Hahahaha Nintendo.

they actually are so good at that now that they reached a point where they kill off their new IPs before even releasing them.

Sony is a candidate. In my opinion, they almost risk too much on new IP's, often abandoning older ones.

Easy peasy. Sony, It takes a lot of balls to release a console for 600 US$ and pretend people to purchase it. Although they did make a turn around it was a bald move.

But overall the most risky of all is definitely Atlus.

Nintendo has taken a lot of risks. It's not like Nintendogs, Brain Age, Wii Fit, and the like were guaranteed to be slam dunks. The company basically gambled its future on two underpowered systems with novel controllers in the DS and Wii. I'm not sure I can recall a bigger risk than that in the gaming industry. The took another big risk with the Wii U. If people are giving Valve credit for their new controller, I can't see how Nintendo doesn't get credit...

And, they've basically invented genres. Fitness games weren't a big thing until they invested big in Wii Fit (I know there were other fitness games, but no other company was willing to take the RISK to really promote them). Was kart racing a thing before Mario Kart? Party games before Mario Party? How many spinoffs did Pokemon inspire? Were there a whole lot of mascot fighters before Smash? Games like Darksiders and Shadow Complex as still using games like Zelda and Metroid as a template.

People like to talk about Nintendo releasing entries in their franchises, but why are these franchises so big? These franchises were big, because when they were released, there was really nothing like them on the market. These franchises got big because Nintendo took a risk on them. It seems pretty ridiculous to not credit Nintendo for taking risks just because they want to reap the rewards.

You guys know Nintendo and Sony are publishers, right?

I could easily split them:

Nintendo:
Monolith, Intelligent Systems: Risky.
EAD, Retro: Not Risky.

Sony:
Naught Dog, Quantic Dream: Risky.
Santa Monica, Polyphony: Not Risky.

Quantic Dream as evidenced by how divisive their games have been with gamers

Oh how could I forget glorious Platinum Games.

A motion control Zelda game is risky, and ended bad with bad sales. A linear action Metroid game is risky, and ended bad. A first person 3D Metroid was risky, and it was good. A motion control based console was, a double screen portable device was. A fitness game, an sport demo, a cartoon Zelda, funding new IP like TW101, getting from the graveyard Bayonetta 2.

Just because the game is called Mario or Zelda doesn't mean there are not changes or risk involved. A new IP is a risk if it is a new real IP, not the same last developed game with just another name.

Nintendo (software and hardware developer)

and for everyone saying "LOL NINTENDO REALLY?"  stop that f..b.. attitude please.

When your grandfathers fought in WW2 they were brave   and just because time passed does not make them "unbrave"  so yes Nintendo.

Without Nintendo  you would probably play strange 2.5D games with a joystick that has neither  Dpad, 4 face buttons, analog stick, rumble, shoulder buttons nor start+select buttons etc. On a console with just 2 controller ports. Games were you still would have to insert passwords to continue were you stopped a day before (Zelda was the first game with save feature)  or maybe you would not even play games at all (NES saved the industry). The dead electric car had to wait 80 years to be revived after its industry died decades ago (Stupid example yes but still.)

Also there would probably be no motion controls in gaming or touch screens. Mario 64 and OOT influenced every game that came after them.

They take alot of risks with what they do be it stupid or not but its still risky. For example they risked the creation of Sony  and it happened. They also just started to "milk" their franchises a few years ago.  DK64 was risking to kill the DK fanbase   so was MetroidPrime  or  WindWaker with its "childish" style.  etc.