Gamemoir's Nick D. takes a look at Sony’s perplexing lack of a PlayStation mascot and explains how Sony may be on to something.
It just proves how diverse Playstation has become that they don't rely on one character to market their brand.
that can't be said, with the way nintendo handle their brand
Exactly, Nintendo has just of a wide and divers catalog of games and they are still able to have a face for the brand that everyone can associate with. Nothing wrong with that.
Nintendo has Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, and some also-rans. It's the same stuff every generation, and not too many new franchises are added to the rotation. Sony adds something new every gen and doesn't let it be overshadowed by its previous franchises. Hell, they add MULTIPLE somethings that all stand well on their own. Uncharted and Resistance are from last gen. GOW and Killzone are from the one before. GT is from prior to that. This gen, there'll be new big franchises. Nintendo definitely doesn't do that.
@Spotie So Animal Crossing, Splatoon, Pikman just a few off the top of my head. I'm sure a hardcore Nintendo fan could name more just like you could for Sony Spotie. IMO, Nintendo doesn't have as many in house (1st party) studio resources as say a Sony would for creating new and pumping out new IP's. But Nintendo also adds something new to each gen as well as taking huge risks by reinventing old established franchises for the new gen also. Something Sony and MS could learn from instead of sequel after sequel of the same thing. "Nintendo definitely doesn't do that." You have to be kidding right? Nintendo has the most exclusives with the highest rate on metacritic and you honestly think their games can't stand on their own? Nintendo has such iconic and historic characters that each game is highly anticipated and well received.
Nintendo does a great job with maintaining their big franchises and keeping them relevant for today's gaming. As old Mario and Zelda are as franchises, they do something new with them or completely change the formula every generation. Super Mario 3D World plays nothing like Super Mario Bros. on NES. It sure doesn't even play the same as Super Mario 64 by any stretch of imagination. But then again, there's Mario Maker which does take classic Mario gameplay and lets Mario fans create their own content with it! Sony on the other hand does the complete opposite with their IPs. Much of their bigger and better IPs from the past have fallen down from great to either good enough (Killzone, inFamous) or completely out of existence (Siphon Filter, SOCOM, Resistance, Jak, Wipeout, Motorstorm, Warhawk, etc.) Needless to say, the PS4's game library is a product of that, which means it lacks quality content despite its "massive variety of games." There's only one really good game for PS4 the nearly two years since it has launched, and that's Bloodborne, but that's something to be expected of From Software. Uncharted 4 is around the corner, but considering Amy Hennig is long gone, how the game's story will turn out remains to be known. Killzone SF is a shadow (no pun intended) of Killzone 2 & 3 on PS3. inFamous, though added quite a lot still suffered in overall quality from the Cole era inFamous games. The game is great, or not so great, depending on who you ask. Much thanks to Nintendo's mascots, Wii U does have plenty of excellent and highly rated exclusives. There are third party games to look forward to on the Wii U also. You can't lie about that, despite the major problems with the system.
Sony dont need a single mascot....sony has many characters that represent the brand. For my daughter, sackboy or doki doki....me, anything from nathan drake, ratchet and clank to kratos. Too many and it's why sony could do a smash brothers clone. Every year there's pretty much a new character sony could add to the playstation alstars roster.
Just called variety. The reason most PlayStation fans come back. More new IP each gen than other 2 combined.
Same old simple answer: 3rd Party Partnerships The message is: "PlayStation: It's Your Platform" Rock solid, faithful, loyal, full creative freedom and friendship 3rd Party Partnerships since the PSOne. That tradition and principle has never waned through the 20 years and kept the PlayStation brand in the position of leadership. The message is: "PlayStation: It's Your Platform" There is something for Everyone. PlayStation could be any 3RD Party Partner's own platform. A PlayStation can be a platform for any kind of game not just a few. It does not want to be typecasted into any particular genre of game. It's like water that can take the form of any container or any 3RD Party Partner's wish. A simple principle and tradition that is completely different and opposite to that of Xbox and Nintendo. You see at PlayStation 3rd Party happiness is numero uno priority and takes center stage. 1st party does not compete and takes a step back an focus on maxing out the power of the PlayStation hardware. Sony gives the peak season to its biggest 3rd party partners' wishes and release their 1st party sometimes else. The friendship is so good that these 3RD Party Partners wants their game characters to be the 'face of PlayStation' and are willing to be absorbed and become subsidiary 1ST Party developers but still functioning with full creative freedom. Unfortunately for the other two competition I wonder why 3RD Party developers leave.... Be water my friend.
I would like to see you and rookie monster in the same room together.
Mascots are so passe. I haven't cared about that kind of thing since the 90's. I think Sony gave up chasing any one PS Icon years ago. You can choose which character is most synonymous to PS. Kratos, Drake, Sackboy & Ratchet/Clank just a few examples /
That's it! You have my bubble!
You see Mario can be a either a blessing or a curse for Nintendo. Master Chief can either be a blessing or a curse for Xbox. Where at PlayStation it could be any gaming icon for different types of gamers. Its very good the PlayStation is not type casted or confined to any genre or age level of games. Also the PlayStation adapts with the ever present times and not confined by the past or nostalgia. It always forward thinking. Producing new IPs and new ideas of games. It does not give spit whether the game sold multi millions safe sequels or new ips. It just tries to move on with something new. It does not wait for the new generation of kiddie gamers to sell their rehashed Peter Pan mascots.
Nintendo has still only around 5 big game series and some "mascots". Sony creates or funds at least 5+ big game series per console. Mascots are a thing of the past, back when the game industry was as small as a child in comparison to what it is now.
Its not necessarily mascots but, games that define the system nintendo has mario and to a lesser extent zelda. Xbox has halo. Playstation has quite a few great franchises but not a defining one.
Gran Turismo send regards.
They can't just put a car as their mascots xD
Not necessarily. People who are racing/car fans know about gran turismo. Everyone knows who Mario is and realistically halo took fast to new heights (cod wasn't as huge as halo until modern warfare and it's multi platform).
Sony is a versatile brand that markets more than just video games. So having a mascot wouldn't be seemly anyway.
Kratos , helghan , Nathan drake , .....???
didn't realize a mascot was required in order to thrive. Well according to the ps4 sales, looks like it isn't required. But seriously, PlayStation has so many diverse, and successful franchises, that it would be quite difficult to nail down a single mascot. I suppose you could say a Gran Turismo car. The franchise has sold over 68 million units, surpassing even halo. Nathan Drake would probably be first pick currently.
Mascots are great for merchandising rights.:) I think the days of seeing the Mario mascot and running out to buy a game/console are long over though. Progressive has more than Flo, and Geico has more than that Gekko. PlayStation has more than -insert favorite PS iconic character here-.
Sony needs Crash Bandicoot back.
I actually wish Sony and MS would add or focus on mascots for their system. It may be the nostalgia talking but I loved the rivalry Nintendo and Sega had with their mascots, I also loved how other consoles tried to get in on the war with their own. TG16 had Bonk, Crash Bandicoot for PS....I'm sure there's more. Building a mascot IMO builds a great brand recognition especially for kids. Look at how we all (most) react or anticipate a new Mario game or flip out when Sonic and Mario appear in a game together. I think this is part of the reason why Smash Bros has been so successful because of all the iconic mascots appearing in one game and another reason why PS All Stars wasn't successful, characters that didn't mesh, weren't popular or even recognizable and definitely forgettable. I guess in this day and age with the rise of more realistic looking games with a huge emphasis on violence the time of the mascots is long gone but wow were those days fun.
Why should we care about mascots? See Sega now, When you think Sega... You immediately think Sonic.. but Sonic now Sucks.. and Sonic represents the Company... So SEGA sucks... Best thing to do is have multiple Franchises that represent you. When you think Playstation, some think : -Kratos -Drake -Crash (for old timers) -Ratchet&Clank -Jak&Dextar -Joel&Ellie (for new commers) -Sackboy. Even more.
I think you missed my point. Sega didn't fail because of Sonic and during the Genesis days Sonic was great. Nothing wrong with having multiple franchises it's just great having a face to the brand like Namco, Capcom, Nintendo and other huge devs and publishers do.
I do get it lol You are ignoring mine. Having a mascot from a horrible franchise is really bad. You just don't know.. someday, maybe Halo will suck or God of war will suck. (If kratos was a mascot) then that mascot will bring shame to your company. See "was"... because "Now" it's not what it was
I'm not ignoring yours, your opinion has nothing to do with mine. Sonic isn't a horrible franchise when the Genesis was out. And you are ignoring other mascots that are still popular from companies that don't suck like Capcom, Namco, Nintendo and others. So yes, you are missing my point while trying to tell me that characters in the future MIGHT suck.
I agree. Kratos and Master Chief would be a wonderful role model for the kiddies.:) From my experience, kids are easy to please with pretty colors and fun sounds. Putting Scooby Doo or Dora the explorer causes them to flip as well, but doesn't mean that it defines any kind of brand outside of their respective licenses. Nintendo and Sega are really the only companies that have that distinction, and it's a rather moot point for Sega nowadays. I don't think people go crazy and buy a console for mario anymore either...at least not like some other system sellers. The games do well though because they're usually pretty good, or people just know the name well enough to assume it will be. However, there are series which are definitely system sellers and always seem to generate excitement...GT, Halo, GeOW, Crash, R&C(not so much anymore), UC, Zelda, Metroid etc. To me, that seems good enough. I would like to add that Sony does have mascots(plural emphasized), same as MS. They just don't make them the bulk of their marketing campaign. They use them more as a way to remind people how they felt about the games those people were featured in. Like when you see Sackboy pop his head around the corner and do something cute in a much bigger ad provided by Sony.
toro and kuro is their mascot but only in japan i guess
This is 2015, not the 80's. Mascots have been replaced by slick logos and superliminal ads.
You just can't trust mascots anymore. Never know when they're going to get into some sort of sex or drug scandal. I'm surprised Mario is still around what with all those mushrooms he has laying around.
Nintendo has a lot of other mascots besides Mario. They are just as diverse as Sony's mascots, but even more timeless
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.