And Valve keeps on winning the storefront war, without doing much besides quality of life features.
UE5 slop in shambles
Damn, that’s kinda a holy grail of game storefronts
Yeah, and it makes a ton of sense for Steam Deck/Machine/Frame
I remember seeing someone play a Steam Deck in an airport awhile ago and the 3D game had a HORRIBLE frame rate.
To the person playing to their credit they didn’t seem bothered but I couldn’t look away for a couple of seconds it was so shockingly bad. It made me think that a lot of people may have not really had the importance of framerate explained to them and what the relevant numbers are (film is 25, 30 is generally minimum for games and 60 is best).
Almost by definition we aren’t going to know those people but that is because if you are here you are probably a nerd, so this is good for all those blindspots. No one deserves a poor framerate if they don’t have to, unless you are Mitch McConnell.
A neat trick you can do with heavier games on … at least an OLED Deck (not sure if this is doable on the LCD version)…
You target 45 fps, min, lock the max frame rate at something like 45-50, then, use VRR set at a 1:2 ratio, so you get 45 fps at 90hz.
In many games, this generally, at least imo, ends you up with a smoother and potentially graphically higher quality than just targeting 60 fps / 60 hz.
You can also use Optiscaler / DeckyFrameGen to basically hack different/better ability to do upscaling and framegen into a fair number of games that otherwise don’t normally support it.
For instance, the OptiScaler people recently, successfully managed to get FSR 4 working on RX 6000 and 7000 cards, which also works on a Deck.
They essentially reverse engineered the previously leaked FSR4 driver to work on INT 8.
I didn’t think Deck supported VRR? If you have VRR you just cap your frame rate at 37 FPS or whatever and the screen syncs to that and refreshes at 37 Hz. What you’re describing sounds like old school vsync.
setsubyou got it more correct, my terminology is a bit off.
Yeah, you can lock the refresh rate at basically 15hz intervals (i think, last time i checked?), which is not true VRR, but, if you take the time to configure profiles and graphics settings per game, get stable and consistent frame rates, and then match the configurable refresh rate to that…
… this is sorta close to the … idea/performance of what true VRR is going for, it just doesn’t all work ‘automagically’.
I have an OLED, not an LCD, so yeah it looks like the LCD tops out at 60hz.
So with an LCD, you could aim for basically ‘always a bit above 30 fps’ and then 60hz, for that 1:2 ratio, and with an OLED, aim for ‘always a bit above 45 fps’, and then 90hz, for the same 1:2 ratio.
Its not the same, of course, as actually having 60 or 90 fps, but, as long as your fps never dips below the screen refresh rate, it looks/feels smoother than doing a 30fps or 45fps traditional vsync.
But of course, you’ll probably only need to do this for… significantly graphically heavy games… tons of less graphically intense / better optimized games will not need this level of tinkering min maxxing.
It doesn’t have VRR but it does have a configurable refresh rate. So e.g. if a game runs at a stable 40 fps you can run the display at 40 Hz too (or 80 Hz for the OLED model) and then you don’t get the uneven frame spacing you’d get from vsync with 40 fps on a 60 Hz display. With VRR the screen would also adjust to whatever frame rate the game produces even if it’s not stable, and the Deck doesn’t do that. But being able to get 40 fps with uniform frame timing instead of the 30 fps you’d have to use if the display was locked to 60 Hz (LCD model) or 90 Hz (OLED model) is a huge difference.
I don’t have a PC. My only way to play PC games is through a Deck. I’m at the point where I’m just happy to be able to play these games, period, let alone on the go.
Lowest I can go is 20fps, anything below is too nauseating. I learned to cope because I modded Skyrim to the point of no return, and I could only get max 20fps with a decent rig and a ton of optimising. Hair physics and 4k trees definitely worth it 👍
I’m happy you can appreciate frames that low. My fiance makes fun of me cuz I stress about anything below 60 lol granted my current PC doesn’t have these issues. Plus I used to game on laptops so I’m perfectly content with lower graphics for smooth frame rate.
I grew up playing RuneScape at 15 frames per second on the crappy school computers, so I’m used to it.
Yeah, I started gaming when games were bought on cassette tape. Pretty much anything is an improvement. Though TBF some stuff back then was pretty cool at the time.
I played first the Wing Commander + special operations with 8088XT 10MHz, 768kB RAM system. FPS was 20 when things were quiet, but when the shit hit the fan it was below 10.
in my case, i would play on potato graphics to get good fps, 60 is the minimum, 30 is an exception. i can FEEL it in my play if its below 100. like not only see it but it feels progressively bad the lower it is
Serious question: does the difference between 60 and 100 even matter if your monitor is capped to 60Hz?
sort of. but not to the extent that 60-100 gives. if you have a monitor capped at 60 and an fps at high, it does feel better, and it’s much more stable, and every refresh is all but guaranteed to have the most up to date frame.
if you are stuck at 60, check your monitor, and its cable. you can have a 120 refresh on the monitor, but if the hdmi cable is only rated for 60 the computer will only allow 60. had me doubting my self until i found it
It will ensure the frame being sent to your display is more recent and represent the game state the best.
It depends on the game. If the game doesn’t tie input handling to framerate, then yes, because your inputs will feel better.
Any game with motion needs 60fps at a bare minimum, with a consistent frametime. Although 90+ is preferable for an actual pleasant experience. 30fps is just abysmal for anything that isn’t FTL, Balatro or the like.
Idk man, I’ve enjoyed many a game at 30 fps. 60 is my general target but acting like it’s a minimum to have a fun time is ridiculous.
Its an opinion, I am used to a smooth experience, I play some fast paced games at 60 on my Steam Deck, its passable, but I’d obviously rather be having it run silky smooth on my PC.
If you have never really played games at higher than 30/60, then it’s impossible to understand.
My display is 144hz and I’ve played quite a few games at that framerate. When you’re talking about smoothness, what you’re actually talking about is frame time. A consistent FPS at 30 is smooth, if there’s not inconsistent frametime and stutters.
Well framerate is defined by frametime. Though the average displayed framerate differs if the frametimes are not consistent.
What I am talking about with “smoothness” here is higher framerate, I am used to 120fps on most games, I normally lock my fps to that. You may not notice it going up, but you notice it a lot when going back down to 60.
Everyone has different standards and preferences, I’d rather not play any fast shooter at 60fps.
If it’s an opinion, write it like it’s an opinion. You’re clearly not an idiot. Just say what you mean.
Yea it was a bit of a preach, I’ll admit.
I just think people should want higher standards, hardware is so powerful now, there’s no excuse for every game not to be targeting 120fps.
I dont like that many are downvoting you for having higher standards for frame rate. It is fine that people enjoy games at lower frame rates with the hardware they have but I don’t think it makes sense to berate those that are striving for higher standards.
It’s fine, it’s always the case with opinions like this :D Downvoting will always be used as a disagree button, that’s never going to change.
I can’t play FTL at anything less than 240 fps. Those life bars depleting from oxygen deprivation need to be buttery smooth
Ahahah, only play it at 4K 240FPS HDR, or its not a true experience!
I fly helicopters and airplanes in battlefield type games on multiplayer servers on my steam deck framelocked at 40 fps and do fine, I play shooters all the time at that framerate. I think if you get used to a higher framerate your brain just must lose the capability to fill in the blanks or something, it really doesnt bother me too much.
My brain sees it like distortion in a quadcopter fpv goggle feed or something lol. The issue is really rapidly changing framerate, the acceleration and deceleration is disorienting.
Its definitely something you get used to, I really dont enjoy low framerate anymore. If I forced myself to play it for hours and hours, maybe I would eventually be able to put up with it again. I can stomach 60 in most games. But ever since I’ve had access to high framerates, 30 and 60 just dont cut it for fast moving games.
You would hate my setup then. Nice pc with a 60 Hertz 1080p monitor.
I didn’t get a prompt on my PC for this, but on my Steam Deck it asked me if I was okay with them collecting anonymous framerate data.
But but but the 30% cut is too high it’s not justified and the epic game store takes only 12%!!!111
You can agree that this is great without being stupid. 12% would be great for developers. This is great for consumers. They’re different things. It’d be nice for Steam to take less of the developer’s money. I hope you can agree with that.
I’ve had a long-winded discussion about that a few days ago. Yes, 12% would be great for devs, but guess what, 0% would be even better.
Steam takes care of the entire e-commerce and distribution side, which is very expensive. Just look up what publishers used to take back in the day for taking over game distribution, that was like 70%. Not exactly a time you want to go back to as indie dev.
If you think a 12% cut would be viable, idk. However, epic just recently laid off 1000 people so idk how financially successful that company currently is.
Laying off employees is not a sign of being unsuccessful. In fact, in many cases it’s the opposite. Also Epic as a storefront is horrific, and Tim is a cunt, so it shouldn’t be any surprise that very few people actually buy from them.
I’ve had a long-winded discussion about that a few days ago. Yes, 12% would be great for devs, but guess what, 0% would be even better.
Yes, 0% would be better. What’s your point? Valve is charging 30%. That’s worse than 12%, correct? It’s better. Why do people like you always have to defend what a company does all the time?
Steam takes care of the entire e-commerce and distribution side, which is very expensive. Just look up what publishers used to take back in the day for taking over game distribution, that was like 70%. Not exactly a time you want to go back to as indie dev.
No one is saying we want to go back to that. Them being better than that does not make them good. Hitler killed a smaller percentage of the population than Genghis Khan, but that doesn’t make Hitler not evil, right?
If you think a 12% cut would be viable, idk. However, epic just recently laid off 1000 people so idk how financially successful that company currently is.
They make an incredible amount of money. Their employees are extremely generously rewarded. This means the 30% is well over what is required. I can’t give a number of what they need, and neither can you. Notably, the Epic layoff was for Fortnite, because of a reduction in players, not the Epic store team. It has nothing to do with distribution or engine development. Even still, Fortnite was profitable. It was just less profitable.
Why do we have to defend every action Valve takes? Why can’t we criticize them? Why does anyone still have loyalty to any corporation in the modern day? That was a fairy tale that I thought people here were over.
I’m a Linux gamer. I appreciate what they’ve done. I’ve been on Steam for I don’t even know how long at this point. That sure as hell doesn’t mean I’m not going to point out what they do that’s wrong. If anything, it should be the opposite. I don’t want them to become bad, so I need to call out when they’re doing the wrong thing.
Why do people like you always have to defend what a company does all the time?
I’m not defending them. I’m saying that a service has to be financially successful, something that many people on lemmy seemingly forgot after reading too much Marx. Are they making more than they need? Absolutely. But the value they are providing is just worth a great deal to devs and I just don’t think that giving up 30% of your sales is a bad deal for handling the entire distribution. I’ve worked in E-Commerce for over 10 years now and 30% is like the standard fee for this kind of stuff - in many industries, the fees are way higher.
So, COULD they charge less? Very likely. But I don’t really see why. The service they provide is just worth that much. I think it’s a fantasy that companies can suddenly start to charge less just because they already have a lot of money.
Notably, the Epic layoff was for Fortnite, because of a reduction in players, not the Epic store team.
Afaik, theyl aid off people across the entire company. The reason was a reduction in fortnite money, but the layoffs were even across the UE development teams.
Why can’t we criticize them? Why does anyone still have loyalty to any corporation in the modern day?
You can. I just don’t agree with that criticism. Valve does shitty things at times. The fact that they are really opaque when it comes to algorithms and support decisions is shit, the price parity rule, while being standard in the industry, is shit and the lack of control for early access games is pretty shit - we can criticize all that and more.
And yes, you can also criticize the 30% cut. That’s your right. However, I’m just not agreeing with that stance. That isn’t defending a company, even tho you’re trying to frame it as such. That’s just me having a different opinion. And you trying to frame disagreement as “being loyal to a company” is a great way to completely stifle a discussion. Why even argue at that point, just insult me and move on lmao.
I’m not defending them. I’m saying that a service has to be financially successful…
No, the comment above brought up the stupid argument to defend them. You implying they need to to remain solvent is defending them too. How many yachts does Gaben have? How generously are the employees paid? Clearly they’re making more than enough money with 30%. Where that number would need to be to not make a profit is unknown, but it’s certainly far lower. You can understand this, right?
But the value they are providing is just worth a great deal to devs and I just don’t think that giving up 30% of your sales is a bad deal for handling the entire distribution.
I said this already, but this is assuming the sales wouldn’t happen if Steam didn’t exist. I doubt it. The sales numbers would be approximately the same, provided by someone else. They just have almost full market domination, so you don’t have a choice but to sell on Steam. It isn’t because it’s so great for the developers. It’s because they don’t have a choice.
I’ve worked in E-Commerce for over 10 years now and 30% is like the standard fee for this kind of stuff - in many industries, the fees are way higher.
“Thats just the way things are” isn’t an argument. “Slavery is just the way we do things! You can’t say it’s bad! We wouldn’t make a profit otherwise!” Not a good argument, right?
So, COULD they charge less? Very likely. But I don’t really see why.
To help developers. It seems like you’re purely capitalism brained. My argument was that it’d be better for developers. I didn’t say they’d make more profit. There’s a lot of bad things you can do to make more money. It doesn’t mean you should. It’d be good for the industry if they charged less. It’d allow smaller studios to make a profit for more niche games.
The service they provide is just worth that much.
Again, there isn’t a choice (for developers). It makes it worth it in the same way it’s worth it to hand over my wallet when someone points a gun to my head. It doesn’t mean it’s the best outcome for the developer if other options were equally viable.
Afaik, theyl aid off people across the entire company. The reason was a reduction in fortnite money, but the layoffs were even across the UE development teams.
IIRC, no. It was Fortnite specific.
And yes, you can also criticize the 30% cut. That’s your right. However, I’m just not agreeing with that stance. That isn’t defending a company, even tho you’re trying to frame it as such.
What do you define “defending” as? You’re making arguments supporting the behavior. Who in the world wouldn’t define that as defence? I’m not framing it as defence. It just is.
Where that number would need to be to not make a profit is unknown, but it’s certainly far lower. You can understand this, right?
Yes. But nobody knows. It certainly is lower. But again, and this is the last time I say this: A service needs to be finanically successful. This business is more than just it’s operating cost. On top of that, I’ll say this one again: The service is just worth it. Nobody in the world offers such an easy handling of the entire distribution chain combined with such a massive audience.
“Thats just the way things are” isn’t an argument.
While that’s true, that wasn’t my argument. My argument is that 30% is usually a fairly decent sweet spot for a platform when it comes to running a distribution system. I’ve build quite a few marketplaces in my time, and the standard fees were between 20% and 40%, all depending on how much work the platform had to do.
Again, there isn’t a choice (for developers).
There’s plenty of choice. You can choose not to sell your game on steam, put it on the EGS exclusively and accept that you’re never going to reach the audience you’d do with steam. Now you just gotta figure out if the lesser sales at 12% are more profitable than the more sales at 30%.
What do you define “defending” as?
You make defending sound like I’m a company white-knight that’ll defend a company from any wrongdoing ever, which simply isn’t the case. Valve does some shitty things and I have called them out for it. I just don’t think the 30% cut is bad in any capacity.
Why do people like you always have to defend what a company does all the time?
Because it’s pretty fucking obvious that the 12% cut was just Tim Swiney trying to grab market share for EGS without actually putting in the work to develop it.
Remember how it took over 2 years for them to add a cart? Remember how they just laid off 1000 employees? Using Fortnite money to pay for exclusive deals and game givaways instead of actually developing the store hasn’t turned out profitable.
Also, ever notice how nobody was complaining about Steam’s cut before that? And let’s not forget that Steam Greenlight and subsequent opening up of allowing nearly any game onto their platform is what made the indie market more than an extremely small niche. Or the fact that much of the 30% cut is getting reinvested into Linux and FOSS to keep PC gaming an open ecosystem, which benefits everyone, including indie studioa
Remember how they just laid off 1000 employees?
Again, that was from the Fortnite team. It’s like if Valve laid off people working on DOTA, it doesn’t mean the storefront is doing poorly.
Also, ever notice how nobody was complaining about Steam’s cut before that?
Yeah… you weren’t paying attention then. People have been complaining about it before their storefront existed. This has been discussed a lot. Steam actually doesn’t take 30%. That’s the default. Big games, despite making more money, actually pay less, as dumb as that sounds.
Or the fact that much of the 30% cut is getting reinvested into Linux and FOSS to keep PC gaming an open ecosystem…
Citation needed. Some is. How much is going towards Gaben’s several yachts?
As long as Steam can give at least 25.8 percent more sales than Epic (or other place that offers 12%), it’s a better deal for developers as well.
(math: (1-0.12)/(1-0.30)=1.2571=1+25.71%)
Only if we assume a sale not made on Steam is a sale lost. If Steam didn’t get the sale and the purchase was made somewhere with a higher return instead, the dev would make more from the sale. Odds are, if Valve didn’t have almost full market control, people would still buy games, they’d just buy them somewhere else.
By that logic valve would be justified with even 95% cut if network efect was even stronger. That’s stupid logic that only thinks in terms of working with what you have. Valve already takes a cut and not a hard value. It’s in their very business to increase sales and they shouldn’t be additionally rewarded for such because by increased sales they already get the money.
Fair enough - I was thinking in terms of choice rather than justification. A better question, then, would be: what is a fair percentage given Steam’s services both developer-side and player-side (more satisfied players are also a perk for developers)?
Plus, their investment into Linux gaming and FOSS in general are preventing PC gaming from being locked down to a singled OS that becomes a walled garden.
Ultimately the EGS has shown 12% is not profitable, a lower cut would be nice for smaller devs but I don’t see why Valve would when every other platform of Steam’s size also takes 30%.
Ultimately the EGS has shown 12% is not profitable…
Citation needed. They’re still operating, while paying games for exclusivity, and giving away games for free (at their own cost). Sure, a lot of this is likely funded by Fortnite, but to say it isn’t profitable when they’re giving away this much money is a big claim. Also, Valve would be significantly more profitable at the same rate, because they have almost total market capture. Even if Epic isn’t profitable (I’ve seen no evidence of this) we can’t extrapolate to say Vlave wouldn’t be.
Sure, a lot of this is likely funded by Fortnite
If it needs to be subsidized by Fortnite then it’s by definition not profitable
Them giving away a ton of money does not mean the distribution alone isn’t profitable.
Steam is a multi-billion dollar company and Gabe owns like 4 yachts. They can easily afford to lower their commission.
Also note that nobody was saying this before Tim Swiney started trying to break into the marlet
I agree. We need more kids being exposed to gambling. Steam earning money from ruining children is very important for those neat features. :3 Steam FTW. Amirite g*mers? <333
For real though. This is just long term business strategy. They are not your friend. They can do things things that are good and things that are very bad. Stop defending big corporation that doesn’t know or care about your existence. I can’t even discribe how sad it is to be a person that needs to get defensive about a corporation because their service is alright for the most part.
We need more kids being exposed to gambling
I’m honestly tired of debating that point again and again. However, to summarize my stance on this: If parents are unable or unwilling to monitor what their child is playing or spending money on, that is not the problem of steam - or any platform for that matter. It’s also not EAs fault if a child is spending thousands of bucks in ultimate team. If my child stole my credit card and did that, I would refund the money immediately and get his account locked. It’s honestly tiring of hearing people demanding companies to “protect the children” when many parents do fuck all to protect or educate THEIR children.
I can’t even discribe how sad it is to be a person that needs to get defensive about a corporation because their service is alright for the most part.
Saying that a 30% cut is justified for everything steam offers isn’t “defending” steam, it’s just stating my opinion, but yeah whatever, you do you.
It’s honestly tiring of hearing people demanding companies to “protect the children” when many parents do fuck all to protect or educate THEIR children.
That’s exactly why they need to do more… Children shouldn’t suffer because corporations exploit them and their shitty parents.
Disagree. Not because I don’t want corporations to do something, but because the ways they’d need to implement are a net-negative overall.
There’s a huge discussion going on right now about age verification on OS level. That’s exactly the kind of shitty results we get when we have other entities being responsible for child safety than the parents. And that’s not a world I want to live in. I don’t want to have to upload my government ID to any service I want to use and live in a borderline surveillance state because parents aren’t able to pay attention to their children.
Ager verification is absolutely not a necessity to curtail gambling, obviously.
It is. There is no other way to “protect the children” if you don’t want parents to do their job.
They were also the ones to bring out the 30% cut mocking the people talking about it in general and when I called them out they doubled down saying that sharing an opinion is not defending a corporation. Lmao
I see so many bad takes from them in this thread and it’s wild to see people upvote them. I thought the users here would know better about tech instead of getting parasocial with a corporation and thinking it can’t do bad…
Yup. People forget that the internet is adult by default. A child cannot buy an internet connection.
The “protect the children” crowd, while they think they mean well, are fucking clowns. Let’s start with actually protecting them, you know what the biggest killer of children is? Cars. Let’s ban them first, shall we?
We should never have to show ID to use the internet, it’s crazy dystopian, giving governments and corporations more and more control of our lives.
Cars. Let’s ban them first, shall we?
We need walkable cities and ample public transit first.
Not disagreeing though. It’d be great to transition back to them in the US
Or, hear me out on this one…
Real-money-and-equivalent gambling could be removed from Steam completely. No age verification needed.
As for child safety, Steam already has parental control features. I don’t know how extensive/useful are they, though.
Real-money-and-equivalent gambling could be removed from Steam completely
As the entire betting and gambling market is outside of steam, the only thing they could do is removing the entire steam marketplace, which would be a pretty impactful step that overall would just take a fairly cool feature away. I think it’s honestly pretty cool that I can make use of skins or other items in games that I no longer play, much better than playing a game, having plenty of skins and then do nothing with them.
As for child safety, Steam already has parental control features. I don’t know how extensive/useful are they, though.
Idk either, but from what I know, child safety features in most platforms are pretty extensive and powerful these days.
And I was talking about literal casinos running on steam and not the exploitative games in there. There’s absolutely no reason for steam virtual market (don’t remember the name) to exist (besides it making valve money) and they could crack down on casinos easily but again, that makes them money. Also steam popularised lootboxes and they have this dumb case + key psychological trick in cs to drive more purchases. As for the 30% cut, the indie devs already have it rough. Developing a game takes a lot of effort and time. Taking 30% cut while publishers take another cut on top makes it hard for indies to sustain themselves and so they often close down. Not to mention the insanity of steam actually lowering the cut for really big studios (the more you earn the lower the cut) to keep them on the platform when corporations will do just fine and the indies need the money the most.
That is a separate and valid issue Steam needs to be called out on, yes.
Like taking a massive cut because they have network effect to their advantage isn’t. I’m mocking them because they mock people pointing out issues with the platform doing shitty stuff for money without anything in this thread prompting them to do that.
Well, the closest they have to a decent competitor is GOG. Epic is only good for free games (and supports AI slop).
I don’t understand why you are bringing other platforms up. This isn’t sport. Just because I’m calling out valve doesn’t mean I side with other platforms (teams) and think that they are better and need to win…
I was bringing them out from a developer choice standpoint and acknowledged that it was a bad angle for this later.
Do they exclude nvidia’s bullshit
fake”AI generated” frames?Hopefully they list FG framerate and raw FPS, the overlay counter can already distinguish between them
Yeah I got a survey asking if I would share these info anymously
Purely theoretically, it is possible to implement this… But there are a lot of factors that contribute to changes.
It’s harder than they think.
I like that this will put a spotlight on crappy engines and devs
So fucking tired of these chatgpt emoji every fucking where.
You are absolutely correct 🙌
Other users also mentioned this — let me explain why this works 🤫
👀So🤔fucking🤬tired🥱of🚨these🤑chatgpt🤓emoji🍑every📢fucking😵💫where.🤮
Linkedin is leaking
What, where?
The 🚨 and 👀 at the start and end of the first part of the post I guess.
That’s just how these types of „news“ accounts on twitter write, they did that before ChatGPT too
🙄
—
Are you stupid? Humans use emojis too, they did way before chatbots.
Yeah, like where else would the LLMs pick it up?
>:(
This is one of those things that after a few years, is going to become a heavyweight feature that every other storefront should have been working to have but for some reason haven’t started yet like Steam Input or WINE/Proton/Linux integration. I imagine in the near future retro-handhelds mostly abandoning Android for Linux and basing their specs and marketing around some analytics done on Steam games and the crowd-sourced game performance data. PS4 is in its 13th year. Blink and next thing you know you’ll be seeing cheap mini handhelds advertising playing vintage PS4 era video games on your bought from AliExpress PSP sized retro gaming handheld. It’ll be advertised like 98% of games released before 2020 have been found to run well on hardware as powerful as this gaming device (*according to Steam user data)
Steam just can’t stop winning. The competition is so far behind they never even appeared in the rear view mirror to begin with
Curious about how they’d approach this.
In practice, even with the same system specs and game settings, if you run through a game in a slightly different manner than someone else, it might paint a different performance picture for you than it does for them. The more a game allows free roaming, the more variation there will be in results. I doubt they’ll ask everyone to run a benchmark for each game (and to further that, not every game has a benchmark capabilities built in to begin with).
At least they have the benefit of potentially having huge data sets on their hands, so things would probably even out.
okay, that takes care of fps, but what about spf?
Should be labeled clearly on the outside of the container of suncream.
Only available on laptop models ans handhelds. They assume you aren’t setting up your desktop outside
challenge accepted
That’s a great idea. I wonder if it will make developers consider optimizing their games more.
Depends if Valve also require disclosure if “frame-generation” was used in the benchmark.
Very easy to claim a game runs at 4K 60fps when it’s actually 720p 30fps with blurry up-scaled frames in-between.
I highly suspect it’ll lead to less than serious developers finding a way to trick this system.
Valve HATES this ONE TRICK to DOUBLE YOUR FPS INSTANTLY!
- Render scene to texture
- Copy texture to frame buffer, present it, wait for vblank (x2)
- Repeat from step 1.
Yes, I got a prompt on Steam Deck asking if they could collect anonymised FPS data from my games !
I said no, but there will be enough people who say yes to collect that data reliably.
Steam on a Linux machine the only thing were I opt in to the anonymous data collection.
Neat. It’s going to be interesting how they will solve the issue of different quality settings - I don’t care about FPS at “ultra” settings, usually it’s more important how the FPS are at low settings before you have to take desperate measures like turning down the resolution, completely turning off antialiasing, using upscaling etc. that have an extremely negative effect on graphics fidelity.
Also, two games running at an average of 60FPS might give very different experiences depending on how consistent the FPS are.
I hope that it take in account the game versions, eg: they say that my hardware will make 60 fps in the 1.2 version, and then when the 1.3 came out they will make me know that it will run at 50 fps instead of telling me that the game will run at 120 fps because they take in account older version where the game had less laggy stuff
They may be able say something like “50% or users run the game at 30fps, 40% at 40fps” or something like that, where you can guess about different settings people are running at.
The biggest thing is just knowing whether it’s possible to run the game on your hardware at the minimum acceptable fps. If average fps for a steam deck game is 25, you know it doesn’t run well. If a significant number of deck users are able to average a higher fps than 30 (40-60), you know the deck can run it decently and you’ll have options besides running everything on the lowest setting.
Yeah but the Deck will be really interesting for this, since I play most of my games at 30fps with 7TDP when the Deck could perform better.
I guess, people doing what I do should not be taken into account…
Accounting for patches will also be interesting, especially for newer games that are still working their way towards a decent state.
Thinking about it, they’ll probably use a law of large numbers and average out similar specs.
It will probably reveal which crowd is bigger: the high frame rate crowd or the high quality crowd.
They’re gonna have to take into account for programs like lsfg-vk, Decky-framegen and others that increase frame rates. Easy to do on the deck though just ignore reports from games that have the programs launch option. Cant do that with my laptop though as lsfg-vk just grabs the process by name.
I suspect that will shake out with enough data. And I bet they can cross-estimate based on performance of various hardware configs across games too.
If they end up having a message on some games that says “not enough data yet.” Or similar, you’ll know they need a good sized volume to extrapolate average performance.
I’m sure they have considered all of this and the estimates will be conservative and rages/performance windows, not “we estimate this title will run at 47.5 fps on your rig.”
Frame generation is surely on their mind too.
