verysoft @ verysoft @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

453

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yup, technology and especially phones have come a disgustingly long way in such a short amount of time. Running AI efficiently on them is the next step, one that we probably won't struggle with too much.

They always pick fab artists for their sales honestly!

People buy them and people buy the console to buy them. They are not going anywhere. Sony always been that extra anal anti-consumer company aswell.

Dude the Mixer situation was so weird to me, they were clearly serious about it, bought out a bunch of big streamers for ridiculous amounts of money and then just... gave up. They needed more ways to engage the community of streamers, like Twitch Rivals does, because people are not going to use your platform if they have no-one they want to watch, but Mixer never attempted to try and get people to watch new streamers.

I did try Mixer when I still watched livestreams often, the video quality was so much better, the player was snappy and was such a breath of fresh air from Twitch. But my god did they butcher the chat/viewer experience. I don't want visual clutter and fireworks flying over my screen all the time, it was the most dogshit thing ever, so back to Twitch I went. I mean Twitch without FFZ is also disgusting now, give me that simple IRC chat back!

Changing a sensitivity on a mouse is easier than on a controller and generally allows a more fine tuned setting.

The process of even changing sensitivity is easier, menu navigation on a mouse is simpler, then once at the sensitivity option, I can just type in a number or quickly drag a bar instead of waiting for a number to climb higher or lower. Hell, if the game has a console, I can usually just open that and type in any number I want on the fly.

I mean its objectively incorrect, but having a personal preference is fine.

Games normally give a lot of auto aim these days, so if you want an easier time it makes sense you would prefer a controller.

This hurts my eyes to look at

They have some good quality of life suggestions in the video, but also a lot of horrible design decisions.

I do like the idea of displaying the review ratios on games instead of "Mostly positive" etc. and the expanding info when you hover which moves the add to cart button is a problem Valve could fix. But that's like the only takeaways, everything else was a downgrade, while I can see where they are coming from with their ideas... they are just not good UX. Their design is a case of wasting space and minimising the amount of stuff shown, they just outright remove useful information because 'it exists elsewhere'. Just because it exists elsewhere doesn't mean it can't be somewhere else to be seen at a glance.

They mostly looked at it from a design perspective and not a functionality perspective, they are new to Steam it seems from their profile shown in the video, so it makes sense they don't really know what people want/expect from the application.

That new generation design mentality, every webpage should have a max of 3 buttons, take up 50% of the page and the other half of the page can have 100 words maximum. Function over form please, every website is slowly devolving into this form over function bs the last 5-10 years. I think the UX designers all retired.

No, that redesign is horrendous. It follows modern 'design' principles of putting as little information on the page as you can and that's just a no go.

Steam's current UI isn't bad at all, everything functions and is similar to previous versions allowing anyone to find their way around comfortably. There are some issues, like in the older workshop pages and there is absolutely a lot of QoL that could be made, but the main store, discovery and library are all totally functional and nice imo. Steam having a slightly different style on different pages isn't actually a bad thing, at a glance you can easily tell what page you are on and makes it easier to find what you are looking for, whereas if it all looks the same, it's not as simple as they all become too similar.

Just because there isn't a shit ton of padding, doesn't mean it needs a redesign. Steam should definitely add skin support back though, for people who want to play around with it. I did personally use metro for the longest time.

It's why a downvote system doesnt work with the masses

It wouldn't be as much as a problem if it was tucked away somewhere in Twitch, but these nudity streams will be broadcast to the front page. Kids can find whatever they want, sure, but that doesn't mean we should be sticking it in their faces when they come to a traditionally non-porn livestreaming platform. If they come to watch some people play games, they are going to be met with tits completely out of the blue. It is an issue, the excuse 'but kids can go watch porn anyway' doesn't cut it, because they weren't even supposed to be looking for porn in this instance.

Do parents just ban them from using Twitch? Or should Twitch have better systems in place to make it harder for kids to stumble across porn?

Twitch was good when it was video games only, it really went downhill since Amazon bought it.

People like Xbox would show off more games, from smaller devs, you can do a lot more in 3 days than you can in 3 hours. It was sad when they pulled out, that was the writing on the wall for E3, but its not even comparable to the game awards lmao, which is literally just a 3 hour ad break.

No, the players choose the player's choice winner and contribute only 10% towards the actual winners.

The games are nominated by a committee, the committee of 'game news organisations' is chosen by the 'advisory board' of the game awards, the board consists of Activision Blizzard, Ubisoft, EA, Sony, Microsoft, Valve, Nintendo, Tencent, AMD, Riot Games, Rockstar Games, Epic Games and for some reason Kojima Productions. So they have the choice to pick their favourable 'news' outlets, which in turn will pick the nominees and the winners of the awards. There's a lot of room for bullshittery to happen and with some past winners/nominees, I wouldn't doubt there has been.

Yeah if you just watch the big players' streams from E3 then I can see the similarities.

Games don't need awards, it's just all subjective anyway and just gives the cringe oscars vibe of 'patting ourselves on the back'. You know if a game is good by it's player reviews and how many friends have told you to play it etc, we don't need a random set of judges deciding for us behind the scenes what the best games are.

Yes... but E3 allowed smaller devs to get an audience and allow people to try their games for early feedback, it was a place for gamers to go and experience new games, meet people in the industry etc. The game awards is literally just a 3 hour long advert for the highest bidders. The game awards doesn't give a shit about anything but the money they are rolling in, they get more and more shameless with it each year, a lot of developers complained this year as they were quickly ushered off stage to make way for the next big advert.

Of course its ads, but the main focus was the convention and not the streams. The crowds were fans and lots of developers got to show off their games. The game awards is just the worse part of e3 amplified, the awards themselves mean absolutely nothing, they are skipped over anyway, but imo gaming doesnt need an awards show, it's silly. The rest is just publishers paying for segments and a bunch of devs and random celebrities sit and watch in the crowd. I don't know how anyone sits and watches it. E3 was fun cause you could watch anyones perspective as they walked around and did interviews, met people etc, or even better if you could make it there yourself.

It was like computex of the gaming world, where any journalist could come and take part, which is not like geoff's bs at all.

especially