Console war is totally irrelevant, says THQ

GamesIndustry.biz uncovered some certainly interesting and provocative views from THQ's head Jack Sorenson last week. Says Sorenson on gaming culture, there's "too much of an emphasis on the sports aspect of who's winning and losing." Evidently the company is focusing on opportunities rather than the number of users for a given system:

"I think [the console war] is totally irrelevant. Even in the history of the business, other than something like the Dreamcast, you can do decent business on lots of platforms. So the issue is not who wins, it's can an independent publisher do a good business on that platform. We're thinking everything from high-end MMO all the way to cell phones."

As some might know, the company is one of the few that has stuck to the older platforms, including the Game Boy Advance, and have showed perhaps surprising success with this approach. Elaborating on his previous statement, Sorenson believes in the best opportunity for a game over how many sales it is predicted to make:

"There's a ubiquity of gaming out there, and the platform is really just a medium. If that makes sense [we'll publish on] PlayStation 2 next year for something, PS2 two years from now. We certainly probably carried on longer on the GBA than most and had a very nice business out there because there're 80, 90 million GBAs out there - maybe a bunch left in closets and drawers, but there's still enough audience to buy them. All these platforms kinda win."

I'm with Sorenson on this one. Firstly, I think he's right. All these platforms do win. And in a sense, the platform is irrelevant. Anyone with sense knows a platform is only as good as its games. And despite what some think, games do not equal platform. I love all systems. I think there are great games for every system out there, and I think to totally denounce any system is downright silly. But don't get me wrong, I see why people debate over specs and what games are better. That's fine, I do that! But feeding into this system rivalry thing is just silly and spreads all kinds of dangerous perceptions (i.e. anything not on Xbox 360 has crappy graphics). And, to be straight with you, I kind of have this conspiracy theory the companies (especially the marketers) planned this stuff from the beginning, and want gamers to pit themselves against each other. Why wouldn't they? It gives them way more attention overall and makes people buy more games.

But anyway, I'm with anyone who puts the passion for their work and the quality of it over the bottom dollar. Many companies can afford to lose some cash here and there. And if we see the day when game companies become corporations, then we're in serious trouble, as they're legally required to put the bottom dollar over everything. Of course, some would say some companies are starting to look that way now somewhat. Are we in trouble?

Speaking about company mergers and acquisitions, Sorenson said they're "certainly looking at acquisitions all the time," but aren't in any rush, and place more importance on what's best for THQ than anything else:

"We have all the elements, and we don't really feel there's any one thing that's missing because of size. If you can get the growth and find the profits and build based on your own strategy it's actually a lot better and easier to do it that way than, say, acquire another company with an entirely different culture, trying to bring them together. That's a huge event. [...] These are not easy to do. We're not driven to do something that's counter to our culture and strategy just in order to prove a point. [We're] trying to be in control of our destiny."

It's really nice to know there are still companies out there just doing what's best for them and the industry as a whole. Would be nice to keep one industry at least somewhat pure, wouldn't it?

The full interview with Jack Sorenson will be published next week.