59
[Hardware Unboxed] I Tested Every Game I Own on an Intel Arc GPU
(www.youtube.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
59 points (90.4% liked)
Games
16741 readers
402 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- 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:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Do you have a TL;DR?
~250 games testet, about 90% worked without issue.
Some games were hard coded to avoid Intel graphics and would use the AMD iGPU by default (even a newer title like Alan Wake 2 did this), but after disabling the iGPU, most of those were fine.
I think like 10-15 games didn't work at all or had basically unplayable performance, maybe a few more with graphical glitches, some minor, some more noticeable.
Someone is trying to pump up their YT views.
You're welcome.
Yeah that's called having a YouTube channel. You try to make content that people want to watch. How very nefarious.
Why not? The internet is for sharing stuff.
Sharing stuff one has interest in is good. Making use of SEO or "the algorithm" is a cashgrab. You can do so but I won't support you.
The need to compete in popularity is something that kills good things efficiently and regularly.
Hard disagree. The need to compete drives unique content. You may not like that content, but it's usually easy to avoid. I sub to channels that routinely put out good content, and avoid those that don't.
Without the motive to compete, we wouldn't have nearly as high of production value or variety of content.
So while I also hate the clickbait titles and whatnot, they make it easy for me to avoid stuff I likely won't like anyway.
This isn't only the need to compete for viewers, this is the need to comply to YouTube's search algorithm. It enforces similar content just like SEO is enforced for Google Search. There sometimes will be new stuff, but all as a means to keep being relevant, not because the stuff is interesting. That means that most new stuff will be entertainment, or "infotainment", which is fine in itself, but drowns out anything else. If you don't see the danger in that, the US government does in their strive to sabotage TikTok (not saying it's undeserved).
Production value is indeed up, which is a good thing, but not enough. This is presentation over the actual stuff. However variety is way down in the more successful youtubers. The variety comes from people who mostly don't give a shit about the performance of their videos; or from people trying to be successful while tending to a niche. The latter however will still implement most stuff from the top youtubers. If something seems successful it will be implemented by the more successful youtubers, but they mostly won't experiment as it costs money and normally negatively impacts viewer counts. YouTube's search algorithm has driven people to comply to presentation, nothing more.
Clickbait, asking for subscription, adding ads and more are all symptoms of this compliance to the platform. Do you sub to a channel that has never done any of those?
SEO and "algorithms" like YouTube are tuned for maximum user engagement, which means people watching more videos for longer. That's a pretty decent proxy for enjoying what you watch.
I honestly don't watch any of the top YouTube channels. I don't sub to any of these, and I don't think I've watched a full video of any of them, aside from maybe a few music videos. In fact, the channel with the most subs that I sub to is JerryRigEverything, and I mostly sub because he's local (we're both in Utah). Here's a selection of channels I sub to that I watch the most:
They do a pretty good job of keeping titles informative instead of clickbaity and thumbnails relevant (I honestly don't care about thumbnails). I have abandoned a lot of channels because they do that nonsense and don't go as in-depth as I'd like, such as SomeOrdinaryGamers, LTT, and Jayz2Cents.
I honestly recommend any of those channels, they're about all I watch on YouTube. Oh, and only 3-4 of those have sponsors (GN, Stand-Up Maths, and Audit the Audit come to mind), and very few of them ask for subs and likes. I block ads and occasionally buy merch from them.
Edit: Forgot Tech Ingredients.
Also, I like your choice in channels. Those I don't watch from that list are those I don't yet know. Thank you for the list!
So, you are trying to defend a mechanism you actively try to work against?
I'm not defending anything, I'm merely pointing out that my tastes differ from mainstream tastes, yet my preferred channels can still flourish.
It only really drives unique, high quality content when the incentives are aligned to reward unique, high quality content.
The reason every title and thumbnail is clickbait is because YouTube effectively forces you to do so or even your subscribers will have to manually go to your page to see your content consistently.
YouTube doesn't force anything, those happen to get more clicks and watches, so that's what you need to do to get more clicks and watches. YouTube isn't arbitrarily deciding to make the experience more corny, that's just what attracts people to videos.
Each channel has a target audience, and it's really easy to tell that I'm not the target audience for a lot of the content there. I have a curated set of channels with high quality content that aligns with my interests (i.e. less click-baity thumbnails and titles). If their content sucked, I wouldn't sub, that is their incentive to do a good job. The market on YouTube is big enough that there's plenty of content for a variety of tastes, so channels specialize in their particular demographic niche.
So yeah, I think competition absolutely is helping video content be better, but perhaps YouTube could do better to segment their offerings to specific tastes, so even if most people click on click-baity thumbnails and whatnot, those that don't appreciate it can still get boosted enough to reach their target niche.
If you don't have a ridiculously high click through every time your content is displayed, your video will be displayed massively less, including to your own subscribers on the places that are supposed to be based on their subscriptions.
The only way for your actual subscribers to even be exposed to your content, on the YouTube platform, if you do not do clickbait bullshit, is literally browsing the subscription view, which people don't do.
People have done loads of A/B testing. YouTube deliberately and systematically makes it impossible to survive on the platform without clickbait.
Well, that's all I do...
It's something like 95+% who use Youtube don't do.
It's not possible to get enough viewers to support a channel that costs actual money to make without making your content clickbait. Channels do the testing all the time. YouTube might as well make using titles that aren't clickbait bannable for how strongly they require you to do so to have a chance to succeed.
YouTube does indeed force things. It's called the search algorithm and it effectively selects the people who get the money. Comply or get payed accordingly less. If you think otherwise why do you think YouTube has any say over how to "segment their offerings"?
Competition here is done for money, which is abstracted into viewer count metrics as provided by YouTube. The clickbait, call for subscription and the ads are what has been created as the result of competition.
Competition made the sales pitch for every video better, also lifted the standard on production quality in video and audio. But it drowns out most unique ideas.
"The algorithm" is merely tuned for what people tend to click on and watch. There are no backroom bosses deciding what arbitrary hoops people should jump through when making content, it's just how humans tend to pick content from a sea of options.
It only "drowns out" ideas that are less popular among viewers in a similar way as political polling tends to ignore smaller parties. If you want niche content, you're going to have to dig for it, and that's true regardless of what "the algorithm" does.
It is not tuned for what people want to watch, but to what youtube thinks you want to watch. Also what they think they can get away with suggesting you. My experience is that I do not like what the autoplay function plays next, for example.
There are indeed "backroom bosses" deciding what arbitrary hoops someone has to jump through, youtube is no lawless place. There are enforced rules as to language and video material. This has little to do with the suggestions, but not nothing.
It does a selection that give youtube the most money. That indeed filters out unpopular things (making it also way harder to gain popularity if relying solely on youtube; a widely accepted alternative would be a deal with a popular youtuber), but also controversial stuff like criticism. Also child porn so its not entirely bad (also it is very necessary), just way too powerful and obtuse to be trusted in the hands of someone wanting to make money.
And how does YouTube know what people might want to watch? By tracking what they watch and adjusting their algorithms appropriately.
Perhaps you're not part of the quiet majority.
Sure, that one is self-serving, but it's probably in line with what the majority want. Most people don't care about YouTube drama, they just want to watch entertaining videos. Look at the most popular YouTube videos, TV shows, etc, that's what the quiet majority are watching, and it's probably a similar demographic as those who actually click ads.
By using Lemmy, you're self-selecting as not the quiet majority. I'm guessing you're quite into tech and probably either work in tech or are going to school in tech. You also probably care more about the openness of tech than the number of other people using the platform. You're absolutely in a minority, probably several different minorities.
YouTube's number one goal is to show ads, and their service does that by getting people to watch more videos. And how do they do that? By recommending videos the majority want to watch, and by nudging users toward more "addictive" videos (those high energy, high engagement videos where you just have to keep watching). People like watching crap like Mr. Beast (dream about being the benefactor of one of his stunts), which is why he's so successful.
My point is that that is not the reason, but one step on the way. And it is a way to influence people even to the point of enforcing things.
Correct.
Which is a singular goal with a reachable epitome of video making that is essentially enforcing a rally between content creators to find this epitome.
How does this create unique content? This is merely tolerating the existence of such content, as long as it doesn't get in the way of profits or rock any boats with "youtube drama". How does this competition create unique stuff?
People aren't going to watch variations of the same content back to back, but they do want content presented in a fairly consistent way that draws their attention.
YouTube also penalizes creators from straying too far from their typical content, encouraging separate channels if they want to make diverse content. So that encourages creators to carve out a niche for themselves and fill it. Users will gravitate toward the "best" in a given niche (for various definitions of "best"), so there's pressure on creators to get better at whatever their unique niche is.
If you really look at YouTube, you'll find a huge variety of content with high production value that follow a similar marketing style (thumbnails, titles, and presentation format). The marketing style being similar doesn't mean the content is similar.
Somebody is showing us a video that took effort to make and gives us interesting information. That we get to watch for free. How evil.