Sony's original problem is that their flagship game in the '90s wasn't actually a first party title, just a third party exclusive, Crash Bandicoot. With Sonic being MIA at the time, Crash made a decent Mario rival, but of course we all know how that got fucked up. Now, Sackboy is no Mario, he's no Sonic, he's not even a Crash, but I do think anon has a point that having a recognizable mascot could help with marketability, and Sackboy could have filled that role well. I don't really get why mascots went away in the 2000s. I don't see why companies thought they stopped being effective. I get that they wanted to market to an audience that wanted "edgier" stuff, hence Jak II being so different from Jak I, but then they could have still kept using Jak & Daxter as mascots, even in their edgier forms, but they didn't. I do think Master Chief, as a mascot for Xbox, helped their marketing tremendously. So why not keep using mascots? It seems like such an effective marketing tool, and it's one that was so well proven. Is it because third party attempts at making mascots for faceless corporations failed? It always seemed obvious to me that mascots meant to represent a corporation is not the same as a mascot that represents a console or a line of consoles. The former is just the face of a franchise, but the latter is the face of your hardware. Why drop that? Sackboy was the most logical mascot of the PS3 era, but they just let it fade away. I mean they could have used Ratchet but maybe that doesn't work in Japan. Who else did they have, Drake Fortune? Does Japan give a shit about him? Sackboy seems kawaii enough to work worldwide. But I guess they don't even care about Japan anymore, so Niel Druckmann's husbando that he fucks in Last of Us 2 is their mascot now.