I'm starting to think this marketing claim is working against Ubisoft
rather than for it. ;-)
Again, had the company offered up a product more worthy of the
designation, it might have played out differently. But you can't just
put out your usual tripe and then say, "This is better than anything
else!" and not get ridiculed for it.
Apparently the whole "quadruple-A" thing came out as a response to why
the game cost $70, rather than the more usual $60, too.
"Despite very much being billed as a live, ongoing game,
Skull and Bones is charging $70 up front, then will add
its microtransactions and battle passes and such on top of
that as time goes on. This prompted a question posed to
Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot about why they were doing that
instead of broadening the playerbase as a free-to-play
game. His response:
“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.”
- Forbes website
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2024/02/10/skull-and-bones-is-a-70-game-because-its-quadruple-a-says-ubisoft/
(Which was then followed up with this witty response by the article's
author:
I am trying to understand how you say something is
“a vast and complete game” and in the next sentence say
it “will deliver in the long run.”
)
So more of an off-the-cuff comment rather than an intended marketing
ploy, although Ubisoft leaned heavily into the comment afterwards. Not
that makes any of it any better.
I don't dislike Ubisoft games; they're fine. They're fun. They
obviously show the tens of millions of dollars of effort poured into
them. But they remain the formulaic, safe games that so-called
'triple-A' publishers churn out by the dozen. Nothing I've seen about
"Skull & Bones" looks to be any different. But they're hardly worth
the premium Ubisoft wants to charge for them.