THQ: Who Needs a Diverse Portfolio

Illustration for article titled THQ: Who Needs a Diverse Portfolio

Last week THQ announced that they were dividing up the company into three divisions, core, online, kids and famiily and casual games.


The decision seems to put an end to what some viewed as THQ's attempt at breaking into the mega-publishing business with the like of EA, Activision and Ubisoft.


Games Industry talked to THQ's executive vice president recently to find out what all of this means for the company.

Most interesting in the lengthy Q&A, I think, is Danny Bilson's take on the importance of diversification. There was a time when many bigger publishers, including THQ, thought it was important to have a wide variety of games in a broad spectrum of genres. But Bilson seems to laugh off that suggestion today. He goes as far as to say it doesn't make sense:

Q: So THQ doesn't feel like it has to compete in each genre and have a diverse portfolio for multiple systems?

Danny Bilson: How does that even makes sense, I don't understand that? It's funny, but why do I need that? If I had something good for every genre I would do something good for them, but if I have two strong shooters and as long as I'm making the revenue and selling games and people are digging them, I'm good. Maybe I'm completely wrong and mad, but I don't get 'portfolio'. UFC: Undisputed did two million units in two weeks. It's wild in places like Germany and the UK. In Germany the UFC doesn't even play there.

I guess it doesn't make sense to diversify when you no longer can. Seems a bit risky to me, but last week analysts I spoke to were singing the praises of focusing on and dominating a niche.


THQ 2.0 [Games Industry]

Share This Story

Get our newsletter


I'm trying to remember the last THQ game I bought. Uhm...Saints Row 2? Was that THQ? I traded it in after a month though. :[

Diversity really does help, THQ, but it only works when you have the content to fill the gaps.