Top brands of 2008 owned by Nintendo, EA, Activision, and not Sony

last time I checked, guitar hero score3s were no where near 22%

When are stuck-up commenters going to realize that everyone has their own taste in games?

Maybe because enjoyment is impossible to quantify. That's just a theory, though.

You don't think sales are important? You're kidding yourself.

Congratulations. That was the one of the most misinformed comment I've ever read.

Uncharted is widely acclaimed for the art direction and personality - in fact the game's personality is what sets it apart as many of the game mechanics have been seen before. It does it so well that it trancends the genre.

Resistance is also known for its' atmosphere. Many reviews of the first title praised how the cities gradually became more alien like the deeper you went into enemy held territory.

Infamous - haven't played it yet so I can't give an informed opinion of the art direction of the game. Chances are you haven't either but you'll blather on about it anyway.

Ratchet and Clank - to say those games are visually and conceptually boring is simply one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

This list isn't about cross-media appeal - and Sony's lack of presence on this list is soley due to their struggle to achieve market penetration this gen. If Uncharted or Resistance came out on the 360 they'd have been huge. If LBP was on the Wii it would have been a runaway success. That does not change the fact that Sony has created some of the very best first party software this gen. The sales numbers of those titles are not reflective of their quality but due to Sony's missteps in getting the system in peoples homes. I truly believe that if the PS3 had launched at a lower price the same year as the 360 it would have absolutely dominated this gen (and I am a huge 360 guy).

Again, dumbest, most misinformed comment I've seen here in a while. Since Sprinkles last post - where is that idiot anyway? Perma-ban? Could it be true?

Try rereading boomsilent's comment without fanboy blinders on. Sony's leading franchises haven't put forth a distinctive, easily recognizable persona. Critically acclaimed does not equal easily recognized, or appealing to the masses. In order to succeed in the absence of such a presence, they need to heavily market their product.

Look at Halo, Mario, Sonic, Zelda, and Team Fortress 2. Show any gamer the lead character and they will recognize the franchise. Show them virtually any in-game character, and they will still recognize it. That is a distinctive art direction/presence.

By comparison, look at Uncharted, Resistance, inFamous. Who is the lead character? Some guy. Master Chief has his armor, Mario has his goofy proportions, Team Fortress 2 has its distinctive art direction.

Of all Sony's recent franchises that have been marketed heavily, the one with the most distinctive character, for me, is Killzone 2. Unfortuantely, the game has a checkered history, thanks to lackluster reception of the first game, and Sony's poor treatment of KZ2's promotional material at E3.

When you don't have a distinctive character, but you have a quality game, you build your brand around a trademark name or font. Examples are COD, Tom Clancy, Unreal Tournament, and FF. Put out a great game, give it lots of marketing, push recognition of the name, or the font, or the acronym, and you get an "exploitable franchise."

That is where Sony does poorly. They make poor choices for marketing foundations (batarang controller, spiderman font) and pursue a wacked out marketing plan (bathroom girl?). This, on top of poor market entry choices with their console have created problems for them.

Even console features are not capitalized in this way. Look at Xbox Live. Short name, great recognition factor. MS made a desirable online service last generation and marketed it heavily moving into this generation. The perception exists (with or without foundation) that Live is the place to go to play games online.

Yes, there is much more to this, like timing of certain franchise and console releases, and multiplayer focus operating as word of mouth advertising. But look at what boomsilent wrote from a business standpoint, and not from a gamer's standpoint and it makes a whole lotta sense.

Just one more thing. What are the most iconic franchises for the PS2? GTA and FF, in my mind. That is perhaps the core of the problem. Sony's best franchises weren't Sony franchises. Nintendo is Mario, Xbox is Masterchief, Sony is ? That is perhaps the most easily understood symptom of Sony's problem, a large part of which is due to not owning the franchises for which the PS2 was most widely known.

Even if there are better franchises on the console, it needs to have a united face, one single spokesperson, a sole identity. MS and Nintendo get it. Sony hasn't. The same principle exists for franchises.

I'm no business genius, but wouldn't the revenue generated by the Imagine series allow Ubisoft to give games like Assassin's Creed 2 obscene budgets? Without the money Imagine brings in, I would think the good stuff doesn't get the financial freedom to be...well...good. Or am I wrong?