Activision studio Toys for Bob is going independent, exploring future partnership with Xbox

News
By
published

After years of working on Call of Duty support, Toys for Bob is breaking away as an independent team.

Spyro Reignited Trilogy
(Image credit: Activision)

What you need to know

  • Toys for Bob, one of the studios under Microsoft-owned Activision Blizzard, is going independent. 
  • Best known for working on games like the Spyro Reignited Trilogy, the team has primarily worked in a support role on Call of Duty for the past few years. 
  • While the team is going independent, the company is exploring a partnership with Microsoft.

Another studio is breaking away from its parent company. 

Microsoft's Activision studio Toys for Bob, best known for working on games like the Spyro Reignited Trilogy as well as providing support on the Call of Duty franchise, is breaking away as an independent studio, as shared by the studio's leadership on Thursday.

"With the same enthusiasm and passion, we believe that now is the time to take the studio and our future games to the next level. This opportunity allows us to return to our roots of being a small and nimble studio," write chief creative officer Paul Yan and studio head Avery Lodato.

"To make this news even more exciting, we’re exploring a possible partnership between our new studio and Microsoft. And while we’re in the early days of developing our next new game and a ways away from making any announcements, our team is excited to develop new stories, new characters, and new gameplay experiences."

As layoffs continue, some studios are going independent

The start of 2024 has been brutal for workers in the gaming industry, with several thousand laid off just two months in to the year, including across Microsoft, which was primarily focused on Activision Blizzard, Sony-owned PlayStation, Electronic Arts, and many more. 

Amid the layoffs, a handful of companies now seem to be going independent or finding private ownership. Earlier on Thursday, a report broke indicating that Embracer Group was selling Saber Interactive to private investors in a deal worth $500 million. 

Analysis: A surprising turn of events, but I'm hopeful for the future

Top recommendations

- Best Xbox headsets to get in 2024
- Best upcoming Xbox games
- Best gaming laptops in 2024
- Best Xbox controller deals
- Best Xbox hard drives

I'm definitely surprised to see Toys for Bob breaking away on its own right now, but this is certainly a vastly preferable alternative to the studio being shut down or continuing to only work on Call of Duty titles. 

In their statement, Toys for Bob closed by saying "Keep your horns on and your eyes open," potentially teasing a Spyro revival in the process. There has long been rumors that Toys for Bob might be returning to the 3D draconic platformer in the future, and it sounds as though Toys for Bob and Activision will be open to collaborating on those types of franchises, even if the IP remains owned by Microsoft. 

Indeed, I'd been hoping that after Activision Blizzard was acquired by Microsoft that the team would be working on more Crash and Spyro games. Maybe that'll still happen in the future, or maybe the partnership with Microsoft will be something completely new. Regardless, I'm hopeful for this newly independent team's future.

CATEGORIES
Samuel Tolbert
Samuel Tolbert
Freelance Writer

Samuel Tolbert is a freelance writer covering gaming news, previews, reviews, interviews and different aspects of the gaming industry, specifically focusing on Xbox and PC gaming on Windows Central. You can find him on Twitter @SamuelTolbert.

4 Comments Comment from the forums
  • Reid Fenton1
    I don’t get this.

    I get why Microsoft is laying people off, they acquired another standalone company, there’s a lot of redundant staff. They already have their own accounting, legal and HR teams for example. Honestly, with that in mind, the 1900 job cut number seemed a bit small.

    I also see why they killed the Blizzard survival game, sounds like that thing was a mess due to executive decisions about what engine to use. Okay, don’t toss good money after bad, just cut your losses there, fine.

    I also understand that some of the cuts were just teams that had a few too many people here and there in various roles. This would only be a position here and there, but across the number of studios Microsoft has, it can add up.

    Lastly, I’ve worked for large companies before. Sometimes you just have people who need to be let go and large scale layoffs are a good time to take care of that. Harsh, but true.

    What I don’t understand is why you’d take a whole team which has a good track record and just let them leave/close them (I’m assuming the option was to close the studio but then some insiders said “no, let us take it private”) after paying huge money for Activision. There are clearly projects the studio wants to work on, and work on with Microsoft, why not just have them do so in house?
    Reply
  • fjtorres5591
    Reid Fenton1 said:
    I don’t get this.

    I get why Microsoft is laying people off, they acquired another standalone company, there’s a lot of redundant staff. They already have their own accounting, legal and HR teams for example. Honestly, with that in mind, the 1900 job cut number seemed a bit small.

    I also see why they killed the Blizzard survival game, sounds like that thing was a mess due to executive decisions about what engine to use. Okay, don’t toss good money after bad, just cut your losses there, fine.

    I also understand that some of the cuts were just teams that had a few too many people here and there in various roles. This would only be a position here and there, but across the number of studios Microsoft has, it can add up.

    Lastly, I’ve worked for large companies before. Sometimes you just have people who need to be let go and large scale layoffs are a good time to take care of that. Harsh, but true.

    What I don’t understand is why you’d take a whole team which has a good track record and just let them leave/close them (I’m assuming the option was to close the studio but then some insiders said “no, let us take it private”) after paying huge money for Activision. There are clearly projects the studio wants to work on, and work on with Microsoft, why not just have them do so in house?
    MS has done this before--Bungie--and it makes sense.

    The staff were proud of Halo but didn't want to spend their entire career doing Halo and asked MS to let them go. Ballmer agreed...with conditions. MS kept the IP and any employees that chose to stay. Quite a few did. The alternative was for the staff to quit one by one and re-create Bungie under a different name, leaving MS with with Halo, some employees, and the name of the studio. MS didn't think the name was worth the trouble.

    Think about it: what is a game studio? Staff, IP, and studio name.

    Considering the studio has been mostly a support studio with no active project and none planned, hence the layoff of half the staff, MS can let go those that want to leave. Presumably any studio-created IP, if any, stays.

    As for dealing with Xbox as independents, MS hires support studios on a project by project basis and if that is what TOYS FOR BOB was to be, letting them go costs MS nothing.

    At the end of the day, why force people to stay who don't want to work for ABK under MS? It's not as if there aren't plenty of experienced developers looking for work. And in today's environment there aren't many other studios willing to ask for their "freedom". Now, if it was ID, Obsidian, or Ninja Theory , things might be different. Those studios have significant inhouse tools and expertise but a smaller studio doing support on COD? No heartburn.
    Reply
  • Reid Fenton1
    fjtorres5591 said:
    letting them go costs MS nothing

    It does though. They just purchased this studio and the studio would have an asset value associated to it that will now need to be written down. Typically, these asset values are at their peak immediately after an acquisition when a premium has been paid to acquire the company. It won’t move the needle much for a company the size of Microsoft, but it’s still a cost nonetheless.

    That said, I get your point, but I don’t think the two are comparable and that’s why I didn’t mention Bungie. Bungie went independent as you said because they didn’t want to churn out Halo after Halo and that’s what Microsoft wanted. You’re right employees would have left and Microsoft wouldn’t have been left with anything more than they got by letting Bungie go. Less probably.

    What I’m saying is that if Toys for Bob doesn’t want to be a support studio, and wants to make their own games, fine, let them. They have a good history with that. That can be done inside Microsoft as well as outside.

    I suppose it comes down to what is the issue, is the issue that they don’t want to work for Microsoft or is it that they want to work on other stuff? If the former, which doesn’t seem to be the case since they’re still looking to partner with Microsoft, then yes, it’s comparable to Bungie, and this makes sense. If the latter, then I would have rather seen Microsoft enable the team by encouraging them to start new projects, the same as they’ll have to do as an independent studio.
    Reply
  • fjtorres5591
    Reid Fenton1 said:
    It does though. They just purchased this studio and the studio would have an asset value associated to it that will now need to be written down. Typically, these asset values are at their peak immediately after an acquisition when a premium has been paid to acquire the company. It won’t move the needle much for a company the size of Microsoft, but it’s still a cost nonetheless.

    That said, I get your point, but I don’t think the two are comparable and that’s why I didn’t mention Bungie. Bungie went independent as you said because they didn’t want to churn out Halo after Halo and that’s what Microsoft wanted. You’re right employees would have left and Microsoft wouldn’t have been left with anything more than they got by letting Bungie go. Less probably.

    What I’m saying is that if Toys for Bob doesn’t want to be a support studio, and wants to make their own games, fine, let them. They have a good history with that. That can be done inside Microsoft as well as outside.

    I suppose it comes down to what is the issue, is the issue that they don’t want to work for Microsoft or is it that they want to work on other stuff? If the former, which doesn’t seem to be the case since they’re still looking to partner with Microsoft, then yes, it’s comparable to Bungie, and this makes sense. If the latter, then I would have rather seen Microsoft enable the team by encouraging them to start new projects, the same as they’ll have to do as an independent studio.
    They "hope" to keep on working for MS/ABK.
    And what exactly is the value of a support studio?
    As I said, the only issue is the IP and, maybe, the branding in the studio name.
    The likely explanation is they don't want to give up the staff targetted for firing and think they can survive on their own as a unit.
    Good luck with that.

    As to MS paying to buy the studio: yes, technically. They paid for everythink ABK, buildings, leases, employment contracts, and brand names. It was:a bundle deal. But not everything they bought has a positive value. Some things they bought were redundant or had negative value. In buying ABK MS got things they wanted, (KING, BLIZZARD, COD and its core studios, a ton of fallow IP), things they can use or do without, and things they don't want (the ODYSSEY game and those working on that mess). Hence the firings.

    As for paying for TOYS FOR BOB specifically, it was a bundle deal. They were part of the bundle but given that MS closed their offices and laid off half the staff they clearly had little use for what they could do. Letting the rest go doesn't move the needle much if at all, especially if they still end up working for MS. And don't forget that any nominal "loss" from the deal can be written off taxes. That might actually be worth more to MS than the work of the 100 or so staff they hadn't alrrady let go. For all we know, those "survivors" were to be reassigned to other studios in the area.

    Again: in recent times they have been a support studio, which is to say doing grunt work, debugging and sundry. Hardly engaging and creative work. Odds are, whatever project they work on as indies was something they pitched to MS and got turned down. They believe in it, MS didn't.

    Finally, remember what OBSIDIAN's chief Urquhart(sp?) said about joining MS after years as a indie. He was happy not to have to worry anymore about making payroll. Life as an indie studio isn't all fuzzy bunnies and unicorns.

    Hopefully things turn out well for TOYS FOR BOB and they do prosper like Bungie (who left to do DESTINY) but these are different times. Luck will be needed.
    Reply