• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Are we really never going to see Sony develop another SOCOM U.S. Navy SEALs? Not even an HD remaster of SOCOM II for PS4/PS5?

REDRZA MWS

Member
There is an online dedicated server running now with a new patch. 20 players online right now.



You're deluded unfortunately. If there was enough thirst for a good socom remake - it would exist in the market. It's a dead genre nostaglic to a microscopic, albeit very vocal % of active gamers.

Socom f2p would not be a hit in todays market. I hope they try though - do a proper f2p AAA shooter with socom rules and gameplay. Cosmetic skins, battlepass. Would be fun to see.
Delusional depends on your point of view. Yours is warped. Like I said, agree to disagree. This is what the ignore feature was made for. Ignored.
 

Roufianos

Member
Yeah, that makes sense that online issues of the time were factored in to help make it fun.

Am I wrong in remembering that the SOCOM beta let you use the modem feature of the PS2 Broadband Adapter to play? (The final game naturally had a big Broadband Only label on it.)



Okay, you can play SOCOM on a PC with an emulator, but are you talking single-player mode? Did it allow multiplayer bots?

SP was never the draw of SOCOM, so I know you can go that way, but between no SOCOM, a SOCOM clone, and single-player SOCOM, the choice is almost made for you...
Of course it's online my man, with real players. I never even bothered with the SP even back in the day, besides getting the Reaver and Sabre skins.
 
Delusional depends on your point of view. Yours is warped. Like I said, agree to disagree. This is what the ignore feature was made for. Ignored

You didn't actually give any valid arguments for why it would be a big success. Sad stuff.

I've played a map of S2 today. Probably have a better idea than you.
 
Last edited:

Stealthy

Neo Member
I would love to play a new Socom game. I even enjoyed MAG. A man can dream, but my pick for MAG2 would be Guerilla Games, and for the next Socom 5 for PS5 would be Kojima Productions. Ofcourse, Kojima would have to stay true to the gameplay and not add over the shoulder. I wouldn't mind snap to FPS like MGS online.
 
As far as I know, Sony still owns the code, so all of the underlying systems are still in place. I’m sure any talented developer could look at Socom 1-2 and make a great new game to fully use PS5. Sheesh, the negativity, the sun will come out tomorrow my friend.

I'm just being real, dude.

I get that you care about this series. I really do. I just hope that you aren't setting yourself up with fool's hope just for the sake of seeing some new game get made with a Socom title slapped onto the cover.
 

turtlepowa

Banned
I liked SOCOM back then, but Sony knows that today cinematic 3rd person actions adventures work like e charm. So anything else has a hard time.
 
I'm an fps guy , deathloop is not enough to fill this hole in sony's 1st party studios, there has to be more fps exclusives like they used to , it's an empty hole and everyone needs it.
 

yurinka

Member
Socom isn't a C tier game, you must be new to gaming because it was literally the savior for sony online gaming on ps2.
I played 2 or 3 of the PSP ones or PS2 ones (via BC) in PS3 and the PS3 one. They felt unspired and generic to me, I undertand why Sony shut down the studio first and the series later.
 
I played 2 or 3 of the PSP ones or PS2 ones (via BC) in PS3 and the PS3 one. They felt unspired and generic to me, I undertand why Sony shut down the studio first and the series later.
It must have been the psp games because Socom II was a landmark title for online gaming on ps2. Sony shut the studio down since they ruined the franchise with socom 4 which wasnt what fans wanted and then MAG was a flop on top of that. I bet you would be fine if sony made another walking sim with exaggerated set pieces though.
 

yurinka

Member
I bet you would be fine if sony made another walking sim with exaggerated set pieces though.
As far as I know Sony never made a walking simultator. Maybe the most similar thing is Journey, but it doesn't have exaggerated set pieces. But yes, I think Journey was amazing so I'd welcome another game like that.
 
Speak for yourself. The CoD arcade style frantic paced short attention span TTK is whats not interesting.
You say this. Yet it sells millions. This is why no company should take your advice.

Sony doesnt care about nostalgia belly warmths. They want a massively profitable game. It all rests on Factions for them at the moment.
 

CamHostage

Member
I'm an fps guy , deathloop is not enough to fill this hole in sony's 1st party studios, there has to be more fps exclusives like they used to , it's an empty hole and everyone needs it.

It's an empty hole because there's not an exclusive one right now?

PlayStation has plenty of FPSes (never mind that SOCOM was rarely played in first-person...) If the only reason a console maker has to have a "XX Killer" is for bragging rights then it'll never have that killer game because it'll be chasing trends instead of making them. We're just a few weeks away from the release of Call of Duty and Battlefield, nobody needs another military shooter right now. If SOCOM could advance the formula with something new or distinctive, it could find a place on the market and win some fans from 15 years ago back, and maybe a nostalgia release of classic SOCOM maps could have some life for a while (the original SOCOMs were rough in visuals and map scale density, but Confrontation did an uncelebratedly good job in updating the feel of the characters and the look of the world while keeping a lot of the complexity of the gameplay,) but SOCOM doesn't have to re-exist just because it doesn't exist now. People have plenty to do with their trigger buttons.
 

CamHostage

Member
Only people who haven't experienced the glory days of Socom I/II call this franchise a C tier game.

Game was the shit with Playtime records just Like Halo mp back then.

I'd argue it was more the fanbase which SOCOM cultivated that propelled SOCOM's success, not the gameplay

With its online mics and its 8p squads that demanded teamwork and communication to win (and its PS2 exclusivity, which was a big deal at the time back when gamers had to establish which side of the gate they would set up camp,) SOCOM was a legitimate phenomenon. It generated a cycle of incoming players, and the player base that gamers found waiting for them online was often friendly, enthusiastic, encouraging, cooperative, helpful, sometimes even funny, and always committed to the task of having a good match.

We wanted to play it... even if it was just SOCOM, and not something flashier or more tactile. Granted in Zipper's credit, there were some neat things about the ballistics, map design was memorable, and the distinctive 3rd-person cam / no-respawn gameplay made it stand out even as competitors started to rise up in online gaming. Ultimately though, SOCOM never got good reviews and had lots of detractors even in its day (partly because online was still tough then, especially as a BB-only game, and kids who got SOCOM for Christmas but not an Online Adapter had to bare with the cold-light-of-day of the Single Player campaign instead of getting the full SOCOM experience.) Some of my fondest gaming memories are of playing SOCOM on PSP (mics and online in a portable was mind-blowing, especially just 3 years after SOCOM itself launched as an online pioneer,) but I never over-estimated the game. It always was what it was.

Watch any video of SOCOM 1/2, would you say that it holds up all these years later compared to how Halo 1/2 does?

 
Last edited:
It's an empty hole because there's not an exclusive one right now?

PlayStation has plenty of FPSes (never mind that SOCOM was rarely played in first-person...) If the only reason a console maker has to have a "XX Killer" is for bragging rights then it'll never have that killer game because it'll be chasing trends instead of making them. We're just a few weeks away from the release of Call of Duty and Battlefield, nobody needs another military shooter right now. If SOCOM could advance the formula with something new or distinctive, it could find a place on the market and win some fans from 15 years ago back, and maybe a nostalgia release of classic SOCOM maps could have some life for a while (the original SOCOMs were rough in visuals and map scale density, but Confrontation did an uncelebratedly good job in updating the feel of the characters and the look of the world while keeping a lot of the complexity of the gameplay,) but SOCOM doesn't have to re-exist just because it doesn't exist now. People have plenty to do with their trigger buttons.
I'm talking about their current situation, I'm aware of what they did before, gg ditched killzone, resistance is either dead or kept hold for God knows how long, socom situation is tragic , what's left on sonys table ? it's okay to have new ips , I have no issues with them.
 
Last edited:

zaanan

Banned
It's an empty hole because there's not an exclusive one right now?

Yes. Since MS went scorched-earth with Zenimax, Sony needs to develop some games to compete with all the FPSes that will be coming exclusively to Xbox. Just makes good sense.
 

CamHostage

Member
Yes. Since MS went scorched-earth with Zenimax, Sony needs to develop some games to compete with all the FPSes that will be coming exclusively to Xbox. Just makes good sense.

I don't see how SOCOM would in any way "fill the hole" that Rage, Wolfenstein or Quake used to fill (again, it's not an FPS and doesn't play anything like those games in terms of pace, stage tactics, or mechanics,) but also, the idea that somebody will "compete with" Doom has kind of been mooted for almost 30 years now. A developer can make something good and special on its own, maybe in the genre of Doom, maybe even with the influence of some aspects of what made Doom great, but like I said before, trying to compete by copying the playbook doesn't usually turn out well.

But also, quite simply, Sony is not the only company that makes games for PlayStation.

Only when you have a platform that has difficulty attracting certain types of products because the audience has not been cultivated there, then you have a hole to fill. (An example would be that Xbox has a dearth of JRPGs, and Nintendo Switch has few of the flagship franchises, partly because it goes low in specs but mostly because elitist gamers want to play on other hardware while Nintendo fans historically spend a lot of their time playing Nintendo games. Both of these cases can be traced back to the hardware manufacturer themselves, but both issues are more a factor of the culture they cultivated, for better or worse, than any singular games or genres they never provided.) Sony has other problems, but there's not a lot of potholes in PlayStation's road.

I'm talking about their current situation, I'm aware of what they did before, gg ditched killzone, resistance is either dead or kept hold for God knows how long, socom situation is tragic , what's left on sonys table ?

What's left on Sony's table? A) Every other successful Sony brand in the various genres that PS players enjoy, and B) every other shooter brand including Call of Duty / Battlefield / Far Cry / Overwatch / Destiny / Apex Legends / Borderlands / Rainbow Six / Ghost Recon / Metro / Sniper Elite / Fortnite / PUBG...

(*some of those are technically TPSes, but again, what are we talking about here?)
 
Last edited:
I don't see how SOCOM would in any way "fill the hole" that Rage, Wolfenstein or Quake used to fill (again, it's not an FPS and doesn't play anything like those games in terms of pace, stage tactics, or mechanics,) but also, the idea that somebody will "compete with" Doom has kind of been mooted for almost 30 years now. A developer can make something good and special on its own, maybe in the genre of Doom, maybe even with the influence of some aspects of what made Doom great, but like I said before, trying to compete by copying the playbook doesn't usually turn out well.

But also, quite simply, Sony is not the only company that makes games for PlayStation.

Only when you have a platform that has difficulty attracting certain types of products because the audience has not been cultivated there, then you have a hole to fill. (An example would be that Xbox has a dearth of JRPGs, and Nintendo Switch has few of the flagship franchises, partly because it goes low in specs but mostly because elitist gamers want to play on other hardware while Nintendo fans historically spend a lot of their time playing Nintendo games. Both of these cases can be traced back to the hardware manufacturer themselves, but both issues are more a factor of the culture they cultivated, for better or worse, than any singular games or genres they never provided.) Sony has other problems, but there's not a lot of potholes in PlayStation's road.



What's left on Sony's table? A) Every other successful Sony brand in the various genres that PS players enjoy, and B) every other shooter brand including Call of Duty / Battlefield / Far Cry / Overwatch / Destiny / Apex Legends / Borderlands / Rainbow Six / Ghost Recon / Metro / Sniper Elite / Fortnite / PUBG...

(*some of those are technically TPSes, but again, what are we talking about here?)
So you're saying playstation is not a secondary platform for fps chasers? the first list you mentioned belongs to ms , it's like you're dancing on ms lake like a swan by mentioning them , western rpgs , near to half of the fps market if not more all belongs to ms , up to this moment ms have no right to be the nice guy with all what they've been doing and even if they do , no one should count on it.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Comes down to whether PS gamers are itching for a Navy Seals game. I dont see it. When it omes to shooter threads, how often does someone bring up wanting Sony to relaunch an old shooter like Resistance, KZ or SOCOM?

I dont see it often at all.

Aside from MS trying to plug Halo and Gears every once in a while, first party shooters seem dead. And there's no way Halo and Gears sell as well as older versions. It seems for the shooter itch, gamers some reason prefer playing third party ones.

Maybe it's due to quality, maybe it's due to not being confined to one ecosystem, I don't know. But gamers seem more willing to latch onto third party MP shooters more.

Also, for those of you wanting PS SOCOM PS5 game, it also comes to mtx as the bread and butter money maker. It's modern era now. Are you willing to pour lots of mtx money into SOCOM to make it worth it for Sony? Sony likes to crack down on servers fast. So if the sales or mtx money isn't there, they'll likely close up the servers after only 3 years kind of thing.

So are you going to buy SOCOM and be like a Fortnite or COD gamers making them lots of side money to make it worth it? If not, Sony wont bother.
 

CamHostage

Member
So you're saying playstation is not a secondary platform for fps chasers? the first list you mentioned belongs to ms , it's like you're dancing on ms lake like a swan by mentioning them , western rpgs , near to half of the fps market if not more all belongs to ms , up to this moment ms have no right to be the nice guy with all what they've been doing and even if they do , no one should count on it.

Dude, I don't know how I can write what I said any clearer in English...

* Sony does not need to make FPSes for PlayStation to have FPSes.

* Console manufacturers no longer need their own homegrown, exclusive FPS in order to be considered a legitimate buy. Gamers have found their FPS of choice in the multiplatform products such as CoD and BF and PUBG, and those games are already almost everywhere they want to play them.

* The days of the "Halo-Killer" or "Doom Clone" are over. The market is robust and diversified. There is demand for lots of other genres, as well as room to make new genres (or subgenres of existing genres, including the FPS genre,) and publishers are free to focus on titles in the genres that they're strongest in / have the most audience interest of without worrying about which categories they're listing under or whether some crowd will feel ignored by their product offering. There are enough games to go around.

* Microsoft buying up Bethesda will be a loss for PlayStation gamers who loved Doom and Quake, but Doom and Quake play nothing like SOCOM. If Sony were ever to reply to losing those franchises by saying, "Oh sure, Xbox has got Doom with its fast-paced, bloody cyber-hell eviscerations mayhem... but have you played the new SOCOM??", that's not going to work as a response.

* SOCOM is not an FPS.
 
Last edited:
I don't want another SOCOM. I prefer to spend their resources in other games instead, like Days Gone 2, Spider-Man 2, GoW Ragnarok, Uncharted 5, TLOU3 and maybe a Syphon Filter full remake or reboot by maybe Bend+Bluepoint.

If they have to revive a Sony IP that isn't Syphon Filter, I'd choose Wipeout.
This is an awful post... They have plenty of studios to make a game that's not another 3rd person action game...
 
Dude, I don't know how I can write what I said any clearer in English...

* Sony does not need to make FPSes for PlayStation to have FPSes.

* Console manufacturers no longer need their own homegrown, exclusive FPS in order to be considered a legitimate buy. Gamers have found their FPS of choice in the multiplatform products such as CoD and BF and PUBG, and those games are already almost everywhere they want to play them.

* The days of the "Halo-Killer" or "Doom Clone" are over. The market is robust and diversified. There is demand for lots of other genres, as well as room to make new genres (or subgenres of existing genres, including the FPS genre,) and publishers are free to focus on titles in the genres that they're strongest in / have the most audience interest of without worrying about which categories they're listing under or whether some crowd will feel ignored by their product offering. There are enough games to go around.

* Microsoft buying up Bethesda will be a loss for PlayStation gamers who loved Doom and Quake, but Doom and Quake play nothing like SOCOM. If Sony were ever to reply to losing those franchises by saying, "Oh sure, Xbox has got Doom with its fast-paced, bloody cyber-hell eviscerations mayhem... but have you played the new SOCOM??", that's not going to work as a response.

* SOCOM is not an FPS.
Socom is probably the main game mentioned outside of Silent Hill, and Metal Gear anytime a PS event comes out people talk about Socom.
 
Last edited:

CamHostage

Member
Socom is probably the main game mentioned anytime a PS event comes out people talk about Socom.

...on SOCOM forums.
In the real world, it comes up occasionally.

And again, I'm not saying 'no' to SOCOM. If it happens, yay. If not, aww, but it is what it is.

What I'm saying is that this idea that SOCOM is the missing puzzle piece in Sony's master plan because without SOCOM, Sony is without a military shooter for its players to enjoy because Third Party games somehow don't count, that is delusional. (Also, the specific post I responded to that said Sony must bring back SOCOM because MS bought up Doom and Quake and Rage, that seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what SOCOM was and why it ever succeeded.)

Side-note, but part of the reason why people still talk about SOCOM with some hope is because rumors came out that Guerrilla was working on SOCOM. I have no idea if there's any validity to that (they seem to be a funny choice to make an American military shooter, but okay, they're talented and have a nice engine, could be good,) but before that, SOCOM was pretty safely considered retired, as it's been gone for 10 years now, almost as long for the studio that made it, and it's not really the kind of game that Sony makes these days. Without that rumor, SOCOM is a past-tense conversation for two generations of game platforms now.
 
Last edited:

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
...on SOCOM forums.
In the real world, it comes up occasionally.

And again, I'm not saying 'no' to SOCOM. If it happens, yay. If not, aww, but it is what it is.

What I'm saying is that this idea that SOCOM is the missing puzzle piece in Sony's master plan because without SOCOM, Sony is without a military shooter for its players to enjoy because Third Party games somehow don't count, that is delusional. (Also, the specific post I responded to that said Sony must bring back SOCOM because MS bought up Doom and Quake and Rage, that seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what SOCOM was and why it ever succeeded.)

Side-note, but part of the reason why people still talk about SOCOM with some hope is because rumors came out that Guerrilla was working on SOCOM. I have no idea if there's any validity to that (they seem to be a funny choice to make an American military shooter, but okay, they're talented and have a nice engine, could be good,) but before that, SOCOM was pretty safely considered retired, as it's been gone for 10 years now, almost as long for the studio that made it, and it's not really the kind of game that Sony makes these days. Without that rumor, SOCOM is a past-tense conversation for two generations of game platforms now.
SOCOM actually feels better suited for the PC crowd. I never played them, but its supposed to be a more hardcore tactical game compared to the CODs of the world. Lets face it, that is not the console shooter crowd.

On PC, it can go with all the tactical gamers playing ARMA and whatever sim-style shooters.
 

FrankWza

Member
...on SOCOM forums.
In the real world, it comes up occasionally.

And again, I'm not saying 'no' to SOCOM. If it happens, yay. If not, aww, but it is what it is.

What I'm saying is that this idea that SOCOM is the missing puzzle piece in Sony's master plan because without SOCOM, Sony is without a military shooter for its players to enjoy because Third Party games somehow don't count, that is delusional. (Also, the specific post I responded to that said Sony must bring back SOCOM because MS bought up Doom and Quake and Rage, that seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what SOCOM was and why it ever succeeded.)

Side-note, but part of the reason why people still talk about SOCOM with some hope is because rumors came out that Guerrilla was working on SOCOM. I have no idea if there's any validity to that (they seem to be a funny choice to make an American military shooter, but okay, they're talented and have a nice engine, could be good,) but before that, SOCOM was pretty safely considered retired, as it's been gone for 10 years now, almost as long for the studio that made it, and it's not really the kind of game that Sony makes these days. Without that rumor, SOCOM is a past-tense conversation for two generations of game platforms now.
The closest experience to Socom isn’t close at all. There’s nothing like it on the market. If it was to be released, we’d find out really quickly if it’s going to be well received and played by a good amount of players on a consistent basis. There is absolutely a market for a smaller squad 3rd person shooter where you have to use your mic and communicate with your teammates.
Once you find that, you start with the clans and then you get hours and hours and years and years of fun with the same people that play like you and want the same experience as you. As of now, we’re forced to play in respawn matches with people locked away in party chats or worried about streaming and whatever else. The 2042 beta is the latest example. Nobody chats. No strategy. Just running and gunning. Give me 8v8 or 16 v 16 no respawn option in a 3rd person shooter. I know for a fact there would be a market for that game and there would be lobbies filled.
Hope that didn’t come off preachy.
 
SOCOM actually feels better suited for the PC crowd. I never played them, but its supposed to be a more hardcore tactical game compared to the CODs of the world. Lets face it, that is not the console shooter crowd.

On PC, it can go with all the tactical gamers playing ARMA and whatever sim-style shooters.
What are you talking about it's mentioned on this forum ALL THE TIME. In fact every messageboard I've been to in a gaming section mentions socom. DR. Disrespect has mentioned Socom you Cleary don't know poop
 
Last edited:
Comes down to whether PS gamers are itching for a Navy Seals game. I dont see it. When it omes to shooter threads, how often does someone bring up wanting Sony to relaunch an old shooter like Resistance, KZ or SOCOM?

I dont see it often at all.

Aside from MS trying to plug Halo and Gears every once in a while, first party shooters seem dead. And there's no way Halo and Gears sell as well as older versions. It seems for the shooter itch, gamers some reason prefer playing third party ones.

Maybe it's due to quality, maybe it's due to not being confined to one ecosystem, I don't know. But gamers seem more willing to latch onto third party MP shooters more.

Also, for those of you wanting PS SOCOM PS5 game, it also comes to mtx as the bread and butter money maker. It's modern era now. Are you willing to pour lots of mtx money into SOCOM to make it worth it for Sony? Sony likes to crack down on servers fast. So if the sales or mtx money isn't there, they'll likely close up the servers after only 3 years kind of thing.

So are you going to buy SOCOM and be like a Fortnite or COD gamers making them lots of side money to make it worth it? If not, Sony wont bother.
Tbh , I just use it to make a list ,socom is not in my best interest, but despite all that , socom fans kept talking about it literally for more than a decade, explain to me that it's dead , cause games now days are been forgotten easily, it doesn't happen often that people keep talking about a game for such a long time without seeing any sign for a sequel.
 

Kdad

Member
IMO C tier Sony shooters like Socom, MAG, Starhawk, Warhawk, Resistance or Haze must continue buried. They should focus instead in more successful IPs and new IPs.
Ah yes...who could forget the SONY shooter 'HAZE"...all that development money and publishing money they sunk into it. You're right!

Shrug.jpg


/s
 

CamHostage

Member
SOCOM actually feels better suited for the PC crowd. I never played them, but its supposed to be a more hardcore tactical game compared to the CODs of the world. Lets face it, that is not the console shooter crowd.

On PC, it can go with all the tactical gamers playing ARMA and whatever sim-style shooters.

No, actually SOCOM was best suited for the console crowd. It was among other things the response to wanting to bring that hardcore tactical game that excelled on PCs to a console (and eventually a portable.)

SOCOM was made for a controller. It had smarts to it in certain ways (members of Zipper Interactive were actually doing military training work before turning to games) but it wasn't overly-complicated or difficult to maintain your gear or wield your weapon. PC gamers would call it "dumbed-down", SOCOM fans would call it "streamlined" and "fun". This was a game that primarily delivered tense, enjoyable multiplayer shootouts rather than serious military simulation, and in a way the "hardcore tactical game" image comes from how serious players approached it and how much command the top players in a match took in deploying their team on the map. Gunplay was not completely serious in the sim fashion (you could run-and-gun, moving while shooting, and although guns had recoil. combat could sometimes devolve into clumsy near-range clip-emptying gun-em-up fights,) and there was a command element to the SP mode where you could direct your squad (something that was polished in the underrated PSP games SOCOM Tactical Strike and SOCOM FTB 3,) but the AI or mission structure didn't really have that sim feel of like a Rainbow Six. SOCOM was custom-fit for the strengths of the PlayStation at the time.

That's part of the reason why a number of SOCOM clones on PC (but weirdly never reaching PlayStation) that have come out since SOCOM went down have failed. The third-person shooter gameplay was built for a controller, for one thing, and when you move that to the precision of a mouse, it may not be a great fit.

There have been games that have tried, though. David Sears of the SOCOM team made H-Hour (which some still hold out hope for despite lots of problems in its Early Access'ish history,) and more recently Caliber by 1C Game Studios has a little bit of its flavor (albeit it's a F2P game and is going after the lunch of a lot of other games besides just SOCOM.) Also the Battle Royale genre itself has a lot of the flavor of SOCOM infused into it (although it'd hard enough getting just 3 people online to turn their mics on and coordinate properly, so that SOCOM feeling where almost everybody on your team talked with one another might still not there even if/when the gameplay is close.)



 
Last edited:

CamHostage

Member
The closest experience to Socom isn’t close at all. There’s nothing like it on the market. If it was to be released, we’d find out really quickly if it’s going to be well received and played by a good amount of players on a consistent basis. There is absolutely a market for a smaller squad 3rd person shooter where you have to use your mic and communicate with your teammates.... I know for a fact there would be a market for that game and there would be lobbies filled.
Hope that didn’t come off preachy.

Sure. That's the dream, that's the reason this thread exists, that's why people are passionate with their responses.

SOCOM was something distinctive in its time, and if it were possible to capture that again, that would be fantastic for fans and lucrative for Sony. And if it succeeded in a way that put up a fight against other popular online games, it would drive a section of gamers exclusively to PlayStation and give Sony something to potentially build upon with other titles for that audience. (Although these days, online gamers tend to have "their game" that they play constantly rather than looking for the next-big-thing, so building upon a successful SOCOM wouldn't necessarily be other games like SOCOM, it'd be more content for SOCOM.) Sony is selling a lot of PlayStations thanks to its must-play character action games, but in terms of multiplayer, gamers could go turn on either one of these boxes and play their favorites; if SOCOM became a phenomenon again, it would help turn heads towards PS when choosing a console to take home (and could even be a fun rematch of the battle of Halo vs SOCOM in online gaming fandom, where the games are totally dissimilar in play but at the time had a strange familiarity & rivalry in how they inspired their chosen fanbase.)

IMO, that formula and that warfare-party audience SOCOM is known for would be extremely difficult to replicate these days, a decade after the collapse and with a very different gaming audience and market... but, I would be happy to be proven wrong.

All I've been trying to say is that the people angry that the SOCOM that may likely not exist has not been announced or that Sony is throwing money away if it is not making a new SOCOM 15 years after it was popular, they need to look around and see how difficult it'd be to make a successful new SOCOM. It'd have to be good, (which even Zipper had trouble accomplishing with 4 and some might argue 3,) it would have to be something Sony would want to do and want to support long-term, it would have to be authentic to the original yet up to date with today's games (something that SOCOM Confrontation probably didn't get enough credit for when its technical and content failings put it under fire,) it would need to catch on and encourage people to turn their mics back on, and it would need to be compelling enough to compete with established heavyweight shooters (even if it is a TPS instead of a FPS...) that dominate a lot of gamers' time. It would be by no means a sure thing, and it's certainly not a brand so unimpeachable that those on this thread doubting it'll ever work out need to be flamed as heretics. As I described back in February, there may be a way and it may be a great win if it ever happens, but any path back SOCOM could take would be a hard road to victory.
 
Last edited:
H
Dude, I don't know how I can write what I said any clearer in English...

* Sony does not need to make FPSes for PlayStation to have FPSes.

* Console manufacturers no longer need their own homegrown, exclusive FPS in order to be considered a legitimate buy. Gamers have found their FPS of choice in the multiplatform products such as CoD and BF and PUBG, and those games are already almost everywhere they want to play them.

* The days of the "Halo-Killer" or "Doom Clone" are over. The market is robust and diversified. There is demand for lots of other genres, as well as room to make new genres (or subgenres of existing genres, including the FPS genre,) and publishers are free to focus on titles in the genres that they're strongest in / have the most audience interest of without worrying about which categories they're listing under or whether some crowd will feel ignored by their product offering. There are enough games to go around.

* Microsoft buying up Bethesda will be a loss for PlayStation gamers who loved Doom and Quake, but Doom and Quake play nothing like SOCOM. If Sony were ever to reply to losing those franchises by saying, "Oh sure, Xbox has got Doom with its fast-paced, bloody cyber-hell eviscerations mayhem... but have you played the new SOCOM??", that's not going to work as a response.

* SOCOM is not an FPS.
Home grown or lab grown is not the main topic , most of us got over this complex , all the fancy sub genres are for the multi plats , when it comes to exclusives, you get limited choices but unique at the same time, it's in their sony's marketing term as well as others which is that you experience things you couldn't get elsewhere , that's what mades them a system seller, how in the world a sub generic genre being a system seller ? that just doesn't make any sense.
 
Last edited:

yurinka

Member
Ah yes...who could forget the SONY shooter 'HAZE"...all that development money and publishing money they sunk into it. You're right!

Shrug.jpg


/s
It was a 3rd party exclusive fully funded by Sony.


This is an awful post... They have plenty of studios to make a game that's not another 3rd person action game...
Socom is another 3rd person action game, but without the good narrative the others have and adding co-op and propaganda instead.
 
Last edited:

REDRZA MWS

Member
Socom is another 3rd person action game, but without good narrative and adding co-op and propaganda.
It doesn’t need “narrative”, it’s a strategic online MP shooter. It was Sony’s best shooter, and should have never been abandoned. I keep hoping for news of a PS5 version.
 

yurinka

Member
It doesn’t need “narrative”, it’s a strategic online MP shooter. It was Sony’s best shooter, and should have never been abandoned. I keep hoping for news of a PS5 version.
Yes, I know it doesn't need narrative. I mentioned it because it's one of the reasons of why the other Sony 3rd person action games performed way better than the ones that don't have it.
 

yurinka

Member
'Fully Funded', vs Sony Paid for Exclusivity are different things...
Background on developement https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-04-26-the-collapse-of-free-radical-design
Yes, they are different things but in this case are the same: back then Sony needed a 'Halo killer' and didn't find it. With Haze they saw a very successful publisher and a very talented dev team so invested hard on it paying a shit ton of money funding the whole project to get the full exclusivity. On paper was a good idea but results weren't good.
 
I really hope this happens. The tactical shooter market is booming on PC right now. If they just rebooted it as SOCOM and made it a third person tactical shooter with full soldier customization just like SOCOM: Confrontation had, it would be unbelievable.

I wrote it already but I say it again.

One battle royale mode with alle Socom I/II/III maps in one huge world.

Purist mode without looting and on one map.

Would sell like hot cakes.
 
Top Bottom