Does it run? Steam should have a tool that allows us to see which games would run in our computers.

[mandiokai]

I know there is already an website that allows us to check if a game runs on our PC or not (called "Does it Run?"), however, this websites focuses more on popular games, leaving more unknown games aside.

And sometimes it doesn't have this kind of information about games that are new or that have open Beta's/Alfa's/Demo's, so people kinda shoots on the dark when trying to find new games to play.

I know that for some players this isn't a problem, but not everyone has the conditons to buy a powerful computer.

[Teefa]

引用自 Nx Machina：

引用自 TheyAria：

And again, what would Steam be liable for beyond a refund? (Which they are already liable for when making sales, a specific search beforehand or not)

The OP is asking Steam to have a tool to tell them what WILL run on their PC therefore if you are told it WILL run that creates liability when it does not.

Is Steam liable for recommending games you don't like?

And again, what is the liability beyond issuing a refund? How many times do I have to point this out? No one has an answer beyond some unspecified catastrophe.

[Brian9824]

As stated so many reasons

1. Liability - no one is also thinking of the scenario of developers losing sales because Steam said it can't run when it actually could, or the issue of people going past their refund time trying to get a game to work that they were told their system can run it.
2. Everyone's definition of "running" is different
3. No standardization of requirements and insufficient info for many games on steam requiring every game on steam to be updated and then enforced as for requirements
4. Requirements are only a small portion of the picture, the health of a system is also important.
5. Variability, its not just a matter of power, some CPU's or cards contain specific code functions that are required so even though another CPU is "stronger" if it doesn't have that code set it breaks.
6. Runnability would need to be re-evaluated after every update - for instance at launch Diablo 2 remastered did something that required a specific chip set so people whom the beta worked fine couldn't play the game after the update

and on and on

[nullable]

引用自 TheyAria：

引用自 Snakub Plissken：

Well we're not talking one user and one game. It's millions of users and millions of games.

Why would making that data searchable make it less accurate? Wouldn't we already be seeing millions and millions of users demanding refunds for the already posted system requirements?

Well I made no claim that they'd be "less" accurate. My argument was system requirements aren't very good data, which makes them difficult to search or to use in any sort of consistent accurate way. Again, they're good enough humans can interpret them fuzzily, that doesn't translate into accurate search results.

引用自 TheyAria：

引用自 Snakub Plissken：

So if there can be an argument Steam's system isn't accurate and misleads people into buying games they can't play, and some of them will end up ineligible for a refund.

Why would making that data searchable make an unplayable game ineligible for a refund?

I bought a game because the system said my system could run it, so I didn't worry about it, three weeks later I load it up for the first time and find out otherwise. I would have tested it if the system hadn't implied it was fine. I trusted Valve's crummy system, big mistake.

Or, the system said I could run it, so I spent hours trying to get it to run because the system said it should work. I trusted Valve's crummy system, big mistake.

Customers are that silly.

引用自 TheyAria：

引用自 Snakub Plissken：

It creates the possibility of a class action, and possibly regulatory fines.

Why wouldn't Steam refund those games? If the game is refunded, what damages would need to be remedied? What class would be seeking these remedies?

Why would Valve implement a system that would needlessly increase the number of refunds because it's incapable of being accurate or reliable?

引用自 TheyAria：

引用自 Snakub Plissken：

The problem is ultimately system requirements themselves don't have a standard

And yet, this information is provided on every single store page, before every single sale. How is it that this information is accurate enough to be a store requirement, that it is accurate enough to allow Steam to sell games with an acceptable refund rate, but then not accurate enough to search for?

Well I explained this, your quote mining doesn't warrant me to re-explain the issue or the history. Whether you like it or not, or agree or not is moot. The way system requirements are now just aren't good enough to search and get accurate results. It would take a lot of effort to smooth out the often occurring vagueness and inaccuracies and omitted information.

引用自 TheyAria：

引用自 Snakub Plissken：

You end up having to make a lot of guesses and assumptions to smooth out the rough spots and that yields to crappy results.

How is this not already true enough for the already provided system requirements? Does the current system of system requirements, sales, and potential refunds not already address this?

Users being able to manage it is still a bit different than getting software to interpret garbage data.

There's a way it could work, but it would need a lot more than one Intel and one AMD CPU and one Nvidia and one AMD GPU listed in the system requirements to get there. But there's not much interest in updating the system requirements for 50,000 games either.

[Mad Scientist]

引用自 TheyAria：

Re: Some fool in the comments

And you wonder why you keep getting in trouble then attack the "Regulars". Keep it civil.

引用自 TheyAria：

A tool that "allows us to see which games would run in our computers" is a search for your own system specs in the database of already existing data of system requirements.

You're overly focusing on your opinion of the subject and basically making the entire thread about your view, and not what the OP is saying. You're just trying to arguing over your perception vs the actual thread.

IT CAN vs IT CANNOT run is entirely different vs a Dev/Publisher Minimum Recommended Specs vs Recommended Specs

One is a guarantee, the other is a recommendation with no real it can/it cannot run listing. It also doesn't factor for;

-BIOS revision vs GPU; compatibility issues via settings can cause a GPU to be read but not actively being utilized where the iGPU will be utilized instead
-PCIE slot used by the GPU; available lanes affecting performance
-PCIE lane used and accessible lanes per the CPU causing full or partial performance
-Hz rate & resolution vs how the real-world game performance will handle at that resolution per the GPU based upon all other active demands on the GPU
-Amount of RAM & background apps utilizing the RAM; how much is truly available, at the given moment, just for that game at the settings chosen for the game. Low memory / virtual memory can severely reduce performance & loading times of games or cause crashes when low on memory.
-CPU temperature under load of any given game settings vs Resolution & Hz rates which can cause drastic performance crashing when reaching certain Thermal Throttle temps
-RAM speed / OC Stability vs real world performance with all of the above information
-Motherboard temperatures for all applicable sensors especially VRM
-GPU VRM temperature for the selected settings which can crash performance or cause damage by hitting/exceeding temperatures especially with certain loads, resolutions & hz rates, inadequate airflow/cooling.
-Case airflow, CPU cooler, CPU cooler performance with real world demand
-True VRAM utilization per graphics settings, per game update/graphics update to the game or at so much additional graphical content being present in the game.
-HDD Size & Speed; laptop vs desktop vs ssd vs nvme, speeds matter so does drive utilization. Games like RUST have loading & performance issues when being ran off of laptop and desktop HDDs. Lacking free space when utilizing virtual memory can also cause BSODs, game crashes, multiple app crashes (randomly) to free memory etc.
-Power utilization vs circuit breaker capacity and other loads present on the same circuit which could trip when using so many watts or above with just the pc itself, pc and lights/other equipment, age of wiring/wiring capacity/age of home, infrastructure health etc.

That is only a handful of things that can drastically affect it will or will not run on your PC, of which often those sites cannot gather all the data or possibly know in total. Valve knows better than to say something can or cannot run. However, since they sell the Steam Deck, they can directly say what is or is not compatible currently, with their own device, as example. Which is already a thing on the store.

引用自 TheyAria：

And again, what would Steam be liable for beyond a refund? (Which they are already liable for when making sales, a specific search beforehand or not)

One users ignorance of the law is not an excuse that magically protects Valve from advertising & consumer law of numerous countries.

[Brian9824]

引用自 TheyAria：

引用自 Nx Machina：

The OP is asking Steam to have a tool to tell them what WILL run on their PC therefore if you are told it WILL run that creates liability when it does not.

Is Steam liable for recommending games you don't like?

And again, what is the liability beyond issuing a refund? How many times do I have to point this out? No one has an answer beyond some unspecified catastrophe.

I just answered you but several points of liability

1. If people go over their refund time trying to get a game to work that STEAM said would work then steam is liable for a refund.
2. If Steam tells people a game can't run and it turns out it can, then Steam is liable for the developer to file a lawsuit over potentially lost sales.

Again though, as pointed out liability is just 1 of many many many many reasons why this isn't done by anyone.

[Spawn of Totoro]

引用自 TheyAria：

How is it useful on the store page but not useful in a search to find that store page?

The OP isn't asking for a search by hardware, they want a system scan that only displays games that potentially meet the system requirements for.

引用自 TheyAria：

And again, what is the liability beyond issuing a refund? Steam already issues refunds for games that don't work.

If the algorithm show many people that a game won't run that will run, they can he held liable by the developer for lost sales.

If it shows many users a game will run and it won't, Valve may be liable for the cost of their internet download (where applicable, due to mis-leading the consuemr) as well as the fees associated with the cost of mass refunds. When a refund happens, Valve doesn't get part of the payment process back from the processor.

Then there is the trust a user may have in Valve and the way Steam works. Continuously getting a "this game will run" and the game no running would erode that trust.

There is far more involved then just liability to the user.

引用自 Tito Shivan：

For starters and to begin with:
1- There's no standarization of the contents of the system requirements.
Devs can simply write whatever they want into the system requirement fields. So for any given field (Memory, CPU, GPU) you're going to find lots of different data kinds
- GTX2070 or better
- GTX2xxx series
- 4Gb of Vram or more
- Any card released after 2010

Steam would have to rework the system requirements from the ground up and have a critical mass of devs to feed the system again with standarised data for such a feature to even start to be usable.

Then we'd be getting into all the other related issues as the lack of standarization of the performance expected from 'minumin' and 'recommended' settings and the variability in performance of systems with identical hardware settings.

Yep, not to mention all the testing needed for those performance checks on old and new hardware. Hardware alone would cost a fortune, with little to no gain.

[Start_Running]

引用自 TheyAria：

引用自 Tito Shivan：

For starters and to begin with:
1- There's no standarization of the contents of the system requirements.
Devs can simply write whatever they want into the system requirement fields. So for any given field (Memory, CPU, GPU) you're going to find lots of different data kinds
- GTX2070 or better
- GTX2xxx series
- 4Gb of Vram or more
- Any card released after 2010

Steam would have to rework the system requirements from the ground up and have a critical mass of devs to feed the system again with standarised data for such a feature to even start to be usable.

Then we'd be getting into all the other related issues as the lack of standarization of the performance expected from 'minumin' and 'recommended' settings and the variability in performance of systems with identical hardware settings.

And yet, all of those inconsistencies already add up to a system in which both publishers and Steam agree said data is useful and should be posted. How is it useful on the store page but not useful in a search to find that store page?

Yes and because the decision as to whether or not it can run is left up to the prospective buyer.. The publisher sets the information. TSteam displays it. and the consumer does thehard part. Any problems thusly occur between the publisher and the consumer if any. Steam/valve remain free from liability.

引用自 TheyAria：

Most of those inconsistencies can be reduced to some abstractions. And Valve, by virtue of the feature being requested and theoretical sales promoted by it, has motivation to solve the other issues, by hand, policy or technology. Tech/Game/Sales companies solve all sorts of problems that are hard or require more than 15 seconds of forum conjecture.

Potential sales, versus guaranteed liability lawsuits from publishers. Yeah. Me thinks this is a case of the juice not being worth the squeeze.

Also. just because it's requested doesn't make it a good idea.

Ask yourself why no other company ghas managed this. Not even a company like microsoft.

[my new friend]

Do you see how long it is taking for Valve to go through and Verify games for the Deck? That is just for 3 models of nearly the same exact specs. And the list of verified titles isn't extensive enough for late game playability. And this is manually checking.
Times that by the tens of thousands of hardware configurations that anyone can choose from on a pcs and laptops and that will turn into an impossible feat without automation and tons of errors/mistakes.

[Teefa]

引用自 Spawn of Totoro：

引用自 TheyAria：

How is it useful on the store page but not useful in a search to find that store page?

The OP isn't asking for a search by hardware, they want a system scan that only displays games that potentially meet the system requirements for.

Again, that is just a search with a wrapper. Just as "Your Store" is just a search accessed through a specific button. Call it whatever you want, the distinction isn't meaningful to the idea of Steam providing tools to better access games through system requirements.

引用自 Spawn of Totoro：

If the algorithm show many people that a game won't run that will run, they can he held liable by the developer for lost sales.

Publishers provide that data. It would be on them to make it accurate or miss out. It's an additional vector of views. Steam doesn't owe that to any publisher just as they don't owe any publisher of FPS games advertising in a Roguelike section of the store.

And the potential for inaccurate information doesn't preclude the value of accurate information presenting new games to players and new sales to Steam/publishers. All three parties have good reason to participate.

引用自 Spawn of Totoro：

If it shows many users a game will run and it won't, Valve may be liable for the cost of their internet download (where applicable, due to mis-leading the consuemr) as well as the fees associated with the cost of mass refunds. When a refund happens, Valve doesn't get part of the payment process back from the processor.

Then there is the trust a user may have in Valve and the way Steam works. Continuously getting a "this game will run" and the game no running would erode that trust.

That is already the case for any sale on Steam. Consumers are already presented system requirement information. Consumers are already presented a technical spec for a subjective experience. Consumers can already get refunds for bad sales. Steam and publishers already want to avoid bad information.

Being able to navigate to a page with games sorted by that information doesn't change the viability of that information. Steam, publishers, and consumers already navigate these intricacies with acceptable outcomes.

[Brian9824]

Again since you know better then everyone else why don't you ask every digital platform in the world why none of them do this?

Ask microsoft why they tried to do it years ago and gave up. It doesn't work. If a publisher says their game requires a GTX 970 and 4gb of ram that doesn't mean a game can't run with a 960 and 8gb of ram.

There are TRILLIONS of combinations of factors when you include firmware, Steam can't verify it, so steam won't tell you if your game can or can't run. There is no reason the developer of the game on the other hand can't release a tool so ask them

[Nx Machina]

引用自 TheyAria：

Is Steam liable for recommending games you don't like?

Why would they be?

A recommendation is "consider this" it not a definitive, you must purchase, you will enjoy.

引用自 TheyAria：

And again, what is the liability beyond issuing a refund? How many times do I have to point this out? No one has an answer beyond some unspecified catastrophe.

It has already been answered but you do not like the responses.

引用自 Nx Machina：

The OP is asking Steam to have a tool to tell them what "WILL run on their PC" therefore if you are told it "WILL run" that creates liability when it does not.

[Start_Running]

引用自 TheyAria：

引用自 Spawn of Totoro：

The OP isn't asking for a search by hardware, they want a system scan that only displays games that potentially meet the system requirements for.

Again, that is just a search with a wrapper. Just as "Your Store" is just a search accessed through a specific button. Call it whatever you want, the distinction isn't meaningful to the idea of Steam providing tools to better access games through system requirements.

And as said. ALl you'll be doing is finding games that sopecifically list that one component in their specs. You keep overlooking that point.

引用自 TheyAria：

引用自 Spawn of Totoro：

If the algorithm show many people that a game won't run that will run, they can he held liable by the developer for lost sales.

Publishers provide that data. It would be on them to make it accurate or miss out.

They provide the data and it is VAlve making inferences and interpretations to the prospective customer about that data. That's the dangerous part. That's the liability angle. and that is the part you seem to be determined to ignore.

引用自 TheyAria：

And the potential for inaccurate information doesn't preclude the value of accurate information presenting new games to players and new sales to Steam/publishers. All three parties have good reason to participate.

Accurate vs Inaccurate. You think any organization has the time to test every single conceivable combination of hardware and software for accuracy? Because the interaction between hardware components is also a thing.

As said dude. Ask yourself. WHy hasn't anyone else done i? It's not like it hasn't been attempted over the decades... but it always falls short on PCs because it can never be accurarte so no store will every make any inferences on the system requirements. It will merely state them as they are listed by the publisher.

[Tito Shivan]

引用自 TheyAria：

And yet, all of those inconsistencies already add up to a system in which both publishers and Steam agree said data is useful and should be posted. How is it useful on the store page but not useful in a search to find that store page?

Useful in a human readable way?
Absolutely.

Useful in an indexable, searchable and categorizable way?
Absolutely bloody not.

Any person can read and understand the system requirements, but it'd be a nightmare to turn all that information into a relational dataset one could index, categorize, search and compare their own dataset with.

[Judgmental Amaterasu]

引用自 TheyAria：

“Liability” is a pretty silly reason to not have this feature. I think the oh so helpful forum regulars are just parroting the same misinformation as so called common sense.

Two things:

Steam already posts system requirements and recommendations for games.

There isn’t any liability because the remedy for a bad recommendation is direct, simple, and quick. The remedy is refunding games that don’t work.

Steam does no such thing. Those are recommendations from the devs WHICH still aren't set in stone as those recommendations are made based on the developer/publishers tests.

[nullable]

引用自 TheyAria：

That is already the case for any sale on Steam. Consumers are already presented system requirement information. Consumers are already presented a technical spec for a subjective experience. Consumers can already get refunds for bad sales. Steam and publishers already want to avoid bad information.

Being able to navigate to a page with games sorted by that information doesn't change the viability of that information. Steam, publishers, and consumers already navigate these intricacies with acceptable outcomes.

You can't seem to get your head around the difference between how attractive the idea is. And how the available data isn't good enough to be used in the implementation you imagine.

If we can fix system requirements, make them more thorough and precise, then that could be used for search. But for one reason or another there's too much tradition and momentum behind the current expectations for system requirements.

Like sorry man, these ideas have already been discussed to death. You're not saying anything new. You just don't understand the issue that well, so it seems trivial to you. But it's not.