-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Why aren't the Sony gaming franchises as iconic as Nintendo's?
- Thread starter Touchdown
- Start date
- Status
They've been around for a shorter amount of time. Sony doesn't have many "important" characters in the PS1 era. Kratos is their biggest and he's only been around 3 generations.
I think they are in their own way. But not in the way that can successfully cross over like Smash.
Nintendo has about a decade on them and Nintendo is credited with rebooting the gaming industry into what it is today after the industry collapse in 1983.
The NES being colored and stylized to look like a device instead of a gaming console, being named an Entertainment system instead of gaming system, etc.
The IP's that launched on that platform will forever be imprinted in gaming legacy and have more prestige because of that.
The NES being colored and stylized to look like a device instead of a gaming console, being named an Entertainment system instead of gaming system, etc.
The IP's that launched on that platform will forever be imprinted in gaming legacy and have more prestige because of that.
You gotta remember, we've been growing up as gamers knowing Mascots like Mario, Yoshi, Luigi, Peach, Bowser etc, since what feels like forever in the gaming industry. It's not like mascots such as Crash Bandicoot, Nathan Drake or LBP's Sackboy etc have been around for a long enough time to create that sense of "iconic" feeling towards Playstation's mascots.
It's the same thing with Microsoft, we've known Gears & Halo mascots for a long time, too. Almost most gamers can recognize or spot those iconic franchises without second guessing themselves.
You could argue with Kratos being around long enough plus the new God of War being amazing that he's iconic, too in his own way or building towards being iconic. However, it's not the same when it comes to knowing them.
It's more so longevity than anything else.
It's the same thing with Microsoft, we've known Gears & Halo mascots for a long time, too. Almost most gamers can recognize or spot those iconic franchises without second guessing themselves.
You could argue with Kratos being around long enough plus the new God of War being amazing that he's iconic, too in his own way or building towards being iconic. However, it's not the same when it comes to knowing them.
It's more so longevity than anything else.
Nintendo's IPs are (generally) more family friendly and thus wider reaching. And since they skew younger, they probably make a larger impact.
Having a decade+ on Sony doesn't hurt either, of course
Having a decade+ on Sony doesn't hurt either, of course
They haven't been around as long, and many don't have the appeal to younger gamers like Nintendo games do. Nintendo is one of the only companies that does "fun for all ages" the right way. That's not a knock on Sony, as they have some fantastic franchises. But their games aren't a lock for appealing to every single demo
Sony franchises of today all aimed at adults while Nintendo franchises aimed at all ages
Also Nintendo have much more variety first party wise
Also Nintendo have much more variety first party wise
Nnnnnn... you are kind of right.
The other day I was going to get a PS Classic but then I realized that I dont have a lot of desire of nostalgia to play PSX games AT ALL, less alone Sony output during that time.
Hell, even with the possibility to play Final Fantasy VII I just noped remembering how ugly it looks nowadays and how slow it is.
The other day I was going to get a PS Classic but then I realized that I dont have a lot of desire of nostalgia to play PSX games AT ALL, less alone Sony output during that time.
Hell, even with the possibility to play Final Fantasy VII I just noped remembering how ugly it looks nowadays and how slow it is.
Nintendo had a head start, and did it better. Sony doesn't have a lot of true mascots from early on, as Crash had petered out and never gained as much traction as Mario. Same for Spyro, and Tomb Raider went multiplatform.
They didn't do as good of a job managing their mascots and big series, and keeping them both quality and current.
They didn't do as good of a job managing their mascots and big series, and keeping them both quality and current.
Sony relied on third parties for 4 console generations, which isn't a bad thing. Not to say they haven't had good 1st party titles over the years...
Also I feel people buy Playstation's for thousands of different reasons(gaming series), but you buy Nintendo systems for a few franchises.
Also I feel people buy Playstation's for thousands of different reasons(gaming series), but you buy Nintendo systems for a few franchises.
It's these two and some of those older series are inconsistent with their quality overall.
Sony didn't need Sony-owned icons to sell Playstations. Third-party icons like Lara Croft, Cloud, Crash, Sonic, Abe, Heihachi, Snake, Alucard, etc did that for them and it payed off. Sony sold 256 million Playstation 1s and 2s. In comparison Nintendo only sold 55 million N64s and Gamecubes.
to the people saying that nintendo's been doing it longer, do you think sony's first party studios are making games comparable to nintendo at their 25 year point?
Such a low effort OP, sis (serving Days Gone's designers). Might as well post something before it gets locked.
This is pretty much the truth. It doesn't help that Sony has pretty much shunned all their franchises that were family friendly and colorful (e.g. Parappa the Rapper, Ape Escape, Sly Cooper) to the dustbin of history, only pulling them out when they need a few characters to diversify the roster in a cross over.
It's true. Mario has been massive for decades. He's transcended gaming. He was gaming at a point.
Sony has had no clear single mascot, and that's hurt them. The mascots they rely on most now (or so I see) are Drake and Kratos, and those have only been around since late PS2/early PS3.
I think
1. Because they didn't really start their massive first party until PS2. Had iconic games before that but not as much first party. So 10-15 less years
2. They are iconic, just not as much.
3. While PS4 Big first party games have sold tons, like 8-10M, I don't think Sony has as long a track record of 20M+ first party sellers like Pokémon, Mario, etc
1. Because they didn't really start their massive first party until PS2. Had iconic games before that but not as much first party. So 10-15 less years
2. They are iconic, just not as much.
3. While PS4 Big first party games have sold tons, like 8-10M, I don't think Sony has as long a track record of 20M+ first party sellers like Pokémon, Mario, etc
PS1 major focus on 3rd party
PS2 major focus on 3d party and a few franchise being created
PS3 more focused on internal IPs and a lot of games that don't develop in to franchise.
One, they haven't been around since 80th. Two, they didn't focus on mascots and kid friendly games as much as Nintendo has. Three, most of their franchise game skew toward older audience.
PS2 major focus on 3d party and a few franchise being created
PS3 more focused on internal IPs and a lot of games that don't develop in to franchise.
One, they haven't been around since 80th. Two, they didn't focus on mascots and kid friendly games as much as Nintendo has. Three, most of their franchise game skew toward older audience.
I mean that's good for you. Doesn't change the fact that millions around the world love PlayStation IPs.
Aside from Nintendo having a head start, the studios that have worked on Sony's games tend to move on to different things when they feel they're done with them, so there's not really a lot of longevity.
God of War and Ratchet and Clank are the only ones that I can think of that have stuck around for a few gens at this point (and both have definitely had their moments out of the spotlight).
God of War and Ratchet and Clank are the only ones that I can think of that have stuck around for a few gens at this point (and both have definitely had their moments out of the spotlight).
- Status