mario8883223d ago (Edited 3223d ago )

FYI : Mag is based on Squad combat : Squad = 8 , 4 squads make a platoon , 4 platoons make a company. If any of you have ever watched Band of Brothers they were Easy Company and there Squads were about 12 men each. Winters became Company Commander on D-Day because Meacham died and eventually became Battalion Commander.

Mag will be find and if you don't like it then continue to play your MW2 and BTF2.

FYI: You can camp in MAg but you still have to get close to achieve the objective. For you COD MW2 noob campers , I see you first and you are dead. You could never do this in COD because thee is no auto aim. Those guys that got owned will either continue to play the game and get better, still suck and play the game or b!tch and go back to COD MW2 saying how the controls suck like Killzone 2. Video is bad because it was filmed at low resolution.

cyclindk3222d ago

I want 500 vs 500, invasion of Normandy remake.

arakouftaian3222d ago

but is way to big

i just fell like a tine loser in a big war

to bad this guys stop making Socom for this thing

i hope the rumors are true and they come back with socom very soon

socom is too good to ignore.