# Players Online | Forums

[ms-kleaneasy]

There has understandably been some ongoing confusion over the number of players GR Future Soldier will support online after some conflicting statements on the subject. We’ve been looking into the matter for you all and while the answer does not give you a precise final answer it will hopefully explain where some of the confusion has come from

"At E3 we announced that multiplayer would be 6v6 online, which we knew at the time was a solid experience. As with all production cycles, various game aspects can change. We have not gone into great detail about multiplayer and will at a later date. It's still very much in development."

[SASIncrement]

One is let to believe that the number of players GRFS will support on-line multiplayer is left to last minute details, based on what competition puts out on the ever growing market.

[ms-kleaneasy]

The games release is approx 6+ months away, not confirming at this stage the numbers online is not leaving it till the last minute

[xSFG_GHOSTSx]

We could have at least one image of the multiplayer ...
The real fans are not disappointed but the lack of information makes them nervous.

[bazzam1974]

If the only reson the game was pushed back was because of the full line up at christmas then the MP should be at the point of things like this sorted out already remember the beta should be release now ! The dev's are behind on making this game pure and simple all they will show is a hands off demo of single player the whole summer beta thing was just a con to sell SSC

[ms-kleaneasy]

Originally posted by bazzam1974:
If the only reson the game was pushed back was because of the full line up at christmas .....

IF being the operative word, we've thrashed that discussion out many times. At the end of the day it doesn’t really matter what the reasons were or what people believe them to be, what matters is the devs are using that time to its full potential which is just what we want them to do

[Melee316]

True they are using the time to make it better, but then that goes back to the whole Beta crap too, wouldn't you want to put that out at the same time to get feedback and have time to make it even better?

Anyway it's good to know they can still remain as vague as ever. I think your theory about different modes with different numbers is a good idea, whether it's true or not because some modes could do better with 6 on 6 while there is nothing wrong with 8 on 8 for basic sharpshooter. Like campaign in graw would be fine with 12 and such. It's a decent idea if they apply it to different modes, but having it in every mode is dumb.

But since they are still being vague, which is the usual, can only speculate.

[x10OBMOC]

I feel like the launch of this title is giving me deja vu! It doesn't appear UBI learned anything with the botched launch of Conviction. I really wish someone of high standing would read this. The vagueness and missinformation that is leading up to this titles launch, the botched summer beta, the trickle down of information or no info for that matter is all leading up to another D quality title from UBI.

This is the way things should of gone.

1. A dev blog similar to EA's Madden Dev blog should of been used for a title of this magnitude. Describing the new systems like tether.

2. When rebooting a franchise it is good to grab feedback from the customer. Supporting the community with contests and mini games and prizes, and exclusive info is a must.

3. The beta should of released on time to provide ample time for the fans and people who will buy the game on day one to play test the hell out of the game and report bugs and post suggestions. Granted I understand out of every 100 suggestions there might only be one good idea. But when you start gathering up 4-5 of these ideas and you implement them into the product you really start to dive into the AAAA quality department and are really making a fun & innovative product for the customer.

4. The game should of been delayed for the release window change but in all honesty has anyone looked at the release window in early 2011? The number of games is crazy. Mortal Kombat, GO3, Marvel vs Capcom 3, Bulletstorm, Dead Space 2, Rage, Dragon Age 2, and Killzone 3. This is just a partial list. Who knows what is schedule for the end of this year that will also be delayed. I think the game delay should of been as far as July.

5. More extended gameplay videos should of been released by now. Epic already released a walk through video of Bulletstorm and the game looks really fun and innovative. Seeing videos like this for Ghost Recon would be greatly appreciated and would advertise and help promote the game. Also many questions could be answered from actually seeing some gameplay.

I bet I could keep going. The point is Ubi doesn't seem confident in the game. They are hiding it from us. They don't want us to see the drastic changes that they made to the franchise. Just like they did for Conviction. A few weeks before release we will get a demo/beta that will show us the one level that resembles what we liked about the past games. This will fool all of us into buying the game, thinking that all our prayers have been answered. In reality it is all a "ruse". Don't fall for it. Ubi has this vision for GR just like they did for Conviction and no matter what the customer does or says they will bring that vision to market. Our feedback is not wanted.

[FORGOTTEN HER0]

Why is it that the people who say Ubi doesn't want our feedback, are also the same people who try to give Ubi feedback?

Ubi's way of marketing GRFS is no secret to any of us here. We all know that they have a vision for a game and that they want to bring that vision to life without our help. It's also no secret that many of the people here don't share the same vision as Ubisoft does. Further hurting our chances of 'helping' in my opinion.

[x10OBMOC]

"The opinion of ignorance is one best ignored!"