The latest bigger non Kinect IP was Alan Wake. (since you mentioned 1st party and then listed Crackdown which was not made a 1st party studio I assume you're okay with that)
The problem is that new IPs rarely do well late into the gen. Why use tons of money to look for possible new games of which half of them get probably cancelled anyway just to deliver a game that barely breaks even ? From a business point of view, Alan Wake wasn't a hit either.
Obviously it would make much more sense to release more of Gears, Halo, Forza and Fable.

You see what happened to most of the recent Sony offerings. Good for the gamer in the short term, bad for the developer and publisher in the short- and gamer in the long term.
Zipper (SOCOM, MAG) closed, Factor 5 (Lair) closed, Studio Liverpool (WipeOut) closed, LightBox (Warhawk, Starhawk) crippled to make only iOS games, Eat Sleep Play (Twisted Metal) now focussing on iOS , SuperBot (PS All-Stars) crippled, thatgamecompany (Journey) almost ruined
Obviously there are more games that fall under this failed category, but where the developers are still allowed to continue (Sorcery, Sports Champions 2, Medieval Moves, currently Sly 4 etc. and I'm not even starting on Vita devs). Is it really worth to try to make new IPs when the flipside is that the studio needs to close when they're not successful ?

With Kinect came new IPs since there was a completely new market to try out. Kinect Sports is a great franchise and is as big as LittleBigPlanet on PS3. I don't think you can call one of these a core game and the other a casual game.
Dance Central is another excellent franchise, so I don't see why Kinect games can't be great for Xbox.

The difference between an F1 tornado that does a few hundred yards wide area of damage and an F5 that does a mile wide area of damage is what?.  They form and function the same, the difference is in the scope of the area of destruction. 

Microsoft hasn't, as you assert, moved away from traditional gaming experience.  However they have widened their scope to traditional and untraditional game experiences using an untraditional input method.  Microsoft, who is the publisher of Halo and Gears of War, just released those two games within roughly six months of each other.  How can you assert they've moved away from something when two of the games they've most recently released are of the group you assert that they've moved away from?

You can't reasonable argue that. 

Microsoft has actually followed a rather brilliant business plan.  Rather than throw lots of money into big AAA titles that do poorly, as Sony has done, they have invested in games and DLC that offer the greatest return on value.  The economy is tight right now, so gamers are less likely to buy AAA retail games, or if they do, they'll buy them second hand.  So, instead get a lock on DLC content, that way when gamers make the decision to get the game, they buy it for the Xbox 360 because it has the content.  Likewise, investing in a game like Minecraft to bring it to Xbox LIVE Arcade is a smarter investment for Microsoft than a AAA title.  A gamer, when they're low on funds, can easily make the decision to buy an Arcade game rather than a AAA title when they know they're getting a high-quality game. 

As I have said elsewhere, Microsoft has been creating content.  No, not all of it may not be the content you like, but they have been creating gaming content for a wide array of gamers. 

Again this is all true and I agree with you. But let's assume for a minute that Kinect didn't exist and thus no Kinect games. The question is would there be more of the traditional games released? Would they have invested resources on more traditional games (FPS etc etc). What do you think? This isn't bait, I'm genuinely interested in your view here.

My post wasn't complaining as such just to be clear, just an observation but yours is likely more valid than my own, hence asking what you think? :)

Honestly, prior to Don Mattrick it felt like Microsoft was divesting itself of its gaming interest, and it was.  The reason for it was publishers and studios didn't want direct competition from Microsoft, so Microsoft took a back seat.  You'll recall in the beginning of the generation Microsoft was a first-party publisher to many third-party games.  The only studio to remain independent has been Epic.  All the rest of the studios have been bought up and or now are shut down.  So Microsoft's plans for this generation, take a back seat and let third party develops/publishers have free reign self-imploded when the two big publishers started buying up all the third-party game studios Microsoft was using to create content with.

So there was a lull.  A time when Microsoft was neither approaching studios to create new content, or creating new content of their own.  Then a shift happened within Microsoft.  The MGS VP left, the Xbox VP left and there was a change of guard.  All of a sudden Microsoft is reviving old IPs, farming them out to studios to do something with, buying studios and starting up new studios. 

As much as Microsoft wanted to be everyone's friend, it wasn't working.    New studios, in these economic times weren't happening fast enough and they don't have the cash necessary to fund big games, so if Microsoft wanted something it was going to have to do it themselves.

While I will concede some resources may have been diverted to broadening the gaming experience, I would argue that had it not been for Kinect and the late resurgence of the Xbox 360 in it's life span because of it, Microsoft as a whole might have looked at the Xbox business as a bad long-term investment and possibly something to divest itself from.

There was a time, mid-generation, when there was talk that Microsoft was looking to sell off the Xbox business.  Had it not been for Kinect, the success the product itself became, and its contribution to the resurgence of the console, I think Microsoft might have been looking to get back to a software-only company.  But the success of the Xbox and Kinect, the inroads into the home and living rooms as not only a gaming console but a media center have made Microsoft even more bullish about being both a hardware and software company.  Without Xbox and Kinect, I don't think you have investments in Nokia or the Surface tablets.  I think you have Microsoft desperately trying to get back to it's core business and falling down hard in the process.

So if crackdown wasn't a Microsoft 1st party then what was their last new ip? :S

Good job on explaining Kinect. Cause obviously the Wii never had those 2 type of games and they are only popular with Kinect right?

Socom, mag, war/starhawk, twisted metal, and allstars did bad because of poor reviews. Wipeout is the only one that I am surprised caused the studio to shut.

But also I said new experiences meaing with sony I got uncharted, infamous, heavy rain, ratchet and clank, littlebigplanet, with the last of us, beyond 2 souls, puppeteer, and rain coming out which is more than I can say I got from ms. I also own a gaming pc for my fps gaming so I don't hate shooters just hate 30fps on console thus me disliking console shooters.

MS is bad for gamers for the long run. If ms feel that Kinect brings in more money than core games then ms will invest less in core games and us games will suffer on relying on 3rd party.

It's actually really funny that Xbox gamers have to bring in business points and views when talking about gaming which is really sad on their part. I talk about games they bring in business views congrats on proving my point that Xbox gamers don't care about gaming.

The point of the matter is this, Sony feels that they can boost their bottom line by giving their cores gamers what they want which is new aaa core experiences. MS feels they can boost their bottom line with only Kinect and recycling their big 3 franchises. Sure both are in it for my money but Sony does it much better for me as a core gamer who loves new gaming experiences.

MS owns the Crackdown IP, so really doesn't matter who made the game.
Sony doesn't own Insomniac either and they still made the Ratchet and Resistance games (Ratchet was not a new experience this gen either btw.).

You seem to be very short-sighted. When you talk about gaming you need to (at least think but even better) talk about financials as well.
Enjoy the next 10 years of great support and overpowered hardware, but then don't be surprised when big studios close and Sony sells its gaming division after that period.
Microsoft and Nintendo will still be around then.
Don't think I'm exaggerating. PS3 made them billions of losses that they will never get back (on top of that all previously earned money from the PS2 era is also gone, so their gaming division hasn't made them a single cent yet in almost 20 years.). Vita is doing pathetic so far. Sony already is in huge trouble, so they can't afford a 2nd PS3 with the PS4.

As I previously mentioned, MS will try new IPs again at the start of next gen. If one of these IPs (or more) thrive, you will see more of them. If not then don't expect them to try the same genre again for a few years.