▲ 1063 ▼ Steam is adding support to show estimated FPS for your hardware before buying a game (sopuli.xyz) submitted 4 months ago by Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz [M] to c/steamdeck@sopuli.xyz 154 comments fedilink hide all child comments More details here: https://www.techspot.com/news/111951-steam-could-soon-show-estimated-fps-based-crowd.html?hl=en-US
[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 234 points 4 months ago (2 children) Damn, that's kinda a holy grail of game storefronts permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz [S] 114 points 4 months ago (2 children) Yeah, and it makes a ton of sense for Steam Deck/Machine/Frame permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 39 points 4 months ago* (20 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 26 child comments replies: [–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 4 months ago* (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zurohki@aussie.zone 9 points 4 months ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] setsubyou@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago* 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Hideakikarate@sh.itjust.works 16 points 4 months ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] echodot@feddit.uk 8 points 4 months ago (2 children) I grew up playing RuneScape at 15 frames per second on the crappy school computers, so I'm used to it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] random_character_a@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Regrettable_incident@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sophocles@infosec.pub 7 points 4 months ago (1 child) 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 👍 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnimportantHuman@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nikelui@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (3 children) Serious question: does the difference between 60 and 100 even matter if your monitor is capped to 60Hz? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago* 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 permalink fedilink source parent [–] StinkyRedMan@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago It will ensure the frame being sent to your display is more recent and represent the game state the best. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] xkbx@startrek.website 2 points 4 months ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (14 replies) [–] warm@kbin.earth 3 points 4 months ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip 8 points 4 months ago (27 children) But but but the 30% cut is too high it's not justified and the epic game store takes only 12%!!!!!!111 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 29 child comments replies: [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 23 points 4 months ago (8 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip 13 points 4 months ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 5 points 4 months ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 months ago (3 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip 5 points 4 months ago (5 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (2 replies) [–] MousePotatoDoesStuff@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago* (4 children) 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%) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (6 replies) [–] artyom@piefed.social 4 points 4 months ago Steam is a multi-billion dollar company and Gabe owns like 4 yachts. They can easily afford to lower their commission. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (25 replies)
[–] Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz [S] 114 points 4 months ago (2 children) Yeah, and it makes a ton of sense for Steam Deck/Machine/Frame permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 39 points 4 months ago* (20 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 26 child comments replies: [–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 4 months ago* (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zurohki@aussie.zone 9 points 4 months ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] setsubyou@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago* 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Hideakikarate@sh.itjust.works 16 points 4 months ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] echodot@feddit.uk 8 points 4 months ago (2 children) I grew up playing RuneScape at 15 frames per second on the crappy school computers, so I'm used to it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] random_character_a@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Regrettable_incident@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sophocles@infosec.pub 7 points 4 months ago (1 child) 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 👍 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnimportantHuman@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nikelui@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (3 children) Serious question: does the difference between 60 and 100 even matter if your monitor is capped to 60Hz? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago* 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 permalink fedilink source parent [–] StinkyRedMan@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago It will ensure the frame being sent to your display is more recent and represent the game state the best. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] xkbx@startrek.website 2 points 4 months ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (14 replies) [–] warm@kbin.earth 3 points 4 months ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 39 points 4 months ago* (20 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 26 child comments replies: [–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 4 months ago* (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zurohki@aussie.zone 9 points 4 months ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] setsubyou@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago* 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Hideakikarate@sh.itjust.works 16 points 4 months ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] echodot@feddit.uk 8 points 4 months ago (2 children) I grew up playing RuneScape at 15 frames per second on the crappy school computers, so I'm used to it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] random_character_a@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Regrettable_incident@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sophocles@infosec.pub 7 points 4 months ago (1 child) 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 👍 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnimportantHuman@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nikelui@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (3 children) Serious question: does the difference between 60 and 100 even matter if your monitor is capped to 60Hz? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago* 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 permalink fedilink source parent [–] StinkyRedMan@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago It will ensure the frame being sent to your display is more recent and represent the game state the best. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] xkbx@startrek.website 2 points 4 months ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (14 replies)
[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 4 months ago* (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zurohki@aussie.zone 9 points 4 months ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] setsubyou@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago* 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] zurohki@aussie.zone 9 points 4 months ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] setsubyou@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago* 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] setsubyou@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago* 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Hideakikarate@sh.itjust.works 16 points 4 months ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 8 points 4 months ago (2 children) I grew up playing RuneScape at 15 frames per second on the crappy school computers, so I'm used to it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] random_character_a@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Regrettable_incident@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] random_character_a@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Regrettable_incident@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Sophocles@infosec.pub 7 points 4 months ago (1 child) 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 👍 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnimportantHuman@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UnimportantHuman@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nikelui@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (3 children) Serious question: does the difference between 60 and 100 even matter if your monitor is capped to 60Hz? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago* 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 permalink fedilink source parent [–] StinkyRedMan@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago It will ensure the frame being sent to your display is more recent and represent the game state the best. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Nikelui@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (3 children) Serious question: does the difference between 60 and 100 even matter if your monitor is capped to 60Hz? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago* 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 permalink fedilink source parent [–] StinkyRedMan@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago It will ensure the frame being sent to your display is more recent and represent the game state the best. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago* 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 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] StinkyRedMan@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago It will ensure the frame being sent to your display is more recent and represent the game state the best. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] xkbx@startrek.website 2 points 4 months ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] warm@kbin.earth 3 points 4 months ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip 8 points 4 months ago (27 children) But but but the 30% cut is too high it's not justified and the epic game store takes only 12%!!!!!!111 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 29 child comments replies: [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 23 points 4 months ago (8 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip 13 points 4 months ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 5 points 4 months ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 months ago (3 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip 5 points 4 months ago (5 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (2 replies) [–] MousePotatoDoesStuff@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago* (4 children) 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%) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (6 replies) [–] artyom@piefed.social 4 points 4 months ago Steam is a multi-billion dollar company and Gabe owns like 4 yachts. They can easily afford to lower their commission. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (25 replies)
[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 23 points 4 months ago (8 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip 13 points 4 months ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 5 points 4 months ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 months ago (3 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip 5 points 4 months ago (5 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (2 replies) [–] MousePotatoDoesStuff@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago* (4 children) 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%) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (6 replies)
[–] realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip 13 points 4 months ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 5 points 4 months ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 months ago (3 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip 5 points 4 months ago (5 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (2 replies)
[–] artyom@piefed.social 5 points 4 months ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 months ago (3 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip 5 points 4 months ago (5 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (2 replies)
[–] realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip 5 points 4 months ago (5 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments load more comments (5 replies)
[–] MousePotatoDoesStuff@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago* (4 children) 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%) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies)
[–] artyom@piefed.social 4 points 4 months ago Steam is a multi-billion dollar company and Gabe owns like 4 yachts. They can easily afford to lower their commission. permalink fedilink source parent