Sony Claims SOCOM II Bragging Rights (Over XBL)

sying

sying

CAGiversary!
Feedback
2 (100%)
In a recent IGN article:
Sony Computer Entertainment sent out a gleeful announcement today claiming that SOCOM II: U.S. Navy SEALS has averaged 373,000 online player hours per day, apparently more player hours daily than all Xbox Live titles log worldwide.


Want another big number? The total player hours on SOCOM II is approaching 94 million hours, or 10,835 years of straight gameplay.
Click to expand...

Link: http://ps2.ign.com/articles/534/534576p1.html

Let me be the first to say BULLSHIT. XBL gametime far outtrumps even the least played XBL enabled game. There might be more logged time in because it takes you 30 minutes to start playing the game: 5 minutes to log on, 5 minutes to wait for you friend to log on and "text message" (lame in comparison to XBL 3.0 voice and/or video mail), 5 minutes to find a room that isn't full so you and your friend can play in the same server, 5 minutes to find a game in that server in that isn't full, 5 minutes for loading and 5 minutes waiting, realizing that you joined 5 seconds into a 6 minute game + load time.

Furthermore, you can have 3 screen names for each memory card, so I am sure that people have an average of 3 thier total member tally is a bit skewed. XBL is so robust that Sony promises that the Lamestation 3 will have features JUST LIKE XBL. But of course with different, hipper names. New names always do it for me. Sony, shut up and just try to play catchup with the other big 2 consoles.

I imagine (but don't have the official stats in front of me) that SOCOM II can't even touch the top 20 XBL games in terms of gameplay time:
http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/liv...ivehome&level2=topgames&level3=top25gameslist

And now that EA has semi-supported XBL there is really no comparison. XBL has Playstation Online beat on three levels: Game selection and quality. Gameplay features. Gameplay experience.

SOCOM II is Rainbow Six's Bitch
 
I could care less about this whole topic, but as a frequent user of both online services, I find that it takes the same amount of time to find and play an online game.

I never could understand the sheer stupidity of fanboy-ism, nor fanboyz.

BTW Counter-Strike pwns that door-opening simulator; R63 (IMO).
 
Let us all hop on our time machine to november 9. I can see the headline now "Halo 2 Bitchslaps Socom II Into Next Week". In all seriousness can we compare numbers on multiplatform games for online play cause it seems like NFL 2k5 is sold out for xbox everywhere I go and on the shelf for ps2...
 
I was at a friend's house when they were playing Socom II and I noticed there was either massive lag or they continually got dropped out of every game they played in. The thing would freeze up and they'd have to restart the PS2s.

So whatever, they can have their "we have more hours than XBL" bragging rights, at least I'm not dropped out of every XBL game I go into.
 
who cares lol. I personally play socom 2 all the time and i really don't have a problem with it since it's free and all. and if i wanted a really good online gaming experience i would play counter strike since i can use a mouse and keyboard
 
I agree, XBL is the better of the two services. However the PS2 has a much higher installed base, and allows dial-up connections.. so it just makes sense they'll have a higher player base online.

And if you're going to post fanboy comments like Lamestation.. stay on Gamefaqs, we really dont want that here.
 
How the hell did this guy pull off this thread without getting bashed to hell like I got when I made fanboy threads as a noob? Either way, they've been saying this for a while. I don't agree with using the term Lamestation, but I do agree, and others gotta, it does take a long time compared to other titles to log online and everything on Socom 2. When I have a little bit of a desire to play Socom 2 and it's already in the disc drive, a lot of times I don't play it 'cause I dread how long it'll take to get online.
 
yea, socom 2 DOES take a while to get to playing online, but OP, what the fuck are you talkin about "Sony, shut up and just try to play catchup with the other big 2 consoles" ??

IMO, GC has nothin but some slight better graphic capabilities over ps2...xbox has better system stats and online capabilities...that's pretty much all i see
 
socom 2 can only support 100,000 players online...

i'm thinking they accidentally put an extra "0" on the end or something, because in its peak hours of the day, socom II usually has somewhere between 30,000 and 40,000 players.


but i would like to say that the OP is obviously a XBOX fanboy.

Sony isnt playing catchup to anyone. Sony is far ahead of both of the other 2 consoles as far as profit goes.

If anything, nintendo is playing catchup (in the online market).

Considering that getting online on the PS2 is free, their setup is good.
For those who have 56k, ps2 is their only option for online console gaming.

i was planning on signing up for XBL, but the year free subscription card expired >.< .. i'll be signing up for it sometime soon thought i guess.

you must keep in mind that even though $40 or $50 a year doesnt seem like much, if you have like 1,000,000 XBL subscribers, microsoft would have an extra 40 or 50 million to spend on servers
 
On the subject fanboys, here's my ranking of which ones are most annoying or/and clueless, most annoying or/and clueless are at the top. Here it is:

1.) PC fanboys
2.) PS2 fanboys
3.) Xbox fanboys
4.) Gamecube fanboys
 
If anything, nintendo is playing catchup (in the online market).
Click to expand...

Catch up? more like "I'm not playing your silly game! I have a better one. it's called conectivity!"

All fanboys take note: PS2: cool NGC: cool XBOX: big as fuck, but still, cool Fanboys: so very not cool.

::gives all of his systems great big hugs :grouphug: ::

::gives finger to fanboys::

piss off, douche bags.[/quote]
 
[quote name='BigNick']XBL is far superior to ps2 online. Always has benn, and always will be.[/quote]

thats why you have to pay to play. I personally would rather spend that 50 and buy a lot more games.

paying to play online is dumb IMO
 
[quote name='Cracka']socom 2 can only support 100,000 players online...

i'm thinking they accidentally put an extra "0" on the end or something, because in its peak hours of the day, socom II usually has somewhere between 30,000 and 40,000 players.


but i would like to say that the OP is obviously a XBOX fanboy.

Sony isnt playing catchup to anyone. Sony is far ahead of both of the other 2 consoles as far as profit goes.

If anything, nintendo is playing catchup (in the online market).

Considering that getting online on the PS2 is free, their setup is good.
For those who have 56k, ps2 is their only option for online console gaming.

i was planning on signing up for XBL, but the year free subscription card expired >.< .. i'll be signing up for it sometime soon thought i guess.

you must keep in mind that even though $40 or $50 a year doesnt seem like much, if you have like 1,000,000 XBL subscribers, microsoft would have an extra 40 or 50 million to spend on servers[/quote]

thats what im sayin...how is sony playin catch up???? imo, nintendo is...

nintendo--> "how stupid is online gaming...jeez...what we need is to connect a portable gaming system to our gc for intense fun!!!! that'll teach 'em" and so it did
 
blah, yeah this topic is kinda fanboyish. But who cares what Sony says. I don't care what any of the big 3 say. They all hype games and systems. None of it means jack. I know what console I like best, I know what online service I like best. As for the poll, to really make it fair it should be on the general game news board.
 
PS2 online is definately a joke. I've had both at the same time, and I much preferred XBox. 103,000 players a day? Whoopdiedoo, XBox live probably has five times more than that. Not to mention that XBox Live is virtually cheat free and lag free, whereas PS2 supports 56K and broadband, little or no voice chat, and rarely patches games.

Just because players play doesn't mean anything. They could be winning right now, but six months down the road, the servers could be shut down, while XBox Live players keep paying money. I love XBox Live. I mean, where else can you sit and talk for hours with friends that live far away for (basically) free? You can keep in touch with old friends -- and, admit it, how many of you start a chat room with friends, then you all turn to watch a sports event and you sit there and talk about it? I've had chats with people thousands of miles away while watching WWE Raw or any other program. XBox Live is wonderful.
 
I mean, where else can you sit and talk for hours with friends that live far away for (basically) free?
Click to expand...

socom II online..lmao


anyways on the subject of XBL, anybody know of Halo 2 will come with a free subscription? I bought a XBL starter kit a while back, before i had any XBL games, and the 1 year free subscription that came with it expired and i didnt realize it until i got ready to sign up :([/quote]
 
Those 1 year cards have an expiration date, but you can still use them. Call up Microsoft and they will give you a new code once you provide them with the old expired unused code.
 
no matter which service you like (and really, no one cares either way), you must acknowledge the facts - ps2 has dominated this generation in every respect. 17 of the top 20 best selling games this generation are on ps2, and the op's quoted online numbers are easy to believe considering the installed base.
 
I don't understand how people can even think it's a fair comparison to compare the services Xbox Live and PS2 online support provide.

Look at the benefits Xbox Live has to begin with...

1. a set standard: if you don't have broadband, you don't play. It's a whole lot easier to put out a fair, balanced, compelling gameplay experience when you don't have to work about the lowest common denominator.

2. Recurring revenue stream. Microsoft is getting money from subscribers. Sure, it isn't a ton, but every little bit helps.

Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges.
 
never before has online gaming been so interactive on a personal level. The xbox really makes the phrase "it's good to play together" a true reality. On old pc games online i felt like (intellectually) ants working in a anthill but with XBL I feel like associates working in an office. That was a simile relating to the importance of communication in case you didn't get it. Ok, im out.
 
I prefer SONY online, mainly due to the level of interaction. I played all last night with two people who worked at Insomniac, which was really cool.

When Ratchet and Clank comes out, SONY will def. have one more killer app to put next to SOCOM (it is that good).
 
guess i'll have to call and see about getting a new code to replace the one that expired.


Being able to talk with your teammates over a mic, has definitely changed online gaming in a big way. If you play socom II online, try playing with a whole team that has no mics..... not being able to communicate drives me insane.



also since i just found out you can get a replacement code if your free trial of XBL code expired, i might be hooking mine up soon. Right now the only XBL enabled games i have are Soldier of Fortune II, Ghost Recon Island Thunder, and Counter Strike. Are any of these games popular online?
 
I agree, microphones make all the difference. In fact, it can make the online aspect either suck or be a crapload of fun.
 
[quote name='ex0']I agree, microphones make all the difference. In fact, it can make the online aspect either suck or be a crapload of fun.[/quote]

Considering the age and maturity level of most players of online games on the Xbox, it's often more of the former than the latter.
 
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='ex0']I agree, microphones make all the difference. In fact, it can make the online aspect either suck or be a crapload of fun.[/quote]

Considering the age and maturity level of most players of online games on the Xbox, it's often more of the former than the latter.[/quote]

yea i agree, but this is where the ability to mute others shines. (in games that allow you to)
 
F*CK XBL. I don't agree that you have to pay to play online so I'm still for PS2 Online(until they start charging). I play SOCOM II all the time and I enjoy it better than CounterStrike for XBL. I hate how hosts have all the control in the room and they can just restart it whenever they feel like it.

As far as I can read from the first post, all it talks about are HOURS, not players. I agree that you have up to 3 player names on a memory card for SOCOM II, but you can actually have unlimited as long as you don't save it, but each one still counts for player HOURS since you did play on that name for that amount of time.

And for the time to log on, its under a minute...which is not bad. The long load time to get to the game menu when you power on the ps2 is the bitch.

And the LAG does suck ass!!
 
yea, i know xbl is a LOT better than ps2 online, but yea, you have to pay....but still...if i did have an xbox, i think i would pay for xbl...its kinda like the internet...
 
[quote name='PrinceNeil']F*CK XBL. I don't agree that you have to pay to play online so I'm still for PS2 Online(until they start charging). [/quote]

Well, all I can say to that is enjoy it while you can, because it's only a matter of time before Sony copies the XBL setup and starts charging.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback'][quote name='BigNick']XBL is far superior to ps2 online. Always has benn, and always will be.[/quote]

thats why you have to pay to play. I personally would rather spend that 50 and buy a lot more games.

paying to play online is dumb IMO[/quote]

Well you have to look at what you are getting. I know I rather pay 70 dollars to get a set of headphones with mic, a year to Xbox Live (which is great because everyone has set usernames, microphones, you can send video and voice messages, you don't have to deal with 56kers, you can send invites to your friends even if they are playing another game...they are setting up clans, online storage, and messenger compatibility with XBL Ver. 3.0, plus many more things) plus you get a free copy of one of the best online games for Xbox Crimson Skies (which goes for 30). That is a bargain for only 70 dollars.

After playing XBL everything else (from PC to PS2 gaming) just seems like crap. Microsoft really spoiled me.
 
[quote name='Cracka']Right now the only XBL enabled games i have are Soldier of Fortune II, Ghost Recon Island Thunder, and Counter Strike. Are any of these games popular online?[/quote]

According to the Top 25 XBL games worldwide SoF II is number 25 (when you search for a game refine your search then wait...if you don't no games will appear), Ghost Recon: IT is number 7 and Counter Strike is number 2

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/liv...ivehome&level2=topgames&level3=top25gameslist
 
[quote name='Cracka']
I mean, where else can you sit and talk for hours with friends that live far away for (basically) free?
Click to expand...

socom II online..lmao


anyways on the subject of XBL, anybody know of Halo 2 will come with a free subscription? I bought a XBL starter kit a while back, before i had any XBL games, and the 1 year free subscription that came with it expired and i didnt realize it until i got ready to sign up :([/quote][/quote]


I'm sure he's talking about the lobby on the Xbox Live dashboard where you just sit and talk.
 
[quote name='PrinceNeil']F*CK XBL. I don't agree that you have to pay to play online so I'm still for PS2 Online(until they start charging). I play SOCOM II all the time and I enjoy it better than CounterStrike for XBL. I hate how hosts have all the control in the room and they can just restart it whenever they feel like it.

And the LAG does suck ass!![/quote]

The reality is that most people who can afford to own a Xbox and pay bills, can also afford ~$0.15 a day for a year. $50+ for a year pating for a starter kit and a subscription is a better investment if you play a lot, and don't like laggy game rooms than the alternative Sony Online. First off, you have had to pay for the online adapter anyway.., and besides, Xbox Live servive has a more organized system and community if that makes sense. Also if you play in almost any online game, you always have to expect -- a$$h0les.
 
[quote name='gamefreak117'][quote name='PrinceNeil']F*CK XBL. I don't agree that you have to pay to play online so I'm still for PS2 Online(until they start charging). I play SOCOM II all the time and I enjoy it better than CounterStrike for XBL. I hate how hosts have all the control in the room and they can just restart it whenever they feel like it.

And the LAG does suck ass!![/quote]

The reality is that most people who can afford to own a Xbox and pay bills, can also afford ~$0.15 a day for a year. $50+ for a year pating for a starter kit and a subscription is a better investment if you play a lot, and don't like laggy game rooms than the alternative Sony Online. First off, you have had to pay for the online adapter anyway.., and besides, Xbox Live servive has a more organized system and community if that makes sense. Also if you play in almost any online game, you always have to expect -- a$$h0les.[/quote]

If they charge me $.15 a day, then I would probably go for it since I don't play everyday. I actually want to play XBL now since I just received a FREE copy of Top Spin from Microsoft in the mail and I have absolutely NO clue why I got it because I didn't sign up or fill out any quizzes or anything.
I didn't say I can't afford it, but I am a cheapass so I'll be buying those 2-month trials for a buck and play like that. I actually have the starter kit from the M$ retail program and I already sold the headset for $20 and the Crimson Skies for $15...so I have a 12-month subscription for less than $5 after the difference and eBay/PayPal fees, but I don't think I'm ready to fully utilize those 12-months yet.
 
I love SOCOM 2. The game deserves the praise and attention that it recieves from its fans.

As for lag, the game is pretty finicky about connection quality, and if you're connection isn't very good, you're likely going to get lagged and disconnect a lot. Thankfully, my friends and I don't have to deal with it. I did , however, have a moment of lag and disconnects with an overheating router and modem, though. Hard to beat 16 players without having to worry about the other guy/host.

Xbox Live is technically better, but most people will feel that games are what makes the experience. And, as far as my opinion is, SOCOM is where it's at, along with the upcoming GT4. So, you can pretty much surmize how I voted.

These days, it's either SOCOM 2 or the Command and Conquer games for me, but, in actuallity, I haven't played S2 in a couple of months, as I'm waiting for the new content. Still an awesome game as it is.
 
IMO

PS2 online is nothing compared to XBL, Socom II is all the ps2 has, and everquest, for those who enjoy that.

but don't forget GC, i mean, look at that great recylced Dreamcast line up, 2 DC Phantsy Star games and one new one.

XBL all the way
 
PS2 online is an absolute joke. I'm embarassed to have paid $39.99 for that monstrosity hooked on its back and the $6.99 or whatever I paid for the additional CAT 5 cable.

I LOVE Champions of Norrath. I wanted an online Baldur's Gate so bad with 4 players I could taste it. Don't ask me why but dungeon crawlers are an obsessive favorite of mine. However with the amount of online bugs.... ugh. I want to know why upcoming cut scenes inspire me to save and tell people if we get frozen I'll get through the scene offline and make a new game called "***WHATEVER***". Then, of course, we get frozen.

I never picked up SOCOM or SOCOM II. Why? By the time I had a PS2 I had XBL and was convinced that nothing could be as good as RTCW as far as online play. Looks like the initial poster proved my point.

Sony put together a tin can network, piecework hardware solution (Extra BBA/modem and HDD???? For $140? That doesn't let you get rid of y our memory cards?) and the PS2 fans suck it up like stagnant parking lot run off wate and think its a milkshake.

11/9/2004 is going to put any PS2 online stat to shame. Oh... and those 1.5 million gamers XBL will have this time next year will gladly pay $50 for it.... now how can Sony say the same thing?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']PS2 online is an absolute joke. I'm embarassed to have paid $39.99 for that monstrosity hooked on its back and the $6.99 or whatever I paid for the additional CAT 5 cable.

I LOVE Champions of Norrath. I wanted an online Baldur's Gate so bad with 4 players I could taste it. Don't ask me why but dungeon crawlers are an obsessive favorite of mine. However with the amount of online bugs.... ugh. I want to know why upcoming cut scenes inspire me to save and tell people if we get frozen I'll get through the scene offline and make a new game called "***WHATEVER***". Then, of course, we get frozen.

I never picked up SOCOM or SOCOM II. Why? By the time I had a PS2 I had XBL and was convinced that nothing could be as good as RTCW as far as online play. Looks like the initial poster proved my point.

Sony put together a tin can network, piecework hardware solution (Extra BBA/modem and HDD???? For $140? That doesn't let you get rid of y our memory cards?) and the PS2 fans suck it up like stagnant parking lot run off wate and think its a milkshake.

11/9/2004 is going to put any PS2 online stat to shame. Oh... and those 1.5 million gamers XBL will have this time next year will gladly pay $50 for it.... now how can Sony say the same thing?[/quote]

if you haven't played either socom, I don't think you can have much say in this argument. it's like trying to judge the x-box as a system without having played halo.
 
I had XBL and it sucked flat out. Maybe it was because I was one of the first to have it, but it lagged, people were immature,limiting games to 16 sucks, and maps get hella old after a while. I only played for the first two months I had it and that was about it.

User created maps are what make me play online games. They add a lot more to the game than playing the same map made by the developer. That is why I think Timesplitters:Future Perfect will end up having a fanbase that continues to play the game, instead of abandoning it like others.

That being said, PC is still at the top, mainly because of the amount of people that can play(battlefield on a console is going to be hella lame), dedicated servers, and the fact that the keyboard is still the dominant communication tool. Also pretty much all XBL games are available for the PC or PS2, so I see no reason to pay for this service.
 
if you haven't played either socom, I don't think you can have much say in this argument. it's like trying to judge the x-box as a system without having played halo
Click to expand...

Sure you can. Plenty of PS2 fanboys made the argument that Halo was the only good Xbox game without having played it. Why can't the same argument be made that the only good PS2 online game is Socom?

Besides, if your talking about PS2 online as a service, then you can't just take the 2 or 3 best (that work properly) games and base your opinion on that.
 
I had XBL and it sucked flat out. Maybe it was because I was one of the first to have it, but it lagged, people were immature,limiting games to 16 sucks, and maps get hella old after a while. I only played for the first two months I had it and that was about it
Click to expand...

Umm, what game did you play?

and the fact that the keyboard is still the dominant communication tool.
Click to expand...

I find voice to be much easier, much more convinent for in-game communication.

Also pretty much all XBL games are available for the PC or PS2, so I see no reason to pay for this service.
Click to expand...

You mean like Mechassault 1/2, Halo 2, Ninja Gaiden, and Steel Battalion?
 
[quote name='dafoomie']
I had XBL and it sucked flat out. Maybe it was because I was one of the first to have it, but it lagged, people were immature,limiting games to 16 sucks, and maps get hella old after a while. I only played for the first two months I had it and that was about it
Click to expand...

Umm, what game did you play?

and the fact that the keyboard is still the dominant communication tool.
Click to expand...

I find voice to be much easier, much more convinent for in-game communication.

Also pretty much all XBL games are available for the PC or PS2, so I see no reason to pay for this service.
Click to expand...

You mean like Mechassault 1/2, Halo 2, Ninja Gaiden, and Steel Battalion?[/quote]

I had UC and NFL2K3. My friend owned Mechassault and we would play that as well. I tried the service for two months, but then moved onto the Raven Shield demo, and hardly turned live on again at that point.

as for the games you chose
Mechwarrior is pretty close to Mechassault

Ninja Gaiden is a cool concept but not something worth 50 bucks for online IMO

Halo 2 will probably come to the PC (MS says it won't, but I bet they do end up porting the game)

Steel Battalion is a cool game, but I am not spending 300 for a game and Live.

on the keyboard question, people become annoying when they are allowed to play with mic's. allowing a KB option leaves those who hate annoying players to continue to enjoy online.

Overall both consoles have failed to step up and make a bunch of good original online games. That being said, I still prefer my online play free.
 
Though I'll probably never ever get a x-box, I agree taht XBL is better than PS2's. I own a Gamecube and PS2. Gamecube, what, 1 game that goes onling? PS2, not that many games. X-Box? A lot.

Still, I don't play online console games really at all unless I go to my friends house, I do have to admit X-Box's online plan is better. If you're talking about normal offline games, then PS2.

Anyway this is just my opinion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top