To answer that, often times you run into a game idea or concept that simply wouldn't work with an established IP, so you make a new one to make everything cohesive.

I'm just describing the argument PlayStation fans often use for their games.

One argument that PlayStation fans use to justify why first party games are the best on PlayStation is because Sony introduces New IP every generation. While Nintendo and Microsoft supposedly "Rehash the same tired franchises". It's an argument that while, half true, is otherwise IMO, complete nonsense.

Nintendo and Microsoft also introduce many New IP each generation as well. But the problem is that when they do, they aren't taken nearly as seriously as when Sony does it. Every time Sony introduces a New IP, it's usually seen as an event. It's the next big game from a major talented developer, and one that pushes the limits of hardware capabilities, story telling, and thematic content. Many fans see this as a beacon of ambition and creative freedom.

In Nintendo's case, since 2017 at least, they've brought ARMS, 1-2 Switch, Snipperclips, Nintendo Labo, Sushi Striker, Astral Chain, Ring Fit Adventure, and The Stretchers to the Switch. 8 brand new properties without Mario or established Nintendo icons near them. Yet when these games are brought up, they're hit with a variety of arguments. "It's not for core gamers", "It's not a 10 million seller", "it's low budget", "It's made by another studio". Basically the goalposts change to try and prop up their point. All of those things are really superficial and meaningless to the main point. These are all games, produced, financed, and published by Nintendo. Internally developed or not, Nintendo still pays for the game to be made, and owns the rights to it. It's their IP, so regardless of what people say, they count.

In the case of Microsoft, their problem is simply that they haven't been releasing enough games this gen. Seriously, every year you're lucky to get like 3 games from Xbox Game Studios. But Microsoft has been trying to remedy that with new leadership, and new studio acquisitions that have the freedom to tackle new IP. So far, Microsoft has revealed Bleeding Edge, Everwild, Grounded, and Tell Me Why, with Playground games working on a new RPG. Ori was also a new IP they introduced this generation, and possible their only successful one. Even with the new focus on new ideas, and IP. PlayStation fans still don't take them seriously. The main problem lies in these games being primarily built around multiplayer. While I would also like a bit more variety in single player offerings as well, I don't think being a multiplayer game somehow makes it a lesser game. Microsoft is possibly one of the only companies who knows how to deliver solid multiplayer experiences (same with Nintendo). After-all, they run the biggest online multiplayer service in gaming. Another complaint is the same as Nintendo's problems, some of these are also accused of being "low-budget" titles used to pad out Game Pass. While I like big budget experiences, I think it's just as important to encourage the more middle-range, niche games as well. It helps variety.

I feel like some people want these two to approach New IP the way Sony usually approaches them. Go big, or go home. Give people ambitious, over-the-top, single-player experiences with massive budgets. But really, each of the big three has their approach to making and selling first party games. Having everyone conform to a single way of doing things is the exact opposite of creative freedom, and I'd rather these three focus on their strengths as businesses and not try to do the exact same things as each-other.

Layden said he wanted fewer but bigger games. But that may not be the case now that he's gone. This is Hulst's WWS now, so we're probably going to see a different mindset regarding what games get made.

We're getting closer to the next generation of games as the 2010s wind down. One key component of Next gen systems will be more important than ever before, First party content from the platform holders. With Nintendo fully flexing the muscle of its Entertainment Planning and Development Division (EPD) on the Switch, and Microsoft doing its best to rebuild Xbox Game Studios in time for Scarlett, That just leaves Sony, and its Worldwide Studios to speculate about for the PlayStation 5. The company recently made some key changes to its First party software management. Shawn Layden recently departed from his position as WWS chairman, long-time PlayStation alumni, Shuei Yoshida is being moved out of WWS, and Gurrella Games Studio Head, Herman Hulst, had just been given the keys to Sony's entire First Party Empire.

With all these changes made, what do you want or hope to see in terms of First Party games from Sony and their army of 14 development subsidiaries and independent collaborators? Here's a few things I want to see next gen

1.) Continue to embrace big budget projects - One of PlayStation's strengths is that it's not afraid to go all out with the production values of its games. As much as the "PlayStation Exclusive Template" formula bothers some people, it's a formula that works, and more importantly, sells PlayStation hardware en mass. People like big games, and Sony delivers some of the best in the business, so continue to allow developers the unlimited budget afforded by the nature of being a platform holder. That being said...

2.) Try to green-light more niche, and smaller titles too - One of the best things about being a Platform holder, is that the budget you have from the various revenue streams (System-Selling franchises, Third Party license fees, Online Services, Hardware profits, etc.) allows you to finance and produce games that otherwise wouldn't see the light of day under most third party publishers. Even if the game has no real sales potential, it's still good to have these niche, less profitable games in order to bolster your content lineup and make your box stand out from the others. Sony recently has kind of pulled back on these types of games for the later PS4 years, and it's a bit disappointing, especially since these types of games used to be all over the PS2 and even the PS3. With the PS5, I think Sony should encourage some of their lower tier studios like PixelOpus and Japan Studio to experiment with smaller, more medium scale projects that focus on ideas rather than just set-pieces. Give them budgets bigger than an indie studio, but not as large as the ones from Sony's higher class developers like Naughty Dog or Insomniac. I want more games like Concrete Genie and Dreams, in between the AAA cinematic games.

3.) Add a bit more variety to the lineup - I said before that the "PlayStation Exclusive" formula should be kept as it's Sony's key weapon for selling systems. But that doesn't mean those are the only games that Sony should be publishing on the PS5. I'd like to see a bit more variety added to the lineup next gen, that isn't just regulated to PS VR titles. Add some RPGs, Fighting games, Arcade style games, Platformers (Bring back Jack & Daxter you bastards!), and other games.

4.) Try to revive forgotten PlayStation series - Let's be honest, each of the big three has their share of franchise graveyards in their skeleton closets. I know its not financially realistic to support every IP, but a little more effort would be nice from all of them. As for where Sony stands, they fall somewhere between Microsoft (worst) and Nintendo (best, but still far from perfect). They have a few series that lasted for more than 2 generations like GoW, Ratchet & Clank, and Gran Turismo, but there's a ton of IPs that Sony rarely supports beyond like, 3 games. Now I'm not saying you need to go on a complete reboot spree, but some love for your past would be appreciated. How about a new Ape Escape game? There's a ton of cool stuff you can do with the DualShock 5 in that game. What about Jack & Daxter? Maybe a new Ecochrome, LocoRoco, Parrappa The Rapper, Sly Cooper. Just bring back a few PlayStation series that fans really want to see return.

So that's basically what I want from Worldwide Studios next gen. Sony has done a great job with its first party lineup this gen, possibly the best its ever been. But I still think it could be even better with the PS5.

Publishing a game usually isn't as simple as slapping your name on it though. Publishers give the development team a budget for the project, they send producers to oversee the game. They give feedback, and suggestions on it. Even design some elements themselves. They're as involved with the development process of a game as the studio who's making it. Astral Chain is developed by Platinum, but Nintendo is the one in charge at the end of the day. Platinum can't do anything with Astral Chain unless Nintendo approves it since they own the copyright. Hell Kirby and Fire Emblem are recognized as Nintendo IP, yet they're developed by outside studios.

If you aren't going to count games made by non-owned studios, then you'll have to toss out many of Sony's games as well like Bloodborne and Until Dawn since those developers aren't owned by Sony either. Hell, Insomniac wasn't a subsidiary until just recently, so does Ratchet and Clank not count either?

Even tossing out Astral Chain and Snipperclips, that's still 5 games created in-house (Sushi Striker was actually Nintendo's idea, indieszero just designed the puzzle mechanics). Game development is a lengthy process, and Nintendo holds its card close to their chest, so you can't always expect them to announce a New IP every minute on the minute.

Doesn't really matter who did the development. Nintendo still produces the game. They pour money into it, the development teams on those projects answer to Nintendo staff. Nintendo owns the trademark and copyright. It's still their game. Next your going to tell me that Until Dawn and Death Stranding don't count as New Playstation IPs because Sony didn't make them. It doesn't matter, the publisher still produces and finances the title.

Astral Chain may be a Platinum Games Creation, but it's Nintendo's game at the end of the day.

ARMS, 1-2 Switch, Astral Chain, Snipperclips, Nintendo Labo, Ring Fit Adventure, Sushi Striker: The Way of Sushido.

Nintendo barely uses amiibo in their games these days.

Nintendo is game-play-driven generally yes, but that's not to say they outright reject cinematic elements, or games that focus on story. Their main concern is whether the game

* Has the player constantly interacting with something, or someone

* Is both functionally, and aesthetically different from other games on the market

* Ultimately creates a feeling of fun and/or excitement on the end user's part

Nintendo is probably more than happy to welcome that manages to tell a great story as well. They just aren't in passive thrill rides with small bits of gameplay. If Nintendo's going to make a story driven game, they're going to focus on what the player can do to shape the story and the world around them through their actions. Not really on guiding the player through a pre-planned series of set pieces crafted before a single gameplay prototype is made.