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

[DonFerrari]

TheMisterManGuy said:

DonFerrari said:

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.