• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Toys for Bob going independent

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
I hope TFB finds its groove again and makes great smaller AA and indie games. I'd love it if they continue with 3D platformers.

This is an interesting development, and I wonder how some of the other studios at Microsoft now feel about this move and whether some of them want to follow this route.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
MS own Banjo-Kazooie, Spyro, Crash and Conker. The 4 biggest 3D platform mascots in gaming outside of Nintendo IP.

And they’ve let Toys For Bob go.

Toys were an Activision subsidiary, Activision is operating independently and were making Toys a CoD support studio.

Now they're free and partnering with MS separately, the likelihood of them making a new Crash, Spyro, Conker or Banjo now are a lot more than they were before.

You should be happy.
 

Darsxx82

Member
I think the only obligations are for cod multiplatform the famous 10 year deal
The specific obligation of COD is for consoles. The obligation for the different cloud services extends to all games produced by ABK Studios.

That is, MS is only obligated to release COD on PS and Nintendo consoles for 10 years. It is not obligatory for the rest of the ABK games.

But what cloud gaming? MS is obliged to launch all ABK games on the different services competing with Xcloud (GForceNow, Bosteroid, etc...). The exploitation rights (except for the US) are held by Ubisoft for the next 15 years.
 

Ozriel

M$FT
I wouldn't hold my breath on them working with Microsoft, though maybe they'll try to license Crash or Spyro from them.

Their blog post says the split was amicable, and they're discussing possible future partnership with MS.
How would licensing Microsoft IP not be 'working with them'?

- How does it affect MS's obligation to release ABK Studios games on cloudgaming services? If it is independent, it is assumed that there would no longer be an obligation 🤔

They're no longer part of ABK or XGS, so the obligations doesn't apply to them unless they work on Activision IP like Crash or Spyro

Well, it's good and bad I guess. Good that the studio can keep making games and not have to be a support studio, bad that if MS had allowed them to make some of the platforming games they are so good at it would have been great for GamePass.

Nothing stopping MS from commissioning them to making those games as a partner studio.
At least this frees them from being stuck as a support studio for COD content.
 
Last edited:

Jaybe

Member
Wonder if Toys for Bob is the only studio to do this and that’s it, or if it’s a different way to structure that other smaller development team may also seek to do. I guess the upside MS is they get their employee count down
 
Their blog post says the split was amicable, and they're discussing possible future partnership with MS.
How would licensing Microsoft IP not be 'working with them'?

1. Learn what PR is
2. Big difference between them licensing a property and Microsoft contracted them to develop a specific game

It's clear Microsoft didn't believe in the studio and the games they wanted to make and neither did ABK. The studio I believe has been hit by 2 rounds of layoffs. If Microsoft really thought there was value here, they wouldn't have sent them on their way.

So as I said, I wouldn't hold my breath, but there is the possibility that they have interest in Spyro or Crash even though Microsoft does not.
 

Ozriel

M$FT
MS own Banjo-Kazooie, Spyro, Crash and Conker. The 4 biggest 3D platform mascots in gaming outside of Nintendo IP.

And they’ve let Toys For Bob go.

Honestly, Microsoft are astoundingly bad at gaming. You can’t imagine worse decisions, but they continue to outdo themselves.

They can easily have them work on those platformers even as an independent Studio.
Wasn't that how Sony worked with Insomniac for years?

Letting them spin out as Independent, still keeping links to MS and not being responsible for their salaries etc...seems like sound business. And better for staff than closing them down like some others have done.
 

elmos-acc

Member
In an ideal world, Sony should commission them to remake Sly or Jak & Daxter. Unfortunately it won't happen.

Good for them though. I really hope they find a publisher to fund their upcoming projects.
 
Hell of a way to say they were fired without saying they were fired. Like a pro player who's now a "free agent" after multiple disappointing seasons of performance.

I mean I'm only stating the obvious here, but in lieu of that....happy for the studio's newfound independence. I wish them future prosperity wherever and whomever that leads them to in the long-term 👍

They can easily have them work on those platformers even as an independent Studio.
Wasn't that how Sony worked with Insomniac for years?

Letting them spin out as Independent, still keeping links to MS and not being responsible for their salaries etc...seems like sound business. And better for staff than closing them down like some others have done.

Yeah this is much preferable than a Lionhead situation, as an example.

I mean, OTOH it IS kind of "demotion" in a way considering they were part of ABK prior to the acquisition's closure, which would have assumed security within a larger structure. Which itself would have assumed remaining within that larger structure.

But, if that was under threat, better to become independent and leverage your talents with whatever companies are willing to leverage them. I know people are going to say Sony should've done the same with London Studio but TBH, if you look at LS's gameography, it isn't that great. The only notable releases are the Getaway games (decades old by this point) and the recent VR game they did (for a stagnate market).

Toys For Bob has a much more consistent and I'd say better track record of releases under their belt than London Studio.
 
Last edited:

Ozriel

M$FT
1. Learn what PR is

Why does the departing studio need to invest in PR?
The more logical, non-fanboyish inference is that a new, independent studio in these tough times needs clients. They'd be thrilled to work with Microsoft, on IP they're already very familiar with.

2. Big difference between them licensing a property and Microsoft contracted them to develop a specific game

Not much difference, tbh. Still results in a game made for Microsoft, and with them working closely with MS. They used the term 'partner' in their press release.

It's clear Microsoft didn't believe in the studio and the games they wanted to make and neither did ABK. The studio I believe has been hit by 2 rounds of layoffs. If Microsoft really thought there was value here, they wouldn't have sent them on their way.

One round of layoffs. It seems clear both parties see this as a win-win scenario. Retain talents for your IP if needed, but free from management and wage bills.

So as I said, I wouldn't hold my breath, but there is the possibility that they have interest in Spyro or Crash even though Microsoft does not.

I love how they use the present tense to say they're working on a possible partnership with MS and you're scoffing. Did someone at MS tell you they have no interest in Spyro or Crash?
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
Toys were an Activision subsidiary, Activision is operating independently and were making Toys a CoD support studio.

Now they're free and partnering with MS separately, the likelihood of them making a new Crash, Spyro, Conker or Banjo now are a lot more than they were before.

You should be happy.
I am happy.

If Activision are operating independently was it them that made the job cuts, or Microsoft? I’m genuinely curious. IMO all of this ‘Bungie/ABK are independent!’ is nonsense.

If Microsoft had said ‘Toys For Bob are going to make XYZ’ Activision could say ‘nah’ and that would be the end of it?
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
They can easily have them work on those platformers even as an independent Studio.
Wasn't that how Sony worked with Insomniac for years?

Letting them spin out as Independent, still keeping links to MS and not being responsible for their salaries etc...seems like sound business. And better for staff than closing them down like some others have done.
It’s good for Toys For Bob no doubt. Not seeing the sound business rationale here by MS.
 

Ozriel

M$FT
I mean, OTOH it IS kind of "demotion" in a way considering they were part of ABK prior to the acquisition's closure, which would have assumed security within a larger structure. Which itself would have assumed remaining within that larger structure.

The real problem was that they just had significant layoffs as part of Microsoft, and before then were forced to make Call of Duty content under Kotick's Activision.
I suspect they're imagining that 'security' is overrated in this situation.

Wish them luck, though. They'll need it. Probably the safest path ahead is to stick to known IPs for a while...probably why they want to work with Microsoft. A newly independent studio stands a better chance with a Crash or Skylanders game than an unknown IP. Best to play it safe in this climate.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
The studio may in fact even partner with Microsoft on its next game, the company announced today.


Steve Harvey Wow GIF by NBC

Yeah that is a bit funny lol
 

Ozriel

M$FT
It’s good for Toys For Bob no doubt. Not seeing the sound business rationale here by MS.

TfB doesn't own any IP of their own, I believe. Xbox can add this to their cost-cutting plans (trimming manpower and salaries) while still keeping the talent on retainer if need be to make their IP.

Letting them spin off is probably saving some more XGS jobs.

So who owns the IP then if these guys went indie, Activision or MS? Or is the trademark stilll under Toys?

IP's owned by ABK, who are owned Microsoft.
No point making a distinction in IP ownership between a subsidiary and the parent company.
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
TfB doesn't own any IP of their own, I believe. Xbox can add this to their cost-cutting plans (trimming manpower and salaries) while still keeping the talent on retainer if need be to make their IP.
But they aren’t on a retainer. TFB can choose to partner with Microsoft on a project, or another company, or no one at all.

Sony or Nintendo could buy them tomorrow.
 
Last edited:

AV

We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
But they aren’t on a retainer. TFB can choose to partner with Microsoft on a project, or another company, or no one at all.

Sony or Nintendo could buy them tomorrow.

Nobody is buying TFB without the IP they've been working on... checks notes this century.
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
Nobody is buying TFB without the IP they've been working on... checks notes this century.
Lots of studios have been bought that don’t own their own IP, nearly all of Sony’s and the few that Nintendo have bought.
 
Toys for Bob has had that name for longer than many on this forum have been alive...



I was there, at the beginning. Star Control was a fun and quirky title, if a little light on content.

And then they released Star Control 2, a fuckin magnum opus of a space odyssey that still sits atop its throne decades later. It was magnificent.

People crow about pc gaming nowadays, but the mid 80’s to the right around 2000 were the primo days for me. It wasn’t about pushing insane visuals or 763 fps or performance at all, it was just fun, creative games. Thankfully the indie scene eventually stepped into that niche and has filled it quite nicely.
 

AV

We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
Lots of studios have been bought that don’t own their own IP, nearly all of Sony’s and the few that Nintendo have bought.

Look at what TFB were making before they became a COD support studio. Nothing but Spyro, and a little Crash, for 12 years. It's what they do and it's what they're gonna continue to do - make a Spyro 4 which Microsoft will put on other platforms because it's exactly the sort of thing that will sell well/better on Playstation.
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
Look at what TFB were making before they became a COD support studio. Nothing but Spyro, and a little Crash, for 12 years. It's what they do and it's what they're gonna continue to do - make a Spyro 4 which Microsoft will put on other platforms because it's exactly the sort of thing that will sell well/better on Playstation.
And Microsoft could have done this with full ownership of the studio without having to take a reduced percentage from the game’s sales.
 
The real problem was that they just had significant layoffs as part of Microsoft, and before then were forced to make Call of Duty content under Kotick's Activision.
I suspect they're imagining that 'security' is overrated in this situation.

Wish them luck, though. They'll need it. Probably the safest path ahead is to stick to known IPs for a while...probably why they want to work with Microsoft. A newly independent studio stands a better chance with a Crash or Skylanders game than an unknown IP. Best to play it safe in this climate.

I imagine they'll start with an IP Microsoft own (probably that rumored Banjo-Kazooie game...although that would be better as a BK/Spyro/Crash mash-up IMO especially looking at sales for Crash 4 not being too hot), but I'd be very surprised if they only work with Microsoft going forward. Nintendo, Sony, EA, Take-Two, Sega, Capcom, Square-Enix, Bandai-Namco, Devolver, Annapurna....the floodgates are open now for possible additional partners for them to do business with freely.

Still find it a bit odd that MS spent $69+ billion on ABK (including TFB), only to near-immediately make them independent. It kind of does show their pattern of using M&As to target IPs but not so much to retain talent. But I digress.

But they aren’t on a retainer. TFB can choose to partner with Microsoft on a project, or another company, or no one at all.

Sony or Nintendo could buy them tomorrow.

They could, but I highly doubt it. I can see either or both of them, especially Nintendo, partnering with TFB on a spinoff platformer however. It almost makes too much sense.

Look at what TFB were making before they became a COD support studio. Nothing but Spyro, and a little Crash, for 12 years. It's what they do and it's what they're gonna continue to do - make a Spyro 4 which Microsoft will put on other platforms because it's exactly the sort of thing that will sell well/better on Playstation.

Like Banjo said, chances are if they are going independent, it's partly because (assuming they had a say in this, anyhow) they want to do IP beyond just Crash and Spyro. Whether that means their own new IP, or IP belonging to other companies, TFB seem like they're up for it.

They specialize in 2.5D and 3D platformers, so I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo or even Sony do in fact decide to do a game with them in the future, or other publishers like say Capcom or Sega, or even other 3P devs in a collab like the It Takes Two developer. You don't go independent without wanting to "stretch your wings", that would include working on IP beyond the ones you've been tied to for the past decade.
 

AV

We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
And Microsoft could have done this with full ownership of the studio without having to take a reduced percentage from the game’s sales.

Who's now paying to make those games?
 

Holammer

Member
I half expect to see a lot of "Sony acquire this studio!!1" tweets and posts on forums, but you know what?
I think they ought to be acquired by Nintendo. Toys for Bob proved itself to be capable to producing (and exceeding) Nintendo visual quality with Crash 4 & Spyro Trilogy. With Nintendo's name, money, backing & IP to work with they could really shine.
 

AV

We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
Like Banjo said, chances are if they are going independent, it's partly because (assuming they had a say in this, anyhow) they want to do IP beyond just Crash and Spyro. Whether that means their own new IP, or IP belonging to other companies, TFB seem like they're up for it.

They specialize in 2.5D and 3D platformers, so I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo or even Sony do in fact decide to do a game with them in the future, or other publishers like say Capcom or Sega, or even other 3P devs in a collab like the It Takes Two developer. You don't go independent without wanting to "stretch your wings", that would include working on IP beyond the ones you've been tied to for the past decade.

Yeah, potentially - the wording is interesting. New "stories, characters and gameplay experiences" rather than "worlds" or, explicitly, IPs/franchises. Can see them wanting to do some of their own stuff, but as far as I'm concerned Spyro 4 is a lock. Exploring a partnership with MS and they close the statement with "keep your horns on". I would bet they were already working on Spyro 4 before they got relegated to a COD studio and they desperately want to finish it up.
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
Who's now paying to make those games?
Toys For Bob. And why do you pay to make a game? To make a healthy profit.

If this is such a genius stroke by Microsoft, I’m sure you’ll agree they should also make all of their studios independent.
 

AV

We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
Toys For Bob. And why do you pay to make a game? To make a healthy profit.

If this is such a genius stroke by Microsoft, I’m sure you’ll agree they should also make all of their studios independent.

If TFB want to make another Spyro game, who do they go to for the licence? What about Crash? Hell, they made a (bad) Tony Hawk game once I think. MS own the licences but now they don't have to fund squat.

No, the same business strategy does not apply to every single other studio they own. I don't know their internal financials, but this is clearly a measured business decision much like them deciding to take some very specific titles third party.

Is your alternative theory that Microsoft have just let them go for fun or what..?
 
Last edited:

Banjo64

cumsessed
If TFB want to make another Spyro game, who do they go to for the licence? What about Crash? Hell, they made a (bad) Tony Hawk game once I think. MS own the licences but now they don't have to fund squat.

No, the same business strategy does not apply to every single other studio they own. I don't know their internal financials, but this is clearly a measured business decision much like them deciding to take some very specific tiles third party.

Is your alternative theory that Microsoft have just let them go for fun or what..?
A reminder, this is the same company that just let Bungie go independent for shits and giggles and later ended up with like only 4 first party studios.
 

darthkarki

Member
This is the best fucking gaming news I've heard in ages.

Spyro 4 tease at the end, let's go!

100%. I was crushed when they got assigned as COD factory #5142, especially as rumors kept popping up that they were working on Spyro 4 which is absolutely one of my dream games. Love Reignited Trilogy, love Crash 4, desperately want them to get a chance at a new Spyro. Hope springs eternal!
 
  • Strength
Reactions: AV

Ozriel

M$FT
Still find it a bit odd that MS spent $69+ billion on ABK (including TFB), only to near-immediately make them independent. It kind of does show their pattern of using M&As to target IPs but not so much to retain talent. But I digress.

When was that pattern established?

Like Banjo said, chances are if they are going independent, it's partly because (assuming they had a say in this, anyhow) they want to do IP beyond just Crash and Spyro. Whether that means their own new IP, or IP belonging to other companies, TFB seem like they're up for it.

They specialize in 2.5D and 3D platformers, so I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo or even Sony do in fact decide to do a game with them in the future, or other publishers like say Capcom or Sega, or even other 3P devs in a collab like the It Takes Two developer. You don't go independent without wanting to "stretch your wings", that would include working on IP beyond the ones you've been tied to for the past decade.

They haven't made a Crash or Spyro game in a while now. Last one was Crash 4 in 2020. More likely they're not keen on working as a COD support studio and want to be in control of their own fate after the recent round of layoffs.
 

AV

We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
A reminder, this is the same company that just let Bungie go independent for shits and giggles and later ended up with like only 4 first party studios.

Sure, and Microsoft still had a minority stake, and they still made two more Xbox exclusive Halo games after that. So again, why do you think they've decided to do this..?
 
A reminder, this is the same company that just let Bungie go independent for shits and giggles and later ended up with like only 4 first party studios.
Halo was a multi-billion-dollar franchise with Halo 3 having up to that point in 2007 broken several sales records in the days and weeks after release...and yet Bungie wanted to move on from the IP. That is definitely not a trivial "shits and giggles" matter and it put both parties at odds. Microsoft valued the Halo IP and Bungie valued their creative decision making which made the agreement to separate easy when all was said and done. Bungie has yet to create any game that lives up to the Halo 1-REACH tsunami that took over the video game world between 2001 and 2011.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom