Disney Infinity Reveals “Toy Box Mode Combat”

Disney’s frankly bizarre attempt to make a game that encompasses a large chunk of their major CG franchises (and Pirates Of The Caribbean) in a single package arrives later this month and actually, well, this trailer makes it look pretty fun. Disney Infinity is essentially two games, the Play Set Mode, in which you can play games from specific franchises, and Toy Box Mode, which is a sandbox in which the game becomes less coherent, and markedly more interesting, as the trailer showing the Monsters Inc cast fighting in the same space as The Incredibles aptly demonstrates. Below. I mean.

I’m not saying I’d choose to play this, but I am saying that I am going to be playing this. As a Dad, it seems inevitable.


  1. Jannakar says:

    It’s a pretty transparent Skylanders clone. I hope Disney choke on it.

    • noodlecake says:

      Well when I first heard about what Skylanders was I felt the same towards Activision. Activision are a huge evil corporation who barely come up with any of their own idea. I think Skylanders is possibly the first original idea they’ve ever had, and as an idea it’s a fairly evil exploitative one. You can’t blame Disney for jumping on the bandwagon. I’m sure you can’t patent an idea like this. It’d be like patenting the idea of having console video games on CDs, and if that were possible then Phillips would be suing everyone.

      • Nevard says:

        I don’t know like, if you look at it from a pure money efficiency point of view then yeah sure, it’s “evil”.
        But if you stop regarding action figure characters as DLC unlocks… isn’t that kind of pretty cool? Like, what kid wouldn’t want to be able to use a physical toy that they own in real life to do things in a video game. That’s like some kind of wizardry.

        You can be cynical about it if you want but if the people it’s designed for like it then where’s the problem? I think from a child’s point of view Skylanders and its ilk would be singificantly less enjoyable if it was just a game with 50 characters rather than a game where you play as your personal action figure.

        • mcgormer says:

          my buddy’s step-aunt makes $72 every hour on the computer. She has been laid off for seven months but last month her pay check was $16823 just working on the computer for a few hours. Here’s the site to read more ……………… link to xurl.es

      • Tei says:

        Care you guys explain what “Skylanders” is? I was the last person that heard about Club Penguin and that sort of thing. I don’t have childrens myself (but I suppose I can get one 5 years old from the park, if I need one).

        I heard Skylanders is the reason Vivendi is breaking with Actiblizard, and why the Moon distance to Earth has grown. But nobody has explained to me what exactly is.

        • kalirion says:

          As I understand it, Skylanders is a game that comes with a few characters, and to unlock the additional ones you have to purchase toys. And some (optional?) areas of the game are not accessible unless you have a character with the power to access it.

        • iainl says:

          The game itself is a reasonably good 3D action RPG with platform bits. The big fuss is because instead of comin with 50 characters or whatever, you only get three in the box and the rest are effectively DLC. Because each character is a little action figure toy with an RFID chip in the base – the game writes the stats to the figure as you level them up, purchase (using in-game currency, not as in F2P nonsense) special moves and other upgrades, etc. Each character is noticeably different – there are your usual tank, archer, Mage types and so on, and within those tropes you have variance too.

          This is great, because kids can take their favourite figure round a friend’s house and continue to level them while playing co-op, or the various Power Stone-style versus modes. And the art design is brilliant – my son plays with them as figures more than the game itself.

          But this is also evil, because the game has secret areas that are only accessible to particular character groups, so you can’t 100% it without buying £100+ worth of stuff. It really depends on whether you like the figures as toys.

  2. distantlurker says:

    *scratches chin* I’m guessing how the patents work for this. “Toys for bob” came up with the original idea of toys interacting in games, and it was Acti (Skylanders) who picked them up.

    Top guess would have to be that Disney must be paying to licence the patents… either that or there is one *helluva* legal case brewing…

    • gunny1993 says:

      Isn’t one of the basic tenants of patenting that you can’t patent an idea, only a system of making said idea viable?

      • jrodman says:

        Indeed, patents are things granted *when filed for*, for specific implementations solving a given problem. You don’t get them just for having the implentation.

        Of course in the modern era, patents are heavily abused, with the filings being deliberately generic to cover as much as possible. Also the idea of “specific implementation” has undergone a series of loosenings to the point where patents now efffectively cover generic algorithms.

        In addition, there is the practice of patent minefielding. Perhaps you have a specific idea of how to do a useful thing, that you implement and sell. So you get a patent on it. But you don’t stop there, you patent every other way you can possibly think of to do that thing, even though you don’t think most of them will even work, and have no intention of using or selling stuff doing any of them.

        So as a result, there are ideas that are effectively locked up by patents.

        However that doesn’t extend to stuff like “toys fighting in a game”. That isn’t covered by any of the intellectual property concepts. Not patents, copyright, trademarks, or trade secrets.

    • distantlurker says:

      For goodness sake, it would have taken you both less time to google it than type your dismissals, here, lmgtfy – link to patentscope.wipo.int

      Now; *dusts hands*

      Do we think Disney licence this patent, or no?

  3. Cooper says:

    Those animations look really poor.

    Absolutely none of the fine artistry Pixar have developed in getting huge amounts of character and meaning into the smallest aspects of animated movements without the need for dialogue has made it into this game…

    • tnzk says:

      Not to be captain obvious, but it’s probably due to one of the several below:

      1) Budget constraints
      2) Hardware constraints
      3) They’re not using Pixar’s artists for the modeling or animation.

      • bstard says:

        I think it’s a proper representation of the not so good movies.

  4. Tuhalu says:

    I read the title on this article and the first think I thought was “Modal Kombat”.

  5. qwagor says:

    And this is reported on RPS, why?

  6. Iskariot says:

    I pray to the gods of gaming that they treat the Star Wars IP with more care.

  7. MacTheGeek says:

    Infinity needs to wither and die in a hurry.

    I have a wife who’s a Disney nut, and we have a baby on the way. If Infinity is still a thing in five or six years, I’m in deep deep trouble.

  8. Shodex says:

    Isn’t Pirates a little out of place among The Incredibles and Monsters Inc?

  9. GM says:

    Okay… that does look fun. I have to give them that. I will probably try their game :)

  10. smeagolheart says:

    Super Smash Disney Melee