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

[DonFerrari]

TheMisterManGuy said:

DonFerrari said:

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.