I can understand that Valve doesn’t want to give false impressions that a game runs perfectly when there are imperfections as mentioned

Idk, I disagree with this. It means that games are being labeled as “not verified” because of things that don’t really hamper what people would care about - the keyboard popping up for naming your character or seeing “A” in a green circle isn’t going to make people be like “oh no, this doesn’t work well on my steamdeck, I’m not playing it”. Does it look unprofessional? Sure. But that’s not what people care about when looking at the ratings for compatibility. They just want to know if it’s going to run well.

These systems are all about trust and evaluating the right metrics. Having the right button icons matters to Valve but not the player. Once players play games that aren’t verified and they run fine, and they play games that are verified but still have performance hitches in some places, etc, the rating system loses its credibility and then it’s meaningless.

On top of this, developers are already shunning the verification and just not bothering. Some of the things they ask for don’t directly affect the playability of their game. It’s an extra hoop for the developer to jump through, and if people don’t trust the badge, there’s no point in chasing it. Valve is literally undermining their own system from both sides by doing this.

There’s already people in this thread touting protonDB being a better evaluation. It’s exactly this that will happen and will continue to happen and continue undermining their rating system until Valve aligns their verification system with what users actually care about.

I’d actually bet it’s something different…

It’s less that you game on a steam deck because it’s portable, and more that because it’s portable you can game. There are people here and there that are like “yeah, I have a steam deck so I use that instead” but the sentiment I see more often is “I wouldn’t be able to game at all if it wasn’t portable - I can’t sit down for that long, I only have time on the train, I need to be near my kids” etc.

And this changes the dynamic. It’s less that these people have “desktop gaming” and “portable gaming” and are choosing to play the AAA games while portable. They only have portable gaming. And they choose to play the same good games everyone else is playing. The only gaming they do is on their deck. And they’re not going to be like “oh, why play a good game like BG3 if I can play a shitty portable game like xyz”.

These are just people’s primary gaming devices now. And if they can, they will choose to play the same good games everyone else is choosing to play. It doesn’t matter if it only runs OK, playing a good game with OK graphics is still better than playing a shitty game.

Yes, it requires it runs well with default settings, everything is accessible with the standard deck controls, that all the control displays use the steam deck icons, and it doesn’t reference controls the deck doesn’t have. It’s a very high bar.

Pixels have this too. I believe one plus does too but I don’t remember. Idk about anyone else.

The notification itself is super helpful if you care about battery health. There are apps that try to do it if your phone doesn’t have one, but they aren’t nearly as well integrated into the system and are therefore more clunky.

The insane/annoying part is just that the setting is not opt-in. Or whether there’s a setting to turn it off.

That’s why Pixels and some others have a “smart charge” feature that will wait to charge your phone until just before your alarm time so that it will finish right before you take it off the charger.

why am I going backwards to needing to babysit my phone when it’s charging, and why would anyone want to charge their phone when they want to be using it vs when they’re asleep?

I honestly don’t understand why people have such trouble with this. I can throw my phone on a charger when I go to shower and it’s at 80 percent when I get out, and that’s enough for my day. I could leave it while I get dressed and eat or something and it’d be at 100 if I needed. I don’t need my phone 24 hours a day. And there are many points in my day where I’m not using my phone for an hour that I could spare to charge it. I don’t need to leave it burning away permanent battery capacity for hours and hours every night.

Yes, the battery doesn’t charge to “dangerous - could explode” levels. But they very much do still charge to levels that are damaging to long term health/capacity of the battery.

Yes, they tune the batteries so that 100% isn’t the absolute cap. But even with that accounted for, many batteries will be above values that would be considered good for the long term health of a lithium cell. 80 percent on most phones is still very much at levels that are considered damaging to lithium batteries.

To put it another way, the higher you charge a lithium battery, the more stress you put on it. The more stress you put on it, the fewer charge cycles those components will hold. It’s not like there’s a “magic number” at 80 percent, it’s just that the higher you go the worse it is. Yes, some manufacturers have tweaked charge curves to be more reasonable. But they’ve also increased limits. Many batteries now charge substantially higher than most people would consider sustainable.

And after such changes, 80% lands pretty close to the general recommendations for improved battery longevity. Every percent will help, but it’s not a hard and fast rule.

Calibrations have gotten a little better in some ways, but all you have to do is look at basic recommendations from battery experts and look at your phones battery voltage to see that almost every manufacturer is pushing well past the typical recommendations at 90 or even 85 percent.

It hasn’t been in a long time. Charge controllers still charge to damaging voltages anyway. 100% isn’t 100% but you can very easily check the voltage on phones and many still are into damaging territory beyond 80%.

Can’t answer the rest of your question because I don’t use a one plus but:

aren’t you supposed to charge the phone overnight?

No, you aren’t “supposed” to charge your phone overnight. Leaving your phone on the charger at 100% is actually pretty bad for long term battery health. Hence why the notification exists in the first place. Modern phones also full charge in like an hour, so this leaves your phone in that state for many hours.

The longer story is it’s actually best to stop charging your phone at 80 percent unless you really need the extra juice, because any time your phone spends above that is potentially damaging, but that tends to be hard to deal with for most people.

Most of the phones I’ve seen with this feature have a “battery warning” or “charge notification” or “protect battery” type setting somewhere you can turn off. But again, I’ve never used a one plus so Idk if they do or where it is.

Nah, then a bunch of representatives would receive some “donations” and then they’d suddenly be a on a crusade to tear apart said agency.

No.

As an introvert, as much as I feel weird aroind people, I feel even weirder video chatting with people I’ve never met in person. In that situation, I have no idea how to read people and the expectations are way harder to try to meet. This makes meetings even worse until I meet them.

While I agree that forced in person work daily is insane, the OP is complaining about meeting people in person once after many years, which feels equally as ridiculous. IMO even for widely dispersed teams, meeting a few times a year seems ideal.

Yeah, I’ve met many people who literally have never spoken up in a meeting unless called upon… And then you meet them in person and they talk all the time.

Online dynamics are entirely different and it doesn’t work at all for some people.

But for most people it’s functional but much less so than in person. Humans were wired for in person interactions. Not just cropped compressed video of a persons face.

I’m actually shocked to find how many people agree with the OPs sentiment, but maybe there’s something about the demographics of who’s using a FOSS Reddit alternative or something. I’m not saying everyone is wrong or has something wrong with them or whatever, but I entirely agree with people finding this valuable, so maybe I can answer the OPs question here.

I’ve been working remotely long since before the pandemic. I’ve worked remotely for multiple companies and in different environments. I am extremely introverted and arguably anti social. I tend to want to hang out with many of my friends online over in person. But that doesn’t mean I think there’s no advantage at all. To be honest, when I first started remote work, I thought the in person thing was total bullshit. After a few meetings my opinions drastically changed.

I’ve pushed (with other employees, of course) to get remote employees flown in at least a few times a year at multiple companies. There are vastly different social dynamics in person than over video. Honestly, I don’t understand how people feel otherwise, especially if they’ve experienced it. I’ve worked with many remote employees over the years and asked about this, and most people have agreed with me. Many of these people are also introverted.

I think one of the big things here is people harping on the “face” thing. Humans communicate in large part through body language - it’s not just faces. There’s also a lot of communication in microexpressions that aren’t always captured by compressed, badly lit video. So much of communication just isn’t captured in video.

Secondly, in my experience, online meetings are extremely transactional. You meet at the scheduled time, you talk about the thing, then you close the meeting and move on. In person, people slowly mosy over to meetings. And after the meeting ends, they tend to hang around a bit and chat. When you’re working in an office, you tend to grab lunch with people. Or bump into them by the kitchen. There’s a TON more socializing happening in person where you actually bump into other people and talk them as people and not just cogs in the machine to get your work done.

I find in person interactions drastically change my relationships with people. Some people come off entirely different online and it’s not until meeting them in person that I really feel like I know them. And then I understand their issues and blockers or miscommunications better and feel more understanding of their experiences.

Maybe things are different if you work jobs with less interdepencies or are more solo. I’ve always worked jobs that take a lot of cooperation between multiple different people in different roles. And those relationships are just way more functional with people I’ve met and have a real relationship with. And that comes from things that just don’t happen online.

Im honestly really curious how anyone could feel differently. The other comments just seem mad at being required to and stating the same stuff happens online, but it just doesn’t. I do wonder if maybe it has to do with being younger and entering the workplace more online or something. But I’ve worked with hundreds of remote employees and never heard a single one say the in person stuff to be useless. And I’ve heard many say exactly the opposite.

The idea that you think people in the Bush administration sent soldiers to Afghanistan to make money is insane, and shows me you have never worked in government or met anyone who has.

The fact that you think this is so insane shows that you have no idea how the actual finances of sovereign currency works. What’d it cost them? Numbers on the “debt” that’s so astronomically high that it’s a joke?

since the US was attacked and the whole world agreed on going into Afghanistan

Yeah, sounds like you “worked” too closely to this militarization. That’s just blatantly false. Portions of the fucking US itself, the target of the attacks, still protested and was against going there.

War is a net negative (look up broken window theory) and everyone in government knows it.

Many huge corporations disagree, and profit off of this. Even in the early 2000s, while it was happening, Haliburton and Cheneys relationship were heavily criticized, because even if it’s some “net” negative or positive, there are people that stand to make a lot of money off one side of that equation.

The point of war is to change the global order, not pad pocketbooks

There were large issues people took with many international conflicts being about money and companies lining pockets. Whether it’s oil in the middle east, fruit in central America, or any of the others, there are many conflicts in the “global order” which have had huge impacts for the aggressor and their economy. If you want to try to justify each one, sure, but many points point to a trend.

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.

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.