MAG unloading Jan. 26

Sony's 256-player PS3-exclusive military shooter now officially delayed until next year; community event planned for PAX.

When stores listed the PlayStation 3-exclusive shooter MAG as being delayed last month, Sony Computer Entertainment America was dismissive. "We have made no announcements in regards to MAG's launch date," said a rep. "Retailers are speculating."

Happy New Year?

Today, they speculate no longer. "The team at Zipper and SCEA are happy to announce that MAG will hit North American retailers on January 26th, 2010," read a chipper PlayStation Blog post today from SCEA director of development Seth Luisi. No reason was given for the delay of the game, which Sony said would ship this year at its Electronic Entertainment Expo press briefing in June.

Developed by former SOCOM specialty studio Zipper Interactive, MAG is an ambitious online military shooter that will feature 256 players in a single game. Each player will assume a different rank on each side, viewing the battlefield according to their station. Commanders will see the action from a top-down view from which they can direct lower-level soldiers, who will see from a first-person POV on the front lines. GameSpot's E3 preview has more information on the title, which may--or may not--be pay-to-play.

As a consolation prize for the delay, SCEA is having a MAG Community party in downtown Seattle during next month's Penny Arcade Expo. For more details on the event and instructions on how to RSVP, head over to the PlayStation Blog.

501 Comments

  • shadow-qtr

    Posted Dec 23, 2009 11:10 am PT

    any one got the code for this game? if any one got more than 1 code please send it to me my PSN : shadow-ahedgehog

  • king_chapeton15

    Posted Aug 23, 2009 5:01 pm PT

    just saw beta videos on youtube theres no lag you will only lag if you have a crappy connection of course but other than that those with 2wire or d-link will do fine

  • the_mitch28

    Posted Aug 18, 2009 12:56 am PT

    Hahah i'm jealous of the PS3 mic problem, I would prefer it that way... -much- less annoying.

  • kejigoto

    Posted Aug 17, 2009 11:19 pm PT

    Definitely confused as to how this will all play out considering there really hasn't been any complete gameplay footage of an entire battle...

    Plus I can easily see certain positions not wanting to ever be filled and people dropping out whenever they end up in that spot. Plus if battles average around an hour long it just seems like it will be abit much for a single game. Good job on Sony's part for making a game of this size, I just don't see it working out too well once real gamers get involved and the usual nonsense of online play sets in on this.

  • sensual-_-panda

    Posted Aug 17, 2009 8:26 pm PT

    1vs1 factions, not 3 at once

  • skywarp001

    Posted Aug 17, 2009 5:48 pm PT

    wondering and confused how the three factions fight in 1 mode/battle. is it 3 teams all verse eachother? or is it 1 vs 1 team depending on map type like battlefield style?

  • Alphamale001

    Posted Aug 17, 2009 12:17 pm PT

    I know what my wife is getting my for my B-day!

  • claykenobi

    Posted Aug 17, 2009 11:03 am PT

    @HollowDarkstar Actually SCEA (Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc.) does have a large part in the production and creation of the game..The SCEA certification signifies that its holders can handle advanced design responsibilities and lead roles in creating applications.

  • KingDustero

    Posted Aug 17, 2009 11:00 am PT

    @rholding2000

    Did you even watch the gameplay or watch the interviews? The game doesn't split the people up or keep them in one area. ALL 256 could be in the middle of the map if they wanted to. A player doesn't have to stay with is squad or do what his squad leader wants him to do. Now this player would be hated by his squad and wouldn't get as much XP, but he could go to the other side of the map if he wanted to.

    This game is a true 128v128 battle. The thing is that it isn't a team death match. It basically an objective game. Both teams are split up into smaller 8 man teams. Each has a leader who tells his team what to attack or defend depending on what side they're on. As you can see from the map in the gameplay there is one center area of the map with objectives for the defending team to defend on the outside of the square. On all four sides the attacking team is split up. They have to make their way to the center of the map and take control or destroy the objectives. If one side is completely taken over by the attacking team on onee side then they could go and help take over another side.l They aren't stuck in that area to do nothing once they complete all of their objectives.

    Basically what I'm trying to say is that there aren't any visible or invisible walls that are keeping players away from each other. Anyone can go anywhere they want to. They don't need to stay in an area or even next to their squad.

    @billyjunxix

    The devs confirmed that the game WON'T be Pay to Play. The 60 bucks or whatever you normally pay for a game will be all that you will have to pay.

  • HollowDarkstar

    Posted Aug 17, 2009 10:47 am PT

    @REA24409

    Sony Didn't Make The Games, They're Only Exclusive To Sony.

    Don't Be Preaching Them Lies.

  • HUNTER-VENOM posted Aug 17, 2009 10:45 am PT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    HUNTER-VENOM

    Posted Aug 17, 2009 10:45 am PT (hide)

    I feel another HAZE in the air.......

  • claykenobi

    Posted Aug 17, 2009 10:43 am PT

    I'm staying optimistic at least until it's release reviews.. I don't think Sony would attempt a game like this if there wasn't at least a little confidence they could pull it off successfully. If it's great, a lot of people will be buying a PS3. A lot of people..

  • SirSpoon84

    Posted Aug 17, 2009 10:30 am PT

    "comment on this video" GET RID OF THE COMMERCIALS!! SPECIALLY THE LONG ONES!!! BLARG!

  • shadowhunter0

    Posted Aug 17, 2009 9:52 am PT

    @ Hvac0120 from his profile it seems that he doesn't even have a ps3 here is just anther xbot that jealous that we get to play the game and he doesn't

  • Hvac0120

    Posted Aug 17, 2009 9:09 am PT

    @BigDaddy973 The Playstation Network can handle a game like this just fine. What makes you think that it cannot?

    As mentioned by @viewtifuljon111, Resistance 2 has 60 player battles and they run very well on the network.

    It sounds to me like you have a problem with your personal network, you have never played a game on the PSN, or you are just making negative comments for the sake of doing so.
    _

  • BigDaddy973 posted Aug 17, 2009 8:52 am PT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    BigDaddy973

    Posted Aug 17, 2009 8:52 am PT (hide)

    I just feel the Playstation Network is not up to par for this kind of game.

  • viewtifuljon111

    Posted Aug 17, 2009 8:40 am PT

    @ GBPackersrule

    Wait, what? What was wrong with the 60 player battles in Resistance 2? I remember them. I thought they were pretty neat. Not my cup of tea, but still fun, and most surprisingly lag free. Even on my sad little connection where I get ~45 kb/s downloads.

  • Hvac0120

    Posted Aug 17, 2009 8:35 am PT

    @TripSe7en Games like Socom and now MAG encourage PS3 owners to go out and get a mic. I'm not really worried about this game lacking communication between teammates.

    -----------------------------------------
    I signed up for the Beta. I'm hoping I get in. I'm anxious to give this game a try. Even without the 256 player hype, I think this game has a lot of promise with the way it handles teams and battles.
    _

  • TripSe7en posted Aug 17, 2009 8:04 am PT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    TripSe7en

    Posted Aug 17, 2009 8:04 am PT (hide)

    Over Ambitious IMO... if I wanted to play 8v8, I'd play SOCOM, or even better RSV2 on XBL.

  • gobbo00 posted Aug 17, 2009 7:19 am PT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    gobbo00

    Posted Aug 17, 2009 7:19 am PT (hide)

    I would be very suprised if this game makes that deadline, look how long killzone 2 took. Late 2010 seems more realistic, APB has 156 less players on subsription based servers. The game sounds like the best online shooter ever until you see it's on PSN. Land of mutes & wirless connection theifs.

  • rholding2000

    Posted Aug 17, 2009 7:01 am PT

    been following the comments on this game and there are a lot of valid comments which make me further think that this game could be 256 players split up. Yes 256 gamers will make up the game but you wont ever see them. Youll be in a squad of 8, vs 8 when ur objective is held you stay there and defend and hope the other teams of 16(u and enemy) all green light so to speak. the option of moving to other games/areas will be available . . . i dont know, i jthought about that while playing a 32 vs 32 on CS:source on a very good connection with a top end pc and it isnt all that great, too many nades spoil the broth!!!

  • kvan33

    Posted Aug 17, 2009 6:50 am PT

    Shouldn't this be called MOG - Massively Overrated Game?

  • TripSe7en

    Posted Aug 17, 2009 6:36 am PT

    If this was on XBL I would play it, but I can't stand playing strategic shooters on the PSN because no one has a mic to communicate with and the network is so cumbersome when it comes to adding and managing a friends list or party...

  • picklesrocks

    Posted Aug 17, 2009 1:36 am PT

    it looks ok, the only real selling point is the fact that it has 256 players, actualy shooting looks kinda boring

  • NielsNL

    Posted Aug 17, 2009 1:28 am PT

    Delays > Rushed games

  • REA24409

    Posted Aug 17, 2009 12:52 am PT

    @GBPackersrule
    Wow, way to go champ, you managed to name 1 crappy game Sony made. Resistance1 and 2, Killzone1 and 2, the Ratchet and Clank series, the Socom series, the God of War series, and many other titles were all made by Sony and were all great games! Sony usually does always get the job done. And by the way go Bears.

  • GBPackersrule posted Aug 17, 2009 12:41 am PT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    GBPackersrule

    Posted Aug 17, 2009 12:41 am PT (hide)

    @Clive-Owen

    "SONY always does the job well"

    Really? Explain Lair.

  • killerfox39967 posted Aug 16, 2009 11:18 pm PT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    killerfox39967

    Posted Aug 16, 2009 11:18 pm PT (hide)

    I hate to disappoint everyone, but this game will definitely lag. DO you really think they selected anything but extremely high-end connections for the test demo? The average game will have plenty of people with bad connections. And anyway you only fight like 8 people at a time.

  • billyjunxix

    Posted Aug 16, 2009 10:49 pm PT

    I like this game, this game has a lot of potential but if its a PAY AND PLAY then i wont get it, this is the other reason why i chose PS3 to play for free.

  • GBPackersrule

    Posted Aug 16, 2009 10:18 pm PT

    Game looks good. Just hope it doesn't go the way of Haze. The idea of 256 multi-player already sounds like a failure waiting to happen. Remember the supposed 60 player battles on Resistance? Because I don't. Or the months long battles in EndWar? Pff. Yeah right. But as a whole it looks promising. Definitely worth a look.

  • monson21502

    Posted Aug 16, 2009 10:09 pm PT

    brendanhunt1 Posted Aug 16, 2009 8:43 pm GMT is there more than 1 map yes only one. thats why it was delayed. so they can get the DLC ready. just like warhawk it will be 8 bucks per map

  • parrot_of_adun

    Posted Aug 16, 2009 9:35 pm PT

    @feryl06- "I just wish this game was 128 vs 128, instead of teams of 8."

    Is that a joke? It's been made very clear that it will be 128 vs 128, but each player is assigned to a SQUAD (of 8.) within the team.

  • HollowDarkstar

    Posted Aug 16, 2009 9:31 pm PT

    @WolfGrey

    If You Noticed Those Were Developers.

    Of Course They'd Have Good Connection Unlike Lower-Class People.

  • king_chapeton15

    Posted Aug 16, 2009 8:52 pm PT

    @oishio

    u copied that comment from other users

  • Jhraxlin

    Posted Aug 16, 2009 8:37 pm PT

    If I had a PS3 I'd probably get this, but alas, I do not. If I did though, Sniper all the way. =}

  • WolfGrey

    Posted Aug 16, 2009 7:44 pm PT

    @HollowDarkstar

    Lol.No offense but speaking they have already done testing involving the gameplay with the larger amount of players without any lag, its you who needs to get their facts straight.

    And by going by the amount of gamers now between the two online, a big movement will most likely happen.

  • Arturo84

    Posted Aug 16, 2009 7:21 pm PT

    i hope the 256 gameplay is smooth and free if so am willing to give sony my money

  • oishio posted Aug 16, 2009 7:15 pm PT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    oishio

    Posted Aug 16, 2009 7:15 pm PT (hide)

    finally, a reason to turn the PS3 on again....... better clear off the dust.

  • maverick_76

    Posted Aug 16, 2009 6:56 pm PT

    I can't wait to play this, finally we can have full scale battles, freaking awesome!

  • name-unknown

    Posted Aug 16, 2009 6:19 pm PT

    it probly won't take the 360 out thats crazy talk. but it will definitely compete with a lot of its games.

  • Fallen119

    Posted Aug 16, 2009 5:52 pm PT

    They should have a free for all mode for this game imagine that!

  • irunfar

    Posted Aug 16, 2009 5:43 pm PT

    I'm guessing they delayed the release until next year to help beef up their revenue numbers. By now, companies have given up hope on this fiscal year, so that move makes sense. It should help their stock a little bit... Still, I'm sick of waiting for this one.

  • Blood_Diamond

    Posted Aug 16, 2009 4:53 pm PT

    @beekayjay: Cash grab aka the EA games business plan

  • Javieralijandro

    Posted Aug 16, 2009 4:50 pm PT

    I hope this isnt another socom confrontation, at release.

  • CWSoccer07

    Posted Aug 16, 2009 4:32 pm PT

    Why are people complaining about others that are critical about this game will work? It's a completely valid point. Games aren't made to support 256 multiplayer on purpose. It's all about networking logistics. Think about it, with most games, sending information to the clients' (gamers) console requires a certain amount of bandwidth, and vice versa. Now most games are 16 players max (most, not all), and that usually pushes players bandwidth and latency. Now multiply all that data by 16.

    It's not that we don't want it to work and want it to fail, but come on, you have to be realistic as well. I just don't see how it would work in the real world where you have people on the East Coast playing people on the West Coast, and you have people likely sharing their bandwidth with other family members.

  • HollowDarkstar

    Posted Aug 16, 2009 4:15 pm PT

    @WolfGrey

    Do Really Think This 'Game' Will End The Xbox 360?
    The Xbox 360 Is Also Going To Get Price Cuts.

    Lag Will Overrun The Fun If You Like It Or Not.

    Get Your Facts Straight.

    There WILL Always Be Lag In A Game, And My Making It 256 Players Will Be Horrible. Your Voice Chat Would Most Likely Lag And Make It Hard For You To Understand Commands.

  • brendanhunt1

    Posted Aug 16, 2009 4:14 pm PT

    seriously though ABP does look good. (although CURRENTLY not confirmed on ANY console just pc) im getting MAG when it comes out.

  • brendanhunt1

    Posted Aug 16, 2009 4:07 pm PT

    "come on. what online only game will be equiped with one map"
    .....ABP.

  • D3A7HJ0K3R

    Posted Aug 16, 2009 4:07 pm PT

    yay is all i have to say.

advertisement

Related Content

Matches based on text similarity.

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!

Related Game

MAG Boxshot
MAG

Game Stats

  • Rank:
    5 of 84,348
    (down by 1)
    PS3 Rank:
    2 of 988
    Highest Rank:
    1 in 2009
    Tracking:
    5,534 Track It»
    Wishlists:
    2,604 Wish It»
  • Users Now Playing:
    273
  • Number of Players:

    Massively Multiplayer

  • Top 5 User Tags:
    1. mag
    2. massive action game
    3. online
    4. ps3
    5. zipper interactive
  • Teen Rating Description

    Titles rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language. Learn more

Full Game Details »Close

Related Games

Recent News

See All News »

Site Blogs