Opinion: the heavily losing fronts of PlayStation that nobody talking about.

Dr.Henry_Killinger

Currently Offline

31,449

6617 posts since 16/02/14

Recent Badges:

So You Came Back For More, Huh? Logged in a second time.
'Ello Princess! Awarded for signing up.
Leaving Limbo 100 posts on the gamrConnect forums.
Watch Your Back! Received 10,000 profile views.
10 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 10 years.
One Piece at a Time Add your first game to your collection.

Currently Playing:

The 3rd Birthday (PSP)
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (PC)
The Last of Us (PS3)
Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 3 Portable (PSP)

Dr.Henry_Killinger on 30 November 2015

S.T.A.G.E. said:

Kagerow said:

S.T.A.G.E. said:

Kagerow said:

Again, Nintendo aren't afraid to create a new 'banner carrier'. They just don't do it because they know it is almost impossible to just create a main stream mascot out of thin air. Period. Establishing a main stream mascot is very different from establishing a game brand. Especially one that stays relevant.

Why does people just claims others are worse for aiming a different goal?

That sounds like fear to me. If you believe its impossible to create a banner carrier one cannot fathom Sony's intentions for the rise of Nathan Drake in an era where they already had Kratos.

Nathan Drake rose as a mascot where?

Rise of Uncharted series is not same as rise of Nathan Drake the character. Just as rise of Splatoon doesn't mean Inkling suddenly became a relevant character in the main stream. I don't have to fathom anything because there is nothing behind it.

Banner carrier game and 'Banner Carrier' character - Mascots are not the same. Nathan Drake never rose. Uncharted is the one that claimed to the top. They didn't had Kratos. No sane marketing strategist would put Kratos as a face of entire Playstation brand. Especially not in US.

Maybe I don't have enough knowledge on these issues. Can you tell me an example of a mascot that became a main stream as soon as it hit the market and stayed relevant without strong, continued support? Maybe Darth Vader?

Look back on last gen. You'll see what I mean when I say Nathan Drake was the premiere character for Sony, because Uncharted was. His character was relatable and funny and got into lots of trouble that you helped him get out of as a thief and historian. The two exclusive characters that came out for any brand in last gen were Nathan Drake for Sony and Marcus Fenix for Gears of War. Of course Microsoft didnt make that game but they bought it, so there you have it.

I agree with kagerow.

Sony is pushing Nathan as hard as they possibly can but I think its a futile effort. Even Kratos is more of a mascot than him in many respects.. Nathan simply doesn't have the tenure.

In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

peterdavid12345

Currently Offline

2,459

440 posts since 20/08/14

Recent Badges:

'Ello Princess! Awarded for signing up.
8 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 8 years.
Congratulations on Pressing Start! Score your first game in your collection.
Open For Business Earned 10 badges.
Trust Me, It'll Have Legs 100 replies made to user's most popular thread.
7 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 7 years.

Currently Playing:

Napoleon: Total War (PC)
PlanetSide 2 (PC)
League of Legends (PC)
The Last of Us Remastered (PS4)

peterdavid12345 on 30 November 2015

Kagerow said:

S.T.A.G.E. said:

Kagerow said:

Again, Nintendo aren't afraid to create a new 'banner carrier'. They just don't do it because they know it is almost impossible to just create a main stream mascot out of thin air. Period. Establishing a main stream mascot is very different from establishing a game brand. Especially one that stays relevant.

Why does people just claims others are worse for aiming a different goal?

That sounds like fear to me. If you believe its impossible to create a banner carrier one cannot fathom Sony's intentions for the rise of Nathan Drake in an era where they already had Kratos.

Nathan Drake rose as a mascot where?

Rise of Uncharted series is not same as rise of Nathan Drake the character. Just as rise of Splatoon doesn't mean Inkling suddenly became a relevant character in the main stream. I don't have to fathom anything because there is nothing behind it.

Banner carrier game and 'Banner Carrier' character - Mascots are not the same. Nathan Drake never rose. Uncharted is the one that claimed to the top. They didn't had Kratos. No sane marketing strategist would put Kratos as a face of entire Playstation brand. Especially not in US.

Maybe I don't have enough knowledge on these issues. Can you tell me an example of a mascot that became a main stream as soon as it hit the market and stayed relevant without strong, continued support? Maybe Darth Vader?

Actually, i believe Kagerow is right. Nathan Drake is indeed very popular in the PlayStation family but mainstreamly speaking, like go out and bring a poster of Nathan and ask just anyone about who he is, im sure not many people would know him.

As for Kratos, Sony does support him a lot with 4 games on PS3 and a remasterd on PS4 and 2 games on the PSP i believe. Not to mention of other collections. And God of War 4 is just around the corner i believe.

Kratos is very popular in the gaming world, im sure :). But is he a PlayStation mascot ? i don't know. Cause when i think of PlayStation characters, i think of classic & iconic characters like Crash, Cloud and Snake. The big 3 Heroes of the very important PS characters dat no longer exclusively to the PlayStation systems...

Porcupine_I

Currently Offline

46,024

7950 posts since 09/09/09

Recent Badges:

A Badge Within A Badge Earned 20 badges.
A Free Man Managed to avoid being banned for 2 years.
Open For Business Earned 10 badges.
The High Flyer Earned 40 badges.
Vice Free Managed to avoid being banned for 6 months.
Escape Artist Managed to avoid being banned for 1 month.

Porcupine_I on 01 December 2015

Kagerow said:

S.T.A.G.E. said:

Sony doesn't stick with distinctive characters because they are a brand that is determined to create new characters and brands in each and every generation. Unlike Microsoft they are actually capable and unlike Nintendo they arent afraid to create a new banner carrier for the company.

Again, Nintendo aren't afraid to create a new 'banner carrier'. They just don't do it because they know it is almost impossible to just create a main stream mascot out of thin air. Period. Establishing a main stream mascot is very different from establishing a game brand. Especially one that stays relevant.

Why does people just claims others are worse for aiming a different goal?

You realize you contradicting yourself instantly in those two sentences. Also you claim something you can't possibly know unless you are the head of Nintendo.

“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’