System Requirements

[cekobidonq]

I would like to officially request this from Bethesda and from Valve.

The way of communicating system requirements with only a Minimum and Recommended spec is archaic and outdated. Steam collects user hardware data all the time. Simply take the most common low end, mid and high end systems and list the exact FPS achieved (average and minimum) at certain settings and resolutions for those systems. The players can then extrapolate this to estimate how their specific system will perform.

The reason why publishers still want to keep the requirements vague is so they don't lose out on pre-orders when people realise their game is poorly optimised and can't reach 60fps on their systems.
Bethesda, be the difference maker. Publish the exact baseline performance figures.
Valve, make it mandatory for AAA publishers to create a full and comprehensive system performance chart for their games before release.

[Edit] My mistake, not "full and comprehensive", just 3 or 4 baseline systems with associated average and min fps, so people can see where their system slots into those figures.

[wesnef]

Originally posted by cekobidonq:

The way of communicating system requirements with only a Minimum and Recommended spec is archaic and outdated. Steam collects user hardware data all the time. Simply take the most common low end, mid and high end systems

One problem with this is that Steam's hardware poll includes millions of people with 20 year old pieces of junk that they only run tiny indie games on, and tablet computers, and laptops, etc. It's not a good representation of the kind of systems that "new AAA game" gamers use.

However, it would be good if everyone did what some of the games do, and list what resolution/framerate those min & recommended specs are targeting.

[wtiger27]

Lol. Steam is not going to do that. So dream on. And seriously do not think your post will get anyone's attention which can do something about it.

You have the option to wait until reviews come out and then can see the performance on different systems if you are concerned about it. No one is forcing you to buy the game on day one.

[Donaldo Trumpado]

I would like to make an even more official request that OP be ignored

[japp_02]

Originally posted by wesnef:

One problem with this is that Steam's hardware poll includes millions of people with 20 year old pieces of junk that they only run tiny indie games on, and tablet computers, and laptops, etc. It's not a good representation of the kind of systems that "new AAA game" gamers use.

In theory they could take the data only from these people that play the specific game in order to publish a result list in performance for that game. Problem are the legal issues in collecting these data I guess, it would have to be on volunteer basis only and people are generally reluctant to agree to this if not mandatory.

[japp_02]

Originally posted by cekobidonq:

The reason why publishers still want to keep the requirements vague is so they don't lose out on pre-orders when people realise their game is poorly optimised and can't reach 60fps on their systems.
Bethesda, be the difference maker. Publish the exact baseline performance figures.
Valve, make it mandatory for AAA publishers to create a full and comprehensive system performance chart for their games before release.

While your first section of the thread is interesting, then sorry, the quote above is total BS. Fact is that in most EA states of a game even the publishers don't know the specs, and after main release it becomes crucially important for them to publish reliable numbers, the current system as it's for now can go ok with the less numbers possible and which can be compared at will. Steam doesn't have to be a benchmark platform although they could arrange for a minimum of it that would improve on the min / recom. specs.

[Tenoshii]

Originally posted by cekobidonq:

The reason why publishers still want to keep the requirements vague is so they don't lose out on pre-orders when people realise their game is poorly optimised and can't reach 60fps on their systems.

Or maybe it's because there are so many variables at play before release that all they are doing is opening themselves up for further complaints from people with the "same system but lower FPS". Then there will be accusations about inaccurate benchmarks.

[User]

Originally posted by cekobidonq:

The reason why publishers still want to keep the requirements vague is so they don't lose out on pre-orders when people realise their game is poorly optimised and can't reach 60fps on their systems.

What i've learned the last 1 to 3 decades (yes decades. one decade is 10 years) -> As long as it isn't specified a more or different by the publishers or developers, minimum requirements mostly are 720p for low details and 30fps... recommended is mostly high settings (not very high and/or ultra) in 1080p for 30 fps... and most benchmarks prove that... if someone plays on PCs for more than some years and still don't know that, maybe the PC is the wrong gaming device...

[cekobidonq]

Originally posted by User:

Originally posted by cekobidonq:

if someone plays on PCs for more than some years and still don't know that, maybe the PC is the wrong gaming device...

So you're saying that customers should have years of experience comparing system requirements to actual performance to be able to make an informed decision.
Makes sense.

[Streitross]

So the minimum requirements are clearly displayed, I don't know what there is to complain about, you're under it, take care of your computer and upgrade, you want the game, you've had enough time to think about what you're doing - don't complain, do it - if you have the minimum requirements and then it doesn't run, then you can complain greet Ross.

[cekobidonq]

Originally posted by wtiger27:

Lol. Steam is not going to do that. So dream on. And seriously do not think your post will get anyone's attention which can do something about it.

You have the option to wait until reviews come out and then can see the performance on different systems if you are concerned about it. No one is forcing you to buy the game on day one.

That's not the point. Of course no one is forcing me. It's 2023, we should have a better way of communicating system requirements at this point.

[kdodds]

While I do agree with adding expected explicit (not implicit) fps at a specified group of settings (i.e. 1080p, medium).

What I do not agree with is the entire rest of the OP's post. There is absolutely nothing "vague" about the requirements, and every user is going to be different. Some aren't going to care if they only get 20fps on Ultra @ 4K. Others are going to insist that anything under 120fps is trash. So the user IS going to have to exercise some knowledge, as it has ever been in PC gaming given the virtually limitless possible HW/SW configurations.

Expecting a "full and comprehensive performance chart" is absolutely ridiculous. You want exact numbers for you exact configuration before purchasing? You expect every dev to cater to each individual user (that may or may not buy the product)? That's just insane. If you want that kind of kid glove handling, hire someone. Put them on retainer at 100K year to clone your specs and play every game you're interested in. Because, yeah, at a minimum, that's what you're asking for.

[Donaldo Trumpado]

Originally posted by kdodds:

While I do agree with adding expected explicit (not implicit) fps at a specified group of settings (i.e. 1080p, medium).

What I do not agree with is the entire rest of the OP's post. There is absolutely nothing "vague" about the requirements, and every user is going to be different. Some aren't going to care if they only get 20fps on Ultra @ 4K. Others are going to insist that anything under 120fps is trash. So the user IS going to have to exercise some knowledge, as it has ever been in PC gaming given the virtually limitless possible HW/SW configurations.

Expecting a "full and comprehensive performance chart" is absolutely ridiculous. You want exact numbers for you exact configuration before purchasing? You expect every dev to cater to each individual user (that may or may not buy the product)? That's just insane. If you want that kind of kid glove handling, hire someone. Put them on retainer at 100K year to clone your specs and play every game you're interested in. Because, yeah, at a minimum, that's what you're asking for.

Also, expecting every developer to have test benches of every conceivable hardware configuration on hand is just not feasible. These minimum requirements are probably the lowest specs they tested with the benches they do have and received satisfactory results for some kind of performance floor.

[cekobidonq]

Originally posted by kdodds:

While I do agree with adding expected explicit (not implicit) fps at a specified group of settings (i.e. 1080p, medium).

Expecting a "full and comprehensive performance chart" is absolutely ridiculous. You want exact numbers for you exact configuration before purchasing? You expect every dev to cater to each individual user (that may or may not buy the product)?

Not for every user or configuration. Just some baseline systems to achieve certain levels of performance. Then everyone can extrapolate based on their particular system.

[cekobidonq]

Originally posted by kdodds:

While I do agree with adding expected explicit (not implicit) fps at a specified group of settings (i.e. 1080p, medium).

What I do not agree with is the entire rest of the OP's post. There is absolutely nothing "vague" about the requirements, and every user is going to be different. Some aren't going to care if they only get 20fps on Ultra @ 4K. Others are going to insist that anything under 120fps is trash. So the user IS going to have to exercise some knowledge, as it has ever been in PC gaming given the virtually limitless possible HW/SW configurations.

This is exactly my point. What does Minimum stand for these days? Is it 720p 30fps on Low or is it 1080p 30fps on Medium? What is Recommended then? Wouldn't you prefer a chart that shows average fps for 3 or 4 different GPUs and CPUs? Then see where your system slots in with those ones and have a better idea what to expect?

I'll give you one thing though, with Steam refunds you can download the game, run it and find out for yourself. Then refund if it's unplayable.
But they could still make the product page better.

[Donaldo Trumpado]

Originally posted by cekobidonq:

Originally posted by kdodds:

While I do agree with adding expected explicit (not implicit) fps at a specified group of settings (i.e. 1080p, medium).

What I do not agree with is the entire rest of the OP's post. There is absolutely nothing "vague" about the requirements, and every user is going to be different. Some aren't going to care if they only get 20fps on Ultra @ 4K. Others are going to insist that anything under 120fps is trash. So the user IS going to have to exercise some knowledge, as it has ever been in PC gaming given the virtually limitless possible HW/SW configurations.

This is exactly my point. What does Minimum stand for these days? Is it 720p 30fps on Low or is it 1080p 30fps on Medium? What is Recommended then? Wouldn't you prefer a chart that shows average fps for 3 or 4 different GPUs and CPUs? Then see where your system slots in with those ones and have a better idea what to expect?

I'll give you one thing though, with Steam refunds you can download the game, run it and find out for yourself. Then refund if it's unplayable.
But they could still make the product page better.

It's pretty clear. It's the minimum that they've tested the game on that has achieved a playable experience, which is almost always going to be low settings in either 720 or 1080. Are there worse configurations that will offer a "playable" experience? Of course. But they're not going to test every single permutation of hardware to make that determination