Support NeoGAF

[Yoboman]

No COD was good and SOCOM wasn't. That's why it failed

 

[Arsic]

It could’ve been their competitive e sport game akin to rainbow six siege or csgo but on a smaller popularity .

 

[0neAnd0nly]

Socom was alright but they had struck real gold with Warhawk. It’s a shame they never continued it, a direct sequel with a decent budget behind it and some good marketing would have sent sales through the roof.

Amazing to me TO THIS DAY how big the maps were and how infinite your options were; foot, plane, vehicle, tank, etc.

Remarkable flowing gameplay.

And how in the world is that still HEADS AND SHOULDERS the best dog fighting arcade experience to this day. Battlefront dog fights were pure GARBAGE compared to Warhawk, your movement felt so free and visceral.

It DID have a sequel though, which I assume you do know based on your “direct sequel” comment as it was a bit… different. Starhawk. Good game in its own right, but not AS good at WH.

 

[bitbydeath]

Amazing to me TO THIS DAY how big the maps were and how infinite your options were; foot, plane, vehicle, tank, etc.

Remarkable flowing gameplay.

And how in the world is that still HEADS AND SHOULDERS the best dog fighting arcade experience to this day. Battlefront dog fights were pure GARBAGE compared to Warhawk, your movement felt so free and visceral.

It DID have a sequel though, which I assume you do know based on your “direct sequel” comment as it was a bit… different. Starhawk. Good game in its own right, but not AS good at WH.

Yeah, I bought Starhawk but didn’t enjoy it as much, the base dropping was fun in theory but the execution didn’t go as well.

I had a bunch of complaints about it, one of the biggest being the knife being an R3 press, instead of a weapon you hold.

The knife in Warhawk added another dimension to gameplay, in form of a stealth mechanic, and hiding you from the radar.

The maps were built for buildings to drop, which made them mostly flat and boring.

The weapons and vehicles weren’t scattered around the map so you couldn’t switch things up by jumping into a jeep, or locating an RPG or Flamethrower to turn things on your opponent in an instant.

And I don’t recall if it had medkits either?
People weren’t as scattered across the map either as they relied too much on being near buildings they made.

They sacrificed way too much for the build/drop system.

 

[EDMIX]

lolz.....no.

Even in its prime, it wasn't even near the worst selling COD. Even the last SOCOM being made by a different team is irrelevant, when it was made by its core team...it was still not on some level of a COD. Even the odd blame on the publisher's focus on Single player games, what the fuck does that have to do with SOCOM not reaching COD numbers?

It wasn't made by Naughty Dog or Sony Santa Monica or anything like that to pretend those other titles doing better, had to do with SOCOM or MAG failing. During PS3's generation, I'd argue they got heat for making MP titles, not SP.

MAG
Warhawk
SOCOM reboot
LBP
Motorstorm
PS Home (BRING THAT SHIT BACK lolz)
Resistance 1-3
Killzone 2-3 etc

They had a strong focus on MP and online stuff to really fucking pretend THAT was the gen they just stopped giving a fuck about MP lol I'm sorry but this isn't the gen to make that fucking claim man, its just not. That was their strongest push and they took what worked and left behind what didn't. Though PS2 had some online function stuff, PS3 was their first huge system and push towards that concept in a big way.


Anything to compete with COD will be a new IP. Those IP had a chance and failed time and time again and publishers with even bigger pedigrees Dooms, Battlefield etc have literally all failed to outsell COD, the title that will do it will be something we've never seen before, a new IP. Look at PUBG, look at Fortnite, look at APEX. The thing that will do it could be something none of us even fucking heard of until its reveal or something, I have massive doubts of a Warhawk, Starhawk, MAG2 with 400 players being some huge thing that over takes COD lol

So Sony forming a new team making a MP title, buying Bungie, this is a huge play and maybe those moves will bring about some huge MP title for em.

bitbydeath True. I remember Starhawk. Warhawk and that game had a great BF type concept, but Battlefield is the king of that concept and even at their best they are not outselling a COD.

So a Warhawk / Starhawk reboot could work, but they'd need to chase BF numbers and concept before even dreaming about some COD overtake type thing.

Over the shoulder, swappable FPS, destroyable environments, prequel to Warhawk to modernize those ideas before going to some Starhawk type sequel. Maybe it could work, but it would take a very talented developer to pull all that off.

 

[ParaSeoul]

SOCOMs not braindead enough to be COD levels of normie appeal.

 

[remember_spinal]

Factions will end up being 10x’s more successful than SOCOM ever was

 

[Syphon Filter]

No COD was good and SOCOM wasn't. That's why it failed

SOCOM is way better than COD, it single handily carried PS2 online. Sony ruined it due to dumbing it down and making it take no skills like COD and the fanbase left.

 

[Rocco Schiavone]

I don't remember any SOCOM to have great sales. So no, it never worked and don't see why it should work now.

No great sales. Over 2.6 Million Sales for Socom I alone.

SOCOM II: US Navy SEALs

PS2 Online and Xbox Live have been going head to head for sometime now in Europe, the USA and Japan, and the most succe…

www.eurogamer.net

 

[diffusionx]

I don't think that's really fair in 2022 considering the quality of Sony's in-house talent has never been stronger, and their ability to collaborate between different developers is second to none in the industry.

We know Sony is good at making grim third person action adventure games - no one is better. They might be the only one capable of doing it these days (can Rockstar still make games? Jury’s out). But the live service stuff is a different beast and Sony shut it all down in the PS4 era. So they are at a major deficit talent-wise and skill-wise and need to catch up. I suppose that was what the Bungie acquisition was in part for, but as we have learned from MS the past few years, you can’t just spend a bunch of money and fix this problem.

 

[AndrewRyan]

Starhawk had a lot of promise. Base building/defending was kind of fun and the whole thing would benefit with more players like we have today. Starhawk flying was a little sluggish compared to Warhawk. Remember those great dogfights

 

[Tams]

They need to start a new franchise that's just a modern warfare shooter. Perhaps ape casual vehicle combat and some pretty big maps as Battlefield have abandoned decency.

Call it 'Dog Tag', as that's what the kiddies seem to like collecting.

 

[CircleOfFire]

Sony had so many chances and they keep fucking up. i Wouldn't mind a Black, MAG, Killzone and Socom reboot

Wasn't Black made by Codemasters? Either way I'd absolutely adore a MAG reboot, that game was godlike.

 

[ozz ex machina]

eh, So-Socom.

You could say any game could have been hugely successful if it was better. Was Socom in particular somehow destined for greatness and denied it by Sony mishandling? I'm gonna say no.

Socom 1 2 3 and CA were all incredible multiplayer titles. Absolute pioneers of the genre. There are features that these games had which most modern shooters still lack.

It was incredibly fun and I'm still friends with a lot of online people who I met back then in the eu community. I do think the gameplay of socom is now very dated. Third person military shooters are fundamentally not competitive (too much information gained while hiding behind a wall). But there was enough kudos in that series to not completely botch it like they did. Back in Ps3 days sony had a community poll of things we wanted. Socom 2 Remaster was always top of the poll. But Sony just never gave a flying fuck.

They made their bed, Sony wants to be known for "prestige" third person action games. It's a shame but it's clearly working out well for them.

 

[The_Mike]

No.

Tried a socom game on ps3, didn't feel like it had the same legs as CoD.

Sony hasn't really made a big online shooter. People loved warhawk here, but if it was successful it wouldn't have been shut down, or at least have gotten some sequel.

 

[solidus12]

Off topic, but Sony also fucked up by closing the Evolution Studio.

 

[Rocco Schiavone]

Back in Ps3 days sony had a community poll of things we wanted. Socom 2 Remaster was always top of the poll. But Sony just never gave a flying fuck.

PS4 news, PS4 Pro news and PlayStation views

Get the breaking PS4 news every day and enjoy the latest reviews from the world of PlayStation.

www.psu.com

Yeah but Sony gave a fuck about Socom.

 

[Ev1L AuRoN]

SOCOM would never become something like COD. Sony never compete with COD in the same ground, their FPS were always alien themed and with a big focus on the campaign.

 

[yurinka]

No great sales. Over 2.6 Million Sales for Socom I alone.

SOCOM II: US Navy SEALs

PS2 Online and Xbox Live have been going head to head for sometime now in Europe, the USA and Japan, and the most succe…

www.eurogamer.net

Almost nothing compared to the 25-30M copies that a CoD sells. Or even compared to the recent Sony big exclusives that sell 20-25M.

Off topic, but Sony also fucked up by closing the Evolution Studio.

I loved their games but didn't sell very well and the most recent and expensive one, Driveclub also had a very bad release with a big delay and big issues regarding its online.

They got unlucky with like a big tsunami and earthquakes happening just before the release of Motorstorm Apocalypse (which featured tornados, earthquakes, etc) so they had to release it with a very low marketing profile.

They shutted it up, but years later, with other bosses (Jimbo and Hermen) they bought Firesprite, which has a lot of key Evolution, SCE Liverpool Studio and Bizarre Creations staff. So Jimbo kind of ressurected Evolution.

 

[Rocco Schiavone]

Almost nothing compared to the 25-30M copies that a CoD sells.

Thanks for the stupid quote.

Nobody compared the game to other existing games. You clueless told that you can't remember that It had good Sales.

But It clearly had good sales and because I showed you that you try to downplay my arguments with a stupid COD comparison.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Edit: Wrong thread.

 

[FrankWza]

You see all studios that worked on the Socom franchise don't exist anymore.

I think one of the devs who worked at zipper is now at guerrilla and a rainbow six? Dev too? That’s where the rumors of a reboot are coming

 

[Badlucktroll]

Bungie is probably going to make some crazy popular scifi shooter for Sony

 

[yurinka]

Thanks for the stupid quote.

Nobody compared the game to other existing games. You clueless told that you can't remember that It had good Sales.

But It clearly had good sales and because I showed you that you try to downplay my arguments with a stupid COD comparison.

I only shown some numbers proving that SOCOM sales are irrelevant compared to CoD or current Sony big games. That explains why SOCOM is dead and Sony doesn't resurrect it.

Seems that to read some facts really butthurted you. Please, don't cry.

P.S.: the title of the thread compared it to Call of Duty, learn to read.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Off topic, but Sony also fucked up by closing the Evolution Studio.

Not much evidence of that. The studio joined Codemasters and then they all got laid off after another poor-selling game.

In 30 years, Sony has closed 8 studios, and essentially 1 of those they've brought back. They don't close studios on a whim. If you look at Bend studios, they probably would have been closed, but have at least one more shot here. The UK teams haven't really produced for Sony either. 5/8 studios that closed down were in the UK (which has basically been them closing down Psygnosis).

Zipper just failed to maintain quality
Japan Studios had some games people were interested in but was cost prohibitive as well it had already lost ICO team and Fumito Ueda.
Incognito seemed to have its own issues

 

[Games of Today]

Socom, MAG, Killzone, etc, etc.

Here is the thing.

Sony has these three major and potentially massively innovative shooter titles and they just sit back and blow it.

If they tasted Guerilla or some other first party team to make a Killzone 2 style reboot, Socom 2 reboot or a MAG reboot in modern graphics such as the Decima engine, I think they would have a system seller on their hands.

They don't NEED to do this obviously but there is a LARGE chunk of the Playstation soul missing since Killzone Shadowfall kind of killed that aspect of PS games.

 

[sainraja]

Sony needs to bring back Warhawk/Starhawk. Amazing games! Loved them on the PS3!

 

[Black_Stride]

SOCOM wasnt "popular" then, it wouldnt be ground breaking today.
Hell Socom 2 and 3 were legit good games, Socom 4 was....Socom 4.
But by then i think the writing was already on the wall, yes the games are good, but they just aint popin.

It didnt die because Sony abandoned it at its prime or something, it died because it wasnt doing the numbers necessary.

Call of Duty didnt even launch on consoles but was super super popular.
Call of Duty 2, fuck me.
Call of Duty 3, even if it felt almost like an expansion was still popular.
Call of Duty 4, basically changed how online shooters were made for the next few years, and cemented COD as "staple" gaming, I remember when COD came out people in my college classrooms would be talking about the games they had the night before.
Alot of my XBL friends I actually made in college simply because id randomly eavesdrop on peoples COD conversations......and id play one game with them and they shocked, aye that black kid can fucking play.


Theyve got Bungie now.
Surely they could contract Bungie to do them a modern shooter.
With fluid fast controls and super tight gameplay.

Although the formula for what ends up being popular isnt a science.
When Siege launched many considered it a failure and wanted Rainbow Six Patriots instead.
Its one of the most popular games out right now

 

[Dr. Kitty Muffins]

Bungie should make the next SOCOM.

 

[Roufianos]

https://www.gamezone.com/news/socom_ii_logs_more_player_hours_than_all_of_xbox_live/

Socom at one point had more active players than all of Xbox Live. Ok, its numbers are dwarfed by COD now but you need to remember the context of this being way before online gaming on consoles became a norm. With proper management, the series could have flourished.

Unfortunately, Confrontation and 4 just weren't that good, PS3 wasn't that popular in the US and UK, and the console definitely wasn't known for its multiplayer offering.

Hell, the success of Siege shows there's more than enough appetite for a tactical shooter in the market.

 

[EverydayBeast]

I kept telling socom fanboys if you are an exclusive you can’t pull off cod type sales.

 

[REDRZA MWS]

SOCOM would never become something like COD. Sony never compete with COD in the same ground, their FPS were always alien themed and with a big focus on the campaign.

Socom neither was a FPS, nor did it have anything to do with aliens. It was the best tactical TPS of all time.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Depends on what you mean by “their Call of Duty”. A franchise like SOCOM was never going to be as big as CoD. It’s a tactical third person shooter where teamwork is essential. It’s basically Search and Destroy from CoD but without CoD’s twitchy super fast gameplay.

SOCOM was amazing in 1 and II. It became a lot worse when key Zipper talent left while 3 was being worked on. Combined Assault continued the downward spiral. Confrontation was buggy trash but gameplay wise was closer to 1 and II.

We had official confirmed Zipper employees on this forum post that Sony interfered with SOCOM 4 development and had them try to dumb it all up and make it more like CoD. Evolution devs said the same thing about the last Motorstorm game. So it’s hard to say Sony could have had something substantial there because they directly ruined it.

It’s very hard to get something very popular in gaming. There’s a reason that as good as Sonys devs are, they haven’t come close to CoD type success. They’ve had tons of shots with various shooters and none of them worked. Same for MS. The closest MS has come is with Epic and Bungies work.

There’s also good reason Sony is fighting so hard to keep MS from getting CoD. They know how important it is and how impossible it is to recreate it on their own. It’s like saying someone can just make a new Zelda or Fortnite.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Bring back a ps5 only SOCOM in the mold of 1@2, with current gen tech and it will sell gangbusters.

It wouldn't.

They shifted the series in the direction of 3 for a reason. There's also no other big games on the market similar to SOCOM 1 or 2.

"I used to like" is not a good strategy to make a modern successful multiplayer game.

 

[DryvBy]

They should rival Battlefield personally. DICE has no idea what they're doing so they could take over that market easily. The problem is Sony always puts out slower military games with boring modes. Just make a conquest, military game. Heck, make a conquest Terminator game and I'll even bite.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

SOCOM would never become something like COD. Sony never compete with COD in the same ground, their FPS were always alien themed and with a big focus on the campaign.

MAG?

 

[akaFullmetal]

Need to bring back warhawk

 

[SteadyEvo]

Sony has the talent to make elite games in any genre they choose. The only reason they don't have their own Halo or Gears or CoD is because they aren't going that route.

If they decided this was a type of game they cared about, they'd probably end up making one with an 85 or better metacritic score.

They lose COD this will likely happen and PS gamers will reap the benefits.

 

[REDRZA MWS]

It wouldn't.

They shifted the series in the direction of 3 for a reason. There's also no other big games on the market similar to SOCOM 1 or 2.

"I used to like" is not a good strategy to make a modern successful multiplayer game.

That’s the most obvious statement ever. Anyone familiar with the series knows 3 was when it took a step back. So why didn’t they learn from that and instead of going even further with 4, the should have went right back into the success they had with 1and 2.

Edit: confrontation was pretty solid too. A tactical 3rd person shooter SOCOM in the vain of 1and 2 would revive the series massively.

 

[eastcoastkody]

i only ever played Socom 3. played a ton of the multiplayer. I think COD could scratch that itch if they make a night map thats a little larger for the third person playlists. and have a raft in the map

 

[MikeM]

Socom was alright but they had struck real gold with Warhawk. It’s a shame they never continued it, a direct sequel with a decent budget behind it and some good marketing would have sent sales through the roof.

Warhawk 100%. People still play it. Hell, my dad is not even a gamer and he played the shit out of that. Once they shit down the servers he basically packed up the ps3.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Sony has the talent to make elite games in any genre they choose. The only reason they don't have their own Halo or Gears or CoD is because they aren't going that route.

If they decided this was a type of game they cared about, they'd probably end up making one with an 85 or better metacritic score.

Most of the shooters they made during the PS3 days did score well. Pretty sure both Hawk games, KZ and Resistance all got good scores. SOCOMs didnt. I forget if MAG god goo or bad scores.

The problem is they went overboard on too many of them at the same time diluting the online base. At that time is also when people started migrating to COD settings. WWII was fading out. So even if they continued making those franchises, they'd never do as well as COD. The best supported shooters are either military grunt kinds of settings or the colourfull Apex and Fortnite setting. Destiny and Halo and Gears are the closest games to what Sony made back then. And they pale in traction compared to the former list.

The sci-fi setting of crazy aliens shit, interplanetary space stations and such gamers dont care anymore. Titanfall 1 and 2 didnt do that great either. When Unreal Tournament 3 came out, nobody cared for it.

But with the budget Sony has, they could make a great shooter if they wanted to. It's just that they prefer to sink their funds in SP narratives and Gran Turismo and making MP modes in UC and Last of Us. The rest of the games like sports, fighting games, shooters etc.... they prefer third parties to do it. And then Sony partners up with them.

It's crazy Sony hasnt made a big shooting game since KZ Shadowfall in 2013. Even Nintendo makes Splatoon games.

But things are changing. They bought Bungie for Destiny and have a shitload of GAAS games coming. And some of those have got to be shooters.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

That’s the most obvious statement ever. Anyone familiar with the series knows 3 was when it took a step back. So why didn’t they learn from that and instead of going even further with 4, the should have went right back into the success they had with 1and 2.

Edit: confrontation was pretty solid too. A tactical 3rd person shooter SOCOM in the vain of 1and 2 would revive the series massively.

Again, they didn't have the success they desired with 2...which is why they made such a shift with 3.

Look at how Modern Warfare got off the ground 20+ years ago. It was a big hit so they kept going with the same formula. They had no reason to have a SOCOM 3 moment.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Again, they didn't have the success they desired with 2...which is why they made such a shift with 3.

Look at how Modern Warfare got off the ground 20+ years ago. It was a big hit so they kept going with the same formula. They had no reason to have a SOCOM 3 moment.

Shifts and changes aren’t always tied to sales. If that were the case then SOCOM Combined Assault or SOCOM 4 would have went back to the SOCOM I/II formulas since 3 was such a disappointment. They made a large shift with 3 because some of the key people behind I/II left between II and 3.

I can’t imagine II didn’t meet their expectations. It sold very well and got great review scores. It set the standard for online games on consoles back in the day.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Shifts and changes aren’t always tied to sales. If that were the case then SOCOM Combined Assault or SOCOM 4 would have went back to the SOCOM I/II formulas since 3 was such a disappointment.

False. If they moved off of the SOCOM 1 + 2 formula because they weren't happy with the metrics, why would they go back to the (failed) formula after failing with their new direction? You don't go back to the first dead end just because you ran into a second dead end.

They made a large shift with 3 because some of the key people behind I/II left between II and 3.

I don't find this likely. Zipper was fully capable of doing another SOCOM 2 type game even though key people left.

I can’t imagine II didn’t meet their expectations. It sold very well and got great review scores. It set the standard for online games on consoles back in the day.

How well did it sell? How were player metrics 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after launch? Reviews don't grow studios, money does.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Socom, MAG, Killzone, etc, etc.

Don't forget they had the marketing deal for Rouge Warrior and Haze too. They also had Resistance too.

 

[REDRZA MWS]

Again, they didn't have the success they desired with 2...which is why they made such a shift with 3.

Look at how Modern Warfare got off the ground 20+ years ago. It was a big hit so they kept going with the same formula. They had no reason to have a SOCOM 3 moment.

2 was the best in the series car none. They had plenty of success. Success had nothing tondonwithbdeign changes in 3. They tried something new and it didn’t work. Instead of going back to the tried and true formula they went worse with 4.

If they brought the series back with a competent developer with a defend budget and resources, and went back to what made the series great in the first place, it would be a one of a kind shooter on the market. A market desperately in need of a tactical 3rd person shooter.

 

[REDRZA MWS]

Again, they didn't have the success they desired with 2...which is why they made such a shift with 3.

Look at how Modern Warfare got off the ground 20+ years ago. It was a big hit so they kept going with the same formula. They had no reason to have a SOCOM 3 moment.

Edit: let’s not also forget online MP was really the selling point of this series. That being said you needed to buy a separate Ethernet peripheral to even be a me to play online. That’s not remotely the case today . Socom needs to come back as Sonys premier shooter.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Only the first two SOCOMS did very well but not by much.

Socom 1 did 2.25 million on PS2. Socom II did 1.42 million on the PS2.

Honestly, Killzone was probably their biggest FPS franchise.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

2 was the best in the series car none. They had plenty of success. Success had nothing tondonwithbdeign changes in 3. They tried something new and it didn’t work. Instead of going back to the tried and true formula they went worse with 4.

This just doesn't make sense. When you create a money printing machine that works, you don't create the next money printing machine by doing radically different things. It's not logical.

If they brought the series back with a competent developer with a defend budget and resources, and went back to what made the series great in the first place, it would be a one of a kind shooter on the market. A market desperately in need of a tactical 3rd person shooter.

Battle Royales and Tarkov like games are the 3rd person tactical shooters of today. You're living in a golden age for these types of games.

Eddie-Griffin ended the conversation. SOCOM 1 wasn't a smash success and SOCOM 2 did substantially worse. Just as I said, they changed it up with 3 because they weren't happy with the metrics.