I think it is an extremely poor decision and absolute garbage addition. Stop trying to milk people with limited time FOMO trash. Can we please just go back to the days of trying to make a quality game for the dedicated fanbase that has helped make you who you are today and follow that up with more quality DLC? Instead of mediocre half-baked and half-finished ideas chasing fads and fanbases that already have games in established markets, go back to what made you actually unique and give people a reason to buy your games beyond just general boredom from the norm.

Ubi definitely deserves a round of applause for this one! They listen and deliver so well...
(Sarcasm in case anyone had any doubts)

Now why can't something this nice be made by Ubi so that all can enjoy such an experience and not just those on pc? Rhetorical question, one is actually passionate about the subject matter and the other... well, I just don't know judging from what has been presented thus far.

@kean_1 you do realize they only just replaced the head of the Editorial Board, right? They haven't been on the job long enough to enact any changes...

And no, Frontline is indicative of nothing, it's a F2P game...

If you want to talk about real fears, talk about what the new head of the Editorial Board is into - "Everything Social". He comes from Rider's Republic. My concern, is he pushes Ghost Recon into an MMORPG-lite....

Let's all hope the last two years have been a wake up call to Ubisoft

So I guess we are just going to ignore the fact that there has been feedback for what fans want out of Ghost Recon since at least Wildlands' release if not before dating back to March 2017 of which nearly all was ignored in how they came to what was in all intent supposed to originally be an MMORPG-lite Ghost Recon game with Breakpoint. Filled with Gear score and skill point progression along with a Division style raid. But hey, we finally have our option for bloused boots...

Just because yourself and a few others believe that there is going to be some other story driven Ghost Recon game in the future, doesn't mean it necessarily is actually true. There has been no announcement whatsoever of such a game in the making and if there were, the moment to have announced such a thing would have been at the anniversary announcement in order to try and get the franchise back on track to something in line with it's origins and the fanbase. At least with this I can almost see why some hold hope for such a thing due to the abomination of communication practices that Ubi enacts. But again, there has been only Frontlines as the hyped up future of Ghost Recon announcement made by Ubi.

If we actually look at the way Ubi has conducted business since Breakpoint's disastrous release, I can't see any notable changes. Communication? Still worthless. Updates? Nothing in a timely manner, no hotfixes, and filled with more one step forward, two steps back content. You could say changes take time due to the new Editorial Board, but I recall seeing other posts stating that things such as communication are within Ubi-Paris' power to conduct how they see fit. Which in itself seems like the best way to start actively engaging the community in order to avoid more ridiculous blunders such as the Frontlines announcement.

@jackboot_77 Well I suppose its a good thing that Ubi went this route instead of just enabling a clan tag/emblem feature in the gunsmith where you could simply make your own insignia to personalize your item (Something COD has been doing or has done at the very least). It only also enables Ubi to create artificial limitations to raise prices that could have instead been easily implemented in a number of consumer friendly methods.

@jackboot_77 No, I'm not saying giving you an M4 today is bad, I'm saying the practice of purposefully limiting digital products within a game is bad. Creating a superficial limitation in order to justify price gouging is bad. Given Ubi's record as is where they paywalled Crye clothing and several camo patterns in Breakpoint that were previously part of Wildlands' base edition I don't expect to wait long before they finally oblige the community with some fan requests but purposefully limit them so only a select few obtain them for ridiculous prices among which some will have obtained it just to resell and price gouge the next person. At every point Ubi takes a profit and is perfectly fine with the price gouging because at the end of the day it just makes them more money. When they could have just made that same item for all in the MTX store and had a simple emblem editor feature for players to personalize their gear.

Then why not hold off on supporting a bad business practice and instead push for features that have already existed freely and easily within reason? Clans used to be a normal thing from Ghost Recon 2 and Ghost Recon 2 Summit Strike, granted those games also had multiple pvp modes and were no where near as limited as Ghost War. I can't say I've been the biggest fan of COD either, but their MW2019 game's gunsmith really set a standard from my experience in terms of what all it offered. To me, it is what should have naturally evolved from what Ubi had with Wildlands' gunsmith.

This topic begs the question… What do casual players want from Ghost Recon that’s different from hardcore fans?

While there’s probably a wide spectrum of players that range from goofing off on Arcade difficulty to mil-sim, there’s no doubt in my mind that everyone appreciates authenticity and immersion... Believable, real world environments, weapons, enemies, missions, sound effects, vehicles, etc.

When the last COD Modern Warfare has missions that would have been iconic and in general what I would consider the norm and standard as high praised portions of the campaign such as the "Clean House" mission as well as the initial terrorist compound raid section it is difficult for me to buy into the idea that unless we cater to arcade rocket chopper and sponge enemies among other simplified gameplay themes that Ghost Recon will fail to grow or lack success. Those very missions reminded me more of old school Rainbowsix and Ghost Recon more so than anything COD and yet it is in COD of all things and not anything Tom Clancy.

I can think of several requests from popular mainstream games that I have seen repeatedly detested by others as pushing the game to be too much of a milsim and would chase away fans, but yet these things exist in a popular mainstream game. Different types of bullets? RDR2. Clothing being meaningful for the environment due to temp/weather? Again, RDR2. Firearm maintenance? Once again, RDR2. If anything, all of this adds up to tell me that people will buy into a well thought out and immersive game. Not a sim, but an immersive gameplay experience and not some colossal mix of half-baked ideas that are not even fully developed. If anything, I think Ghost Recon should buy into this ideology of making a focused and immersive game with a single of purpose of being a great squad-based tactical shooter (4 is not a squad) instead of this wide varied idea of Ghost Recon offering up every genre and in the end just being a mediocre mess of ideas.

So what makes it immersive for me? Authentically detailed firearms, clothing, gear, missions, as well as enemies. What follows is more so directed towards Ubi, but if anyone cares to read further or comment, feel free to do so.

When it comes to firearms, any time you change the actual mag capacities to some other "game balancing" decision such as so many DMRs having a ridiculous 15 round count when the mag should be holding 20 it is something I cannot avoid being irritated by. I absolutely loathe decisions such as that to no end and want to type out more of a response to adequately express how much I hate such decisions, but that would end with me leaving a spiteful unconstructive message. Suppressors nerfing damage is another irritant as well and something the COD 2019 gunsmith addressed in a better way, though they still had one suppressor option that did nerf damage. Wildlands actually had a sound stat that would have been the perfect suppressor modifying stat going forward for the use of different suppressors, but nothing was done with that fact. Having an accurate representation of a sight picture when aiming utilizing optics or iron sights is something else that creates or breaks that immersive experience and is something that is horribly wrong with most if not all current in game optics. Ballistics also need to be accurately represented in game as well. Not your game balancing decision and modification of said ballistics, but the actual velocities and drop of a given round through a particular barrel length.

Moving on to clothing and gear. Standards such as the Crye clothing and gear as well as multicam should never be your natural pick for MTX or rare reward items. Nor should you change or modify those things to create some fantasy modern spin on them as you did with the Crye combat shirt in Breakpoint. It looks like garbage in that game due to it not looking authentic. The lack of gear and pouches and minimal effort put towards detailing gear also sticks out like a sore thumb. There is a reason why the COD mil-sim cosmetics were brought up often when they were introduced. Authentically detailed gear in itself is attractive and desirable, more so over the Ubi fantasy take on clothing and gear. Having a bare bones vest or belt is ridiculous and just looks like some cheap airsoft imitation rather than anything authentic. Attention to detail and accurately representing those items as utilized in game is important. Keeping things realistic to what would be expected within the next five years is also important, in other words, get rid of the fantasy tech that doesn't even exist in a state that could be field tested. Friggin Harry Potter cloaks....

When it comes to missions, I hope I never have to help a brat teen for the sake of their mommy issues ever again. Nor should I ever have to help some stranger make a fishing lure out of gold and jade. Escorting a convoy of food and medical supplies or even clearing the route before hand would not be completely out of the norm in comparison to a garbage nonsensible fetch quest. Keep things in line with what special forces units would actually be tasked with and not the added insanity of ridiculous fetch quests.

When it comes to enemies, take the above comments on firearms, clothing and gear, and simply apply it to the enemies. No sith lords are needed. No discount Harry Potter troops either. Nor spongy ridiculous armored up units. Going back to Wildlands and Unidad, why didn't they actually wear camo instead of the black uniform with the red pin stripe down the side of their pants? It looks silly. More importantly, work on their AI. Have them actually work as a team to suppress and move. Not sure why I can watch enemies organize and move in some form of a coordinated fashion in MGSV or even from enemies from Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising and yet Breakpoint which was released four years or so after MGSV has such pitiful AI. Perhaps if a more purposeful vision of the game was directed and less effort was placed among trying to appeal to everyone with so many ill conceived ideas and features more time could have been spent on bettering the AI.

Finally, have an actual squad of 6-12, or vary it depending on player choice based off of a mission briefing. Stop relying so much on all of this fantasy tech or magical instantaneous reinforcements from an indigenous force and go back to the basics of relying on your squad. You don't have to exclude an indigenous force, but it should not be a magical automatic win button at beckon call instantaneously at the ready. Allow for some planning and for the player to make the error of being unprepared and having to figure out how to proceed from that error. If that means having multiple possible paths to mission success all the better.

Questions? Comments? Snide Remarks?

@eagleyezx Thanks for the update, didn't expect to be able to try this out any time soon, so that is pretty awesome that it is available now.

@mars388502 Haven't read all of the posts, so if I missed something, let me know. I take it as a proficiency progression similar to RDO, where your ADS and reload speeds become better, could even do weapon swap and holster speeds.

As for unlocking certain kits, I'd imagine and be alright if that were to be strictly a cosmetic change. As an example, say changing the handguards from a classic picatinny quadrail to a geissele MK8 with M-LOK. I know there would be weight savings in such a change, and could be shown with the picatinny adding a minimal amount of added recoil control due to weight vs faster ADS time with a geissele, but I wouldn't want such a perk system being relegated to unlocks when you are supposed to be a tier one soldier with access to any firearms you want. So were it strictly a cosmetic change that required unlocking it would be something I'm not going to be too annoyed with compared to actual performance changes that was progression locked.

@eagleyezx Based off of the youtube vid, Reforger sounds more like an early access actual Beta to sort out bugs for the ARMA 4 release. Still looking forward to it and hope that it is good, but due to so many games launching in a broken and buggy state it is still one of those time will tell kind of things.

Does anyone know if it is supposed to support co-op gameplay and if so, how many players? Co-op with at least 6-8 others is something I would mainly want out of such a game. I'd still check it out for pvp, but can't say that would be my main interest in it.

@mars388502 I would like it to be up to player choice based on a known mission objective and intel brief. I would be perfectly happy with having up to 16 in some type of raid, convoy, or other type of mission expecting unavoidable conflict. At the same time, for something as simple as a recon mission with the potential to snipe a high value target I would be perfectly happy setting out with just four in total. Let me dictate what I view best fits the mission based on the information at hand.

As a general expectation though I would expect the majority of the game to be built around a squad of 6 or 8 as well as the ability to play co-op with that many as well where a single player will take a single AI slot's place with the remainder filled with AI. Though again, if co-op were like GR2 through GRAW 2 with up to 16 player co-op that would be an added benefit. I don't see any value or advantages to the mediocre copout limit of 4 that has persisted since Future Soldier.

To further illustrate my "concern": in a team of 4, one gets shot in the forearm. He's still conscious and able to put a tourniquet himself.

This persistent limitation of 4 needs to end and a focus of an actual squad of 6 needs to return as a standard. At least that is my preference in terms of what I expect from a game called Ghost Recon. Until that happens I'm not expecting either authentically detailed and grounded loadouts or a meaningful injury system where you would actually be more inclined to help an injured squad member vs just waiting the simplistic 3 minutes or less for them to respawn.

@en075 Time will tell whenever Ubi throw something up in the future, assuming they do so. I can't say I'm expect anything other than disappointment and more failure given how Breakpoint was persistently carried in such a minimal effort way with little to no communication and updates that routinely broke as much as they fixed with no follow up of any kind of timely hotfix.

If Ubi is perfectly fine with releasing such a broken disaster and not fundamentally change a single thing in how they deal with their fanbase and communication, why should anyone expect different going forward?

@el_cuervacho Oh look, the last honest Ghost Recon game before it was neutered to a 4 player co-op limitation....

Was indeed good times, if only Ubi had continued to build off that unique gameplay experience instead of chasing fads and persistently dumbing things down.

@ai-bluefox Generally, you don't need to react to a dumpster fire if you listen and don't make the dumpster fire in the first place. Not really semantics, but clearly not all perspectives view things the same.

@eagle-eyezx Personally, I would love for an ARMA game to make its way over to console, but that is also how I view Ghost Recon should lean more towards and not this neutered version that it has become throughout each iteration dulling down and removing core aspects of the game. At the same time, I also think that most people who have already given up on Ghost Recon have already jumped into playing ARMA or at the very least have picked it up as well while still hoping Ghost Recon will return to something more like the game's origins.

In general, hopefully some of these tactical shooters such as Insurgency and HLL will finally give Ubi some reassurance that if they do move Ghost Recon more towards its origins it can still be a financial success. Either way, I would hope that Ubi learns from their ignorance of chasing fads that they are not winning over a new crowd or inspiring confidence in future games, but given their track record so far I'm not expecting any changes.

@latenitedelight They couldn't improve the AI? How so exactly? MGSV has radio checks and units linking up to investigate and attack the player, Wildlands had AI at least investigate an area before fully detecting you, upon catching a glimpse of your character. Heck, even the AI in the original Ghost Recon game on the original xbox were capable of adhering to orders and moving properly as a fireteam. Take enemies in GRAW 2 who will at least go prone immediately after receiving fire, sure beats the heck out of the frozen deer in the headlights enemies of Breakpoint.

Next gen or not, the AI can be leaps and bounds better than the garbage that is Breakpoint.