| mountaindewslave said: it's as if you don't know what 'iconic' means. the Playstation sells well because it connects with CURRENT consumers who want shooters and casual games. sales do not automatically mean brand power in all cases, and especially don't always equal longevity in terms of being iconic. |
If anything Sony did prove it's longevity, maybe even more so than Nintendo when you take a look at the current generation ...
| mountaindewslave said: no doubt Sony has done a great job with the Playstation brand and its ability to SELL consoles, but the reality is that there are few things from the Playstation systems and brand that are truly iconic. do yourself a favor and try to list the number of revolutionary things that Playstation systems presented upon release- you'll have difficulty because things like using CD's for gaming had been done years prior and in the more recent generations their systems have been very similar to some of the competition (namely Xbox) |
Innovation does not earn you the right to be iconic and what exactly has Nintendo achieved aside from quality control ?
| mountaindewslave said: even in terms of IPs and branding, the Playstation is missing anything particularly iconic. go ahead, name off some 'iconic' Playstation characters or game series- you'll try and then realize that all of the IPs that come to mind are that of third parties that just did exceptionally well on that particular system Sony has done a great job with the Playstation in terms of selling units. I was tempted to say 'selling units and making money' but for some reason they've failed to generally make money with their video game division, even during the PS2 era, despite strong sales. it's a great product but not iconic. someone up in this thread mentioned Mission Impossible and 007, and I think that's a great parallel. even if the Mission Impossible movies today were to more relate to consumers and sell more tickets- it doesn't magically make the brand more iconic or relevant to society. its simply how things eb and flow |
Sony does lack when it comes to intellectual properties but they most definitely don't lack when it comes to brand power and that's especially important. It's the victor who shall write in the history books not the loser! Did you even look at Sony's financial statement during the PS2 era ? They made a shit ton of cash and if it weren't for the Gameboy Advance Nintendo would not be showing black ink in the 6th gen ...
The comparison between Mission impossible and 007 is plain bad. When it comes to the gaming industry Nintendo is only 12 years older than Sony and them been more relevant recently MORE than makes up for it ...
| mountaindewslave said: in 20 years someone could ask themselves the same question I'd have you ask right now- what comes to mind when you think of "Playstation". a video game system, sure, but beyond that what? there just aren't many iconic qualities in terms of innovations and characters that were strictly from Sony and their Playstation brand |
I can hardly read 20 years into the future but if Nintendo keeps up like this hardly anyone will remember them just like how nobody bats an eye when Atari gets mentioned despite being the first progenitor of the videogame industry ...
| mountaindewslave said: Nintendo on the other hand- 1985 to now- some of the same IPs and characters and older systems of theirs are so engrained in society. Mario is probably second only to Mickey Mouse as being the most well known and valuable character IP on the planet look at the used market too- Nintendo items, FROM ANY GENERATION, are way more in demand than that of Playstation, even Playstation 1. I think that speaks volumes about how society, young and old, view and appreciate the two brands. People seem to really like Playstation in the now, when they're casual gaming, but as far as longevity goes the brand just does not hold the same attention or appreciation |
Cool how Nintendo still has collectors value but it doesn't make them anymore relevant in today's market ...
