Are first party games less risk-averse creatively than third party games?

[DonFerrari]

Hiku said:

Well for starters, there are many more third party studios than there are first party. So like with anything, you're more likely to find a certain philosophy in the larger sample pool.

But yeah, there should be an incentive for a platform holder to stand out that isn't quite on the same level as individual games standing out from one another.

Then there's generally more resources available for first party game development. Which ties into their profit avenues.
A third party publisher tends to depend on the success of their games, while the platform holders get a piece of each game or DLC sale on their system. Subscription services. And (potentially) console sales.

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.