Ottomateeverything @ Ottomateeverything @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

322

Joined

2 yr. ago

You can already see this on air quality maps and such anyway. People just don't care.

It's probably because sending old scraps to Ukraine doesn't make any money. Sending soldiers to die in Afghanistan was futile and guaranteed the production, sale, and shipment of more military tech/vehicles. Sending shit that was already made just costs money and doesn't fellate the military industrial complex.

Amongst many other reasons, my biggest is it's not searchable by search engines.

Well gee, I hope you don't use texting, phone calls, emails, private forums, social media DMs, or talk to anyone IRL, because those aren't searchable either!

This argument seems like reaching for something to complain about rather than having a legitimate problem with discord. If anything, you don't like the "large group chat" paradigm, but that's like hating a screwdriver because it's not a hammer.

I think discord is primarily just useful for voice chat, yes.

But:

It's a closed ecosystem that locks what would otherwise be searchable knowledge on the web, with an unsearchable, proprietary lockdown of that information.

Yeah, no. Proprietary, sure, but you can say that about almost communication mechanism that's not a website with an API. It's not like people would otherwise be posting these things somewhere else if discord didn't exist. If it wasn't discord it'd be slack or something. Discord is an entirely different medium and complaining that it isn't a forum is just not a legitimate argument. They're entirely different things.

This whole comment/complaint is just the pros and cons of different types of communication. None of this is discord specific, it's just complaints that real time chat isn't indexed by search engines and isn't organized into clear topics.

Sure, some IRC chats were logged/posted, but that still has all the same searchability problems, and that process can still be used within discord search. It's just not useful because real time chat doesn't have any sort of topic organization.

This whole thing is like complaining that signal is worse than email because it's not as organized. It's not worse, it's just a different medium with different goals and purpose. And you're not giving any specifics as to why signal/discord is bad, just that you don't like direct messaging/chat rooms.

Most of the success of a social network has nothing to do with "X software is better than Y software."

Literally this. Most social networks are just less-featured versions of Facebook.

Twitter was originally Facebook with no media posts and character limits. And kind of cool that you could SMS it, but hands down just worse software that ended up taking off.

Instagram was originally Facebook but images only. Then they added video. It's just less software, but also took off.

Snapchat was Facebook but you could only send pics/video and only directly to friends. And they just removed persistence so all your shit gets deleted. Literally just missing timelines and comments. Blatantly worse software. Popular as fuck, especially with zoomers.

Social media has never been about better software. Arguably Google+ had the best software in many ways (probably the most feature rich, but UI was objectively a problem), it's fucking dead. Social media seems to do better when it has worse software.

It seemed to me like Reddit basically drove off half their content creators AND Lemmy didnt really steal too much of Reddit's userbase (around 1%)

Yeah, this has been my experience as well. Reddit likes to say "all the shitty people left and went to Lemmy", and they seem half right - a bunch of people did leave. But most of the content of reddit is extremely stale now. And most of the shitty people that left reddit didn't go to Lemmy, they just fucking left.

Sure, some Lemmy instances have attracted garbage, but most of the threads here are like 1% of the amount of posts but 80% of the content I care about so it just feels more efficient. Less garbage to trudge through, especially in the comments.

Yes, you can have any opinion you want. And no one needs to take you seriously. Your senseless unhinged rambling speaks plenty for itself.

Same shit in my area. I've asked landlords why they're increasing rents and they say things like "well based on local prices and value of the property...." I've asked multiple what makes them think that and it's always "we have software that estimates what our units are worth". So now any landlord raises rent and they all raise rent in unison. No renovations or new perks to the property. It's just "well someone else hiked rent this year so now your new lease does too".

It's not at all free - you pay for it when you buy their new product. This is just sale incentives.

No no no, you're missing the important piece

On April 1, 2023, three undercover agents met with Faye... Faye asked if the undercover agents were federal law enforcement.

They didn't have to say yes, because it was April fool's day!

The whole police thing and public accountability kinda makes sense, but I don't think this means we should be pushing on AI just because the "bad guys" don't like it.

AI is full of holes and unknowns. And relying on it to do stuff like this is a dangerous precedent IMO. You absolutely need someone reviewing it, yes. But they're also not going to catch everything and starting with this will mean it will start being leaned on and it will replace thorough reviews by people.

I think something low stakes and unobtainable without the tools might make sense - like AIs reading through game chat or Twitter posts to identify issues where it's impossible to have someone reading everything, and if some get by, oh well it's a post on the internet.

But with police behavior? Those are people with the authority to ruin people's lives or kill them. I do NOT trust AI to catch every problematic behavior and this stuff ABSOLUTELY should be done by people. I'd be okay with it as an aid, in theory, but once it's doing any "aiding" it's also approving some behavior. It can't really be telling anyone where TO look without implying where NOT to look, and that gives it some authority, even as an "aid". If it's not making decisions, it's not saving anyone any time.

Idk, I'm all for the public accountability and stuff like that here, but having AI make decisions around the behavior of people with so much fucking power is horrifying to me.

Can't find the other comment you made about this anymore, but this is an advertising company that's helping devs advertise their games, so yeah, it's not going to talk about advertising non existent apps for market analysis. Instead it talks about twisting games to advertise them with exaggeration and weird hooks to try to convince people to download them.... Which is another shitty advertising practice in mobile gaming (yeah, there are a lot of them, shocker) and not really pertinent to the topic/OP.

I also find it funny you left the highlight showing you probably searched exactly for something that proved your point, but it's listed "exaggeration" in the heading which is entirely different.

These are all examples of exaggerated and misleading ads. Hell, the heading you linked to is literally called "exaggerated ads". That's not "this game does not exist at all" ads, it's "this isn't how the game actually plays" ads. The examples this article gives are the like weird "Omg he got me pregnant" ads that then link to a match 3 game and the like. These are a different thing than things like the OP linked which are entirely irrelevant and link to random unrelated games.

The article is from and advertising company that is selling customers who have an existing game who want to improve ad conversions and then lists techniques for doing so. They do not explain the outcome the OP is asking about. Not would they outline the strategy I'm talking about since what in referring to is a process by which you would test new game ideas. That's not something the company you linked to would be involved in.

There are many many many types of advertising campaigns in mobile gaming. And they serve different purposes. The stuff your outlining is different than the OPs question and my response. They exist in the same market and one existing doesn't mean the other doesn't.

The same half dozen vertical slices or renders have existed for years so why have exactly 0 been realised as games?

Already covered above. They likely prototyped it and it didn't monetize well or something so they axed it.

Because they aren’t games they are bait and switch adverts.

Or they're neither, and they're just trying to gauge the market. But sure, you can believe whatever you want.

There’s no market research campaigns and you’ve provided no fucking evidence for your claims at all.

You haven't either. You're just assuming a) the worst and b) something that makes objectively less sense - if your whole premise is they're advertising something fake, how would this even work as bait and switch if people see that's not what the ad links to?

Your thesis is bunk and I think so are your claims to be a dev too.

And your thesis is "I feel like it's bait and switch, so it is" and you have no claims of credibility. Nothing I say will prove to you that I've worked for some of the largest corporations in the US, so I can't change your mind.

Why does any dev in the mobile need to deal with companies like this??

I didn't say I "needed" to. And my job did require it at the time. The circumstances of my employment are kind of out of the scope of this discussion and it's pretty much entirely irrelevant. I was just stating where I got my information from.

you can just self publish and that’s what people do daily.

Sure. You can. People do. Mobile it's way less successful though. And I didn't say anything about what an indie devs options are. You're reading something very different out of what I'm saying and I don't know what it is or where you're getting it from.

Lots of self published games and apps exist and more are available every day.

Exactly. That's part of what's going on here.

I am concerned with the larping you’re doing here.

Larping? What am I role playing? And we're on the internet, so this definitely isn't "live action" by any means. I don't understand what you think is going on here.

Why are you trying to scare people ?

Me stating what goes on inside the industry is not "trying" to do anything. I'm just explaining what I've seen in it. Whether they choose to be "scared" or not is their own perogative. Would you say I'm trying to scare people if I said many people have died in Gaza in the past few months? It's just stating what's happening.

Yeah, I don't feel foolish at all. I've explained this in other comments.

In summary:

I'm not claiming literally every instance is exactly what I'm describing, but it is a very common pattern.

Many of these ads are slight variations to test which performs better.

Many of the "which performs better" are run against long standing ads they've had to learn about how to advertise. They may never intend to release the games being advertised. They may know the ad does well, but they built a prototype game and it didn't monetize, so they'll never finish it or already killed it. But that doesn't stop them from running the same ad but with a different visual theme to see which visual theme is more popular right now.

Some of these ads are not run by dev studios but by advertisers or publishers.

Markets are not static - interest in themes, visual styles, and game genres are all extremely "seasonal" and keep changing. They do not "know their market extremely well" because interest keeps shifting. Companies will constantly run ads just to gauge what genres they should be thinking about and to track trends over time. IE, they may run the same exact strategy game ad for many years straight to determine the long term stability of strategy games. Without caring about the specific game idea in the ad itself.

I don't feel foolish, nor do I think it's "clever". I just know from first hand experience that this is how the market works.

There's a psychological phenomenon around this but I forget the name for it. But yes, there's evidence that seeing someone play poorly, and thinking "oh that's easy I could do that" actually does motivate you to want to do it. Like a weird "prove I'm better" self ego stroke sort of thing. And these ads very much are intentionally playing into that.

What's even funnier: there are many of these now that are fake. IE, a bunch of you tubers / tiktokers have done videos where they play games to see if they're real. Then some company goes to make a fake ad, so they take the you tubers video and just put their ad video there instead. So then there are ads with them saying "woah this game is real!" but it's a fake video of a fake ad. It's turtles all the way down.

Yeah, I think you're totally right. I didn't mean that it started in 2010s, more that it was basically the norm by then and it's a giant cesspool now. But looking back, my wording wasn't super clear on that distinction. I do think it was around in the 2000s, but its gotten much worse with time.

I'm also super frustrated as a gamer, but to your point, thank god the indie scene is running strong.