Okay so maybe I should clarify a bit: Microsoft tends to pick up something that looks unique and goes "okay, let's do it." The more unique, the more interested they seem to be. When Halo: Combat Evolve first showed up, it was this whole new thing. The game looked fucking weird. When Fable was developed, it was done in part because of how weird Bullfrog/Lionhead's work had been previously. Gears of War was pushing cover shooting when only a few games had tried and failed to do that before.
Microsoft really likes greenlighting risks. But if those risks pay off, then of course they're going to keep making games in that vein. Most of the $60 retail games they release are these really unique games that push the
"we do some THING that no one else is pushing" angle. I'm not saying that's the right angle to take, that's just a characteristic of them as a publisher.
Sony's a lot like that as well, in that they find something that works and then push that a lot. T
he main difference here is that Sony finds something that works and makes more things like it. Microsoft tries to differentiate all their products. So Sony goes 'wow, third person cinematic action games are a big deal. Alright, God of War Ascension didn't do too well, what if we bring the camera in and make God of War more like Uncharted?' Basically all their big hitters right now--Uncharted, The Last of Us, God of War, etc--are following a similar formula. And they're looking to expand that into open world because Ubisoft has found so much success in that, hence Horizon: Zero Dawn (Guerilla wasn't doing too well with Killzone; Sony was more willing to support a pivot). Sony's trying to follow that success up with Ghost of Tsushima and Days Gone. A lot of what Sony's doing for those big, $60 retail titles is action adventure-infused stuff.
If Microsoft were like Sony, what we'd see is more attempts at first and third person shooters; Microsoft would try to take that critical acclaim and try to grow that into a strength. Instead they're like "wait what if we make Sea of Thieves?" or "how about a story-less co-op action game?" or whatever. While it's clear that GaaS is a big priority for them, they're still chasing really unique hooks.
Identifying publisher characteristics seems like a really non-controversial thing to me. Like, look at Ubisoft. If I said "Ubisoft doesn't really make linear games, they spend almost all their time on open world games," that's not really controversial. I don't think "microsoft tries to be experimental with every game they make" and "sony tends to stick with what works" is that controversial of a claim to make. These are characteristics of both publishers, and I think Sony's model works better for them.
By all means, please, tell me why you think this is wrong. The "you're crazy" or "you must be trolling" stuff isn't interesting. Like, I'd appreciate it if someone tried to tear my argument apart, and I appreciate that you tried, but I take exception with your examples.
First off, nearly all of the games you mention are not $60 games. My examples, if I'm not mistaken, have all been $60 retail games.
Second, a bunch of those games are Vita titles or digitally downloadable games.
This isn't as risky as Viva Pinata, a $60 retail game, or Quantum Break, a $60 retail game. You get that, right? Pyre isn't even a Sony game. Everybody's Gone to the Rapture was Sony trying to cash in on the Gone Home fad. One big thing for Sony is how much emphasis they put on prestige titles, which is why games like Shadow of the Colossus get funded, but you also have to remember, things were a lot more exciting in the 6th gen. Sony was a much more risky publisher; they could afford to be. People were still figuring out how to make interesting 3D games. It was the 7th gen where they started to get a lot more conservative with what they funded.
What baffles me is why you've got Horizon: Zero Dawn, which is one of the safest games anyone could ever pitch to a publisher (open world action/adventure RPG), or Bloodborne, which is also one of the safest games you could pitch to a publisher (wow, Dark Souls is HUGE right now! We should make Dark Souls too!). Of course digitally downloadable titles are unique. Go check out all the old XBLA games; they were just as unique as anything you've listed here.
Digital games are a bit more experimental.
So yeah, tl;dr, most of your $60 games are safe bets, and the rest of the games you listed are digital, which have a much wider margin for error.
The Xbox is constantly trying to be ~unique~ with its big $60 games. Everything Microsoft does is somehow trying to be ~unique~ in some way.
Sony's following a different formula, and it's a big part of the reason they're doing so well this gen. I don't think identifying Sony as a relatively conservative publisher and Microsoft as one that takes way too many risks is in any way controversial to claim.
