A tiny visual tweak turned into a reminder of just how carefully Nintendo manages its mascots.
During a recent interview with Arcade Attack Retro Gaming Network, former SEGA producer Ryoichi Hasegawa recalled a slender but telling moment from the days of Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games. SEGA submitted promotional artwork — the kind that winds up on boxes, manuals and cartridge labels — and a small detail stuck out. Sonic’s foot was slightly ahead of Mario’s. Nintendo asked for the image to be changed so Mario’s foot sat just a hair in front.
“No, it wasn’t optional,” Hasegawa said. “We were like ‘Oh my God, we have to change it or there will be no deal.’”
A footnote in mascot diplomacy
It sounds almost absurd: a single toe deciding whether a partnership gets greenlit. But look closer and the request reveals a lot about brand control. Mario isn’t just a character; he’s a carefully curated symbol. For Nintendo, small visual cues can carry weight across marketing and perception. Hasegawa’s anecdote isn’t an isolated tale — it sits alongside a long history of third-party partners noting Nintendo’s meticulous oversight over how its IP appears.
The Mario-and-Sonic crossover itself was remarkable. Two rival mascots sharing the same title marked a thaw in a long-standing console-war posture, but the truce didn’t mean parity in presentation. As Hasegawa put it in another part of the interview, “in the video, Mario always needs to win” — a guideline that applied to promotional portrayals as much as some marketing materials.
This kind of control reflects a broader strategy. Nintendo’s insistence on protecting its characters—down to who appears to be leading a race—feeds into how the company preserves a consistent image for its audience. That discipline has helped Nintendo maintain strong brand traction in recent years; the company even raised forecasts around its next console as sales momentum surprised analysts. Nintendo’s stronger position is part of why careful stewardship of mascots still matters so much Nintendo's boosted Switch 2 forecast.
There’s also an element of cross-company politics. SEGA and Nintendo weren’t always collaborators; both brought their own histories and sensitivities into the room. Hasegawa’s memories include seeing how formal Nintendo’s approval process could be, down to the suits in the meeting rooms — a different culture from the one he’d known at SEGA. That formality shows up in these oddly specific demands, and it’s part of why SEGA complied: the alternative could be a deal collapsing.
For fans, the anecdote is a small, humanizing glimpse into the machine behind game marketing. It’s not about speed or skill in gameplay so much as who gets to lead the brand story in public-facing moments.
If you’re curious about how Nintendo manages its platform strategy beyond mascots, the company’s recent public moves around the Switch 2 show the same kind of strategic focus that animated this tiny art change — from scheduling to sales Switch 2 release schedule reconfirmed.
A misplaced foot, a quiet command, and an altered piece of box art: it’s a small vignette that says a lot about power, partnership and the curating of childhood icons.