This is a hard one for me. On the one hand, I’d much rather have my hands on the next 3D Mario over Nintendo Labo… but on the other hand, new IP is what leads to fresh, new ideas that push the industry forward. Without it, we would never see the likes of Pikmin during the GCN nor Splatoon during the Wii U.

So… where do you stand?

Very wide and open question. It depends on the games.

As a child of the 80's and a teen of the 90's, I cut my teeth in a time when new, mind-blowing IPs were coming out left and right, so naturally that's what I'm conditioned for. I'd much rather have that than another sequel.

@bold: I know what you mean by this, but I think it's wrong. I've written about this before on the forum; the newness of an IP doesn't necessary translate to anything innovative. Look at Breath of the Wild, Donkey Kong Bananza, Yoshi and the Mysterious Book, etc. These all belong to properties that have been around for 35-45 years but they're so different and inventive that they could easily pass as new IPs, if it wasn't for the familiar characters and backdrops. And then look at some other publishers, who drop a new protagonist and setting into a tried-and-true gameplay loop and call it a day. That's certainly a new IP, but apart from its storyline it's not really moving the needle in terms of new ideas.

Of course, there are plenty of new IPs that do both. Some of my favorite games of the last 10 years feature never-before-seen worlds and bold new ideas: Cult of the Lamb, Sakuna: Of Rice and Ruin, Shujinkou, The Hundred Line: Last Defense Academy, Dave the Diver, Spiritfarer, CrossCode, Blue Prince, Pacific Drive, Balatro, etc. 

But, then again, a bold idea can also be a bad idea. And a safe, iterative sequel can be vastly superior to a new IP filled with ambitious, novel mechanics that simply don't work.

Which is why this is such a tough question to answer. There are so many ways that creators can approach both categories.

A healthy mix of both.

New IP.

Can't have a successor/Sequel without a new IP.

I don't really care either way, as long as the game is good. A new IP is always a risk in so many ways, but adhering to the existing contraints of an existing IP can also hinder progress in new games of the IP. But I do love a good sequel that carries on with the story and the setting - definitely wouldn't want to see a world without new entries in existing IPs.

I buy a mix of both. And not all IPs have games that are similar. While games like Sid Meier's Civilization and Pokemon are approximately evolutions of older games, some franchises like Legend of Zelda and Mario have vastly different experiences depending on which games you play; in such cases, I often prefer a return to a familiar character; would I have cared about Sonic Adventure had it been Efran the Radioactive Rabbit Adventure? (or any kind of new character), I don't think so. That said, I get new IP titles all the time, and often prefer them as one-offs: Chrono Trigger is a great example, the idea of there ever being a sequel to that doesn't excite me; and I think even the brief links between Chrono Cross and Chrono Trigger hurt both games → some things should be independent.

So, I'm kind of in the middle on the question. Not really enough to commit to either side.

It depends; I do get really excited for the next game in series I love like Zelda or Mario or Monster Hunter, but at the same time, something new and fresh can be uniquely cool as well.

Recently I loved Pragmata on the new IP side, but on the flipside also loved RE Requiem as a sequel.

I voted for new IP just cos I feel like I'd like to see more of those these days.

My logic used to be that the studio would do better with a sequel but I've been wrong on that so many times now and way more disappointed by sequels than new IP. Studios just started learning the wrong lessons from their new IPs in the last decade or so and most fuck it up.