LOL @ all of you..

LOL @ both gaming companies..

The lag will be so bad none of you will even want to remember the games name=/ Listen to their little white lies about no lag...go ahead=P I'll be sitting here, $60 dollars richer than all of you, laughing while you're throwing controllers=P

So yeh another PS3 exclusive that is already trashed before we even see a real trailer.

Oh shut up will you, no offence.

There's such thing as dedicated servers, now leave that lag shit alone. It's funny how you already know the game will lag when its not even out, smart.

And @ OP, it's not a iteration of socom, Abigale from SCEA confirmed it here.

Hi, All-

I wanted to make sure you all saw my response in this thread. We felt it was important that we manage expectations and make sure you aren't expecting MAG to be an "iteration of SOCOM." So just to repeat what I said there:

"I just wanted to give you a heads up in response to the quote about MAG being an "iteration of SOCOM." I wanted to clarify that this is a misstatement.  MAG is a brand new IP and is unrelated to SOCOM. It is not a sequel nor built upon SOCOM. It will be a brand new experience."

Thanks! 

http://boardsus.playstation.com/playstation/board/message?board.id=mag&thread.id=10803

well said smash. so much win in that post there is nothing more to add.

I was mocking that fact that people in console world always seem to think that they invented everything. Especially Sony fans, when in fact most of it is just a few years late. Heck the Q3 engine (not game) allows an unlimited number of players- wouldn't want to try it though. Obviously if anybody wanted to they could do this the tech is hardly new. But frankly its just a stupid idea. 64 or 100 maybe, but even that seems pretty pointless.

Maybe it should have been: Yesterday's graphics and control scheme today. Coupled with tomorrow's bad idea. Can't wait to see the ping on these matches, even with a dedicated server.

I've played in both 64 and 128 player games and to be honest it's a disaster waiting to happen in everyone I've played. When you have too many players in a game then the impact a individual has on the overall game becomes diminished a great deal and hence the satisfaction of playing the game. Both MAG and Huxley will be terrible and you can quote me on that.

The only possible on PS3 statement is just someone crying for attention on their project, it's been done before, it will be done again on other hardware.

To solve that, you shall be divided in to squads of eight

Then it's hardly a 128v128 game is it really?

It is because it's all going on at the same time in the same instance on the same server.

What it isn't, is 128 players on one side of a battle front and 128 on the other in a royal rumble battle, Troy style. That's not how modern warfare is conducted.

Everything will presumably be broken down into rifle teams and squads, with squads being able to link up for larger tasks.

Mainly I'm just curious as to how this whole thing will work from a command and control perspective since you can't have multiple squads on the same side running around independently without some form of blue force tracking or coms and a way to react accordingly to battlefield shifts.

It'll be like a proper war...