why doesn't Sony leverage its movie studio IP for the PS3?

[patsu]

I was wondering what sort of IP sony owns through their movie studios (Columbia, TriStar, MGM, etc) to create exclusive content for their game division? It seems like a strength to take advantage of over MS.

Exclusive contracts takes lots of time and money to nail down. We will know more this Fall when Sony's movie download service is in full swing.

Since they own the James Bond character, why not make it so that his games have to be exclusive to the system? Why not RockyBalboa games, with FN3 graphics? Most of the general public don't know anything about boxing or boxers, so a "Clubber Lang" or "Ivan Drago" means more to them than Bernard Hopkins or Floyd Mayweather does. Why not (fill in the blank)

Also, since they don't really have a mascot anymore (I think the Crash Bandicoot character died off and I dont think anything has really replaced it) why not introduce some cartoon character they own and make some games off of it? I am thinking like the Pink Panther, to be their official mascot. Its much easier than creating some new characters that take a while to register with fans.

Can anyone think of other cartoon characters Sony owns that they could use as a mascot?

The primary problem is the number of PS3 sold does not make sense for exclusive mainstream content yet (It'll be too expensive). We should see exclusive arrangement later.

As for mascots, they will come over time with the games but I don't think Sony wants to tie down the PS3 brand image with any one mascot. It's supposed to have a broad appeal.

 

[ninzel]

Halo as a whole seems like an exclusive "symbol" to XBOX to me as in being promoted a lot my MS to make known in public the exclusivity of a quality game.

I really cant see Master Chief, Kratos etc as mascots for their respective consoles.

edit: Besides Mater Chief wasnt created to become an XBOX symbol. It was going to be released on different platforms before, with the same character that wasnt supposed to be tight to a certain brand. It kind of automatically became tight to XBOX when Halo became an exclusive to XBOX and the very first AAA game to push it

"Mascot:
A person, animal, or object believed to bring good luck, especially one kept as the symbol of an organization such as a sports team."

"mascot - a person or animal that is adopted by a team or other group as a symbolic figure"

Kept,adopted,created,symbol, mascot,these are just semantics games.
Mario and Master Chief serve the exact same purpose for either company.
No one needs to feel threatened by associating Master Chief with the word mascot. It's just a general term,that Master Chief, Mario and Kratos all fit well with.

 

[V3]

Can anyone think of other cartoon characters Sony owns that they could use as a mascot?

SCE has Toro. I think it was a mascot for the Pocketstation. But Toro is pretty much as good as a mascot for Playstation.

 

[Nesh]

"Mascot:
A person, animal, or object believed to bring good luck, especially one kept as the symbol of an organization such as a sports team."

"mascot - a person or animal that is adopted by a team or other group as a symbolic figure"

Kept,adopted,created,symbol, mascot,these are just semantics games.
Mario and Master Chief serve the exact same purpose for either company.
No one needs to feel threatened by associating Master Chief with the word mascot. It's just a general term,that Master Chief, Mario and Kratos all fit well with.

That is an extremely general interpretation and even at that, characters like Kratos fail to fall in that category.

If you try to take such an extreme generalised view of what a console mascot is then we can add even more characters into that category. Rachet and Clank, Jak and Daxter, Kratos, Link, Samus Aran, Loco Roco, and basically any character from any exclusive game. But for all these years people reckognised ONE mascot for each console. Just ONE excluding ALL the others for reasons this generalised interpretation can not explain.

When people saw a Sega console or a Nintendo console first thing they thought about were "Sonic" and "Mario" characters even if they werent dedicated gamers. Almost anyone if not all thought of the same thing. Even if they belonged to the opposite camp they reckognised the mascots.
People dont think of Master Chief when they see 360. They dont think of Kratos when they see a Playstation. They will think of Halo and GoW. Many dont even bother to know their names and if they hear them they forget them. The majority of Playstation owners probably dont know who Master Chief is and the majority of 360 fans dont know who Kratos is but they know their games.

Mario and Sonic survived, they are diachronic even if they do not appear in an actual game or their respective genre. People were addicted to the characters themselves back in the old days.

Their is no addiction to Kratos or Matser Chief. There is only addiction to the games they are in like Halo and GoW and ofcourse games cant be considered mascots despite that they can be used (like the countless of games out there) the same way as the above interpretation.

Master Chief and Kratos are comparatively weaker symbols to be considered worthy of seating next to Mario and Sonic as mascots. But the games they belong into are not.

Today its not certain characters that represent a strong bond with a console. Its a collection of specific games as a whole that serve as bonds and symbols for each console.

 

[ninzel]

That is an extremely general interpretation and even at that, characters like Kratos fail to fall in that category.

If you try to take such an extreme generalised view of what a console mascot is then we can add even more characters into that category. Rachet and Clank, Jak and Daxter, Kratos, Link, Samus Aran, Loco Roco, and basically any character from any exclusive game. But for all these years people reckognised ONE mascot for each console. Just ONE excluding ALL the others for reasons this generalised interpretation can not explain.

When people saw a Sega console or a Nintendo console first thing they thought about were "Sonic" and "Mario" characters even if they werent dedicated gamers. Almost anyone if not all thought of the same thing. Even if they belonged to the opposite camp they reckognised the mascots.
People dont think of Master Chief when they see 360. They dont think of Kratos when they see a Playstation. They will think of Halo and GoW. Many dont even bother to know their names and if they hear them they forget them. The majority of Playstation owners probably dont know who Master Chief is and the majority of 360 fans dont know who Kratos is but they know their games.

Mario and Sonic survived, they are diachronic even if they do not appear in an actual game or their respective genre. People were addicted to the characters themselves back in the old days.

Their is no addiction to Kratos or Matser Chief. There is only addiction to the games they are in like Halo and GoW and ofcourse games cant be considered mascots despite that they can be used (like the countless of games out there) the same way as the above interpretation.

Master Chief and Kratos are comparatively weaker symbols to be considered worthy of seating next to Mario and Sonic as mascots. But the games they belong into are not.

Today its not certain characters that represent a strong bond with a console. Its a collection of specific games as a whole that serve as bonds and symbols for each console.

I completely disagree with regards to Master Chief. Master Chief symbolizes the Xbox brand,he is the Xbox mascot.I never said anything else about secondary characters,Ive been very specific and in that vein I will retract Kratos.
Master Chief might be comparatively weaker,but I think that's simply due to time in our minds and in society.But I don't think he's any less important to MS than Mario is to Nintendo.

 

[NovemberMike]

The Master Chief is like Link. He isn't an official mascot but is highly recognizable and strongly associated with his console. Nowhere near Mario or Sonic though.

 

[Fox5]

I think EA actually has the rights to Bond, and Marvel has Spiderman. Sony has the movie rights to a lot of things, but when you start talking about other media they aren't as powerful.

And who knows, maybe if EA couldn't license the James Bond movie license for their games, they'd just license the book license. (there might still be a separate book license)

edit: Besides Mater Chief wasnt created to become an XBOX symbol. It was going to be released on different platforms before, with the same character that wasnt supposed to be tight to a certain brand. It kind of automatically became tight to XBOX when Halo became an exclusive to XBOX and the very first AAA game to push it

It wasn't supposed to, but it did. Microsoft has tried to make lots of other IP into its mascots (Viva Pinanta? or any Rare game on Xbox? the dozens of other games microsoft funded last gen?) but only Halo stuck.

 

[JacksBleedingEyes]

And who knows, maybe if EA couldn't license the James Bond movie license for their games, they'd just license the book license. (there might still be a separate book license)



It wasn't supposed to, but it did. Microsoft has tried to make lots of other IP into its mascots (Viva Pinanta? or any Rare game on Xbox? the dozens of other games microsoft funded last gen?) but only Halo stuck.

Well Viva Pinata didn't have a central character, so that's out of the question.
Mr Pants sucks.
Kameo, well, it's a girl and a fairy at that, there's no fucking way that would stick (considering demographics)
Mario became a mascot because he redifined games as we know them and has always been on the bleeding edge of inovation.
Sonic was just a copy but somehow it became a unique form of gameplay, speed was a new realm.
Now unless they make some revolutionary game with a really strong character, we won't be seeing a mascot any time soon.

 

[whatever7]

David Jaffe said the script of God of War (movie) is completed. They are going to pitch it in the next phrase I guess. That's more than you can say about the Halo movie.

I am sure the popularity of 300 will help GoW getting green light.

 

[sumdumyunguy]

--SNIP--.

Since they own the James Bond character, --SNIP?--

Sony does not own the James Bond character. That IP is owned by Mrs. Flemming.

 

[Tetramagic2]

Sony does not own the James Bond character. That IP is owned by Mrs. Flemming.

fair enough, but when Sony licenses a character to make a movie along with it comes crosspromotional things like t-shirts, video games, dvd collectons, Burger king cups, etc.
When Nintendo made Goldeneye, they went through MGM , not the Fleming family