That is not the case with all publishers. Microsofts culture last gen was not anywhere near where SOny's was for creative freedom. ANd EA has been known to have too many producers in on projects to micromanage.
That is not the case with a lot of Sony's or Nintendo's Studios now. It use to be at Nintendo Miyamoto would over see most games coming out. But as time went on I think he understood he needs to let new young talent take a stabe at something new.
WHich is why we got arms, splatoon, mario maker.
Not saying Sony is a saint, and hasn;t mismanaged studios/projects. Every Publisher does. But I would argue Sony's track record for their owned studios shows that they have complete freedom to make what they want as long as it holds up to milestones and certain guidlines/standards.
Something from previous gen that Microsoft learned the hard way this gen.
I do not know what you are talking about. Last generation was the best Microsoft had not only from a first party standpoint, but also from some of the partnerships that they went to. The mistakes that were undertaken mainly come from the end of that generation with emphasis on Kinect, the winding down of internal studios (some, no one will argue about) and going forward, the lack of adequate investment in new IP especially with third party partners. It was the single greatest generation for them when it came to getting new games in, taking greater risk, sometimes to gain market share in places where they would
never do well.
As Phil Spencer said to have stated to
Satya Nadella, they needed to be all in if they were going to be in the gaming industry. The 360 with all its hardware issues was Microsoft making a serious push to become an established player in the industry. The XB1 started strong, but Microsoft was never right having only five internal studios coming into the generation and eventually the lack of investment showed. Those five studios were essentially making core games i.e. Forza (Turn 10), Halo (343i), Gears (The Coalition) and Minecraft (Mojang). The only studio that had wiggle room was Rare.
But there was also a lack of investment when it came to games with other partners, something that Microsoft had been exceedingly strong at. That meant that there was a lot of pressure on the titles that they did invest in to deliver, and way too much pressure on their existing developers and partners to hit certain dates and that is why you rarely see those long dev times from XGS. Sea of Thieves needed more time, State of Decay II needed more time.
Sony's staples are Uncharted, God of War, Gran Turismo, Killzone, Ratchet and Clank. Established games from prior generation(s).
Microsoft's staples are Halo, Forza and Gears of War.
Nintendo's go to games are Mario, Legend of Zelda, Xenoblade, Donkey Kong and Metroid.
Games like Horizon Zero Dawn have done well, same as The Last of Us. Commercially, they were a success and we will be getting The Last of Us II and I postulate that the same will be the case with Horizon Zero Dawn.
In the same vein, games like State of Decay II, being a success in sales bodes well for the franchise and I would hazard a guess that if The Outer Worlds does well critically and commercially, we might see Microsoft trying to buy the rights to the title. Betting on a new game is hard, but once it succeeds, chances are that there is a narrowing of scope to stick with it. To this degree, Sony is no different from any publisher despite what people try and paint.
As for EA, they have a fascination with loot boxes. That will forever be their problem.