Are we really inventing genres to fit?

Everybody Golf is a sport game with RPG elements if you want to go like that. The SIMS is a life simulation. fitness adventure?

For me it just seems like you are pretending there is a whole genre to cover a single game Nintendo created to pad the numbers.

Sony always has variety but if you mean games like TLoU, Uncharted and GoW then it's true that most of their biggest/most popular games are 'sad dad' games.

Sony's other games either aren't as good/appealing or Playstation doesn't attract a big enough audience for those types of games.

Like others have said, I don't see this Sony "iconic worlds, characters.." thing. They have some truly great games in some great franchises. But, the reality is that once you leave the Nintendo characters and the Mushroom Kingdom, the only video game characters that you'll find non-gamers often aware of are Sonic, and to a much lesser extent, Master Chief. Maybe Pac-Man among the older generations.

Everyone does actually. As you look at it, you actually could put TLOU in the same genre as Zelda: action adventure. With that Sony has nothing special. But as I see it, there are differences. But that is exactly what I said: everyone defines genres differently. You argued that position only to circle back and deliver an expample yourself. And I said before: as people define their genres some can come to the conclusion PS4 has the most diverse library ever, while others think that Switch has that price. It is all a question of your viewpoint.

I would argue Rayman and Lara Croft are quite iconic. But true, Nintendo has a great talent to develop lasting characters. Maybe because they don't give up on them and jump to a different series. Sony abandoned Spyro and Crash, maybe if they had stick with them they would be as iconic today as Mario.

Sony definitely has had more of that than MS and Nintendo in recent years. I guess if the Op means: "Is Sony trying to diversify their games lineup to appeal to more people?", then my response is simply "Yes".

I never really saw this as a bad thing though. There's clearly strong demand for these types of games, Sony's studios are clearly very good at it, and they maintained a decent variety of games. 

The only thing I would like Sony to focus more on is replayability. I love several of their games, but I feel like story is too much of a focus in many of them. I just never seem to go back to their games once Ive finished them.(A few exceptions of course) Thats just a bit of a selfish wish I know, since I know many people play their games over and over. I just feel the gameplay could be a bit more fun and random I guess.

I'm pretty sure Sony has never owned those IP's. As far as I'm aware Spyro was owned by Universal Studios, then acquired by Activison. Crash Bandicoot was also owned by Activision and currently still is. Sony just published their games.

Oh, I didn't knew that. I thought they were Sony IPs and they sold them to Activision. Thanks for the correction.

Yeah its strange. It might go in the grey area but they never really owned the IP or had full rights to them. I think they wanted to get more publishers on board so they might have made deals (make x amount of games on Playstation) with Universal and Activision.