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

[DonFerrari]

TheMisterManGuy said:

DonFerrari said:

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.

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.

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.