The series is dead. Has been for a while. We wanted to believe it could be resurrected, but Ubisoft Paris has shown that it just isn't going to happen under their watch. What now? Time to move on. It's possible that Ubisoft Paris is working on a new GR game, but it'll turn out at best like Wildlands, and at worst like Breakpoint, which means it'll still be far from what a Ghost Recon game should be, made by a team who has no passion for anything military-related.

@kean_1 ""Ubi needs to make an effort to engage with their fans (as a community) to get this franchise back on track... and much earlier on in the development cycle."

@bigrexxx See, this is why I have no confidence in Ubisoft Paris, even after Ubisoft's restructuring. They've had time to engage with their community, and they've still chosen not to. They still chose to do NFTs. They still chose to go months without communication. They don't care. There's no reason to expect anything different from them going forward, and they still seem to have no passion whatsoever for anything military-related nor Ghost Recon-related so I have no confidence that Project Over/OVR will be better.

@ltjasonwolfe Maybe the only time you provide feedback is when Ubisoft puts out a vague survey, but quite a few of us here and even on Reddit have provided substantial, detailed, constructive feedback for a few years now, feedback which the community team has repeatedly claimed to pass on to the developers (without substantial clarity on which feedback they're passing on, mind you); we even rather recently learned that one of those community team members actually passed on only the feedback that she felt was pertinent to the game she was currently working on. We have no idea how often they've done this in the past, and it could explain why the devs only seem to listen to some things we say. We have every right to be skeptical of the value of responding to a vague survey when we can't even count on Ubisoft hearing and making a good faith effort to improve the game in ways that we've all mentioned in the past. We have every right to complain about the state of the game and the series when Ubisoft, despite claiming to listen, repeatedly drops the ball because they only listen to some of the feedback, while ignoring other parts, and while absolutely refusing to communicate with us openly, frequently, and transparently.

@ltjasonwolfe So a game that draws inspiration from GTA and Far Cry, with Ghosts who are indistinguishable from poorly-equipped mercenaries, and who act without any operational planning, no communication with military leadership, and just act like criminals intimidating, kidnapping, and knocking off other criminals is everything a GR game should be? Have you even played the pre-Wildlands games? I'd rather have a Ghost Recon game that has the Ghosts acting as US Tier 1 operators, who conduct missions for JSOC, who plan operations with leadership, who utilize US military support assets in the field and coordinate with military support staff and leadership in real-time on the battlefield, and where the tools they use are a window into what combat could look like in the near-future based on currently-in-development gear and weapons. You know, what the pre-Wildlands games were in part or in whole. But, sure, Wildlands is everything a Ghost Recon game should be.

I don't like this new forum.

Anyway, one big ugly part of this update is that for all the talk of being able to shape the world, the worst part of this update is that once you've beaten Conquest mode, there is no permanence to your entire gameplay. I get wanting replayability by still having Bodark and Sentinel around the island, but Liberty should at least be free of enemies. The city is still occupied by Russians, with no civilian presence, no attempted parliament, not even sufficient closure to the story by showing Ito trying to set up a government (so no Auroa police even though there's that pointless patch that's a progression reward). It's vey disappointing in this regard.

The old forum was much better than this new discussion board. Limited functionality here compared to the old forum.

@virtual-chris There are some locations that still have Bodark in them, but they're few and far between because for a lot of those places, the Rebels permanently take over. For example, Camp Viper still has quite a few Bodark mixed in with Sentinel. Wish we could replace all Sentinel enemies with Bodark. Wish we could change their language, too, so they actually spoke Russian. It wouldn't improve the AI but would at least help create a different feeling to the enemies.

NFTs are a mistake and will be another project in a long list of failed projects that Ubisoft has tried to get off the ground. NFTs shouldn't exist in games, and they certainly shouldn't exist in the Ghost Recon series.

What makes me even more annoyed is the recent discourse outside of the forums and Reddit regarding the recent NFT. Most of the complaints of gaming journalists, YouTubers, and Twitter users isn't that there are NFTs in the game. It's that there's a 600hr restriction on the item. I get that some people who really play the game haven't reached that mark, but most of the people complaining about the 600hr time limit are those who don't care about the game at all and make comments like "I'm not going to grind 600hr of this trash game to get this."

What makes this annoying is that these people, especially big YouTubers and gaming journalists, don't have a problem with there being NFTs. They're upset that they couldn't grab this one by just redownloading the game. They're upset that they are expected to have a time commitment to grab the NFT. That means they wanted the NFT, and were willing to redownload the game just to get it.

It's no wonder Ubisoft thinks they can find success with NFTs. The people they listen to the most - shareholders, executives, gaming journalists, and "content creators" - are all perfectly fine with NFTs. And these gaming journalists, YouTubers, Twitch Streamers, etc., are all very eager to grab an exclusive item that they can then use to boost the audience for their content (whether it's their article, video, or stream). They are Ubisoft's real audience.

Sorry. I guess I'm venting because on top of Ubisoft's failure, all the attention-grabbing discussion is just as misguided as Ubisoft's decision-making.

@fcac-no-moe What active CMs? There are no active CMs here.

@fcac-no-moe If you think the former guy would've stopped this, you're wrong. He would've turned a blind eye to it. Both he and the current guy wanted to avoid military engagements as much as possible. And if you wish some other guy or gal was in the White House who was somehow "strong enough" to stop this, well, the fact is, there was no stopping this. Putin had his mind made up. It's now up to the world to stop him. And there's no avoiding WW3. We just need to strength to defeat Putin before he brings more suffering to more countries.

@ltjasonwolfe So a game that draws inspiration from GTA and Far Cry, with Ghosts who are indistinguishable from poorly-equipped mercenaries, and who act without any operational planning, no communication with military leadership, and just act like criminals intimidating, kidnapping, and knocking off other criminals is everything a GR game should be? Have you even played the pre-Wildlands games? I'd rather have a Ghost Recon game that has the Ghosts acting as US Tier 1 operators, who conduct missions for JSOC, who plan operations with leadership, who utilize US military support assets in the field and coordinate with military support staff and leadership in real-time on the battlefield, and where the tools they use are a window into what combat could look like in the near-future based on currently-in-development gear and weapons. You know, what the pre-Wildlands games were in part or in whole. But, sure, Wildlands is everything a Ghost Recon game should be.

Yes, these should be added to the next game as standard weapons since close combat units, including SOF, will be using them.

However, they should be in the game as the M5 (maybe even M5A1), the M250 (can have a letter behind it, like G or B), and the M157, since they should be fielded by the time the game takes place (which should still be near-future - 2026 at the earliest imo).

I'm sure SOF will still use the MCX LVAW as well, so that would be good to add as well.

A Robin Sage scenario would be great, but it would actually have to be a Robin Sage scenario and not just "Americans with guns are in X third world country hunting down VIPs and blowing stuff up" like Wildlands was. Despite what some diehard fanboys have said in the past, Wildlands is not Robin Sage. It is not based on Robin Sage. A Ghost Recon game based on Robin Sage (it should not be called Pineland - it should be presented as a plausible future conflict) would have key Robin Sage elements as part of its story and gameplay structure:

Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/robin-sage-is-final-test-for-army-special-forces-hopefuls-2021-1: (https://businessinsider.com/robin-sage-is-final-test-for-army-special-forces-hopefuls-2021-1)

1) The Ghosts should actually train, advise, and assist a local partner force (whether it's a guerrilla insurgent force or even a military partner force fighting a civil war) to conduct combat operations against a superior enemy occupying force. They should engage in small unit tactics, and teach local forces the same, as well as provide medical care and build outposts supporting the local forces.

2) The Ghosts should establish communications with headquarters. I'll repeat: the Ghosts should establish communications with headquarters. They should not be in the dark, only making their own objectives without establishing communications with military headquarters. They should not simply be on the ground taking orders from the CIA. They should not be the CIA's hitmen.

3) The operations the Ghosts conduct should be reconnaissance, raids, ambushes, and other combat missions. It should be a combat environment against an enemy military force, not a police force.

4) The focus of such a game, if it is to bring Ghost Recon back to the mission of Special Forces, should be working with and through a local partner force.

It is less important that your teammates be killable so that the game can feel hArDcOrE and PuNiShInG, and more important that the game is about working with and through local forces, training them in small unit tactics, and executing missions using available local assets (and eventually, US-supplied assets). That's not to say you couldn't have such a feature, but I don't think the managing of your squad should be the focus of a game that's based on Robin Sage. It's important, but the focus of Robin Sage is about more than just keeping your men alive. It's about preparing the local partner force to succeed. So that should be the focus. If there are soldiers that you need to keep alive, then it needs to be the partner forces that you train. And even then, the focus shouldn't be simply on keeping them alive during missions. It should be on training them so that they can successfully execute missions without your micromanagement.

The focus of the game should be unconventional warfare. It's not enough to just have hardcore elements. That's not sufficient or even necessary. What's necessary is that the focus and structure of the game provides an authentic, plausible, future Special Operations-based, combat-focused, real-world-inspired gameplay experience.

Interesting idea/concept. just a few points:

1) Game should be set in the future, I'd say 2026-2027. By the time such a game would come out, 2023 would be the past. Ghost Recon has always been near-future, and been based on a possible future scenario. Pushing it out 4-5 years from now helps create some time such that it's a believable scenario.

2) The Taliban have helicopters as of 2021. They should have some helicopters. It should be very rare, because they don't have many, but they should have helicopters. They should also have quite a lot of military equipment among their special forces (Badri 313 should definitely be an elite unit in the game).

3) Iran-backed terror groups use drones. Drones should be part of the battlefield, but it should be rare and shouldn't at all be like the drones in Breakpoint.

4) I personally thing we need to do away with the four-member teams and have 6-8-member squads. Should still be able to split them into two teams, but you've then got 3-4-member teams instead of two-member teams.

5) I believe there should be some kind of mission-planning system where the player designates infil/exfil points and methods, actions on the objective for coop players and AI squadmates, and support assets on standby for the op (like ISR drones and close air support).

6) I believe the Ghosts should be working with local forces to oppose the Taliban and other groups and to assist them in their mission. That rebel group should be based on the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan.

@kean_1 ""Ubi needs to make an effort to engage with their fans (as a community) to get this franchise back on track... and much earlier on in the development cycle."

@bigrexxx See, this is why I have no confidence in Ubisoft Paris, even after Ubisoft's restructuring. They've had time to engage with their community, and they've still chosen not to. They still chose to do NFTs. They still chose to go months without communication. They don't care. There's no reason to expect anything different from them going forward, and they still seem to have no passion whatsoever for anything military-related nor Ghost Recon-related so I have no confidence that Project Over/OVR will be better.

The series is dead. Has been for a while. We wanted to believe it could be resurrected, but Ubisoft Paris has shown that it just isn't going to happen under their watch. What now? Time to move on. It's possible that Ubisoft Paris is working on a new GR game, but it'll turn out at best like Wildlands, and at worst like Breakpoint, which means it'll still be far from what a Ghost Recon game should be, made by a team who has no passion for anything military-related.

LOL. Not surprised. No need to see a video about it. Ubisoft Paris has no actual passion for this franchise, not the devs, not the community team. I'm surprised they finally admitted it. What upsets me more is how many people are applauding them for saying it, as if the studio didn't already plan this when they started introducing NFTs. It's a pathetic end to a pathetic development and a pathetic 5 years of lackluster game development and communication.

@fcac-no-moe If you think the former guy would've stopped this, you're wrong. He would've turned a blind eye to it. Both he and the current guy wanted to avoid military engagements as much as possible. And if you wish some other guy or gal was in the White House who was somehow "strong enough" to stop this, well, the fact is, there was no stopping this. Putin had his mind made up. It's now up to the world to stop him. And there's no avoiding WW3. We just need to strength to defeat Putin before he brings more suffering to more countries.

@fcac-no-moe What active CMs? There are no active CMs here.

NFTs are a mistake and will be another project in a long list of failed projects that Ubisoft has tried to get off the ground. NFTs shouldn't exist in games, and they certainly shouldn't exist in the Ghost Recon series.

What makes me even more annoyed is the recent discourse outside of the forums and Reddit regarding the recent NFT. Most of the complaints of gaming journalists, YouTubers, and Twitter users isn't that there are NFTs in the game. It's that there's a 600hr restriction on the item. I get that some people who really play the game haven't reached that mark, but most of the people complaining about the 600hr time limit are those who don't care about the game at all and make comments like "I'm not going to grind 600hr of this trash game to get this."

What makes this annoying is that these people, especially big YouTubers and gaming journalists, don't have a problem with there being NFTs. They're upset that they couldn't grab this one by just redownloading the game. They're upset that they are expected to have a time commitment to grab the NFT. That means they wanted the NFT, and were willing to redownload the game just to get it.

It's no wonder Ubisoft thinks they can find success with NFTs. The people they listen to the most - shareholders, executives, gaming journalists, and "content creators" - are all perfectly fine with NFTs. And these gaming journalists, YouTubers, Twitch Streamers, etc., are all very eager to grab an exclusive item that they can then use to boost the audience for their content (whether it's their article, video, or stream). They are Ubisoft's real audience.

Sorry. I guess I'm venting because on top of Ubisoft's failure, all the attention-grabbing discussion is just as misguided as Ubisoft's decision-making.