Ubisoft's CEO says that Skull And Bones is the first QUAD AAAA game the industry has ever seen.

Best company to hate-follow since hate following became popular🤗Please never change, Ubisoft.

Ubisoft on Skull and Bones' $70 Price Tag: "It's a AAAA Game"

In a move seemingly aimed at hyping up the upcoming release, the Co-Founder and CEO of Ubisoft, Yves Guillemot, has commented on the studio's soon-to-finally-be-launched action-adventure game Skull and Bones, defending its $70 price tag.

During a recent Q&A session following a financial report, Guillemot explained why, despite featuring live service mechanics, which were revealed in the Year 1 roadmap video, Skull and Bones will charge its players a full price.

According to the CEO, the upcoming game's scale is the main reason why it deserves to be priced at $70, something that players will see for themselves when the game finally launches. Guillemot further defended Skull and Bones by labeling it a "AAAA game", suggesting it offers a more expansive experience than typical AAA titles.

"You will see that Skull and Bones is a fully-fledged game," the CEO said. "It's a very big game, and we feel that people will really see how vast and complete that game is. It's a really full AAA… AAAA game that will deliver in the long run."

AAAA or not, Skull and Bones is set to become a historic game one way or the other, whether as a title that helped Ubisoft return to its former glory or as a coup de grâce to the already-demoralized studio. At the moment and until February 11, the game is available in open beta, with the official launch scheduled to take place on February 16, 2024.

This is what QUAD AAAA gets you.

"Quadruple-A." I'm rolling my eyes so hard they're threatening to pop right out of my sockets.

Do these corporate C-whatevers actually believe we buy this shit?

I have zero interest in this game. Wasn't this game announced back in like 2017?

I'll wait and see. It has potential... or had. Quite frankly it wouldn't surprise me it if utterly sucked, but hey it might surprise me and I'm receptive to that possibility.

Issues with this game's development NEVER got addressed by the press though. And given that, I can see a lot of "we waited years for this!" kind of reactions.

Just to set expectations, Ubisoft Montréal had their Singapore studio providing endless support for their Assassin's Creed games without a chance to work on this. And it's quite clear from the last AC game how bare bones the world development was, and this finally getting done, that that was indeed the case.

Actually I'm still pissed about how Ubisoft botched the Far Cry 3 Classic and never fixed it, just the audio kills me. And Ubisoft supports method of closing tickets is to infuriate customers into quit bothering trying to deal with customer support then. Okay, fuuuck this game I don't care if it's the bee's knees, fuuck Ubisoft

🖕🤬🖕

But it is important people people know where the blame lies. It's those goddamn hoser frogs in Montréal that kept the project in development hell for years, not the talent at the Singapore studios.

The ones that waste their time on forums, no. But your average joe, especially after seeing an overload of ads for the game on youtube and twitch, yes, very possibly.

@lamprey263: Where exactly are you seeing any potential in this? Have you checked the video i posted above? It looks incredibly dull. If they were charging $19.99 for it, it wouldn't make much sense, way too overpriced, but they're charging $70 AND have a shitload of mtx in the game. This, just like the suicide squad game, is what's wrong with gaming. Good thing is, its guaranteed to bomb. That's all ubisoft deserves, failures.

Meh. If the game turns out good and is something that interests me, I’ll play it. If not then I won’t. Don’t really care what they want to designate this game as. 🤷‍♂️

@hardwenzen: I ain't buying it anyways don't ask me to defend it

Is there a quick reference guide someone can provide, as to what exactly constitutes indie, AA, AAA and now AAAA? Is it money spent, depth of mechanics, size of the studio, a slip of the keyboard?

This is just marketing!

So it costs as much as most new games. Am I missing something here?

Are you of your Effing meds or something Hardwenzen?

He is saying, this is a fulminant pirate adventure on the same level of RedDeadRedemption2?

saw the article from the vid in the op a couple of days ago when people were complaining about the price and that it was purely a sailing game, no on foot land exploration (so black flag only you can't get off the ship).

from the beta reactions sounds like its exactly what you'd expect from ubisoft.

supposedly the first task you need to do is logging, which is sailing round and finding a tree to saw down via a mini game because you cant leave the ship, but if other players have got to the trees first, you have to hang about and wait for them to regrow lol.

what an amazing first impression for the world's first aaaa game.

and then it's more fetch quests and resource collecting before it becomes something similar to the division but at sea.

it's been in development for years. was due to launch in 2018 but they went through several different concepts trying to figure out exactly what the game should be. they pretty much started over in 2020 when they brought the writer of pandora tomorrow in to reboot it according to that article

lol. That's the dumbest shit I've heard.

I do like that he said in another interview that Ubisoft has been making bad games lately, and are currently trying to go back to making good games. Was very nice to hear from him.

That.

Quadruple A in the sense of cost to developer? If so then yes. Lol likely the first AAAA game.

if its about quality the first AAAA game would be MGS4 in 2008 or TLOU in 2013. Games like BOTW,GOW, Elden Ring, BG3, TLOU2 would also be later AAAA.

Ubisoft hasn't made a single AAA-quality game since... Assassin's Creed II in 2009. The rest are A-AA.

In terms of cost/budget? I'd argue GTA 6 would be the first first AAAA-developed game. Maybe Star Citizen lol.

They took AC4 (which is like 10 years old) and removed most of the on-land mechanics. The game looks like it’s made in the same engine.

This is AA if anything… 🤷🏻‍♂️

Is this some kind of sick French joke referring to the mishaps that occurred during the development of this game at Ubisoft Singapore?

Former Ubisoft executives Arrested After sexuAl hArassment investigation

Jk, haha. Hopefully it will not be as disappointing as many expect.

I will try it out on Ubisoft+

lol yeah right.

1. That's not a good thing. It just means they just wasted even more money on it.

2. Are we just making up terms now?

3. The game's development has been plagued with troubles for years, of course they're going to hype it to hyperbolic levels.

With that said, Ubisoft has been releasing some really good titles lately--AC Mirage, Avatar game, Prince of Persia...even Division 2 has been well-maintained as a service-based game--and as much as I want to hate on Ubisoft, the odds are in their favor this might actually be an OK game.

iirc Star Wars: The Old Republic (published by EA, developed by Bioware) cost like $500 million to develop, I think that might have been the first "AAAA". That was in 2011 dollars, too, so it's probably closer to $600 million today. If we feel like we have to use that term.

I don't think we should use it because now we are just going to see publishers get into dick measuring contests with each other, with the final test of screwing over their customers the most being the deciding factor. But that's just me...

@mrbojangles25: Sheesh that's crazy.

Wow! That's a whole extra A of value!

So more budget and less fun. Gotcha.

don't forget more microtransactions!

Yeah. And bad marketing too.

Didn't read. What an asshole.

ive always thought budget / studio size, but sounds like some in here think quality

We bought the "Triple-A" BS, so...

It's Ubisoft.

@hardwenzen: so excited for this. Ubisoft has been on a roll lately with prince of persia and avatar. This game is probably going to be amazing.

wrong on all counts. It would be halo infinite, or any of the halo games to be honest. Lol at tlou...that is a solid 8/10 game, maybe 8.5/10. Tlou2 is ass. MGS4 is a 6/10 movie game. Lol at gta6 too.

I only play AAAAA games. AAAA games are lame.

This is why you fail.

I only play Ax10^8 games. I am part of the Master Race, after all.

Idunno, painting the fake pyramid in Vegas in Doritos branding is pretty bad

And this is why I could never be in marketing. My brain is too common.

Whereas I and I would assume most other people would think "Hey what if we just add another 'A' to the ranking syste---wait, no, that's dumb. People are too smart to buy into that" an actual marketing person would think it's a good idea, and their boss (who only has the position from failing upwards and knowing the right folks) would totally buy into it.

Likewise, someone was sitting in their office at Doritos brainstorming ideas and thought "Superbowl. Doritos. Vegas. Vegas...Vegas...Vegas has...a pyramid. Doritos are triangles! PAINT THE PYRAMID DORITOS! EUREKA!"

@Macutchi: Right. That's more or less what I thought as well. But at what point does it change from one level to the next?

Like, is indie 1-25 employees, with a less than $5 million dollar budget? And have 27 employees makes you AA? Or is it just a more overall sense?

It doesn't really matter, but there was definitely a time when it seemed like everything was going the cod big budget route, and all I wanted was the midrange fun games; like Darksiders and Vanquish. So even if it's just buzzword nonsense, there is a distinction between the game.

I know nothing turns me off from a project more than game publishers using the term AAAA, even if the project turns out to be decent. You've got to do more to convince me to buy a game that looks like a Black Flag DLC mode.

Def wouldn't say Ubisoft make "quality". They have budget for eye candy for sure.

Good games? Rayman, and... something? Probably something else but otherwise mostly slop that looks nice in trailers.

Whenever a CEO says anything usually just some fucking snake trying to justify being a ****.

yeah i think it's just a sense, afaik there's no clear distinction, it's just a vague taxonomy for ranking video games based on their budgets and everything that cascades from that e.g. development resources, marketing, distribution, game scope etc. there was a time, many years ago, that aaa was a term to get gamers excited because there was an implied level of quality associated with it, whereas these days there's so much cynicism around the term it's almost a pejorative.

yeah it's 100% not a quality measure. if it was, relatively speaking against the rest of the industry, most of ubi's output for the past ten years would be a, maybe aa at best. hopefully yves whats-his-face is calling it an aaaa game because they've spent an absolute fortune to get it out. wouldn't it be a shame if it was another critical flop

Worked up the stamina to play a video game tonight—Skull and Bones—two hours.

I think it is a AAAA game in ingenuity.

These companies are so f*cking stupid. Most likely most certainly spent over 100M on the game, and they think to make a profit on THIS? How detached from reality must you be? Like serious, they deserve to be trolled so hard that the official twitter for the game closes.

AAAA game btw. Holy shit.

@hardwenzen said:

These companies are so f*cking stupid. Most likely most certainly spent over 100M on the game, and they think to make a profit on THIS? How detached from reality must you be? Like serious, they deserve to be trolled so hard that the official twitter for the game closes.

AAAA game btw. Holy shit.

The things you highlight would probably crash the game. The game is perfectly set up.

The resource mini-games are great to me as they are just a different change of pace. I love the game so far—I see myself playing it for along time.

My only gripe is the graphics could have been better—but that also—would crash the game.

You like difficult games hardwenzen. The game can be confusing and not too hand holdy. You might actually like it if you played It.

My opinion, it is like Morrowind, a great game, only with ships.

@strategyfn said:

@hardwenzen said:

These companies are so f*cking stupid. Most likely most certainly spent over 100M on the game, and they think to make a profit on THIS? How detached from reality must you be? Like serious, they deserve to be trolled so hard that the official twitter for the game closes.

AAAA game btw. Holy shit.

The things you highlight would probably crash the game. The game is perfectly set up.

The resource mini-games are great to me as they are just a different change of pace. I love the game so far—I see myself playing it for along time.

My only gripe is the graphics could have been better—but that also—would crash the game.

You like difficult games hardwenzen. The game can be confusing and not too hand holdy. You might actually like it if you played It.

My opinion, it is like Morrowind, a great game, only with ships.

Dude, you're the only person on this planet that defends this $70 scam. When it gets a 5/10, then what?

Probably ashamed of the game but Ubisoft had to market it cause obligation and investment from Singapore. Would be incredibly expensive for Ubisoft to cancel.

Jesus Christ i just saw a ship boarding clip. Bethesda games look less lazy. BETHESDA.

@hardwenzen said:

@strategyfn said:

@hardwenzen said:

These companies are so f*cking stupid. Most likely most certainly spent over 100M on the game, and they think to make a profit on THIS? How detached from reality must you be? Like serious, they deserve to be trolled so hard that the official twitter for the game closes.

AAAA game btw. Holy shit.

The things you highlight would probably crash the game. The game is perfectly set up.

The resource mini-games are great to me as they are just a different change of pace. I love the game so far—I see myself playing it for along time.

My only gripe is the graphics could have been better—but that also—would crash the game.

You like difficult games hardwenzen. The game can be confusing and not too hand holdy. You might actually like it if you played It.

My opinion, it is like Morrowind, a great game, only with ships.

Dude, you're the only person on this planet that defends this $70 scam. When it gets a 5/10, then what?

I bet gamespot gives it an 8/10. Although Madden 24 got an unjustly 5 here and that deserved an 8 too in my eyes.

I’m not doing the math and I have only played S&B for 7 hours but it probably ranks 9th in my top 10 game list.

@strategyfn: So how are you enjoying that 4/10 btw? Anyone else but the developers left on the servers? This is a perfect time to respond with "i don't care about scores, I LIKE THE GAME!!!".

I do care about scores and I love the game. It is not my problem the reviewer gave a bad score. I did not get past the reviews first paragraph as it was just a wall of text. He lost me with his first sentence of his review with his breaking of English contraction rules. A 4/10 for me is a game that is nearly unplayable with many glitches and bad graphics—Skull and Bones is none of that.

I am loving how Skull and Bones is confusing to play. I need a notebook to take notes just to play it properly. 9hrs into it now. I don’t regret paying $129 for the Premium version, just to support the game, get a couple of extra missions, and played a couple of hours early.

It is a fun single player game and I saw a few people on the servers which you can pick a fight with or not (I usually don’t). In 2 hours I saw around 4-6 people, I was exploring unbusy part of map. It is fun without people.

On PS5, it had a majority 46% 5 star rating among, I forget, 3500 people that bought it.

Okay, but lets not pretend like the GS score is the only negative score that was given to the game. Meta for the game is pathetic, so its pretty darn clear that game is heavily flawed.