Asenna Steam
kirjaudu sisään
|
kieli
简体中文 (yksinkertaistettu kiina)
繁體中文 (perinteinen kiina)
日本語 (japani)
한국어 (korea)
ไทย (thai)
български (bulgaria)
Čeština (tšekki)
Dansk (tanska)
Deutsch (saksa)
English (englanti)
Español – España (espanja – Espanja)
Español – Latinoamérica (espanja – Lat. Am.)
Ελληνικά (kreikka)
Français (ranska)
Italiano (italia)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesia)
Magyar (unkari)
Nederlands (hollanti)
Norsk (norja)
Polski (puola)
Português (portugali – Portugali)
Português – Brasil (portugali – Brasilia)
Română (romania)
Русский (venäjä)
Svenska (ruotsi)
Türkçe (turkki)
Tiếng Việt (vietnam)
Українська (ukraina)
Ilmoita käännösongelmasta



I do not want to be snooped at how i play certain games, that's for sure.
Even then it's inaccurate at best because same hardware doesn't necessarily mean same performance because not every system is configured the same way.
Furthermore, the system requirement info fields are form free text fields instead of static fields in which to add or select hardware components from.
Liability - the fact that someone is legally responsible for something and why developers, publishers DO NOT commit to games running on your PC because they CANNOT test every possible PC config out there. They list min, rec specs to remove liability.
Valve cannot commit to another developers game running on your PC, (liability) and would open themselves up to be sued by both the developer and the user.
Even those sites such as CanYouRunIt do not commit to a game running on your PC. They give you a general idea.
The mantra is know your PC and what it is capable of based on the current games you have.
Understandable but don't they already log hardware for the steam hardware survey?
Or is it an opt in system in the EU? I wouldn't mind if it saved said data locally and i had the option to send it.
In addition to that the data could also be anonymized locally before sending it to Valve.
Wouldn't this system also help us figure out which games are well optimized?
If a game says for example that an RTX5060 is recommended and people with an RTX5060 get 30FPS that could be an issue.
Understandable however i think they could get a more accurate measurement with a lot of user data and all the various Steam APIs that are being used when you play a game.
That's fair but if we can go one step ahead of the refund policy then why not?
But still, collecting hardware info and benchmarking data is still horribly inaccurate because the logger won't know what software and drivers will throttle or deoptimize the measured system.
Anyway we can argue about it but in the end of the day valve devs are the ones who look into it and probably their legal department.
If such method was feasible, Valve would have considered and implemented it years ago.
It's not a new idea. If it was so simple to do, there would be a dozen of mature high quality options, and you'd know about them already.
So... why aren't things like that? Once you understand the answer to that question, you'll know why "valve devs" ain't gonna waste their time.
The TL:DR; trying to get highly accurate results from fuzzy, non-standardized slop data is easy to imagine, not easy to do. And no one really wants a tool that's kinda sorta useful, and sometimes not wrong... OH NO I've described AI, guess I'm wrong.
New I idea, just use AI. You'll get the same results.
There are multiple PC configurations out there and not just hardware but also what software is installed and why there is no "it will run at level X."
What can affect performance?
Failing hardware the user is not aware of such as ram, graphic card etc.
Realtime antivirus/malware scanning, Windows indexing enabled, borked Windows update, graphic driver issues, soundcard driver issues, undetected malware etc.
Any tool that would tell you if you could run a game, and maybe a scale of 'how well', would have to assume properly functioning hardware, and a machine that ISN'T cluttered with bloatware/malware/virus/etc. There is literally tons of data out there on individual part performance, so doing so would be possible... (considering it has already been done.....) But, yes, there are a LOT of variables that go into how well anything runs and any particular set of hardware. So, best case would be a 'range' of performance for any given machine.....
It did so well for Microsoft that they removed it from the OS. They tried again with the Microsoft Store and it tells user X they cannot run game Y when in fact they can.
So why is it those CanYouRunSites do not commit to a game running without performance issues on your PC? Liability is why not.
And that would be in. Something like that will be "somewhat" reliable within a wide range of variables that cannot be controlled and does require a tiny little bit of knowledge. Users not knowing or not caring to know about some variables would completely throw the "perceived" reliability out the door. And the feature would be deemed as "trash" or any other bad adjective you can think of.