Ubisoft CEO Defends Skull and Bones' $70 Price (videogameschronicle.com) 49
Ubisoft co-founder and CEO Yves Guillemot has defended the $70 price tag for Skull and Bones, calling it a "quadruple-A game." From a report: During a Q&A session as part of a conference call discussing Ubisoft's Q3 sales for its fiscal year 2024, one caller pointed out that Skull and Bones now appears to be taking a more live service approach -- the game's Year 1 roadmap was recently published, for example. The caller asked why Ubisoft was insisting on charging $70 for the game and potentially limiting the size of its player base, suggesting a free-to-play model may better suit the live service mechanics and give it a better chance of building a community.
Guillemot replied with an assertion that Skull and Bones deserves to be a full-price game because of its scale. "You will see that Skull and Bones is a fully-fledged game," he 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, triple... quadruple-A game, that will deliver in the long run."
Guillemot replied with an assertion that Skull and Bones deserves to be a full-price game because of its scale. "You will see that Skull and Bones is a fully-fledged game," he 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, triple... quadruple-A game, that will deliver in the long run."
So don't buy it (Score:5, Funny)
Simple solution.
Wait, why do people still buy games from UBIsoft in the first place? If you're maso, get a dominatrix... ok, granted, a good one will cost more than 70 bucks, looking at it that way...
Re:So don't buy it (Score:5, Interesting)
Ubisoft games are for people who like to spend money, and keep spending money in high amounts for small amounts of additional content. Also, they are for people who have purchased VERY stable internet connections, since the slightest hiccup trips their DRM and boots you out of the game (or otherwise blocks your progress until you restart).
I am not in that target market, but apparently it is a large market. Clearly somebody is still buying games from Ubisoft.
Re: (Score:2)
But only pay $70 and the dominatrix will beat you a second time!
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't a gamer complaining about the price, it was some kind of businessman or investor that stands to make money from the company. He's asking why not make it free to play so they have more users and make more money. This caller will probably never play the game regardless, even though he can likely get it for free.
I agree with everything else you said though, fuck Ubisoft. I won't be buying it because I have self-respect.
Not a AAAA game, by any stretch, from what we saw (Score:3)
The playtesters who have been invited to try many hours of supervised playtest all report that the game is pretty devoid of content beyond the core mechanics. It's missing a ton of stuff that their own AAA title AC:BlackFlag already had, or they have locked it away during the press playtest sessions. Of course playtesting can't cover storyline or plot development, but what they did cover was a janky and mostly boring repetitive mess.
Don't worry! (Score:2)
Grade Inflation (Score:3)
If that's the quality of their AAAA games, best not to even look at their AAA games. We'll have to wait until they release AAAAA games.
Re: (Score:2)
Razer blades, 8 minute minute abs all suffered the same fate. Even volume can go to 11.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, they're copying the design (and marketing) principles used to make razors. [slate.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If that's the quality of their AAAA games, best not to even look at their AAA games. We'll have to wait until they release AAAAA games.
Your "A" ratings refer to the budget, not the content. So even if most of the budget went to marketing and the CEO's hooker and coke fund, it's still a AAA (budgeted) game. I wouldn't be surprised if we had "six A" games in the near future as marketing budgets increase...
Poor quality and treating their own customers with contempt is why I haven't bought an Ubisoft title in over a decade.
Call me a cynic, but (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd heard nothing about this game until seemingly every streamer on the planet got sponsored by them. It took me about thirty seconds to notice it was from Ubisoft, and lose any interest. Ubisoft does not make games because anyone there wants to make games (that's obviously an exaggeration, someone there genuinely wants to make games because they love games, but none of those people get to make significant decisions), they make games for no other reason than to maximize income. This does not make for good games.
I feel quite grateful we now live in an online age where shelf space is no longer the gatekeeper of games. Coincidentally, I'm sure, that did conveniently somewhat coincide with the rise of "money is all that matters" games mega corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
On the one hand, there isn't anything wrong with doing things for money. We all need money to survive, some of us have mouths to feed other than our own, and making popular entertainment products is just as good a way of earning money as any other.
In theory they will only make money if their product satisfies the desires of their audience. Their income is proof that they did something right.
On the other hand, Ubisoft has a history of consumer hostility, intrusive DRM, in-game ads forced on players, loads
Re: (Score:2)
My point wasn't that there's something wrong with doing things for money, it's that there is something wrong with doing things with no consideration for anything other than money. "...for no other reason than to maximize income," to quote myself.
I disagree with the premise that making a profit necessarily indicates they're doing something right. E.g. them making a profit is not convincing evidence that drug dealers do something right (I'm not saying none of them do, but you'd need something other than them
Re: (Score:2)
It is ironic that drugs are demonized for being addictive whereas games are celebrated for it (and sometimes even state "addictive" in their marketing materials).
But my "something right" was really meant from the perspective of their target audience. People aren't buying their games at gunpoint, after all.
It's true that some people make a profit without contributing anything. They outright steal, or skim off the top. But in the case of Ubisoft, they make their money by selling games. People are buying t
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think we're really disagreeing all that much. Games companies are obviously not drug dealers, but many are pretty much gambling establishments at this point, and their focus is more on those mechanisms than on gaming. Talking about "addictive gameplay" back in the NES or C64 days, was talking about something very different to today's addictive gameplay, and the companies are intentionally preying on susceptible brains.
The end result is that gameplay is kind of irrelevant, it's just a vehicle to deli
I prefer this approach. (Score:2)
I like the old paradigm of plunking down my $70 for a finite amount of content. As my "dollars per hour of entertainment" drops over time, I gradually get satisfied. Once it's under a dollar, I feel like I got my money's worth.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You've got to go back 10-15+ years to find a good title from most big game studios, at this point. Ubisoft, Activision, and Bethesda are the worst offenders...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, a next gen game doesn't use a old and outdated engine.
Wrong argument. Engines can be modified and updated over their lives quite easily. Compare that to Cyberpunk2077 which was built on the RedEngine (Witcher 2) with some tweaks and updates for graphics. It was however very much a nextgen game.
The bigger critique is that Starfield does not look or act like a nextgen game. Regardless of the engine, the framerate is garbage given the graphics being produced. The load times are garbage. The gameplay is.... well okay let's stick to topic of what makes nextgen ;-)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: SNES (Score:2)
BUT as more games came out - look how many fighting games alone emerged in the 2 years after Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat made their console debut - those prices predictably dropped. Now we are seeing prices increase back to old levels with games that utilize technology of today but aren't as
Re: (Score:2)
When Street Fighter 2 came out on SNES (there was thr first release of classic SF2 on SNES alone followed by SF2 Turbo on SNES/Genesis the following summer) I remember it was $60, as well.
My first google search on SNES prices shows a store front with pricing labels that has Street Fighter II at $70 https://www.reddit.com/r/snes/... [reddit.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You used to only play once when you bought a game. It was also a real, tangible, object you could resell give away, ignore, or play for the next 30 years. It wasn't some ephemeral thing that could disappear at any moment.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand gaming was a relatively niche hobby at the time. It was something the geeks did and really no one else.
Now essentially everyone does it, and a game costs the same to develop whether you sell 10 copies or 10 million copies. It skews what you 'need' to sell the game for in order to make a profit.
Re: (Score:2)
$70? (Score:2, Offtopic)
$70?
Skull and Bones has cost us over $7 trillion in the past few decades.
So if anyone's wondering (Score:2)
Now you never know fallout 76 looks like it was going to be a unmitigated disaster and it has some of the nastiest game mechanics I've ever seen up to and including paid repair kits but it's become very profitable for Bethes
Dying industry (Score:2)
That's a horrible excuse. This has "No Man's Sky" flop written all over it.
If it was that great, they'd not be trying to hide the gameplay.
Meanwhile, Cyberpunk 2077 is like, $30 now, and keeps getting more value...
We're at a bit of a pivotal point where game studios are no longer able to ride stock prices for increasing investment in game development, inflation is high (pushing up prices in general), and there's an over-saturation of horrible games shipped as AAA titles. When it comes down to it, most of th
Re: (Score:1)
inflation is high
You mean was high. Not only are things back to normal, we've even seen some deflation in categories like food, energy, and other common item categories.
Computer software and accessories is down more than 8%.
Personally, the only games I've bought in the last couple years where I'd consider it worth the value of what I payed
My wife is the game player in the family, but the only games she's put more that a few hours into in the last five years are a Zelda game and Animal Crossing. The rest just collect dust.
Kids only seem interested in spending money in free games, which seems absurd to me.
I liked the shareware model. If y
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes down to it, most of these games pale in comparison to game titles produced in the golden era of gaming - call it 1996 to 2003.
I tend to think of that era of PC gaming as "properly targeted." Most games today are made for consoles first. With the PC ports either made after the game is mostly design / feature complete on console or after the console exclusivity contract expires.
With that design choice comes very heavy limitations on the PC side. I.e. You'll never take advantage of PC only capabilities. (Because they don't exist on consoles.) Your game's complexity and detail is limited by capabilities of the lowest common denomin
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to think of that era of PC gaming as "properly targeted."
Yes, I've said that often. Back then, PC games lead, and you'd get a console version - often an entirely different game, like in the case of Starcraft - some years later.
The beginning of the end of PC gaming dominance started in 2000, when Microsoft purchased bungie for Halo. The result was multiple generation of horrible, Halo-derivative, and simplistic FPS games, with story bolted on as an after thought. We went from FPS games being trending
Re: (Score:2)
You've got to cater to your investors
The "investors" of industry are the gamers who pay for the products and services generation after generation (even if the product / service is substandard). The "players" of industry are the idiots who snap up a few stocks and then dump them .5 milliseconds later all the while demanding massive ROI from those .5 milliseconds.
Catering to those "investors" of industry is the only way to meet the demands of the "players" of industry. Solely catering to the "players" of industry is a good way to go bankrupt.
Typical for Ubisoft (Score:2)
Requires an Ubisoft account to play? (Score:2)
Does this game, like other Ubisoft games, required having a Ubisoft account to play, even for offline? Yes? Then I am not going to play it even for free.
Not interested (Score:2)
The review from my usual source said "May actually not be crap" and "special interest group only". That is more like "indie" and certainly not "quadruple-A". Guess this is "Big Lie" marketing at work.
WTF? (Score:2)
I just played their "open beta" for about twenty minutes. This thing is shit and doesn't introduce anything new at all. AAAA? Good Lord. Sure as hell not worth $70. I pray to God that the next Elder Scrolls isn't anything like this or I might choke on my own vomit. What this tool doesn't understand is that the concept of "AAA" is not static; the standard grows higher as technology does the same. There is no way in hell I'd consider this an AAA game, much less some kind of AAAA. If you fancy the pirate ficti
One letter better (Score:2)
next up Ubisoft complaing about people pirating (Score:2)
Cartridge games used to be that expensive (Score:2)
Nintendo games in the 80's where often $50 and sometimes more. If you bought Zelda in 1986 (iirc it was $50), that's equivalent to $139 today. Hopefully that helps the younger generation understand why we rented games and my actual game library from back then is quite small.
Re: (Score:2)