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

[DonFerrari]

Hiku said:

DonFerrari said:

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.

Yeah, that's where 'generally' comes in.
I think the reasons tend to be a combination of the ones I listed. Because even Sony, Nintendo and MS also tend to go for their safe bets from time to time.

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.