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.
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.
I grew up playing RuneScape at 15 frames per second on the crappy school computers, so I’m used to it.
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.
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.
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.
shit, was that me? that sounds like me. cyberpunk runs pretty bad on the deck, bg3 is pretty choppy… but older games like DS1 and DS2 seem to run pretty smooth for me, but I’ve always been bad at noticing quality.
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 depends on the game. If the game doesn’t tie input handling to framerate, then yes, because your inputs will feel better.
It will ensure the frame being sent to your display is more recent and represent the game state the best.
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.
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!
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 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.
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.
You seem to not understand what “profit” means.
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
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?
🙄
Are you stupid? Humans use emojis too, they did way before chatbots.
Yeah, like where else would the LLMs pick it up?
>:(
—
Steam just can’t stop winning. The competition is so far behind they never even appeared in the rear view mirror to begin with
And Valve keeps on winning the storefront war, without doing much besides quality of life features.
I like that this will put a spotlight on crappy engines and devs
That’s a great idea. I wonder if it will make developers consider optimizing their games more.
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.
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.
Do they exclude nvidia’s bullshit
fake”AI generated” frames?What settings would they use for those FPS numbers? Most importantly, does it count Nvidia’s generated frames in that number?
Steam’s fps overlay can show base frames and generated frames separately, so I’m assuming they’ll be able to only show base frames.
lmao very curious to see what steam thinks of my unnatural unholy abomination of a setup
This is something gamers wish to have since inception of PC Gaming. And it was always told this cannot be done. That’s why we rely on game specs and tests. I mean we still rely on, but a storefront putting estimated FPS is something they would fear to do. And here we have VALVE (once again) doing the impossible. Very curious to see how this will workout in reality.
It’s literally been a thing for decades. Not only have games themselves had automatic configuration based on the machine its installed to, sites like “Can You Run It” have been around for a very long time.
No, this has never done before. Games configuring itself is something completely different and irrelevant to our discussion topic. It has nothing to do with gathering information from players and trying to estimate a FPS before buying the game. “Can You Run It” also does not estimate a FPS for your hardware, based on opt-in information from analyzing the FPS you are playing the game. And especially making it an official thing for a store is also spicey, because usually those stores selling the games themselves could potentially be sued for false marketing if it does not work well enough.
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.
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
I would still take with a big grain of salt tbh.
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)
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.
