One of Sony's biggest problems is the lack of an big IP with merchandising. Will it change with the PS5?

MultiMoo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,561
Silicon Valley
While I agree that they don't have a behemoth like Pokemon and Mario as far as licensed merchandising, they HAVE recently revamped the way they handle merchandise. Perhaps we'll see more prominent things in in the calm before the next-gen storm, or just after launch?

I personally own an Aloy statue, and a Thunderjaw statue, each bought separately and not with the game. I also have a replica of the Leviathan axe from God of War.

Aside from that, I have a bunch of PS brand merch, including shirts, PS1 wallet, PS buttons hat, PS buttons lamp, keychain, muc, etc.



Sony partners with companies like Merchoid and Insertcoin for loads of their IPs as well, along with stuff available on the PlayStation Gear store.

So yes, they absolutely do generate some revenue from The Last of Us (even pt 2 merch is available), Horizon, God of War, and Spider-Man PS4 (specifically).







 
Last edited:
OP
OP
plow

plow

Member
Oct 28, 2017
433
Makes no sense. The Last of Us, God of War, Uncharted etc. are huge.

If by "maintaining an IP" you mean releasing the same IPs again and again for 5 generation, then no thanks.
Sony loves to make new big AAA IPs every gen. And I hope it stays that way.
You get an F- for reading comprehension.

That point isn't when you suddenly have merch and stuff. OP is just uninformed.
Uncharted is in a weird spot right now I think, the creators have moved on, which is usually not super good for long term planning, i think it just needs a break, guess we'll see how the movie does.
Come on now dude. Are you really trying to tell me that Sony merch is some kind of relevant? Yes there might be some kind of merch with Sony franchises, but it's surely not doing numbers.
 

correojon

Member
Oct 26, 2017
544
As someone whose native language isn´t english I´m amazed at all the people replying that they didn´t understand the OP. Just click on the Wikipedia article and it´ll become instantly clear. I agree 100% with OP, it´s bizarre how Sony, who is currently enjoying great sales with it´s IPs, is completely absent from that list of big IPs. This may not seem to affect Sony´s success in the videogame world, but when you look at the poor sales of the Playstation Classic, or the lackluster PSASBR cast you can see that there may be a relationship.

Sony doesn´t have any iconic character that can trascend the media, its´more representative characters are just humans (well, maybe Kratos has something going for him, but he´s still a medium-aged white dude). For one, Sony´s first-party focus on "mature" (I hate using this word for this) games/stories stops its´ IPs from reaching wider recognition. Also, their focus on story and graphics over the rest has a negative effect on the longevity of their games: I mean, Nintendo´s focus on gameplay and artstyle before technical power makes it so a new entry on a series doesn´t make the previous one obsolete. However with Sony I do get that impression: So much focus is put on the graphics that when a new game comes out that looks much better than the last, it makes the previous entry more forgettable and is kind of pushed aside. I think that the way for Sony IPs to trascend gaming is to play on their strengths; Release a TLoU TV series, or an Uncharted movie, even a GoW cartoon could work!
 

Bundy

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,041
I don't agree with the OP that it's a 'big problem' for Sony. It's just a (forced?) choice. Sony just doesn't have the IP to achieve what Pokémon, Minecraft and to a lesser extent Sonic have achieved. But they could push it some more.
Makes sense, because you can see with your examples "Pokemon, Minecraft and Sonic" what the reason for that is. Sony's big games aren't some mascot, little cute animal thingys. Their big games are human characters, cars, etc. Not Ratchet & Clank, Sly or Jak & Daxter. Like I said, Sony loves to do new IPs every gen and they make "different" IPs compared to the examples above. And I hope it stays that way. It works for them.
You get an F- for reading comprehension.
You get an F- for writing.
 
OP
OP
plow

plow

Member
Oct 28, 2017
433
Dude, to be honest, I actually don't care about that wiki article. Sony should sell more merch of their games? More trading cards, t-shirts, DVDs and shit? What? Nah, thanks. Put that money into game development. For more & bigger games. Especially for new IPs. Why should I, or any other gamers, care for lame ass merch so a certain game tops the list of a wiki page?
PlayStation already has a gear shop. That's already way enough.
Seems you don't know how Business works lol. Sony making more money out of merchandising means they have more money for game development.

Also this:

care for lame ass merch so a certain game tops the list of a wiki page?
is like one of the most stupid replies i've read in this thread.
I'm pretty sure you haven't even cliked on the link and you started typing as soon as you read the title. Merchandising is a billion Dollar business and in many franchises is the biggest money maker lol.
 

MultiMoo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,561
Silicon Valley
If they so use Astro Bot, I hope so.
Yeah, seeing the Astro Bot robot in human size at PSX was really cool. It's almost like the little cousin of their Qrio robots.

Sign me up for Astrobot toys if they expand the series further! (Including non-VR outings and more than just The Playroom)

Yea you've gottah be kidding me.
This topic is about IPs that get loads of licensed merchandise sold and how Sony supposedly doesn't sell much.
 

Bundy

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,041
Seems you don't know how Business works lol. Sony making more money out of merchandising means they have more money for game development.
lulz. Why, as a gamer, should I care about more merch? They already have that. They have a gear shop. Maybe if you own some Sony stock, well then okay. Other than that, why?
Their games are selling well and are some of the biggest the biz right now has. So why exactly is this "one of Sony's biggest problems"? Some companies make money with mascot-like games and merch, PlayStation makes money with games and their huge PS Network. So on topic: "Biggest problems"? No. Do they need a IP which will sell "merch"? No. Would it be nice for shareholders. Sure.
 

Jeronimo

Member
Nov 16, 2017
1,288
I'm not the CEO/CFO, so it doesn't really rise to "one of Sony's biggest problems" in my view. Sure they'd like more money but it's not my problem. I just hope they can figure out how to make good games/consoles someday.
 

turbobutts

Member
Oct 25, 2017
204
I understand the OP but I don't know if I agree that its one of their biggest problems. Its something that they lack, but they've nailed 3/4 console generations so far without a mario or a master chief and I think that's what they've been laser focused on. Though it seems like the Uncharted movie may actually happen so, we'll see what the future holds
 

Cactuar

Member
Nov 30, 2018
1,588
They own a big part of it
But they don't own whole IP, which is what I said. And the reason I said it is because that's what you said about Sony when someone brought up Fate.

When Fate was brought up, your response was "As far as I know Sony doesn't own the whole IP." However when I pointed out the very example you use in your OP, Pokemon, isn't wholly owned by Nintendo, your response was,

They own a big part of it
So it's OK to use an example (Pokemon) from Nintendo that they don't wholly own, but it's not OK to use a Sony example that they don't wholly own (Fate)? Got it.

Notice how the goalposts are moved to fit your argument. This is internet forum logic 101.
 
OP
OP
plow

plow

Member
Oct 28, 2017
433
lulz. Why, as a gamer, should I care about more merch? They already have that. They have a gear shop. Maybe if you own some Sony stock, well then okay. Other than that, why?
Their games are selling well and are some of the biggest the biz right now has. So why exactly is this "one of Sony's biggest problems"? Some companies make money with mascot-like games and merch, PlayStation makes money with games and their huge PS Network. So on topic: "Biggest problems"? No. Do they need a IP which will sell "merch"? No. Would it be nice for shareholders. Sure.
Because Sony making money is a good thing for Playstation?

Thi ssentiment that Sony doesn't need anything other than Games and PSN is stupid. Of Course Sony is making enough money, but this doesn't mean they can make more. I don't get why this is so difficult to understand and why you have to be so defensive.

How can you not see, that a healthy Merch/Movie/Card game Business would help Sony and WWS as a whole?
 
OP
OP
plow

plow

Member
Oct 28, 2017
433
But they don't own whole IP, which is what I said. And the reason I said it is because that's what you said about Sony when someone brought up Fate.

When Fate was brought up, your response was "As far as I know Sony doesn't own the whole IP." However when I pointed out the very example you use in your OP, Pokemon, isn't wholly owned by Nintendo, your response was,



So it's OK to use an example (Pokemon) from Nintendo that they don't wholly own, but it's not OK to use a Sony example that they don't wholly own (Fate)? Got it.

Notice how the goalposts are moved to fit your argument. This is internet forum logic 101.
What? Sony has ownership for the Grand Order Game. The rest of the Fate Franchise is is owned by Type-Moon. This is as if Nintendo would only own the rights for the Pokemon games.

SO much for moving goalposts.
 

Hu3

Member
Oct 25, 2017
736
Because Sony making money is a good thing for Playstation?

Thi ssentiment that Sony doesn't need anything other than Games and PSN is stupid. Of Course Sony is making enough money, but this doesn't mean they can make more. I don't get why this is so difficult to understand and why you have to be so defensive.

How can you not see, that a healthy Merch/Movie/Card game Business would help Sony and WWS as a whole?

This op has to be trolling minimum. Other companies ie: Nintendo wish they make the bulk that Sony makes..
 

PlanetSmasher

The Abominable Showman
Member
Oct 25, 2017
29,894
Because Sony making money is a good thing for Playstation?

Thi ssentiment that Sony doesn't need anything other than Games and PSN is stupid. Of Course Sony is making enough money, but this doesn't mean they can make more. I don't get why this is so difficult to understand and why you have to be so defensive.

How can you not see, that a healthy Merch/Movie/Card game Business would help Sony and WWS as a whole?
Merchandising is really more important for kid-focused IP than anything else. Sony really doesn't prioritize kids as far as their output is concerned, and it really wouldn't be that successful to pour a ton of money and energy into merchandising for most of their IP.

Keep in mind: video game retail is dying. Stores that would actually carry video game merch are bleeding out fairly rapidly, and for the most part those products end up rotting on store shelves anyway. What would be the long-term benefit?
 

Misterhbk

Member
Oct 27, 2017
39
Because Sony making money is a good thing for Playstation?

Thi ssentiment that Sony doesn't need anything other than Games and PSN is stupid. Of Course Sony is making enough money, but this doesn't mean they can make more. I don't get why this is so difficult to understand and why you have to be so defensive.

How can you not see, that a healthy Merch/Movie/Card game Business would help Sony and WWS as a whole?
I mean it’s pretty clear they don’t give a rats ass about selling plushies dude. If they did they would try harder. Instead they just sell a fuck ton of consoles every generation by making great games.

But like others have said, if anything to match what you want, Spiderman. How many movies have they released? Like 6? 7?
 

Cactuar

Member
Nov 30, 2018
1,588
What? Sony has ownership for the Grand Order Game. The rest of the Fate Franchise is is owned by Type-Moon. This is as if Nintendo would only own the rights for the Pokemon games.

SO much for moving goalposts.
And that "Grand Order Game" is bringing in billions, which is important as money seems to be at the core of your entire argument.
 

Bundy

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,041
Because Sony making money is a good thing for Playstation?

Thi ssentiment that Sony doesn't need anything other than Games and PSN is stupid. Of Course Sony is making enough money, but this doesn't mean they can make more. I don't get why this is so difficult to understand and why you have to be so defensive.

How can you not see, that a healthy Merch/Movie/Card game Business would help Sony and WWS as a whole?
Because that's not what they need. Do they need even more money? Yes, sure. Do they have to copy other companies strategies as soon as something is successful? No. They have different IPs and strenghts. So they should double-down on stuff they are good at. And that's what they do right now. "Card game business"... lmao. No thanks.
I mean it’s pretty clear they don’t give a rats ass about selling plushies dude. If they did they would try harder. Instead they just sell a fuck ton of consoles every generation by making great games.

But like others have said, if anything to match what you want, Spiderman. How many movies have they released? Like 6? 7?
Well said.
 

jaymzi

Member
Jul 22, 2019
95
For Sony, every customer dollar spent on merchandising could have been spent buying something on the PSN.

Like instead of buying a toy figurine, go buy some skins and DLC.
 
OP
OP
plow

plow

Member
Oct 28, 2017
433
I mean it’s pretty clear they don’t give a rats ass about selling plushies dude. If they did they would try harder. Instead they just sell a fuck ton of consoles every generation by making great games.

But like others have said, if anything to match what you want, Spiderman. How many movies have they released? Like 6? 7?
Spiderman isn't owned by Sony.

And again, developing a brand doesn't mean you have to stop creating good games. I don't understand.

edit:


So for you guys, developing a brand and trying to make more money through merch means Sony has to stop doing good games. Ok.
And since they're already making "tons of money", why should they even bother trying to strengthen their position in a market where they've been lacking since forever. Gotcha.
 

Misterhbk

Member
Oct 27, 2017
39
Spiderman isn't owned by Sony.

And again, developing a brand doesn't mean you have to stop creating good games. I don't understand.
Sony owns the rights to all the movies. Nintendo don’t own Pokémon either? So now I’m just confused.

And no they don’t but their developers aren’t forced to make the same game over and over like other companies. Creative freedom is what had lead to Sony having so many great franchises under their developmental belt.
 

Complicated

Member
Oct 29, 2017
2,203
I'm sure Sony would love a world-beater franchise like Pokemon, Mario, Halo, Minecraft, etc. Their strategy of a volume of games that do well seems to be working out though, and it seems like Microsoft at least is trying to do the same. Sony pulls in a lot of revenue on their games but I think only they can really say if their games are actually profitable, or if they're just eating the cost of AAA cinematic story games to sell consoles and make it up with their 30% cut from other developers. Either way they'll be fine without a multi-billion dollar Playstation franchise.
 

Mansa Mufasa

Member
Jun 17, 2019
118
Sony has proven time and time again that them not having trouble creating new IPs that turn into Critical and Commercial success.
 

IIFloodyII

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,966
You get an F- for reading comprehension.



Come on now dude. Are you really trying to tell me that Sony merch is some kind of relevant? Yes there might be some kind of merch with Sony franchises, but it's surely not doing numbers.
We have literally no way to know how well their merch does. But given how much they make, especially the PS branded stuff, we can assume it does well enough.
 

Manmademan

Member
Aug 6, 2018
4,890
None of these Franchises generate money outside of the games itself. Which is the point of my thread.
Also Sony doesn't own Spiderman.
This thinking is overly simplistic, incorrect, and misses the point of why Sony develops these IP completely.

Let's look at the phrase "none of these franchises generates money outside of the games itself!"

Sony develops these franchises for one reason. They're advertisements for PlayStation. God of War exists, and Uncharted exists to differentiate PlayStation consoles from their competition and convince people to drop $299 or whatever on a system. From that perspective a title like Detroit that brings in 2 million new users is vastly preferable to a third party title or sequel to an existing franchise that sells 5 million copies to the base already on the system.

This is WHY Sony goes out of its way to make risky things like Dreams, Knack, Unfinished Swan, Until Dawn, Last Guardian, Astro Bot, etc.

A Last Of Us plushie would be fun, but wouldn't accomplish this.

Once a user says "hey, I HAVE to play Bloodborne!" and becomes part of the Sony ecosystem, this is where "those franchises begin generating money." Sony takes 30 to 40% of the revenue for any additional games sold on their system by third parties.

Even if a user never buys a single additional game beyond Bloodborne, Sony makes money displaying advertising to these people via PSN and the XMB, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars a year. They make money on PS+ subscriptions for multiplayer, to the tune of hundreds of millions.

Its like asking why Netflix isn't heavily pushing Orange is The New Black or Umbrella Academy merchandise. Merch isn't the point. Keeping people in the ecosystem is.


An Uncharted movie would be fun (and is in development) but looking at the revenue for Sony Pictures vs. Playstation, its immediately clear that a movie even a hit one like Spidey Homecoming or FFH doesn't generate a fraction of a fraction of what Sony makes via PlayStation- and their exclusive IP is a huge part of why they're successful.

You're comparing apples to androids here.

And for what it's worth, that wikipedia article is laughably inaccurate with its numbers and has been proven as such before in the specific thread about it. Its poorly sourced and designed to inexplicably prop up pokemon to be more relevant than it is. That wiki was the reason a lot of fans were making crazy projections about Detective Pikachu doing a billion dollars before it actually released and flopped at the box office.

For the world's most valuable media franchise, completely failing to get near the revenue of even a bottom tier MCU film is damning. Sony attempting to chase pokemon's "success" here is nonsensical.
 
Last edited:
Jun 23, 2019
67
I mean it’s pretty clear they don’t give a rats ass about selling plushies dude. If they did they would try harder. Instead they just sell a fuck ton of consoles every generation by making great games.

But like others have said, if anything to match what you want, Spiderman. How many movies have they released? Like 6? 7?
/thread

Not seeing why OP is so gung-ho about this. Obviously Sony would love to leverage their IPs into more multimedia opportunities, but this silly notion that it’s a “problem” when Sony is making money hand over fist right now is laughable.
 

Fastidioso

Member
Nov 3, 2017
2,674
Isn't it the playstation already a big merchandising brand without needed of Pokémon or Halo ? I mean, playstation it's still synonymous of home console WW, who fucking care to have a single IP brand or more to merchandise, when the name console did already this from awhile?
 

Manmademan

Member
Aug 6, 2018
4,890
Isn't it the playstation already a big merchandising brand without needed of Pokémon or Halo ? I mean, playstation it's still synonymous of home console WW, who fucking care to have a single IP brand or more, when the name console did already this?
Exactly. The IP exists to promote playstation, not the other way around. And Playstation as an IP/Property is so staggeringly profitable and universally recognized I'm not sure how you'd even put a number on it.
 

sfortunato

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,459
Italy
Dude, to be honest, I actually don't care about that wiki article. Sony should sell more merch of their games? More trading cards, t-shirts, DVDs and shit? What? Nah, thanks. Put that money into game development. For more & bigger games. Especially for new IPs. Why should I, or any other gamers, care for lame ass merch so a certain game tops the list of a wiki page?
PlayStation already has a gear shop. That's already way enough.
What?

Companies always license extension products, they never develop those things in-house. It's a win-win situation: the licensor gets royalties without acquiring knowledge to develop those products and the licensee gets more profits by selling a branded product.
 

MultiMoo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,561
Silicon Valley
Almost forgot! I actually have a plushie from The Last of Us.



#teambrick

Also, OP has constantly moved goalposts and tries to claim Sony doesn't make any money off merch, when they constantly shift new merch.

Soooo, huh?!
 

Ascenion

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,666
Charlotte NC
I mean it’s pretty clear they don’t give a rats ass about selling plushies dude. If they did they would try harder. Instead they just sell a fuck ton of consoles every generation by making great games.

But like others have said, if anything to match what you want, Spiderman. How many movies have they released? Like 6? 7?
Sony foolishly sold the merchandising rights to Spider-Man back to Marvel in 2011 because electronics, PlayStation included, were struggling and they needed cash. Marvel makes more money off every new Spider-Man film than Sony does. Marvel is likely making more off the game than Sony does.
 

Bundy

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,041
Companies always license extension products, they never develop those things in-house. It's a win-win situation: the licensor gets royalties without acquiring knowledge to develop those products and the licensee gets more profits by selling a branded product.
Yep. Go to the Gear shop. There is more than enough merch. Enjoy it.
 

Manmademan

Member
Aug 6, 2018
4,890
Almost forgot! I actually have a plushie from The Last of Us.



#teambrick

Also, OP has constantly moved goalposts and tries to claim Sony doesn't make any money off merch, when they constantly shift new merch.

Soooo, huh?!
Merch exists, but Sony doesn't really put a focus on developing IP well suited to pushing it.

A good example is Pixar's CARS. That series seems designed from the ground up to push as much licensed product as possible via kid friendly characters, even if the movies themselves were bottom tier.
 

Fastidioso

Member
Nov 3, 2017
2,674
Almost forgot! I actually have a plushie from The Last of Us.



#teambrick

Also, OP has constantly moved goalposts and tries to claim Sony doesn't make any money off merch, when they constantly shift new merch.

Soooo, huh?!
It seems OP misunderstood is personal perception about such stuff to the reality of the things. The Last of Us sold more than any single Halo, as someone as remembered, but because Halo has more action figure, comic copyright and so on, that's bad for the sony future. What a weird thread.
 

Fisty

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,707
Funnily enough they initially had Spyro (sorta), which turned into the catalyst for the toys-to-life bullshit of the early 2010s

They really blew it with Ratchet and Sly though, they really could have pushed them to be transmedia franchises and widened the IP portfolio. At least they kinda gave Ratchet a half-ass shot, but it's almost criminal what they did to Sly... so much merchandising potential, and Sly could easily be on it's like 4th season on Cartoon Network right now
 

sfortunato

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,459
Italy
Yep. Go to the Gear shop. There is more than enough merch. Enjoy it.
?

Your post implied that it's Sony who spend resources in developing and distributing/selling extension products like merchandising based off its IPs. It's not. If you don't know how this business works it is fine, you can always learn something.