this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2024
191 points (96.6% liked)

Games

16758 readers
970 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
191
Skull and Bones’ price has been slashed by $25 after less than three weeks (www.videogameschronicle.com)
submitted 8 months ago by neme@lemm.ee to c/games@sh.itjust.works
46 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Paranomaly@sh.itjust.works 32 points 8 months ago (5 children)

Interesting considering "record engagement." I can't imagine that was just a lie, was it?

[–] momocchi@lemmy.world 18 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It has an 8 hour free trial on pc so i imagine a ton of people tried it out. Engagement doesn’t have to equal enjoyment after all

[–] Wooki@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

On point, it had a demo free to play before release and alot of people tried it out. Problem is it only has 8hrs worth of content.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 14 points 8 months ago

It's just the game that had more players check it out and get disappointed than any previous Ubisoft game.

[–] Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 5 points 8 months ago

Maybe it was record low if they didn't specify which kind of record.

[–] Alto@kbin.social 1 points 8 months ago

To be fair, a record low is still record engagement

[–] loobkoob@kbin.social 1 points 8 months ago

My interpretation is that it sold poorly, but that among the people who did buy it it's got high retention.