By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Has Activision finally become worse than EA? Toys 4 Bob moved to CoD support, every Acti studio now on CoD

AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Darwinianevolution said:

Wait, so Toys for Bob, the creators of the incredibly succesful Skylanders series, one of the most succesful and most profitable IPs of the 7th gen, and the studio that has brought Crash Bandicoot back into relevance, is now relegated to a support studio for CoD? How is that a logic business decission? How much support does CoD need to function, anyway?

They aren't the studio who did that, though. That was Vicarious Visions with their Crash Trilogy remaster. All Toys For Bob did was co-develop the port to systems outside of the Playstation 4. Crash 4, which was made by Toys for Bob, barely made any splash at all.

People acted like Activision was stupid for not bringing Crash back ... but then all people ended up doing was supporting the nostalgia product and not the actual continuation of the series. As expected. 

I thought Crash 4 sold pretty well all things considered. It was #1 first week in the UK, beating out EA's Star Wars Squadrons by just a hair. #1 in Switzerland, Australia, France, and New Zealand first week. Made 11th place on September NPD in the US with just 2 days of sales, then 10th place on October NPD. The late Xbox Series, PS5, Switch, and PC ports of the game boosted it back up to 15th place on March NPD. Superdata estimated digital sales for Crash 4 in the first month between Xbox One and PS4 at 402,000, compared to 520,000 first month digital sales for Crash N. Sane Trilogy and 552,000 for Crash Team Racing Nitro Fueled, which isn't a huge drop, and we don't have the digital first month estimate for Crash 4 on Xbox Series, PS5, Switch, and PC yet. 

Considering Crash 4 doesn't seem to be super high budget, I can pretty much guarantee it turned a profit from the initial PS4/XB1 release alone, and was making pure profit by the time the Xbox Series, PS5, Switch, and PC ports released in March.



Around the Network
shikamaru317 said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

They aren't the studio who did that, though. That was Vicarious Visions with their Crash Trilogy remaster. All Toys For Bob did was co-develop the port to systems outside of the Playstation 4. Crash 4, which was made by Toys for Bob, barely made any splash at all.

People acted like Activision was stupid for not bringing Crash back ... but then all people ended up doing was supporting the nostalgia product and not the actual continuation of the series. As expected. 

I thought Crash 4 sold pretty well all things considered. It was #1 first week in the UK, beating out EA's Star Wars Squadrons by just a hair. #1 in Switzerland, Australia, France, and New Zealand first week. Made 11th place on September NPD in the US with just 2 days of sales, then 10th place on October NPD. The late Xbox Series, PS5, Switch, and PC ports of the game boosted it back up to 15th place on March NPD. Superdata estimated digital sales for Crash 4 in the first month between Xbox One and PS4 at 402,000, compared to 520,000 first month digital sales for Crash N. Sane Trilogy and 552,000 for Crash Team Racing Nitro Fueled, which isn't a huge drop, and we don't have the digital first month estimate for Crash 4 on Xbox Series, PS5, Switch, and PC yet. 

Considering Crash 4 doesn't seem to be super high budget, I can pretty much guarantee it turned a profit from the initial PS4/XB1 release alone, and was making pure profit by the time the Xbox Series, PS5, Switch, and PC ports released in March.

I don't think so.

Superdata is very inaccurate. IIRC they predicted Three Houses sold like 800k digital units in it's launch month despite only being out for 5 days and despite Zhugex posting something on Resetera that basically made this an impossible accomplishment, even with the voucher program (which to be fair, I can't find the post because I don't have the bookmark anymore and it was a very obscure post, but nevertheless...) 

Crash 4 also did 80% worse physically in the U.K. than Crash N.Sane Trilogy, which to be fair does have to do with the digital ratio difference between the two years, but even then the increase in digital sales was most likely only around a 35% increase (because iirc, digital sales on PS5 were at an average of about 45-55% in 2017/2018?) AT BEST. Meaning that at best that's a loss of 45% of sales. 

I also think that N. Sane Trilogy is just way better as a bargain bin purchase than 4 and will have had much better legs when all is said and done. You get 3 games in one and on top of that it's a nostalgia grab. 

So eh, while I think Crash 4 did "decent", I think "pretty well" is a bit of a stretch. It's really not surprising that they put the developer on something else. It just seems like all take and little backup from the fanbase. While there is certainly still a healthy community, a lot of the casual fandom is content with just living in the trilogy they grew up on. And that's fine. 

Last edited by AngryLittleAlchemist - on 02 May 2021

AngryLittleAlchemist said:

Darwinianevolution said:

Wait, so Toys for Bob, the creators of the incredibly succesful Skylanders series, one of the most succesful and most profitable IPs of the 7th gen, and the studio that has brought Crash Bandicoot back into relevance, is now relegated to a support studio for CoD? How is that a logic business decission? How much support does CoD need to function, anyway?

They aren't the studio who did that, though. That was Vicarious Visions with their Crash Trilogy remaster

They were remakes



"Quagmire, are you the type of guy who takes 'no' for an answer ?"
"My lawyer doesn't allow me to answer that question"

PSN ID: skmblake | Feel free to add me

People are making mountains out of mole hills , would you let a part of your workforce sit idle during the downtime between game completion and the next one in what is a cyclical industry, or do you put those people onto other work that should help alleviate crunch, now until Activision say they are being absorbed into those COD studios or closed down or they get the call of duties are resumed ( pun intended) people may have a point, but only the future will tell and even then there may be other circumstances at play.

Last edited by mjk45 - on 01 May 2021

EA is no better or worse than any AAA publisher at this point. They're all as equally bad. EA is singled out for being one of the trendsetters of being shitty over a decade ago. Now they are all on equal footing of awfulness.



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

Around the Network

Crash 4 did well, but the only metrics that matter are Activision's, and clearly it didn't meet expectations.

Being a CoD support studio doesn't mean they won't work on other stuff, and I don't think this is the end of crash (prob the end of a big budget crash though).

Definitely becoming CoD support studio is problematic in some ways, but it wouldn't have been done if it wasn't what the company needed right now.

If This means no more Crash or Spyro, then it is what it is.



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Darwinianevolution said:

Wait, so Toys for Bob, the creators of the incredibly succesful Skylanders series, one of the most succesful and most profitable IPs of the 7th gen, and the studio that has brought Crash Bandicoot back into relevance, is now relegated to a support studio for CoD? How is that a logic business decission? How much support does CoD need to function, anyway?

They aren't the studio who did that, though. That was Vicarious Visions with their Crash Trilogy remaster. All Toys For Bob did was co-develop the port to systems outside of the Playstation 4. Crash 4, which was made by Toys for Bob, barely made any splash at all.

People acted like Activision was stupid for not bringing Crash back ... but then all people ended up doing was supporting the nostalgia product and not the actual continuation of the series. As expected. 

Everytime people on vgc and outside acts like companies are morons and they would run them much better I just sigh, because in the end it just as you put. Whatever these people say is best ends up not being the success they think it would, but they rather think companies are evil and stupid instead of looking for highest profit.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Honestly I don't care for developers being ""forced"" to work in a specific IP as long their working contracts and reasonable and respected then that's fine, it's not like they were hired to choose what to develop, they were hired to work in whatever the company seems fit

If a studio only wants to release one game let it be. For instance, Game Freak has been releasing mostly Pokemon for like 30 years and nobody really complain 

I don't like CoD and don't plan to ever play a new CoD in my life, but I guess this studio is not my posession, they have freedom to publish whatever they want if it's not for me, I will just keep ignoring it 



Estimates suggest Crash 4 sold just under 1m in its first month and would have sold even more throughout fall if it was on the new platforms. Longterm I'm sure it'll be a multi million seller whilst having a budget the fraction of a traditional AAA. But Activision are clearly only looking for cash cows and probably pumped so much money into its marketing that they artificially inflated its budget to 2/3x what it needed to be.

Maybe they'll continue with Crash/Spyro but outsource the work and be comfortable with 2-3m sellers. Otherwise I do hope they sell the IPs to another publisher who value having a diversified portfolio which tackles different age markets.



IcaroRibeiro said:

Honestly I don't care for developers being ""forced"" to work in a specific IP as long their working contracts and reasonable and respected then that's fine, it's not like they were hired to choose what to develop, they were hired to work in whatever the company seems fit

If a studio only wants to release one game let it be. For instance, Game Freak has been releasing mostly Pokemon for like 30 years and nobody really complain 

I don't like CoD and don't plan to ever play a new CoD in my life, but I guess this studio is not my posession, they have freedom to publish whatever they want if it's not for me, I will just keep ignoring it 

Pretty much. All of us in our work basically do what our employer asks for, and if we are unhappy we look for a better place.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."