& Is that really a bad thing? (just asking) What makes the 3DS so different than the Vita just becasuse it targets a younger demographic? They're still both dedicated gaming handhelds. Except that the 3DS targets ALL age groups. 

Here's a hint: It's not about "being mascots" why Nintendo characters represent the company so well.
It's the inherent soul of the characters themselves that allow them to have that weight.
The magical moments Nintendo creates with those characters.
Stuff that TRULY resonates with the player.

Hell, you might as well get Bubsy & Aero the Acrobat out for Sony. Maybe Gex. I'm sure they can use the work.
It's not about mascots & those who make that mistake will find themselves in the same mess Sony got into trying to ape Nintendo's franchises.
Sega understood a bit of this which is why Sonic was strong enough to hold its own against Mario for awhile.
But Sega was always trying to out-Nintendo Nintendo ever since that 1983 launch.

John Lucas

Nintendo can definitly be agressive if they want to.
If they wanted to, they could drop the price of the Wii U to 100 dollars/eruos and see it become a huge sucess. But that wouldnt be popular because Nintendo like to make money on their hardware aswell. Still they have made the right decisions for this holiday.

Sony doesnt have the financial fortitude to be agressive. Sony is at the mercy of their competitiors while doing their thing. Nintendo was agressive in the handheld market and didnt give them a chance. On the home console market Nintendo wasnt agressive and let the Wii U have a dry run in sales. Microsoft is also permitting Sony to have the cheaper system compared to them because they want to.

If left alone, Sony will do well. If the competitiors wanted to make a stand they could because they both have better financial situations. But to lose money is unpopular, so its not that simple.

I agree that Nintendo's leaders are sharks and no what they are doing (most of the time) in the gaming market.

However, as far as Sony in the mobile market, it made perfect sense for them to enter it. It made Nintendo lots of money, why shouldn't they take it like they did the home market? The problem was Iwata took over Nintendo and they dramatically shifted their approach to making games and systems. They mixed back to basics(ieNSMB) with innovation and non-gaming projects (ieBrainAge) with a cheaper, more innovative pure gaming device. PSP did well, just not well enough. A big part of the problem is that the approach used in home consoles doesn't work as well on portables.

As far as Vita goes, it isn't so much losing to Nintendo as it is losing to other multi-use devices. 3DS is holding ground because it is a cheap, pure gaming device that is kid-friendly and offers Nintendo's software. The role that PSP held has been replaced by other mobile devices.

Sonic wasn't much of a threat against Nintendo's fleet of Disney-like characters and if they posed a threat at all it was primarily on the Genesis. Most of the games were bundled and at their height of popularity exclusively on the Genesis. Crash bandicoot imho exclusive to the Playstation as a primary mascot posed more threat to Nintendo than Sonic ever did. Sonic makes sense being on the Nintendo though, it adds more variety. If Sony owned Naughty Dog when they made Crash Bandicoot, Spyro the Dragon and Crash would be household names. I don't know about the offical sales for Tomba but Sony published a lot of those mascot games without owning the IP's. So many great franchises have been built on the Sony platform.