Ubisoft's recent venture, "Skull and Bones," stands as a notable example of a protracted development cycle, culminating in a live-service game that draws heavily from elements first introduced in "Assassin's Creed III" and "Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag." This title, which spent over a decade in gestation, endured numerous delays and significant conceptual shifts, evolving from an expansion to a standalone MMO, and eventually to its current form. Despite its extensive development, the game's release was met with skepticism, particularly regarding its pricing strategy, which the CEO controversially defended as representative of a "quadruple-A game."

The journey of "Skull and Bones" from concept to release has been a long and winding one. Initially conceived as an offshoot of the popular Assassin's Creed franchise, it aimed to capitalize on the success of the naval combat mechanics lauded in titles like "Black Flag." However, the project grappled with a lack of clear direction and vision, undergoing continuous transformations throughout its lengthy production period. This instability contributed to a series of postponements, leaving many observers questioning the final product's coherence and market positioning, especially at a premium price point.

Alex Hutchinson, the former creative director behind the naval battles in "Assassin's Creed III," expressed his astonishment at the trajectory of "Skull and Bones." He observed the game's prolonged development with a sense of déjà vu, noting that it largely re-shipped gameplay mechanics and ideas that had originated more than a decade earlier. Hutchinson highlighted that "Assassin's Creed III's" naval combat, initially an experimental feature, ultimately became a cornerstone of its success and a defining element for subsequent titles like "Black Flag" and "Rogue."

Hutchinson attributed some of the challenges faced by the "Skull and Bones" team to inexperience, suggesting that while they aspired to blend elements of "Black Flag" with online multiplayer concepts reminiscent of "World of Tanks" or "World of Warships," they lacked the foundational expertise in such genres. Furthermore, he pointed out that Ubisoft Singapore, the primary studio behind the game, predominantly functioned as a support studio for previous Assassin's Creed titles, and might not have possessed the extensive leadership experience required for a project of this scale and ambition.

He also touched upon the talent dynamic within Ubisoft, recalling instances where developers from French and Canadian studios would temporarily relocate to Singapore. Hutchinson wryly described these assignments as more akin to a "holiday" for the senior staff, implying a lack of serious long-term commitment to nurturing the Singapore studio's independent development capabilities. He suggested that the talent pool in Singapore at the time might not have been sufficiently deep to support such an ambitious and complex undertaking, leading to a situation where the project spiraled beyond control.

Ultimately, when "Skull and Bones" finally debuted, it entered a crowded market saturated with live-service games, many of which operated on a free-to-play model. What might have been considered innovative and promising in 2013 had, by its release, become conventional and perhaps even outdated. Despite these hurdles, Ubisoft continues to support the game, yet its future remains uncertain, with many anticipating its eventual decline.