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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - How Sony became king of consoles again

RolStoppable said:
omarct said:

The main difference is that Nintendo had a massive head start. Secondly because of their policies they had very little third party support which forced them into dumping all their money into their IPs, the main difference is that rather than branch out like Sony, they decided to focus on the same profitable IPs because they figure it was better for merchandising(and they were right). Count how many different triple A playstation exclusives there have been over the last 2 or 3 generations compared to Nintendo.

I see, I've stepped into an alternate reality.

You argue that Nintendo had a massive headstart over Sony and therefore the NES and SNES eras where Nintendo had very little third party support forced them to foster their own IPs. You argue that a high amount of different IPs that failed to catch on is something to be proud of.

I am not saying any of that, that is all you. My only point was that the dude was comparing apples to oranges. Like comparing diesel fuel to solar power and saying the former it's better simply because more people know about it.



Around the Network
omarct said:
RolStoppable said:

I see, I've stepped into an alternate reality.

You argue that Nintendo had a massive headstart over Sony and therefore the NES and SNES eras where Nintendo had very little third party support forced them to foster their own IPs. You argue that a high amount of different IPs that failed to catch on is something to be proud of.

I am not saying any of that, that is all you. My only point was that the dude was comparing apples to oranges. Like comparing diesel fuel to solar power and saying the former it's better simply because more people know about it.

Comparing apples and oranges? I don't think you know what that means. 

Comparing the popularity of Nintendo and Sony mascots is not comparing apples and oranges, no matter how unfair that comparison maybe. That saying has nothing to do with unfairness, it has to do with comparing ideas that upon close examination aren't that similar. Mascot to Mascot is a pretty direct comparison, especially when they're in the same industry. 



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
omarct said:

I am not saying any of that, that is all you. My only point was that the dude was comparing apples to oranges. Like comparing diesel fuel to solar power and saying the former it's better simply because more people know about it.

Comparing apples and oranges? I don't think you know what that means. 

Comparing the popularity of Nintendo and Sony mascots is not comparing apples and oranges, no matter how unfair that comparison maybe. That saying has nothing to do with unfairness, it has to do with comparing ideas that upon close examination aren't that similar. Mascot to Mascot is a pretty direct comparison, especially when they're in the same industry. 

The saying is perfect, both apples and oranges are fruits, but they are completely different kinds of fruits. In this case the guy was comparing mascots, completely different kinds of mascots, and saying the mascots owner (Nintendo) was the "king of video games" simply because more people recognized its mascots.

 

 

Edit: These are the original comments where this small debate started.

OTBWY said: 
To research who the actual king of video games is, try this experiment.

Hold up portraits of Mario, Kratos or MC. Ask about 1000 random people in the street who they recognize.

Thats not very impressive considering nintendo has been milking the same 10 characters for over 20 years. Imagine if Sony started making 3-5 Kratos games and spinoffs every generation, what would happen in 20 years? Anyways all of Nintendos characters are kid friendly so they can make tons of toys and other merchandise, so of course more people will know of the characters. Yet this means nothing to the king of video games title, now if it was the king of video games merchandise or king of video game toys or maybe king of reusing IPs, then I would agree. Just did I quick search and since 1981 and there are around 300 video games featuring the character MARIO.



OTBWY said:
Bristow9091 said:

Fuck that. hold up pictures of Bubsy, Knack and Pepsiman!

Knack will win baybee!

Knack 3 is coming, believe!



Bristow9091 said:
OTBWY said:

Knack will win baybee!

Knack 3 is coming, believe!

I believe! My good Bristow, I believe!



Around the Network
omarct said:
RolStoppable said:

You make an interesting point. From 2008-2013 Sackboy starred in three numbered LittleBigPlanet games, two handheld-tailored play-alikes for PSP and PSV, a racing game (LBP Karting) and the crossover PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale.

Who is Sackboy?

I am pretty sure most playstation users know who sackboy is, what is your point? 5 years is no where near enough time to become as famous as Mario, Go back to 1981-1986 and ask people who Mario was. 

I have 3 from 4 PS4 home consoles (I didnt own only PS3), and I didnt had idea who are Sackboy, Aloy and Cole MacGrath.



Miyamotoo said:
omarct said:

I am pretty sure most playstation users know who sackboy is, what is your point? 5 years is no where near enough time to become as famous as Mario, Go back to 1981-1986 and ask people who Mario was. 

I have 3 from 4 PS4 home consoles (I didnt own only PS3), and I didnt had idea who are Sackboy, Aloy and Cole MacGrath.

"I have 3 from 4 PS4 home consoles (I didnt own only PS3)"? Excuse me? Sorry not sure what you were trying to say there, none the less I understood the rest of your sentence and it is why I said most not all. There are obviously many who didnt play Infamous 1 and 2(good games) or Horizon which is fairly new, but I would say a very large portion of PS3 users know who sackboy is as he was the mascot for the little big planet franchise which was fairly popular at the beginning of the PS3 era and had a few spin offs/sequels.



omarct said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

Comparing apples and oranges? I don't think you know what that means. 

Comparing the popularity of Nintendo and Sony mascots is not comparing apples and oranges, no matter how unfair that comparison maybe. That saying has nothing to do with unfairness, it has to do with comparing ideas that upon close examination aren't that similar. Mascot to Mascot is a pretty direct comparison, especially when they're in the same industry. 

The saying is perfect, both apples and oranges are fruits, but they are completely different kinds of fruits. In this case the guy was comparing mascots, completely different kinds of mascots, and saying the mascots owner (Nintendo) was the "king of video games" simply because more people recognized its mascots.

 

 

Edit: These are the original comments where this small debate started.

OTBWY said: 
To research who the actual king of video games is, try this experiment.

Hold up portraits of Mario, Kratos or MC. Ask about 1000 random people in the street who they recognize.

Thats not very impressive considering nintendo has been milking the same 10 characters for over 20 years. Imagine if Sony started making 3-5 Kratos games and spinoffs every generation, what would happen in 20 years? Anyways all of Nintendos characters are kid friendly so they can make tons of toys and other merchandise, so of course more people will know of the characters. Yet this means nothing to the king of video games title, now if it was the king of video games merchandise or king of video game toys or maybe king of reusing IPs, then I would agree. Just did I quick search and since 1981 and there are around 300 video games featuring the character MARIO.

Sony would sacrifice goats for a character as iconic as Mario. This is basic business sense. If your product is hot, you use it as often as you can. There is nothing wrong about that.

What do you think is the reason they simply don't do it as much as Nintendo does? Why is Sony not trying to establish a character who could scratch on Mario's popularity? I'll give you a hint: they tried, and they can't.



GoOnKid said:

Sony would sacrifice goats for a character as iconic as Mario. This is basic business sense. If your product is hot, you use it as often as you can. There is nothing wrong about that.

What do you think is the reason they simply don't do it as much as Nintendo does? Why is Sony not trying to establish a character who could scratch on Mario's popularity? I'll give you a hint: they tried, and they can't.

Crash Bandicoot could have been iconic for them. They didn't buy it (or sacrifice any goats for it) though. That's got to be one of the biggest mistakes they've made.



Ka-pi96 said:
GoOnKid said:

Sony would sacrifice goats for a character as iconic as Mario. This is basic business sense. If your product is hot, you use it as often as you can. There is nothing wrong about that.

What do you think is the reason they simply don't do it as much as Nintendo does? Why is Sony not trying to establish a character who could scratch on Mario's popularity? I'll give you a hint: they tried, and they can't.

Crash Bandicoot could have been iconic for them. They didn't buy it (or sacrifice any goats for it) though. That's got to be one of the biggest mistakes they've made.

I agree. To me, he's still a Playstation character.