1060°
Submitted by yesmynameissumo 779d ago | news

Sony sues Kevin Butler actor (update: Sony comments)

GamesBeat writes: "The PlayStation spokesperson and faux-executive Kevin Butler is in trouble with Sony. On September 11, Sony Computer Entertainment America filed a lawsuit against the Bridgestone Tires company and Wildcat Creek, Inc advertising firm. Actor Jerry Lambert, who plays the hilarious and arrogant Kevin Butler character in PlayStation commercials, is the president of Wildcat Creek according to Corporationwiki.com. SCEA claims that Bridgestone and Lambert violated one of Sony’s intellectual properties. Which one? Well, Kevin Butler." (Industry, Kevin Butler, Sony)

Alternative Sources
« 1 2 »
black911  +   779d ago
"For the love of money People will rob their own brother"

http://www.youtube.com/watc...
knowyourstuff  +   779d ago
I wonder if the guy who sold those orange Shamwow towels has legal disputes between that Shamwow company and the new ads he does for some other vegetable chopping product. Really, it's the same idea, unless of course his contract ended and there was no non-compete clause.
KrimsonKody  +   779d ago
It all comes down to what's within the contract.
It's possible that Kevin Butler's contract had specifics which prevents him from advertising or being in other commercials.
knowyourstuff   779d ago | Trolling | show
PurpHerbison  +   779d ago
He is doing the "Schticky" product now.
Knushwood Butt  +   779d ago
lol Shamwow
3-4-5  +   779d ago
He owns the shamwow stuff. That vince guy. He is the owner AND spokesperson for it.
Gaming101  +   779d ago
LMAO Chimpanzees ^

No, that Vince guy worked for a flea market who then decided to create a commercial marketing that product. You really think that guy is the business owner type? He punched a prostitute in the face because she bit his toungue and wouldn't let go LOLOL
alien626  +   778d ago
omg people! they not suing kevin they suing bridgestone for miss using KB
Beastforlifenoob  +   778d ago
Or he bit another person...
Thatguyinthesuit  +   778d ago
@alien626

They're suing Bridgestone AND Wildcat Creek and guess where Lambert works and is conveniently the head off? Wildcat Creek.
sikbeta  +   778d ago
-__-

Is it Sony suing Sony for using Lambert in the movie Bad Teacher as well? XP
darthv72  +   778d ago
if memory serves...
The woman that does the voice of bart simpson got sued by the simpsons creator for her using the bart voice in something unrelated to the simpsons without authorization.

I think it was, she was doing a promo for something else (which did not go against her contract) but as she was reading, the bart voice slipped out and was caught in the promo.

That was the violation right there. not just the fact she was doing work for something else. All actors have that right to work but their persona's (or characters) can be contractually obligated to not be used outside of whatever they are contracted for.

Lambert was doing a commercial for a tire company that happened to have the wii in it. Had he been in butler character then he would be in violation but simply being in the commercial is not enough for sony to go on.

i have seen enough commercials in my time to have seen the same person advertise for more than one unrelated product as many different characters.

This is stupid sony.
knowyourstuff  +   778d ago
For those of you who want to see the actual lawsuit, the file that Sony is suing on is detailed here:
http://dockets.justia.com/d...

Kevin Butler the character didn't need to be in the commercial. This Jerry Lambert is the biggest attention whore on the planet if he can't just keep himself out of the commercial and keep two campaigns separate, he should've had some inkling that Sony wouldn't be happy with him using his face to promote a competitor. Dumba$$.
Freak of Nature  +   779d ago
That depends on the Brother, and the Brothers Brother... Money is not the root of all evil, just a portion of it...

Perhaps if they showed a pixel-ed out Mario, speaking with his familiar voice saying here Mr.Kevin Butler *Screwa Sony, *taka thisa* cash as Mario hands a overflowing briefcase of cash to Kevin Butler...

Bring in "Sack-boy" and he will show you how to be a proper mascot...
#1.2 (Edited 779d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(8) | Report | Reply
SixZeroFour  +   778d ago
ppl often misuse the quote "money is the root of all evil" because the actual quotation is "the love of money is the root of all evil" which gives a different meaning altogether from the former quotation
geddesmond  +   779d ago
I don't see the problem. Sony made this dude famous
TekoIie  +   779d ago
-among gamers.......
insomnium2  +   778d ago
True pekolie and then he went on and advertized the competing GAMING platform.
darthv72  +   778d ago
@insomnium
we wasnt playing the game at all. If you watch the commercial, it is the woman playing. plus its a tire company commercial not specifically a wii commercial.

Basically sony are suing for association. He was doing his job as an actor and because it just so happened to be a wii in the commercial they think he stepped out of contract.

seriously, im sure his contract is for butler. Not tire guy #2.
StraightPath  +   779d ago
nintendo should capitilise this and get him and make adverts of him making fun of jealous sony sueing out of envy. in that advert he was even the supporting role.

hope they lose the case and nintendo pick him of official and promote the wii u. this will be big slap to sony for betraying him.
#1.4 (Edited 779d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(24) | Report | Reply
sikbeta  +   778d ago
That's dumb, Nintendo would win nothing more than an overused character that lost its funny aspect long ago.
ajax17  +   779d ago
I love Sony, and all(scratch that), most of their products, but seriously? This makes it sound like they own the man! It reminds of the cartoon Rocko's Modern Life, and the company CONGLOM-O, with it's slogan: "We Own You".
#1.5 (Edited 779d ago ) | Agree(10) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
black911  +   779d ago
SPUNKY!!! SPUNKY!!! I miss the 90's What happend to TV?
Ult iMate  +   779d ago
I don't like that sueing stuff and all, but Sony invested in Kevin Butler for 3 years. And now Lambert is participating in an ad, where they play Wii. That's not very ethical from Lambert.
#1.5.2 (Edited 779d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(8) | Report
nerdkiller  +   779d ago
omg! im sorry but thats bull crap, how can sony keep a man from making a living just because he took a role and sounded the same in it.if thats the case then universal, paramount and who ever should sue jack nickelson and christopher walken for acting the same in all there movies.
BISHOP-BRASIL  +   779d ago
That's not the case. Jerry Lambert is the owner of the marketing firm responsible for the ad, so it's not like he innocently ended up sounding like Butler again... Also, they are not sueing Lambert personally, but his company.

By the looks of it, it's not simply non-comepetitive clause, as A: Bridgestone is not in the same market so it's not competition; and B: they aren't suing Lambert, but his firm, which makes no sense for ex-employee agreement breaking.

My guess here is Sony is claiming some kind of usurpation (plagiarism, patent infringment, copyright infringement, etc), that they own the character "Kevin Butler" and as so suing whoever uses the same idea.

Also, companies don't like suing who they can't win or who won't benefit 'em if wasting time/money on courts... Considering that slowing down Lambert gives Sony nothing, chances are they have a little more than an ex-employe agreement. I'm thinking of copyrights over Kevin Butler's persona, speech, gestures, clothes, etc...
Legion  +   778d ago
"SCEA claims that Bridgestone and Lambert violated one of Sony’s intellectual properties. Which one? Well, Kevin Butler."

How did they violate the Kevin Butler property? They didn't use his name or even the attitude of Kevin Butler in that Ad. The character he played in the Ad was much too passive and dorky compared to Kevin Butler and his take charge attitude.

They are basically saying because his likeness (does he have to wear a disguise from now on when working on film?) and that he talked about a video game... makes it the Kevin Butler character?

Give me a break... if the courts up hold this then they are really allowing anyone to be sued for looking like ANY other character.

Here is a link to the original video: http://www.gonintendo.com/?...
#1.6.2 (Edited 778d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(3) | Report
fatstarr  +   779d ago
I mean sonys only real mascot is playing wii.
lol Id sue too.
it limits this guy in what he can do in his career.
badz149  +   779d ago
sad to see thing has gotten like this
but not a generation has passed and the ad was like saying he's already jumping ship! for those who are aware that this guy is "Keving Butler" - VP of anything PS, this is kinda send a message that Sony has fired him or something!
andibandit  +   778d ago
Okay!!!!!! let me get this straight,

Sony wont spend money on marketing, but they WILL spend money on this!?!?!?

GTFO!.
Haha123  +   778d ago
This is up there as one of the stupidest lawsuits...
Godchild1020  +   778d ago
I just saw Kevin Butler (Jerry Lambert) in a new bridgestone commercial. He appeared towards the end. The commercial was promoting tires; They made a football out of BridgeStone tire.

Funny Commercial, Kevin (Jerry Lambert) at the end made it worth watching.
yesmynameissumo  +   779d ago
When I first heard of Sony's lawsuit, I had hoped there was something legit about Sony moving forward with the case, not this nonsense. While I don't think anyone could dispute Jerry Lambert IS Kevin Butler, it's an ad with him playing a second if not third character. He's not the focus. A little common sense should've prevailed with Sony's legal team, but alas, the company hasn't really built a reputation on that.
ChronoJoe  +   779d ago
Contract probably stipulates some control over both the Kevin Butler, intellectual property, and Jerry Lambert the actor.

Typically the contract would dictate that he, the actor, couldn't promote competing products, either in, or out of the Kevin Butler character. This is very common and done to ensure specific brands can be consistently associated with specific faces. Many people who have seen Jerry in Sony's adds are going to simply assume he's Kevin Butler in the Wii add.

Sony have every right to pursue this.
Reibooi  +   779d ago
I mentioned this in another story but it's similar to the WWF suing WCW back in the 90's when Razor Ramon(Scott Hall) left WWF to go to WCW. He didn't say his name but he acted as if he was the same character and WCW did this on purpose to try to profit on making it look like some outside guy was invading. WWF was within their right to sue in that case.

However if my memory serves WWF lost that cast and it was MUCH more clear cut then this one is so who knows how it will end up.

Either way it's sad because the end result will mean no more Kevin Butler. He was a awesome character and the best Sony marketing campaign ever.
thorstein   779d ago | Trolling | show
BrunoM  +   779d ago
I been around here sense 2007 and I don't Coment on story's for the simple reason is stupid people with stupid logic ..

But will do it now wow there still are some people with a brain and some sense wow ...

And ya both of you are right I agree is due to the likeness and its use with out te word of sony
dennett316  +   778d ago
@Reibooi, I don't think the WWF lost that case as in WCW they had to acknowledge on the air that Scott Hall was no longer part of the WWF and he had to drop the accent of the Razor Ramon character.
fatstarr  +   779d ago
consumers are so stupid now a days.
some would have thought that the wii is apart of the playstation brand and that you could play ps3 move games on it.

its best to nip it in the butt before it gets bad.
jc48573  +   779d ago
the thing is, character had no name. He's just some actor in the commercial with no name. I really want to see where this case goes.
#3 (Edited 779d ago ) | Agree(19) | Disagree(9) | Report | Reply
rezzah  +   779d ago
I was thinking that too, but it seems that Sony might use the idea that the actor is the face of the name.

So regardless of what commercial he acts in, his face is like one in the same with the name of the character.

Think of it as Mickey Mouse being shown by some other company, but is not referred to as MM within the commercial. I think they could be sued.

It's only a guess.
--Onilink--  +   779d ago
so what now? he has to wear a diferent face if he is going to be on any other commercial?

This lawsuit is stupid, unless he said in the commercial his name was Kevin Butler, he is just an actor, acting in a commercial
rezzah  +   778d ago
Like I said it was a guess, don't take it personally.

Their reasoning if based on name alone is weak because he doesn't have to reveal himself as KB on another company's commercial.
PirateThom  +   779d ago
I think it's entirely down to the fact it's a competitor's console, not the fact the character is similar. If he's been just advertising tyres, it would have been fine, but to use a very similar persona with a rival console is not going to sit well. It's an intentional reference to the character, at the very least but considering Lambert owns the advertising company in question, I'd say it's foolish to think he wasn't using the "Kevin Butler" character intentionally.
Blankman85  +   779d ago
But why sue bridgestone though? They didn't have any contract to breach with SONY.
It's not my fault if you sell me stolen goods without my knowledge
#4.1 (Edited 779d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(8) | Report | Reply
legionsoup  +   779d ago
If you bought it from the shady van at the gas station for 50% off retail, you knew it was stolen. ;)
Imalwaysright  +   779d ago
Exactly. If Sony is suing because Jerry Lambert made a commercial advertisement to a direct competitor they should sue the man himself. It makes no sense for Sony to sue Bridgestone.

"I'd say it's foolish to think he wasn't using the "Kevin Butler" character intentionally." That is pure speculation, one that Sony will have to prove in court to win the lawsuit because it wasnt given an identity to the character Jerry played in the Bridgestone commercial. I dont think Sony will go far with this lawsuit but then again i didnt think that Apple would go far with that "shapes" lawsuit either.
MikeMyers  +   779d ago
When Phil Harrison joined Microsoft was he told to put on a wig whenever he's out in public? I'm not sure how Sony can own the copyright of an actor unless that character, Kevin Butler, was co-created with Sony.

There are lots of actors that have their own style attached to them that they carry into other roles. The only legal backing I see is if Kevin Butler was owned by Sony and Jerry Lambert was not allowed to mention that name on another product. I don't know if they can trademark a comedic style.
Darrius Cole  +   779d ago
They don't own the man.

To me it sounds like Sony needs to keep this guy on the payroll and make VP of "something" for real.

If they don't want him making commercials for other companies then they should give him a steady paycheck so that he won't.
Carl_Shocker  +   779d ago
Surley though in the fine print of his contract there would of been something like

"You cannot participate in advertising or promoting rival brands for 3-6 months after this contract ends"

or something like that....

Logicaly wouldn't it of been wise to make him look a little differnt in the advert so people don't assume it's Kevin Butler even though he's just playing a no name character. Give him black hair, thick glasses, a goatee or maybe a crazy "Back to the Future Doc Wig" to go along with that scientist costume...it wouldn't of killed them to do that.

Hopefully they will work this out and maybe make another advert where the take the mick out of the situation to laugh it off....maybe Kevin being sued by Jack trenton stalking him, then saves his life so Jack drops it blah blah blah you get the point.
#5 (Edited 779d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(15) | Report | Reply
Blankman85  +   779d ago
Carl, meet Have, Have, say hi to Carl.
Have isn't happy that you keep on replacing him with Of, Have would like you to know that he belongs with words like could, would, should, ect.
You two make nice now and forget this whole mess happened.
Carl_Shocker  +   779d ago
...oh sorry am I supposed to be laughing right now....nice try though I'll give you that

Ever thought that it's how we say/write things round here where I come from...it's old geordie slang. Sorry if you don't approve...

Seriously why waste your last bubble on that...<sigh>
#5.1.1 (Edited 779d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(9) | Report
Getowned  +   779d ago
How you write and how you talk are two different things, you shouldn't write how you talk. I know my English teacher gives me trouble for doing that.

OT:

I agree with you Carl_Shocker, When I saw the ad I thought it was for playstation at first, and then I realized it was for Nintendo. I can see why they would sue, not that I 100% agree with it but I understand it. I don't think they should of used PS KB's likeness for a nintendo ad. I'm sure Nintendo would hate it if they dressed someone up like mario to sell PS3s.
Carl_Shocker  +   779d ago
Honestly whats with the disagrees, I'm not saying Sonys in the right am just saying maybe when they hired Lambert to do the advert maybe they should of gotten him to look differnt so people don't get the wrong idea.

Oh and are people really disagreeing that there probably wasn't ANYTHING in a contract Lambert did with Sony...I find that hard to believe, I'm not saying he wasn't allowed to do it at all, just for a certain amount of time.
amaguli  +   779d ago
You do know that it would still be breach of contract if he dressed up, right? Just because he has a wig and a fake beard, he will still be Jerry Lambart and he will still be promoting a rival console.
dennett316  +   778d ago
It really depends how much of the character is like the real Lambert. If parts of it mirror how he looks or acts, then he's within his rights to carry on using that.

He could also argue fair use, but I'm unsure just how much that would apply in this case depending on the contract he signed with Sony...a judge may rule that the contract is unfair or unreasonable and rule against Sony.

But none of us know the particulars of the contract, if there were any restrictions, how much of the character came from Sony and how much from Lambert etc. So it's all speculation at this point.

@amaguli, they can't restrict a man's right to work in that complete a fashion...you can't ban an actor from representing a competing company. Jerry Lambert is allowed to take employment from whoever he wants...the issue is if he used Sony's intellectual property to do so, ie, the character of Butler. If he had any input into that character at all, he could even argue a right to fair use of said character depending on the level of involvement. That all has to be determined by the court.
#5.2.2 (Edited 778d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
amaguli  +   778d ago
@dennett316

I know that they can't restrict his right to work, but I'm sure in his contract they stated he could not endorse a competing console for an x amount of time.

If Sony can show that, then Lambert is guilt of breaching his contract.
#5.2.3 (Edited 778d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
Bimkoblerutso  +   779d ago
Shouldn't have to do any of that. Sony does not own actors. If they had, for instance, called the character in the commercial "Kevin Butler," then sure, that's obviously a breech of contract, but I'm relatively sure there is no legal grounds for owning someone's face.

The movie industry would be a WAR ZONE if that was the legal precedent.
MikeMyers  +   779d ago
http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Sony didn't seem to have a problem then. I think this has more to do with this ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

I think he was removed from that ad. Perhaps he had a contract (with Sony) that didn't allow him to advertise competitive brands. You would think Jerry Lambert would have known this, so maybe there wasn't anything in writing.
Majin-vegeta  +   779d ago
Well time to get ready.
*Flame shield on*
BeAGamer  +   779d ago
at least make a controversial comment if you're going to activate your flame shield
Jazz4108  +   779d ago
Im sorry $ony is just being greedy and this case will be thrown out its so rediculous and without merit. Desperate times people and companys do desperate things. This will not look good or end well for $ony. I feel sorry for Jerry as hes just trying to make a living and did not promote kevin butler in any shape or form in this advertisement for a fricking tire company that just happens to be giving some free wiu crap away. I cant believe the ignorance of $ony or maybe I can.
#6.2 (Edited 779d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(14) | Report | Reply
GreenRanger  +   779d ago
Well now they'll have to sue this guy too...

Related image(s)
NYC_Gamer  +   779d ago
No,because Phil never signed any type of marketing/character agreement.That whole KB image is property of Sony based on the contract Jerry signed.
#7.1 (Edited 779d ago ) | Agree(12) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
Ben_Grimm  +   779d ago
Well looks like Sony owns Jerry Lambert's a$$.

I wonder if this applies to that Marcus kid.
Step yo game up!!
#8 (Edited 779d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(8) | Report | Reply
Yodagamer  +   779d ago
That the unfortunate thing for jerry, he got famous off of kevin butler, so now even showing up on camera will make people think he is kevin. Where the marcus actor was in movies before he did the psp commericals. Hopefully sony gets their but handed to them over this one, as other then the same actor i see nothing else that would be a breach of trademark.
PurpHerbison  +   779d ago
I actually didn't even notice until right now that it was "Kevin". However... the herb might have something to do with that.
mushroomwig  +   779d ago
Jerry was famous long before Kevin Butler came along, he's appeared in a number of T.V shows and movies. He certainly didn't get famous just because of Sonys character.
ChunkyLover53  +   779d ago
Sony is in the wrong, this isn't a big deal. Kevin Butler wasn't Santa Claus, people know he's an actor. I mean I saw him on the old show "Til Death" with the guy from Everybody Loves Raymond. Are they going to sue him for that as well?

This is just craziness on Sony's part. With all the problems they've had recently, do they really need to sully their name and become synonymous with greed now as well?
Grenade  +   779d ago
It won't be long before Sony start sueing PS3 owners if they buy a 360 or a Wii U.
Getowned  +   779d ago
what... are you serious ? ... maybe you forgot your "/s" :S.... I hope your not serious, yet something deep inside me tells me that you are serious

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-t...
AngelicIceDiamond  +   779d ago
Jerry was in the spotlight for like 2 seconds. With no name, no identity. Hes just an extra.

It'll be interesting to see how Sony plans on going about this case.
#11 (Edited 779d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
sjaakiejj  +   779d ago
"It'll be interesting to see how Sony plans on going about this case."

According to the statement, it's a breach of contract. If that's the actually the case, then it won't be very interesting at all, as it'll result in a clear win for Sony. But again, that depends on if the contract actually mentions it.
Frankfurt  +   779d ago
Just Sony being Sony.

Anyone suprised hasn't been following Sony for more than 5 minutes.
GreenRanger  +   779d ago
JERRY! JERRY! JERRY! JERRY!
Jockamo  +   779d ago
I'm Kevin Butler and this is my favorite store in the galaxy.
Bathyj  +   779d ago
They have second case pending to sue everyone named Michael.
sjaakiejj  +   779d ago
If it's a breach of contract than that is fair enough. Any breach of contract should be treated as such, and I don't understand why people are hating on Sony for defending their trademarks (you know, the things they are legally entitled to)
izumo_lee  +   779d ago
I believe this all stems from that Bridgestone commercial where the company was doing a promotion on the Wii. It showed Jerry Lambert in that same promotion.

This would not have happened if Jerry Lambert was not in that promotional clip cause he is featured in many other Bridgestone ads that were not a problem.

Yeah Sony is taking this a tad too far but Jerry Lambert had to use some common sense promoting a product like the Wii which Sony is currently up against this gen in gaming. That was a poor lack of judgement in Jerry Lambert's case.
GreenRanger  +   779d ago
"Use of
the Kevin Butler
character to sell
products other than
those from PlayStation
misappropriates Sony’s
intellectual property,
creates confusion in the
market, and causes
damage to Sony"
But he wasn't Kevin Butler in the ad, he was a nameless character.
What did Sony expect Jerry Lambert to do? Use a different head?
Getowned  +   779d ago
The answer to your question is the the quote you posted. I'f I saw Jerry Lambert in a video game companys ad and I didn't know it wasn't for Nintendo I would assume it was for Playstation, he is famous for his playstation ads as Kevin Butler after all, and this could make it look like many things to other people and cause damage to Sony. They should have in all honesty used a different actor in the Nintendo ad. I don't blame Jerry Lambert for being in a Nintendo ad, I'm sure he has bills and etc to pay just like the rest of us (well.. some of us).
MasterD919   779d ago | Immature | show
imt558  +   779d ago
J. Lambert appeared in Bad Teacher and Sony didn't sue Cameron or Lambert.:)
Gridloc  +   779d ago
Did they give away a competing console? Doubtful...Use your head people...
InTheLab  +   779d ago
The Bridgestone ads weren't even as Kevin Butlery the Long Live Play adds. The whole point is to sell tires. It's not like he's in a Mario ad.

I understand the updated comment from Sony but I still can't get behind this but at the same time, it is kind of screwed up seeing Jerry sell Wiis after 3 years of trashing Wiis.
ChickeyCantor  +   779d ago
"Use of the Kevin Butler character "

They hired a person with a legal name. Not Kevin Butler.
ceballos77mx  +   779d ago
I think Sony is wrong, I saw the ad and Kevin Butler was never mentioned, and besides the guy needs to work you know bills and food.
Straightupbeastly  +   779d ago
Glad I switched to Xbox.
Grenade   779d ago | Personal attack | show
tommygunzII  +   777d ago
You two should group up and play all of the new Xbox games together.
frankiebeans  +   779d ago
I called this when the video popped on youtube when it first aired my comment said i see someone getting sued this can't be very legal because they're stealing sonys character sony created that guy.
ajax17  +   779d ago
In all seriousness Jerry Lambert should have consulted with Sony first. Especially if he is still under contract with them.
#26 (Edited 779d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
oldfriend86  +   779d ago
Whether or not Sony is in the legal right, I feel suing the awesome Kevin Butler, would only be hurting Sony. When they think they're protecting their brand, they'll only be shooting themselves in the foot.

The people who don't know who he is, they won't know what this is all about anyway. The only people that would dive into this kind of situation, would be us gamers that know who he is. Taking the time to sue him, would rub us gamers the wrong way and our view of Sony.

That said, I'm sure things will be fine. In just a matter of weeks, they seem to already be in the works for a settlement without having to go to court (hopefully), which looks pretty good.
ajax17  +   779d ago
It's gonna kinda suck not to see him in anymore of their commercials... I'm just assuming he won't be after being sued...
g5bay  +   779d ago
Good job sony he betrayed us never liked that bitcha$$_Butler.
Man-E-Faces  +   779d ago
I hope this ends this ridiculous nonsense of marketing a paste face white man as some sort of mascot for your console, honestly I never liked this direction Sony took Sackboy is a much better mascot in every facet a character that appeals to both genders of all ages, Sackboy is also comparable to and better than past and current mascots such as Mario, Sonic, Crash. Why did Sony even bother buying up Little Big Planet/Media Molecule if their not going to fully market Sackboy's potential as their official mascot? Nintendo does it right with Mario, Sega did it right with Sonic but Sony is plugging ads with a grown ass man Kevin Butler instead of a true character Sackboy?
Smashbro29  +   778d ago
Kevin Butler is the shit and Sackboy hasn't even reached Spyro levels of iconicness, let alone freaking Mario and Sonic.
« 1 2 »

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
Remember
New stories
30°

Rumour: David Jaffe's New Game Will Be Revealed at PlayStation Experience

14m ago - We knew that David Jaffe wouldn’t be able to stay away for long. The veteran PlayStation employee... | PSP
30°

RuneScape Subscription Membership Price Spikes

21m ago - Jagex has announced that they will be rising the price of their monthly membership for RuneScape. | PC
30°

Insomniac Games Releases Its First DLC Weapon Pack For Sunset Overdrive

22m ago - Have you enjoyed playing your Sunset Overdrive game on Xbox One? Want to have more fun with it? I... | Xbox One
30°

Colony Mode Introduces PvP To The Settlers Online

27m ago - Blue Byte and Ubisoft today announced the introduction of the highly anticipated Colony mode for... | PC
Ad

Blood & Blade Giveaway

Now - Join us in celebrating the release of Blood & Blade with a key giveaway for in game gems. | Promoted post
40°

XIII Retrospective

1h ago - A look back at the XIII for PlayStation 2. | PS2