Even Arcade games can have depth, see every fighting game ever. In any case, Nintendo is heavily rooted in Arcade games, Toys, and Analog games (Cards, Board Games, etc.). So naturally many of their games reflect that. That doesn't mean there isn't depth though. As I mentioned, Splatoon's depth comes from the sheer versatility of its one simple mechanic, Shooting ink. That mechanic is layered on top with multiple uses and ways to shoot ink. Shooting ink covers the ground, therefore it gets you points. But it also slows the enemy down if they walk in it. Shooting ink also takes out enemies. Changing to squid form allows you to hide in your ink, which is good for strategy. But you can also swim fast in your ink for quick traversal, climb up walls in ink, reload your weapon. And the different weapons and items available changes how ink can be sprayed.

All of these actions stem back from that one simple mechanic of shooting ink. It creates a surprisingly strategic game where you have to take terrain into account at all times, while retaining a pick-up and play appeal that even people who hate shooters can grasp.

I'm not denying that the other approach you laid out doesn't have merit, I'm just saying it can easily backfire. Same is true with the Arcade-like approach of Nintendo.

Nintendo has always been about making games different from other companies. They're not interested in just blindly following trends and genres that everyone and their mom is doing in the industry. If Nintendo is presented with a cinematic game idea that does make itself unique from others, they'll probably go through with it. But if somebody pitches them a cinematic game that has no distinct characteristics from it in terms of game-play, design, and story, then they'll more than likely pass. Nintendo wants to make games nobody else is making, and they give their developers free reign on how to go about it.

Nintendo isn't against cinematic or story-driven games, they're against story-driven games that offer nothing that other publishers couldn't offer.

Nintendo doesn't always have clean hands, but they mostly stay out of this kind of trouble, especially for their console games. If the OP really wanted to make a point, he could try and point to a full priced, first party Switch game that's filled with microtransactions and loot boxes. Which is impossible because those don't exist :p.

Three of those games don't even have loot boxes, just gatcha mechanics that are actually quite generous. Mario Kart Tour is kinda gross, but that's just one game. If you want to prove this point, you'll need to give us better examples.

@MirkoS77: Splatoon and ARMS actually have quite a bit of depth to their game-play systems. Anyone who plays Splatoon regularly will tell you there's actually a lot of versatility to its deceptively simple mechanics. ARMS also has quite a bit of depth as well. Nintendo's approach doesn't stifle game-play depth because their mechanics are versatile enough to be applied in numerous ways. Take Super Mario Odyssey for example. It's built around one simple mechanic, throwing Cappy. But that mechanic is used in a variety of important ways. Throwing Cappy can be an attack, it can clear obstacles, it can be a platform, and with the capture mechanic, it can give you access to nearly every enemy in the game as well as their abilities. It keeps the game easy to play, but adds a layer of variety and depth for those who dig really deep.

Stacking a bunch of vaguely related mechanics ontop of eachother can add depth. But a lot of times, it leads to over designed, and clunky experiences that don't benefit the core design.

You do realize that Nintendo is a diverse company of developers that have their own views and philosophies regarding game design? Sure, Miyamoto had a large impact on the company-wide creative philosophy. But It's not like the Developers within Nintendo only share a strict homogeneous creative view. Each of the company's team heads and designers all have their method and approach to game development, and views on gaming.

Which even those regularly have new ideas and innovation. Breath of the Wild plays nothing like Ocarina of Time. Super Mario Odyssey plays nothing like Galaxy. Animal Crossing New Horizons plays nothing like Wild World. You get the idea.

Classic Disney is a fair comparison too. The Pokemon Company is technically a joint-venture, and only exists because Pokemon is so expansive as an IP. Regardless, Nintendo will license their characters to third parties for merchandise and other media projects. But they'll never build divisions to do that stuff internally. Nintendo's not interested in being a conglomerate, they prefer to maintain the appearance of a company run by game developers for people who play games. That means keeping the company at a reasonable size in terms of how many places they have their hands in.

Nintendo's business model is much closer to Sanrio than Disney. Disney is an own-it-all multi-industry conglomerate with subsidiaries and divisions that manage different industries from TV, Film, Parks, Comics, etc. Sanrio meanwhile, is a much smaller, but still rather big IP-driven company that instead focuses on licensing characters to multi-media partners rather than having multi-media themselves.

Nintendo is similar, rather than having divisions for theme parks, movies, music, etc. They instead license those rights out to a third party while they oversee it. So while Disney has an entire division dedicated to large scale theme parks. Nintendo simply licensed their characters to NBCUniversal for a smaller "Super Nintendo World" section in the general Universal Studios parks. Nintendo deliberately avoids too much growth in terms of divisions and the industries they're in, preferring to keep a manageable size as it's both less costly to operate, and preserves the image of a playful, innovative company that focuses on Fun and not just profits (Well, they focus on that too, but you get the idea).

Splatoon is an innovative take on the online shooter. ARMS is an innovative take on the arena fighting game. Super Mario Odyssey is the most innovative 3D Mario since Galaxy. To say Nintendo hasn't been innovating in IPs and genres makes no sense when you actually look at their games.

But even still, Nintendo has made plenty of New IP on the Switch. You have ARMS, Nintendo Labo, 1-2 Switch, Astral Chain, and Ring Fit Adventure to name a few. All of them are built on gameplay and ideas that wouldn't have been approved under a third party publisher.

While Sony's biggest games do tend to share the same gameplay template. The overall stories, themes, and aesthetics are still far more creatively risky than most third party games. They're one of the few Publishers who still regularly puts out AAA single player games. In an era where third parties are moving away from that in favor of loot-box, live-service, multiplayer games, that's pretty bold.

While the Platform holders do have their share of safe bets, they don't exclusively rely on them the way Third party publishers do. That's the point. Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft can afford to put out games that wouldn't see the light of day under companies like EA or Activision because they need to draw attention to their platforms, and the best way to do that is to produce creatively risky games that grab attention. It also helps that the Platform holders have more revenue streams from Hardware sales, subscription services, and Third party royalty fees, all to help fund first party game development.

AAA games these days are known for being very risk averse. The sheer costs it takes to make today's high-end games means that Publishers have turned to relying on safe-bet franchises over everything else. If there is a New IP being made, it's usually cut from the same Live-service, Open-world mold as those are what's hot right now apparently. In a sea of franchises and Copy-Cats, The 3 platform holders, Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft don't seem to fall into this trap nearly as much. In fact, first party games from these three, also happen to be the most original and unique games of this generation, some even surpassing a lot of today's third party blockbusters.

Sony Interactive Entertainment, has been gaining critical and commercial acclaim unlike anything its ever seen with its PS4 output. Games like Horizon Zero Dawn, Astro Bot, God of War, Spider-Man, Until Dawn, Dreams, and upcoming games like Ghosts of Tsushima have captured caught the industry's attention for their scope, ambition, and overall quality. I know it's become sort of a meme to label Sony's recent titles as the same Cinematic third-person, action game. And while it's true a lot of first party games on the PS4 feel like that, not many publishers these days would even bother releasing something like Gravity Rush 2 or Concrete Genie. Even in the "Cinematic" games, there's often stories and content most third party games of similar production would avoid like the plague. So while it's true, most of Sony's games tend to be somewhat formulaic, they still bring something interesting to the table.

Microsoft's Xbox Game Studios has struggled the past few years. Many of its studios have closed, Games were tragically cancelled, and the Big 3 Xbox franchises have long since overstayed their welcome. It's easy to argue they've been the weakest of the three first party wise this gen, but lately Microsoft's been trying to fix that. They've acquired several studios over the past year or so, and not only that, they're promising to give them an unlimited budget, and large degree of creative independence. Considering the length of Game Development, we'll have to wait until next generation to see where this goes, but even ignoring that, Microsoft was still able to finance some interesting titles this generation. Insomniac Games' Sunset Overdrive was well received, Rare's Sea of Theives had a less than stellar launch, but from what I've heard, has gotten better with each update. And Ori and the Blind Forest is considered one of the best games on the system, and its sequel is arriving very soon. There's also Ninja Theory's upcoming Bleeding Edge, which seems like an interesting take on the Overwatch style multiplayer game.

Finally, there's Nintendo, Co. Ltd. Of the three, Nintendo is the most dependent on its IP and homemade software. They're the "Sanrio" of gaming, using its iconic Mascots like Mario, Kirby, Pokemon, Link, Yoshi, DK, and more to fuel often critically acclaimed Software, along with licensed merchandise and media. But even with it's IP-driven business model, Nintendo is still committed to games and ideas that nobody really has seen before. There's Splatoon, a multiplayer shooter that focuses on ink and territory control with a distinct style all its own. ARMS, a 3D arena fighter where you play as combatants with Stretchy ARMS. Nintendo Labo, a series of Cardboard based Construction Toys using the Switch and its Joy-Con in new ways. And their newest creation, Ring-Fit Adventure an RPG played entirely using a Pilates Ring and Leg Strap to do fitness moves and actions. There's also smaller titles like Snipperclips, 1-2 Switch, Astral Chain, Sushi Striker, and even Brain Age that very few, if any publishers have a recent equivalent to. Even in established franchises, Nintendo games often ooze with ideas and creativity. Even when you play a game in a long running series like Luigi's Mansion 3, you feel like you're playing a game that the developers wanted to make, not a game that was simply made because of corporate mandates.

I think the reason the Platform holders aren't as creatively stagnant as most big third party publishers is their need to make their consoles stand out, as game development and hardware gets more and more standardized, there's more preasure on the platform holders to try and make games that make their console stand out, and that means touching games and ideas that other publishers wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.