By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - If "Warhawk" and "SOCOM" were on the 360 ...

SlumsofOhio on 03 June 2009

Warhawk's awesome. If it ever came to the 360 & PS3, i'd buy both. I think Warhawk could have sold rather well on the 360.



                                   

Around the Network
nightsurge on 03 June 2009
JEDE3 said:
nightsurge said:
JEDE3 said:
Zipper didn't develop Confrontation... man you don't even know about the game your bashing. Pathetic.

I'm sorry, I figured Zipper made it considering your question.  Like I could care less who made it.

Congrats on making my case. How many of those are online only? How many of those were developed by zipper?

And I'm not being a troll, I'm stating facts about the game, as well as my opinion of it.  After having owned it for months I never played it because every time I tried it was bugs and lag heaven.  I'm sure it's "busy" but even just a few tiny thousand players each day would appear that way.  I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks this game achieved what it was meant to is really low balling it.


No no no no, You are NOT stating facts. You are stating claims you pulled from your ass. Where is the data showing that it flopped? In order for you to prove it flopped you must either show A. Sony's expectations of it selling as much as previous SOCOMS or B. Sony's financial breakdown of this game.

Actually, no, I don't have to find those 2 specific things to show it flopped.  For me and many other Socom fans, it flopped.  In sales related to past games, it flopped.  In being a quality product, it flopped.  Seriously, you surely had the internet back when this game was released, right?  Did you not see all the articles and reviews, and even follow up articles and reviews that came after the first few attempts to fix the broken game?

Also, by facts I was referring to the bugs and patches they attempted.  Flop was more of an opinion that is shared with many and has lots to back it up.

The only reason it sold remotely well is because the PS3 can actually do online gaming with ease where the PS2 required adapters and other measures.

Do you want me to round up all those articles for you?  Surely that's enough proof?



Onyxmeth on 03 June 2009
JEDE3 said:
Grrr... the numbers are getting cut off. SOCOM is at .82 without DL's. Hardly a fail for an online only game(moving the goal posts) made by devs who don't make the franchise.(moving the goal posts)

I completely agree with this!



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.



nightsurge on 03 June 2009
Onyxmeth said:
JEDE3 said:
Grrr... the numbers are getting cut off. SOCOM is at .82 without DL's. Hardly a fail for an online only game(moving the goal posts) made by devs who don't make the franchise.(moving the goal posts)

I completely agree with this!

Lol



Yakuzaice on 03 June 2009
nightsurge said:
Yakuzaice said:
nightsurge said:

^And compared to those this one flopped

Thanks for giving excuses as to why it did flop, along side the fact that it absolutely sucked.
And yes this does not include the possible 50k that were downloaded.

Both PS2 visions sold better, even the PSP versions did better.

Maybe Zipper should have been smarter and made sure the game was:

1. Ready and not bug heaven

2. Had a single player campaign

Zipper might have done that if they had made the game.

Also I notice how you ignore that it outsold Combined Assault without even factoring in downloads.  Not to mention both S3 and Combined Assault turned a lot of people off the series.

Thanks for coming in late.  I ignored those because I figured those were crap expansions that obviously were flops themselves by your own definition.

Take away Zipper.  Insert correct publisher/developer.  All I did was assume from what JED said.  I really could care less about the game since it sucked so bad that I sold it and how burned I am for having wasted money on it to have to suffer through lag and bugs for months.

So I guess Confrontation was a very successful game.  No single player, new developer, not a numbered sequel, and coming off two "crap expansions" (not that I disagree with that one), yet it still outsold the previous game in the series.  You are the one who came in saying it flopped hard, so you cared enough to start this.



Around the Network
JEDE3 on 03 June 2009
nightsurge said:
JEDE3 said:
nightsurge said:
JEDE3 said:
Zipper didn't develop Confrontation... man you don't even know about the game your bashing. Pathetic.

I'm sorry, I figured Zipper made it considering your question.  Like I could care less who made it.

Congrats on making my case. How many of those are online only? How many of those were developed by zipper?

And I'm not being a troll, I'm stating facts about the game, as well as my opinion of it.  After having owned it for months I never played it because every time I tried it was bugs and lag heaven.  I'm sure it's "busy" but even just a few tiny thousand players each day would appear that way.  I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks this game achieved what it was meant to is really low balling it.


No no no no, You are NOT stating facts. You are stating claims you pulled from your ass. Where is the data showing that it flopped? In order for you to prove it flopped you must either show A. Sony's expectations of it selling as much as previous SOCOMS or B. Sony's financial breakdown of this game.

Actually, no, I don't have to find those 2 specific things to show it flopped.  For me and many other Socom fans, it flopped.  In sales related to past games, it flopped.  In being a quality product, it flopped.  Seriously, you surely had the internet back when this game was released, right?  Did you not see all the articles and reviews, and even follow up articles and reviews that came after the first few attempts to fix the broken game?

Also, by facts I was referring to the bugs and patches they attempted.  Flop was more of an opinion that is shared with many and has lots to back it up.

The only reason it sold remotely well is because the PS3 can actually do online gaming with ease where the PS2 required adapters and other measures.

Do you want me to round up all those articles for you?  Surely that's enough proof?


You are arguing it was a critical flop. Then I can agree with that. But I will not say it flopped in sales.



nightsurge on 03 June 2009

Notice I never really said it flopped in sales? You jumped on the sales train so I went with that and saw that from my view it didn't exactly excel in sales either.

My original statement was merely from the aspect of how the actual game turned out and all the bad press it got as a result, as well as turning off many of it's buyers.

And again, I'd like to note that calling it a flop was of course mostly the opinionated part, not the factual part I was talking of.



JEDE3 on 03 June 2009

Instead of calling it a flop why not call it what it was which was a buggy mess?

And excuse me for assuming you meant sales. What could have given me that impression... /looks at op



nightsurge on 03 June 2009
Yakuzaice said:
nightsurge said:
Yakuzaice said:
nightsurge said:

^And compared to those this one flopped

Thanks for giving excuses as to why it did flop, along side the fact that it absolutely sucked.
And yes this does not include the possible 50k that were downloaded.

Both PS2 visions sold better, even the PSP versions did better.

Maybe Zipper should have been smarter and made sure the game was:

1. Ready and not bug heaven

2. Had a single player campaign

Zipper might have done that if they had made the game.

Also I notice how you ignore that it outsold Combined Assault without even factoring in downloads.  Not to mention both S3 and Combined Assault turned a lot of people off the series.

Thanks for coming in late.  I ignored those because I figured those were crap expansions that obviously were flops themselves by your own definition.

Take away Zipper.  Insert correct publisher/developer.  All I did was assume from what JED said.  I really could care less about the game since it sucked so bad that I sold it and how burned I am for having wasted money on it to have to suffer through lag and bugs for months.

So I guess Confrontation was a very successful game.  No single player, new developer, not a numbered sequel, and coming off two "crap expansions" (not that I disagree with that one), yet it still outsold the previous game in the series.  You are the one who came in saying it flopped hard, so you cared enough to start this.

May I direct you to this message:

JEDE3 said:

Grrr... the numbers are getting cut off. SOCOM is at .82 without DL's. Hardly a fail for an online only game(moving the goal posts) made by devs who don't make the franchise.(moving the goal posts)

I would not call it a very successful game by any means.  If you want to start "moving the goal posts", it was also the first fresh iteration of the game on the new platform, sporting better graphics and a lot of online combat, so it should have sold near the levels of the first few games on PS2 which still shined in online, but lacked the essential hardware such as the hard drive and ethernet attachment to the PS2.



JEDE3 on 03 June 2009

How can it be moving the goal posts if there was no field set up in the first place? Thats just you guys trying to be smart asses