安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
For me and I'm sure many others, I would prefer to play my older titles on an OLED. I'm not actually concerned with the performance increase, to be honest. As with the other post above, I waited a very long time because I wanted OLED. If they had made the announcement, people would have been free to decide if they wanted to buy the LCD version in the meantime or to wait (I would have even waited another year if it was announced that far ahead). They did not do this, and you, I, and everyone else knows why.
Go get a 3DS and a New 3DS and play Majora's Mask on both. I'll wait.
You are not alone brother lol
Yeah, sure. It's technically a better device that was announced days before release. Oh well.
Fair. However to call it nontroversy is a bit of a reach and I personally wouldn't think of it that way. Consider what others that are affected by this feel in comparison to how you think about it. I suppose it is the problem of those that complain rather than those that are complacent however this in general would never be a fair thing even if it was affecting you friend. Anyways have a wonderful day
For you and others, it might only be a 2-3 fps performance increase. For those of us who primarily use the Deck to play older titles, it is a 50% performance increase. There is absolutely no question that the OLED has significantly better performance.
This is consistent in video reviews, and most written reviews either don't mention it or only have a brief blurb about it because the performance difference isn't worth talking about.
Here, let me help you.
90/60 = 1.5. That means +50%.
Most of the games I play would easily run at 300fps or higher if the display would support it (though 90 would be plenty for me). Your use case is not everyone's use case. Not everybody uses their Steam Deck to play games released in the past year.
You're citing a metric that that doesn't boost the performance of a system, but instead only matters if the rest of the hardware is already pushing that performance to begin with. That's not happening that often in games where high FPS really matters.
That is either insanely doubtful, or you're playing games so old that they're functionally niche titles at this point, or your emulating (which depending on system and games, higher refresh rates still might not matter if the game is designed to run at a set FPS and doesn't work properly if ran faster). We're talking about an APU that's in a similar performance vein as a GTX 1050.
My friend, I think you might have a touch of the narcissism. There are plenty of people who enjoy older games. People other than you can also have valid opinions. Can I get you a sippy cup of juice?
This is uncalled for. There is no need to devolve the conversation from a constructive difference to a shameful battle of insults and jabs. How can we expect steam to do better if we are just at each other over this whole thing?
You don't have to play the newest games to hit sub 60 FPS. Older games absolutely can be demanding enough to not hit 60 FPS. Had you properly read and acknowledged what I actually said, you'd've seen that I've already addressed this point.
In order for the culmination of your claims to make sense (particularly the 300 FPS or higher on Deck), you wouldn't be playing decade old games. You'd be playing games that are nearing 2 to 3 decades old, which is niche, or emulating.
The simple fact is, the Deck is a QoL update. Performance is effectively unchanged. You failing to argue (in what is my opinion bad faith) on technicality doesn't change that.
Yes, that is exactly why I purchased a Steam Deck. I can't take consoles and televisions out with me. I prefer to unlock framerates and play at 144hz on my monitor, but that isn't an option outside. I was waiting to see if they would release an OLED revision before buying the LCD Steam Deck because otherwise they said the Steam Deck 2 would be late 2025 at the earliest, and it became heavily implied that there wouldn't be anything like that until that time. That is effectively the entire discussion.
I think you might find that playing games 20+ years old is much more common than you think. Perhaps not for you and for your circle of friends, but it's actually a very large community. For us, 90hz is a 50% improvement over 60%, and one that many of us would absolutely wait for. You cannot argue that is not the case. You are making the argument that anybody who does not share your viewpoint does not deserve to be considered, and that only your own tastes are common enough to matter.
I purchased the Steam Deck begrudgingly as a band-aid until the Steam Deck 2 which I anticipated having OLED and a higher framerate, so that I could support Valve and have my one-stop-shop emulation device. Then, out of nowhere, the device fitting my exact needs comes out, and I am expected to pay full price after having just done so with no warning that an update was coming almost immediately. I am not the only person who has experienced this. There are many people who use the Steam Deck the way that I do, and there are many people that use the Steam Deck the way that you do. They all deserve to be considered, and it is unfair of you to dismiss anybody else's use case. If somebody is experiencing 50% higher framerates in the games they are playing, that is a tremendous difference. For comparison, the framerate of the OLED Switch is identical to the non-OLED (refresh, not performance upgrade).
You need to learn how to step outside of yourself and consider the realities of others. I'm bored. Maybe I'll come see what nuggets of wisdom you squeeze out later, but this isn't a productive discussion.