Mostly true.

But EA, Activision, Blizzard, Ubisoft and T2K can be said to have equal ground of availability of cash and they seem even more adverse to risk and creating new stuff than smaller studios that could close with one not well received game. When they try out new game or stuff it is small or cheaper thing that if fails won't compromisse their bottom line too much.

I would say the big 3 they almost always do "safe bets". Even when they risk with a new franchise they have a reason for that (like increasing userbase or diversity of titles like was the need in PS3), but they probably do a good market analysis, budget and sales projection to ensure that the ones that sell low don't make a problem.

Sony made big bets on PS3 on the for every 10 titles, 6 lost money, 2 broke even and only 2 brought big money. Most likely the 6 that lost money didn't lose more than half the profit of one of the ones that brought money. And if people bought console because of those 6 games the royalties gained from those console sold and possible sale of the 2 that profited also made a good cushion.

The Platform holders have their share of safe-bets, yes. But they don't exclusively rely on them the way third party publishers do. Sure Nintendo has Mario, Pokemon, etc. to bring in the big bucks, but that doesn't stop them from putting out an Astral Chain or Nintendo Labo regularly. Same with Sony and Microsoft.

As mentioned, it's a combination of having more revenue streams, cash-cow games, and the need to make their consoles stand out that allows them to take more creative risks and release more games than most third party publishers.

Definitely yes. The platform holders have their share of play-it-safe titles. Nintendo, for instance, has Mario Kart, Smash Bros, and Pokemon. But Nintendo seems to go for a lot of "prestige" titles that are somewhat risky sales wise but round out the image of their consoles. Bayonetta, Astral Chain, and Dragon Quest XI S come to mind for this. The third parties each have their niches and stick with them, and several of them seem more interested in how to monetize their games rather than designing them for fun.

Yep I agree, they use the safe games to bring in money so they can use a part of that to try and expand with new titles.

To bad big publishers that also have safe stream of money don't do similar route. But well, we also wouldn't like they buying more studios and doing the regular EA and Activision management of bought studios.

Third parties have to contend with a more competitive market. With tons of games released each month, plus the overhead costs of platform licensing and multiplatform costs, you need to rely on garuenteed hits almost exclusively to survive. Big third parties only have software sales to fall back on, so risk taking is generally less rewarded, as you need to make the games that the masses want.

First party games on the other hand, largely exist to make their respective platform look good. Doesn't really matter of the game bombs, if it adds variety to the lineup and brings attention to the console, then it's served its purpose. That's not to say first party games don't have to sell big numbers, but there's a lot less to loose with a first party game than a third party one. Therefore, companies like Nintendo and Sony can afford to spend on games that would never get approved under a major publisher because the primary purpose for these games isn't just to sell, but to reward the people who bought your box or bring attention to your box. 

Back in the NINTENDOOM days of the Wii U, many argued that going third party would actually be a benefit for Nintendo. But the reality is that it would be a nightmare scenario. A third party Nintendo would not have the luxuries and budget afforded by having its own console. So the only games you'd see is a small, rotating selection of safe bet 10m+ sellers, IE Mario, Zelda, Smash Bros., Mario Kart. No more Fire Emblem, that's not mainstream enough. No More ARMS or Astral Chain, too creatively risky. No Nintendo Labo or Ring Fit Adventure, might upset the PlayStation loyals who swear by the Dualshock. Basically, any neat experimental project that you'd see from Nintendo and Sony today would be non-existent if they were third party publishers.

I guess you come from an understanding that the HW makes a load of money. First parties have much more risk as they eat the cost of the HW sold at loss. And pretending Ubi, Activision and EA are at danger if one game or another isn't a blockbuster is quite wrong.

Well, maybe Microsoft. But not necessarily for Sony and especially Nintendo. Sony is actually profiting on the PS4 for the most part. In fact, it's pretty much the only thing keeping the company as a whole afloat at the moment. And Nintendo makes profit on their hardware at nearly all times, very rarely willing to take a loss on it. Even without hardware profits, the big 3 still get extra money from their online services, license fees, and cuts from third party games on their systems.

Third parties aren't in danger if one of their games isn't a blockbuster, but there's much more pressure on them to rely on their cash-cow franchises because they don't have the budget or flexibility that the platform holders have when it comes to their development pipeline. Ubisoft is a bit better than EA or Activision since they do manage to find the time to make different types of games every now and again. So it doesn't apply to all third parties, but it does apply to most.

Hell, I can just point to the easy example of the hardships of going third party, Sega. When Sega was a platform holder, they had the budget and the freedom to take many creative risks, with games like Jet Set Radio and Shenmue, as they needed to catch people's attention to buy their platform. But once they went third party, that flexibility and talent began to shrink little by little as the costs to make games got bigger and bigger. Now the company is reduced to a factory of Sonic, Yakuza, and the occasional Valkryia Chronicles and Shinning game. There's a lot less incentive for Sega to make those kinds of innovative games anymore, because they now need to worry about selling to as many console owners as possible, rather than trying to make their own console look good.

Again, I'm not saying third parties can't take creative risks, it's just that its a lot harder to do that as a third party.

Strategy of Sony is releasing consoles at loss, have always been. Since they didn't need to pricecut the PS4 so much sure the last couple of years they have profited from the console (same with Xbox but yes I do agree MS profited less). But don't forget that Sony launched PS3 with a 200 loss per console sold and also had a strategy of every 10 games the made 6 would lose money, 2 would break even and only 2 would profit. So the model of Sony isn't safe route at all.

Please don't make excuses for EA or Acti. Yes they are pressured by shareholders to deliver results, just as the BIG3. So their strategy is their own choice/fault. As I said I would understand small devs or pubs being excused because they could really go down on a bad bet, but not the 3 major publishers.

Hardship of going third party the example is SEGA? Are your for real? When they were platform holder they bled money and almost shutdown, needing to become 3rd party to stay alive. Your example is very very odd.

It is easier for they to take risk, they just don't have the need to. You are confusing stuff.