UFC games have steadily selling less each time, and the last game lost money. Selling the license gave THQ much needed short term cash and let them cut expenses, it was definatly the right thing to do.

So you're in the "developers pay and bribe all of the reviewers for good scores" camp?

How exactly does that happen when there's 50 - 100 reviewers?

It's a ridiculous sentiment bro.

Darksiders 2 might be the most important game in this companies history. They really need a big profit game, not to survive but to stabilize the situation. I don´t expect Metro to make huge profits, and Homefront 2 should be a major improvement over the first part otherwise it will crash hard.

Your second link doesn't really argue for your point, and the first reiterates my point that the biggest money-loser for THQ was uDraw on the PS3/360. The problem isn't casual vs. core, it's high vs. low development costs. For a company like THQ, with a very tenuous financial situation, betting on high budget games is a very risky strategy.

I'm sure we all want THQ to bankrupt themselves making games we like to play, but it's not a sound business strategy.

It's good that they have goals, but they just need to make sure they don't punish employees because a game doesn't get the desired score. That's not really fair.

Obviously not all them do it, and there are games that do deserved being in the 90+ category, but you can't deny some of the huge developers pay to the biggest gaming sites, if they have a lot of money they can even bribe more than a couple of sites, Call of duty comes to mind...

 From the way THQ is setup, paying their 'execultives' on 7 figure salaries and whatnot I don't think a lower developement cost / profit type strategy would really work for them. They've got huge overheads to pay which means they need huge revenue streams to keep things stable - if they can't pay shareholders large sums then the share prices will plummet further, and if that happens more so then it already has then it'll be curtains for THQ. A return to profitability is important but keeping their share prices up is just as important and looking like they're trying to 'cut' costs and scale-down would harm shares.

 I think they need to find that balance of making the big budget blockbusters - Saints Row, Darksiders, InSane - but having the lower cost stuff there to bring in some profitability if the big hits fail. Problem is they don't really have the IP to do anything lower budget... Red Faction:Battlegrounds was a failure, Wii software sales have crashed and I can't think of anything they could really do in the handheld space. The uDraw brand could probably make some money on the Wii-U if they  dare go down that route again. Most of the profitable lower cost stuff relies on using existing IP... THQ just don't have it, which is why they're in this mess I guess. 

Really there is only 1 thing that's going well for THQ, and that's Relic. As long as they don't get them to make shitty games, I will be happy. They should have also REALLY made a Rise of Nations 2 while they had Big Huge Games. Metro 2033 was also pretty awesome.

THQ have been a in a bad position for a long time, and U Draw for the Wii was one of there rare successes. U Draw for the PS360 was a desaster that would have killed the company, if it wasn't for Saint's Row the third which was at the same time their most successful and seccond most expensive game they have ever made. Making smaller games doesn't guarantee success ether, it just spreads the risk arround. THQ has been dieing a death by a thousand cuts for this entire generation with flop after flod of mid to low teir games, and like you said this is not casual vs core, it is about "quality" games. And they have decided that rather than die a slow death they will go big where they have a chance of succeeding.

I would love for them to become a publisher like Paradox which can make lots of small niche games and become hugely successful but going that route is a big risk as well and would likely mean even more staff cuts for THQ. I think they have a chance of pulling through with AAA development as long as they keep budgets in check and don't try and do another Homefront and spend $80m on one game, they might not be so lucky and have it break even a seccond time. I mean I know that it's a risky business, and I think they know that too. But I think they have a shot, they have some great developers, and I don't think that it's guaranteed doom.

^It's probably their only chance too. I agree with you zarx.