Support NeoGAF

[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.

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.

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.

Here is the thread link to the sales https://www.neogaf.com/threads/foun...p-nds-and-gba-games-through-2007-usa.1639410/

 

[GustavoLT]

Reboot killzone with a well structured multiplayer!!! Put in some 10h singleplayer mode with an easy to follow history.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

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.


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



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.

Every industry is chock full of examples of people making sequels and changing things up, even sequels to successful things. Wanting to make a game more accessible and make more money doesn’t make the previous entry something that didn’t meet expectations.

It’s fine that you think Zipper still had talent to make good SOCOM games but reality tells us they didn’t. The main guy behind the first two games was David Sears and he left after SOCOM II and the rest is history. If they had talent to make a good game they would have. New people came in and wanted to make different games and quality suffered massively.

And as SOCOM 4 showed us, all the talent in the world doesn’t matter if Sony is telling you what kind of game to make.

 

[Chronicle]

Just make a hame just like cod. Make it graphically awesome. Make it better. Problem solved.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Every industry is chock full of examples of people making sequels and changing things up, even sequels to successful things. Wanting to make a game more accessible and make more money doesn’t make the previous entry something that didn’t meet expectations.

It’s fine that you think Zipper still had talent to make good SOCOM games but reality tells us they didn’t. The main guy behind the first two games was David Sears and he left after SOCOM II and the rest is history. If they had talent to make a good game they would have. New people came in and wanted to make different games and quality suffered massively.

And as SOCOM 4 showed us, all the talent in the world doesn’t matter if Sony is telling you what kind of game to make.

This is all wrong. I was indeed correct. Companies don't kill Golden Gooses.

SOCOM sold 2.25 million copies.
SOCOM 2 sold 1.45 million copies.

Obviously Zipper was worried about the trajectory of the franchise so they changed up the formula in order to turn things around.

David Sears was responsible for the plummet. He got pushed out of Zipper because they didn't believe he knew where to take the franchise. He didn't go on to create anything noteworthy.

History is indeed not full of examples where Golden Gooses are killed.

 

[Lex Tenebris]

IMHO none of the existing Sony IP could match it, in the fps space obviously. The only one who came "close" was killzone 2.
Honestly I doubt that Bungie can develop something that can match COD. They are masters of scifi not realistic arcade, and considering the pvp section of destiny, they need to improve a lot, in that regard. So I think that actually only Guerrilla could, but it's not an easy task. And to generate enough revenue for Sony they should release a game every year or create a good live service game like warzone or fortnite.

 

[Antwix]

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.

Yeah Confrontation was pretty janky and SOCOM 4 was just bad. I feel like if they released a remastering of SOCOM 2 on PS3 it would've helped the franchise a lot. People forget when SOCOM 1 and 2 (and even 3) came out, online console gaming wasn't really a huge thing yet, at least on PS2. You had to go out and buy that network expansion add-on for like $50. If you wanted to play an online shooter back then, you'd play on PC.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

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.

People forget or maybe weren’t around to experience just how big and ahead of its time SOCOM was. Now people just shrug it off as nothing special. It was incredible in its prime. Then it went to Zipper B squad and they killed it.

 

[CamHostage]

People forget or maybe weren’t around to experience just how big and ahead of its time SOCOM was. Now people just shrug it off as nothing special. It was incredible in its prime. Then it went to Zipper B squad and they killed it.

I mean, SOCOM 1 came out in 2002; SOCOM 2 came out a year later. It's been 20 years since then...

The people who have fond memories of how great SOCOM was, even if they were kids, those people are now pushing the demographic of viable gamers. Those SOCOM gamers, they are now in their mid-30s/early-40s. And it's not like a Mega Man or Mario where, if Sony were to recapture the magic with a throwback-style new game, those older gamers could introduce their kids to it or it would have the flavor of retro that kids today might respond to. And it was hard enough in the day to get people to turn on their microphones, to go online and find a squad with hopefully some people you know in it, to dedicate time to learning these maps and mechanics... these days, everything good about SOCOM is incredibly difficult to find in other games, and it's because gamers these days want it the way it is now because it's easier and quicker less annoying to deal with real people aside from maybe a squad of 4 friends in a BR. (I wish they could learn what was good about the effort and the sacrifices, but they have it pretty good the way it is.

It's not impossible, but the challenge of re-deploying SOCOM would not be just a simple victory tour.

 

[Ozriel]

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 certainly cared about Killzone Shadowfall and MAG. Big AAA budgets and significant marketing.

Yes, for sure. I don't recall Sony having a single game that you would call a GAAS so therefore that is a killer move for them.

You don’t recall TLOU and Uncharted 4? Killzone SF? mAG?

 

[Kagey K]

Will never matter. This is like saying if Killzone didn't suck, it could be Halo.

We live in this truth; and neither of those games measured up.

 

[NovaSe7en]

I wouldn't want any of Sony's A-List developers working on competitive shooters. It's a waste of their talent.

 

[bentanchorbolt]

They certainly cared about Killzone Shadowfall and MAG. Big AAA budgets and significant marketing.



You don’t recall TLOU and Uncharted 4? Killzone SF? mAG?

Those games came out a long time ago and aren’t really GAAS as we know GAAS today.

Sony gave up making online games and shooters, and it’s a shame because they started to focus on that core game that PlayStation is known for. It’s pretty obvious that Sony decided it’s best to let DICE, Infinity Ward, Epic, and Respawn, take care of their FPS and online shooting games.

 

[Fart Knight]

They can make a COD clone and slap the name on it. Nobody but oldheads remember SOCOM lol. Hell even Killzone feels like a century ago.

 

[REDRZA MWS]

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.

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.

Tarkov and battle Royal games don’t have the name brand or following SOCOM does. Socom Had no battle Royal either. It’s a purely tactical TPS. Which todays industry fully lacks.

With Socom 3 they tried something a bit different and it didn’t work. Are we faulting devs/publishers now for trying new things/innovating?

They bring back a SOCOM 1/2 type game with current tech and it will be as Louise as ever. Look no further than R6 Siege. It 3rd person like SOCOM, but a tactical shooter nonetheless still being played by millions all over the world.

 

[REDRZA MWS]

They can make a COD clone and slap the name on it. Nobody but oldheads remember SOCOM lol. Hell even Killzone feels like a century ago.

There is a very good reason SOCOM is still remembered. It’s self explanatory.

 

[TheDreadLord]

None of Sony’s FPS are even close to the quality and production values seen in COD. Sony lost the opportunity during the early days of PS3. Now, I guess, their best bet is to invest in Destiny’s tech and come-up with a quality FPS GAaS or even a sequel. Still, nowhere near COD or even Battlefield.

 

[Rocco Schiavone]

Could be so easy for Sony to develop a new Socom Game. But they are just incompetent these days.

Just Release a BR Game with all Socom 1/2/3/CA maps in one map.

Cherry on top a classic Socom mode without BR and only on one map.

Would sell like hot cakes. It would be their own PUBG.

Sales would still not reach COD Level but that's because people like more first person shooters than third person.

 

[Kiya's Guard]

Given how popular are milsims nowadays, a socom reboot wouldn't be that much of a lunacy.
But oh, it's a PlayStation game, people on consoles don't play milsims

 

[Ozriel]

Those games came out a long time ago and aren’t really GAAS as we know GAAS today.

Sony gave up making online games and shooters, and it’s a shame because they started to focus on that core game that PlayStation is known for. It’s pretty obvious that Sony decided it’s best to let DICE, Infinity Ward, Epic, and Respawn, take care of their FPS and online shooting games.

Nah, let’s not move goalposts. Killzone SF was a 2013 game, made by the same Guerilla games. Uncharted 4 came out in 2016. TLOU remaster - 2014. These games had MP modes that contained strong GAAS elements the way we know it today: post launch content, paid MTX etc.

It doesn’t diminish your argument to admit this, so I’m not sure why you’re taking this angle.

 

[Mattyp]

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.

Implying CoD takes no skill is a fucking hot take and a half, your skill barrier and matching is based on your own skill. There’s millions of CoD players out there to wreck your shit.

Sony can’t make an engaging FPS, I dare say it an engaging multi game period last gen or this one. Their best titles are 8 hour story driven single player titles, and they’re the best in the business at it.

This is what people are missing is important, engagement. Literally the most important aspect of any FPS multiplayer title, there’s been a 1,000 games fail for every 1 game that succeeds in the genre. Throwing naughty dog at making an FPS in no way makes it a success.

Playground games have owned and do own the arcade racing space for the past 5 years, but throwing them on fable is going to be the real test of talent. I would say if anything being a company that wins at keeping players engaged and coming back every year has an easier time to switching to a single player story driven game, you only need to keep them entertained for 8 hours worth of set pieces not 1,000 hours of mayhem while reeling them in to buy the same but different game in another 12 months.

It’s a genre everyone wants to crack, and everyone would if they could. The biggest games in the world and the games that generate the most income with cosmetics and GaaS?…

 

[alabtrosMyster]

EA's Battlefield had pretty good chances until they made it suck too.

CoD doesn't have to be everything , it goes a long way if you are consistent and respond to your audience's expectations well.

SOCOM could have been revived with the ps4, but sony decided to try and get some CoD deals instead.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

Sony can’t make an engaging FPS, I dare say it an engaging multi game period last gen or this one. Their best titles are 8 hour story driven single player titles, and they’re the best in the business at it.

 

[bentanchorbolt]

Nah, let’s not move goalposts. Killzone SF was a 2013 game, made by the same Guerilla games. Uncharted 4 came out in 2016. TLOU remaster - 2014. These games had MP modes that contained strong GAAS elements the way we know it today: post launch content, paid MTX etc.

It doesn’t diminish your argument to admit this, so I’m not sure why you’re taking this angle.

Agree to disagree.

 

[Gunstar75]

They killed Socom by trying to make it more like CoD. It would never have become as big because you couldn’t run and gun.

So true, instead of building the franchise up slowly they got greedy and wanted that COD money. The sad part is Socom had super royal fans, I believe it would do well as a free to play game in today's world.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Man imagine some demolition on Blizzard or Night Stalker or some classic Desert Glory extraction with current gen graphics and online features

 

[Rocco Schiavone]

Man imagine some demolition on Blizzard or Night Stalker or some classic Desert Glory extraction with current gen graphics and online features

We had that with Confrontation. Ah sorry not really.

Game was a bugfest with horrible loading times and an incompetent developer called Slant six.

Fanboys still defend this trash because It was like the first and second Socom games which clearly isn't the case.

Game was extremely slow paced and does someone remember that the characters always throw grenades with the right hand?? Makes It almost Impossible throwing grenades when leaning left.

That's why Suckmyturban started the Socom Is dead series.

Good old days