A common argument for fans of PlayStation is that Sony Interactive always introduces new IPs, unlike Nintendo and Xbox Game Studios. Who supposedly just rehash the same properties over and over again. But even when Nintendo and Microsoft do introduce New IPs, they're usually brushed off, or given a BS criteria as to what supposedly counts.
In Xbox's case, the argument is somewhat more valid as Microsoft failed to release a lot of compelling games this generation. But even when they start trying to get back on track with new games like Bleeding Edge, Grounded, and Everwild, the response is usually met with lukewarm reception, or "Filler for Game Pass". The problem lies in the multiplayer focus of these titles. And while I would like some single player offerings from Xbox that aren't the B&Bs (Halo, Forza, Gears) in the future, I don't see why being a multiplayer game should be a factor to write them off.
In Nintendo's case, even now they get unfair treatment from ERA regarding New IPs. Like Microsoft, the argument was somewhat valid with the Wii U, as Nintendo mostly relied on sequels to Wii games and safe platformers to carry the console, thus creating a severe lack of variety in the console's library, compounded by the overall lack of third party support. But with the Switch, Nintendo has introduced games like 1-2 Switch, ARMS, Snipperclips, Nintendo Labo, Sushi Striker, Astral Chain, Ring Fit Adventure, and The Stretchers. When these games are listed, they're usually wrote off as "Casual", "not AAA", "not as popular as Splatoon or Mario", and various other reasons for why they supposedly don't count. Even taking out the two eShop games, That's still 6 new games in under 3 years. I'm of the belief that a game doesn't need to be the biggest thing in existence to be great. Sure, games like Ring Fit may not be AAA, but they're still quality experiences that count.
So in terms of new IPs, why do you think Microsoft and Nintendo aren't taken as seriously as Sony?
In Xbox's case, the argument is somewhat more valid as Microsoft failed to release a lot of compelling games this generation. But even when they start trying to get back on track with new games like Bleeding Edge, Grounded, and Everwild, the response is usually met with lukewarm reception, or "Filler for Game Pass". The problem lies in the multiplayer focus of these titles. And while I would like some single player offerings from Xbox that aren't the B&Bs (Halo, Forza, Gears) in the future, I don't see why being a multiplayer game should be a factor to write them off.
In Nintendo's case, even now they get unfair treatment from ERA regarding New IPs. Like Microsoft, the argument was somewhat valid with the Wii U, as Nintendo mostly relied on sequels to Wii games and safe platformers to carry the console, thus creating a severe lack of variety in the console's library, compounded by the overall lack of third party support. But with the Switch, Nintendo has introduced games like 1-2 Switch, ARMS, Snipperclips, Nintendo Labo, Sushi Striker, Astral Chain, Ring Fit Adventure, and The Stretchers. When these games are listed, they're usually wrote off as "Casual", "not AAA", "not as popular as Splatoon or Mario", and various other reasons for why they supposedly don't count. Even taking out the two eShop games, That's still 6 new games in under 3 years. I'm of the belief that a game doesn't need to be the biggest thing in existence to be great. Sure, games like Ring Fit may not be AAA, but they're still quality experiences that count.
So in terms of new IPs, why do you think Microsoft and Nintendo aren't taken as seriously as Sony?
