By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
 

Who is Sony's PS mascot?

Kratos 25 39.68%
 
Nathan Drake 20 31.75%
 
Ratchet and Clank 4 6.35%
 
Helghast 0 0%
 
Sackboy 7 11.11%
 
Other 7 11.11%
 
Total:63

No company has one single mascot anymore. Each company now has a pantheon of characters that represent the company. You have to take a look at which characters you would add to that and see if they reflect how people view the company. Sony, in my opinion, has a wide and good range of characters, but they are added and dropped too fast. Crash not being at the forefront you can understand, since he no longer is bound to just the Playstation platform, but a character like Sack boy, are just gone for no reason. Perhaps Sony just looks at sales of particular franchises and decides to move on from it completely.



Around the Network
ShadowSoldier said:
Kratos though Drake did pass the baton on to him. Sony switches it up every gen. PS1-> Crash, PS2-> Jak/Sly/Ratchet, PS3-> Nathan Drake, PS4-> Kratos

Kratos was Sony's mascot on PS2 as well. God of War games sold well above the games you mentioned on PS2, and was more revolutionary than any of them.

Kratos even in his PS2 days was iconic. He made his appearance in Soulcalibur, Mortal Kombat and was at the front of the cover on PlayStation All Stars in his old format. Ratchet and Clank is comparatively B rate in popularity and critical reception and Jak and Sly are far too niche to be considered as mascots.



Shiken said:
pokoko said:

He's not exactly right but he's not exactly wrong, either.

Let's imagine a Playstation platform without an IP more than two generations old.  Could they pull it off?  Yeah, probably.  

On the other hand, let's imagine a Nintendo platform without an IP more than two generations old.  Could they pull it off?  In terms of quality, probably.  In terms of sales, I have my doubts.  

Thing is, that is nothing but baseless assumption.  There are no facts to support that Nintendo would not be able to pull it off.

 

There are two factors to consider however.  At one point in time, those old IPs were new IPs.  They did it then, so they could do it again if need be.  The other is that no matter how you slice it, Nintendo makes good games.  These are the only facts we have.  Anything else is pure speculation most likely based on the opinion of the person making them, and not a reflection of fact.

"They did it once, they can do it again," is not a fact.  If it were a fact, then the same sports teams would win every year, Sony could replicate the success of the Walkman at their leisure, Atari would be running the gaming industry, and we'd have far fewer developers go out of business.  That's as much an assumption as anything else, especially considering the gaming environment is much different now.



Crash Bandicoot



REQUIESCAT IN PACE

I Hate REMASTERS

I Hate PLAYSTATION PLUS

Miyamotoo said:
Talking about last two gens, I would said Nathan Drake.

I would agree with you. I think Drake has been the most recognized character for sony in the last two gens. Having said the Drake seems to have had his day and has retired so he doesnt seem like a good choice going forward.

 

I guess that is the advantage of sony in that they have many strong characters to choose from. I would say the current mascot seems to be Kratos for this year. 

Last edited by fauzman - on 03 September 2018

<a href="https://psnprofiles.com/fauzman"><img src="https://card.psnprofiles.com/2/fauzman.png" border="0"></a>

Around the Network

Will always be Nathan Drake for me.



pokoko said:
Shiken said:

Except they did get critical acclaim and sell huge numbers.  Splatoon 2 likely has a 50% attach rate when you factor in digital.  That is HUGE, and when Sony only had 20 mil consoles in the wild, it failed go come close to those numbers with any of their 1st party games.

He's not exactly right but he's not exactly wrong, either.

Let's imagine a Playstation platform without an IP more than two generations old.  Could they pull it off?  Yeah, probably.  

On the other hand, let's imagine a Nintendo platform without an IP more than two generations old.  Could they pull it off?  In terms of quality, probably.  In terms of sales, I have my doubts.  

What I find funny is that you said in your previous reply is that Nintendo would be able to make games of quality, but you question if they would sell without being known IPs in your first reply.  Then you go on to say that Sony would be fine without known IPs because of their quality...

 

So what is the difference?  It seems to me that their is bias in your statement as the only argument you have is pretty much that Playstation is Playstation and Nintendo is Nintendo.  You literally contradicted your own point.

pokoko said:
Shiken said:

Thing is, that is nothing but baseless assumption.  There are no facts to support that Nintendo would not be able to pull it off.

 

There are two factors to consider however.  At one point in time, those old IPs were new IPs.  They did it then, so they could do it again if need be.  The other is that no matter how you slice it, Nintendo makes good games.  These are the only facts we have.  Anything else is pure speculation most likely based on the opinion of the person making them, and not a reflection of fact.

"They did it once, they can do it again," is not a fact.  If it were a fact, then the same sports teams would win every year, Sony could replicate the success of the Walkman at their leisure, Atari would be running the gaming industry, and we'd have far fewer developers go out of business.  That's as much an assumption as anything else, especially considering the gaming environment is much different now.

Except that you forget that the Splatoon IP is a huge hit, Xenoblade continues to gain traction, and ARMs was far more successful than many like to give it credit for.  They have already proven they can do it.

 

You do not think that they could not make a similar game to Mario or Zelda in a different setting with a unique plot and cast while having it sell?  If Mario and Zelda did not exist, other new IPs of similar style would take their place. Quality sells games, all they have to do is show that quality.  Otherwise Horizon Zero Dawn would have flopped.

 

To believe anything else is to fool yourself into believing what you want to believe, rather than what is true.



Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

Animal Crossing NH Dream Address: DA-1078-9916-3261

Shiken said:
pokoko said:

He's not exactly right but he's not exactly wrong, either.

Let's imagine a Playstation platform without an IP more than two generations old.  Could they pull it off?  Yeah, probably.  

On the other hand, let's imagine a Nintendo platform without an IP more than two generations old.  Could they pull it off?  In terms of quality, probably.  In terms of sales, I have my doubts.  

What I find funny is that you said in your previous reply is that Nintendo would be able to make games of quality, but you question if they would sell without being known IPs in your first reply.  Then you go on to say that Sony would be fine without known IPs because of their quality...

 

So what is the difference?  It seems to me that their is bias in your statement as the only argument you have is pretty much that Playstation is Playstation and Nintendo is Nintendo.  You literally contradicted your own point.

pokoko said:

"They did it once, they can do it again," is not a fact.  If it were a fact, then the same sports teams would win every year, Sony could replicate the success of the Walkman at their leisure, Atari would be running the gaming industry, and we'd have far fewer developers go out of business.  That's as much an assumption as anything else, especially considering the gaming environment is much different now.

Except that you forget that the Splatoon IP is a huge hit, Xenoblade continues to gain traction, and ARMs was far more successful than many like to give it credit for.  They have already proven they can do it.

 

You do not think that they could not make a similar game to Mario or Zelda in a different setting with a unique plot and cast while having it sell?  If Mario and Zelda did not exist, other new IPs of similar style would take their place. Quality sells games, all they have to do is show that quality.  Otherwise Horizon Zero Dawn would have flopped.

 

To believe anything else is to fool yourself into believing what you want to believe, rather than what is true.

Hold on a second.  If you're not going to get what I said right then don't paraphrase me at all.  

The argument is pretty simple.  Playstation does not lean as heavily on past IP as Xbox and Nintendo.  This is an observable pattern of behavior and they've proven to be successful at it.  Nintendo, on the other hand, builds and maintains their oldest IP indefinitely.  That is also an observable pattern of behavior.

Now, you're seriously telling me that if Nintendo dropped Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong, Kirby, and Pokemon, it wouldn't have an impact on their brand?  That it wouldn't affect sales?

I think the one trying to fool themselves into believing what they want to believe is you.



pokoko said:
Shiken said:

What I find funny is that you said in your previous reply is that Nintendo would be able to make games of quality, but you question if they would sell without being known IPs in your first reply.  Then you go on to say that Sony would be fine without known IPs because of their quality...

 

So what is the difference?  It seems to me that their is bias in your statement as the only argument you have is pretty much that Playstation is Playstation and Nintendo is Nintendo.  You literally contradicted your own point.

Except that you forget that the Splatoon IP is a huge hit, Xenoblade continues to gain traction, and ARMs was far more successful than many like to give it credit for.  They have already proven they can do it.

 

You do not think that they could not make a similar game to Mario or Zelda in a different setting with a unique plot and cast while having it sell?  If Mario and Zelda did not exist, other new IPs of similar style would take their place. Quality sells games, all they have to do is show that quality.  Otherwise Horizon Zero Dawn would have flopped.

 

To believe anything else is to fool yourself into believing what you want to believe, rather than what is true.

Hold on a second.  If you're not going to get what I said right then don't paraphrase me at all.  

The argument is pretty simple.  Playstation does not lean as heavily on past IP as Xbox and Nintendo.  This is an observable pattern of behavior and they've proven to be successful at it.  Nintendo, on the other hand, builds and maintains their oldest IP indefinitely.  That is also an observable pattern of behavior.

Now, you're seriously telling me that if Nintendo dropped Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong, Kirby, and Pokemon, it wouldn't have an impact on their brand?  That it wouldn't affect sales?

I think the one trying to fool themselves into believing what they want to believe is you.

Okay, but the reason Sony has done it is because quality games sell...period.  Just because Nintendo has not NEEDED to do what Sony does, that DOES NOT mean they CAN'T.

 

The entire point has gone over your head.



Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

Animal Crossing NH Dream Address: DA-1078-9916-3261

fauzman said:
Miyamotoo said:
Talking about last two gens, I would said Nathan Drake.

I would agree with you. I think Drake has been the most recognized character for sony in the last two gens. Habing said the Drake seems to have had his day and has retired so he doesnt seem like a good choice going forward.

I guess that is the advantage of sony in that they have many syrong characters to choose from. I would say the current mazcot seems to be Kratos for this year. 

Exactly, Uncharted combined on PS3 sold 19m copies while GoW was at around 5m, and on PS4 Uncharted 4 and Uncharted Collection sold more than 15m. IMO only reason why people are choosing Kratos is because last GoW game, if actually Uncharted 4 was released after GoW I think more people would choose Nate, so I totaly agree with you that Kratos is current mascot for this year.

I dont think that Sony has many strong characters, at end currently everything comes to Nate and Kratos, others are not nearly strong enugh to be mascot (for instance Ratchet and Clank) or didnt had so much presence (maybe Ellie and Joel).

Last edited by Miyamotoo - on 03 September 2018