tiramichu

joined 1 week ago
[–] tiramichu@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

With TV there were only so many channels, but with Internet distribution the limits have been blown away on how many shows can be produced and available at once. There's more content now than ever before, and the way people consume that content has changed, too.

Streaming incentivises a model where new content is pushed at you constantly to keep you watching and "engaged" (because engagement = ads = money) and so the most important metric is quantity of shows, not quality.

I've watched shows I enjoyed that six months later I couldn't even tell you the name of, because it's a once-and-done watch, and then I'm onto the next thing.

With such high volumes of new content there's no opportunity to get bored anymore, and that has consequences for how much old content gets revisited.

In the 2000s we'd all have some series or other on DVD, and when there was nothing good on TV that night we'd go back and re-watch it. And that re-watch process built up both your own personal fondness for the show, and the staying power of that show in the shared cultural consciousness. Plus you could probably speak with your friends about shows because chances were pretty good they'd seen it too, which only boosts it more.

When we're all just watching things once and never again, and often not even the same things as each other, there's no staying power.

I also believe - my personal opinion - that this quantity problem is why right now there are SO MANY remakes, reboots, spin-offs, and live-action versions of existing movies. Even the big players are finding it very hard to launch new things that reach the audience they want because the market is so absolutely saturated with "content". And so they have to fall back on franchises that are already recognised and popular across a wide cultural gamut, things that cemented their popularity at a time before the quantity problem really set in.

It's strange times.

[–] tiramichu@sh.itjust.works 9 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (2 children)

These people shit on accessibility because they see it as something that other people need, not them. The attitude is that if you aren't good at a game you simply shouldn't play. It's fundamentally a lack of empathy.

My go-to argument when people take that stance is to ask "Do you think you'll still be playing games when you're 50? When you're 60? When you're 70?"

Their answer of course is invariably yes, they will, and so my follow on question is "Will you still have the same lighning reflexes then, that you do now?"

That usually gets the point across.

Right now they can look down smugly from their pedestal, but some day there will come a time when their own body fails them and they can't make it through Dark Souls 12 anymore, no matter how much they enjoy it and want to finish. And when they complain on Steam all the kids will say "just git gud lol"

Who's the one crying then?

Accessibility options are important for all of us, no matter the reason. We should all get to choose.

[–] tiramichu@sh.itjust.works 2 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (2 children)

Half the reason I like sci-fi so much is that it's the genre which most often avoids pointless interpersonal drama.

I like to watch shows that are about things happening and how the characters deal with those things, not just jealous relationship fighting and people who can't even decide whose side they're on.

Don't get me wrong - character conflict is necessary for any good show, regardless of the genre, but I don't want the entire show to be that.

[–] tiramichu@sh.itjust.works 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

I agree with you, it's insidious.

Given you've got a Pixel phone, you can save at least yourself from this problem by running Graphene or Calyx on it.

[–] tiramichu@sh.itjust.works 8 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

For me it's the privacy angle that matters.

All these restaurant apps being pushed like "it's cheaper on the app!" and "you can get a free side on the app!"

And I'm almost tempted to install it, but then I remember by doing so I'm giving the company a wealth of data to slurp on me, letting them bombard me with notifications, and giving their logo a shining advertisement spot in my app drawer so every time I'm hungry I see it, and want it.

When I think about the higher non-app price in those terms, as a "privacy tax" to keep my data and my dignity, then I'm happy to pay it.

[–] tiramichu@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago

Just channeling their inner goat

[–] tiramichu@sh.itjust.works 29 points 2 days ago

When the textures are high-res but the model is low-res

[–] tiramichu@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago

I would dare say you are right

[–] tiramichu@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Disco Elysium. Brilliant game.

[–] tiramichu@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

The exact same trends go round and round in web design too (and now apps).

At first things were square (because that was all the technology could do) then in the 2000s CSS exploded and everything went colour gradients and rounded corners, just because people could, then that became old-hat and everything went flat and square again, and then rounded came back (but without so many gradients)

Everything is cyclical.

[–] tiramichu@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 days ago

Ah. I suppose it's just down to how my client chooses to handle it, then :)

[–] tiramichu@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I agree. After all, they are still selling it, and people are still happily buying it. A friend got one about 3 months ago and he's been very pleased.

The Steam Deck is still under four years old, let's remember. The Nintendo Switch is over eight! Of course that's not an apples-to-oranges comparison as the Steam Deck aims to run any game, not just specifically optomised titles. But it's an indicator.

On the subject of being old, we get way more life out of PC hardware right now than we did back in the early 2000s. Nowadays if you buy a high end GPU you might get a decade of gaming out of it. Back then you'd get 2-3 years and it would be obsolete, because graphics tech was just evolving so fast. (Of course, cards now cost ten times what they did back then, but that's another story....)

Point is, there's plenty of life left in the steam deck yet :)

view more: next ›