I only recently found out about the rumored Meta Quest 3 S. I thought it was cool Meta Quest is using the Xbox naming scheme for the lowest sku model to be called “S”. It also got me thinking because as a recent Quest 3 owner, I’m appreciative of the backwards compatibility to previous hardware, giving me lots of games to choose from.
I find it interesting that all 5 major US big tech Videogame hardware manufacturers Apple (ipad) Google (Android devices), Microsoft (Xbox), Steam (deck) and Meta (Quest) all offer significant guarantees of backwards compatibility.
PlayStation and Nintendo are the actual unpredictable companies in the gaming space.
It’s just a guess from here, but many speculate that the reason T4B left is to escape from CMA/FTC demand for Microsoft to keep in order for acquisition to be kept. While not clear, it’s said they need to stay in CoD box forever or 10 years at least. So why not let them free and then still have them create a game or so.
Again, speculation. No one knows the real reason for the action. It’s definitely no bad blood between them, but maybe the history from old ABK regime. We don’t know.
I think it’s more under the CMA deal the games they develop still lose streaming rights to Ubisoft but as an independent dealing with Microsoft the full games right and streaming could be under Microsoft.
Wasn’t it previously clarified that it relates to any ABK IP? If I remember correctly it also relates to any games developed / co-developed by ABK even if they aren’t ABK IP.
Therefore even if Rare developed Crash Bandicoot the streaming rights would go to Ubisoft as it’s a ABK IP or if Blizzard developed Age of Empires it would also apply etc.
In this scenario even if T4B are no longer part of ABK, the IP would still would be part of ABK.
No it won’t. All ABK games and games developed with ABK are regarded as ABK IPs and therefore the streaming rights go to Ubisoft but Toys4Bob are now in dependent and can work on IPs from XGS like Banjo, Blinx, Voodoo Vince,Conker and other IPs that are not associated with ABK however if they weren’t independent and worked on any of this IPs it would be considered as ABK games.
This just allows Microsoft to remove them from ABK and have them do non ABK games. Personally I’d like them to make Blinx into a Sonic/ Ori game. Have a redesign of Blinx that’s similar to Sonic with an Ori format. Maybe something like the below.
Yes, IF T4B are working on a Non-ABK IP, however I’m working under the assumption that they are working on a new Spyro game (as per all the current rumours/expectations) which is still a ABK IP.
Now they are independent I would imagine Microsoft would contract them to work on what they expect to be most profitable.
With this in mind I expect a new Spyro to sell more than say a Voodoo Vince 2.
As disappointing as it is I think there would have been more chance for some of these old XGS revivals if T4B was still in-house - Blinx or Banjo would be awesome.
I don’t think Microsoft care enough about the cloud rights to make them go independent to retain them. They are loosing the cloud rights to COD which is the biggest game in the world, Blinx or Conker is nothing in comparison.
.
I again say gamers™ really don’t deserve nice things