Game Playability Database for Library & Store

[[EW] Mitsie]

I have multiple devices that all have different graphics cards. While it is great that I can access all my games on any machine, Why would I want to install or buy games for a machine that simply doesn't have the power to run them? I've always wondered over the years why Valve hasn't collected the performance of games running on certain hardware and allowed users the ability to filter the store by games that will run on their Hardware.

The store is full of reviews of purchases where the customer had to return the game because it didn't work on their device. I play on my desktop which has a High-end graphics card, it plays everything I throw at it. If I take my lower-end laptops on the go for work and want to play a game, I have to look at my library of 900 games and try to work out what would play on the device.

Sometimes I fancy a new game, but it is a nightmare trying to work out on the store if the game I want would play on the device I'm using. The only way is to purchase the game, download it, try it out, and if it doesn't work, uninstall then request a refund. Not only is this a waste of my time, but it's also a waste of Valve Support time & money, issuing a refund.

What a nightmare it is ! It's a lot simpler to keep your wallet in your pocket and give it a miss.

If a certain game doesn't work on an Intel G640, why do another 1000 customers with an Intel G640 graphics card have to purchase the game to find out the game doesn't work on their hardware as well?

In a perfect world, the Steam library would be able to show you what games work well on your Graphics card. Same as the "Works great on Deck" Store section for the Steam Deck that is being introduced.

Surely Valve could compile a list of hardware similar to when it takes the yearly Hardware survey and the Steam overlay has a built-in FPS counter. Couldn't that data be sent with the Hardware information to Valve to create a database of game playability?

Even a Game Playability / Hardware survey so we could complete, helping others with similar Hardware. You could possibly opt-in to leave a hardware playability rating on each device you play your games on, leaving a playability review for others on the Store to browse.

Even the ability for the Steam client to be able to detect your Hardware and automatically cross reference it with the Game's store page minimum spec to create a "Works well on this Device" tab. Its an almost impossible task to cross reference your library with the store pages manually when picking a game.

Alternatively the ability to add custom tags to my library of games, so if I've tested a game on a device, I could add a custom tag for my Library to find these games quickly.

It would be a dream to be able to just pick up any device and be able to click on my Library and choose the "Works well on this device" and not have to test out numerous games until I find a game that works. If you are on a metered connection, this becomes even more of an obstacle.

Wouldnt it be great if I was able to visit the Steam store and purchase a game, Knowing that there is a very strong possibility the game that I'm buying, will work on my device, because others before me have tested it ?

[Start_Running]

MagicMight a écrit :

The whole 'liability' issue that is being touched upon can be easily bypassed. Instead of a message/filter saying "Your PC can run this game very well I promise you can sue me otherwise" the message/filter could be "Your computer components do not meet the minimum specs listed by the developer". There you go: liability (if there was any in the first place) removed.

And if they ever get it wrong. That's a hundred's of thousands.of dollars.
Because matching components and understanding their influence on performance is kinda iffy even at the best of times. Which is why the various Canirunit sites don't always agree.

There is no way the usual contrarians could not come up with this or another helpful idea if they actually wanted to contribute, however they just need to "win" the argument while putting you down, thus this thread.

if your uggestion there was supposed to be an example of a helpful idea,. One should be glad most people let their ideas cook a little longer before voicing them.

As said. There is a reason No PC game store does this. Not even Microsoft who are literally the best equipped to handle such a thing. If it were possible to do such a thing with an acceptable degree of reliability don't you think the company that could pull that off wouldn't have patented it, codified it and sttarted selling it for other people to use?

[76561198407601200]

EW Mitsie a écrit :

I have multiple devices that all have different graphics cards. While it is great that I can access all my games on any machine, Why would I want to install or buy games for a machine that simply doesn't have the power to run them?

You wouldn't, hence why system requirements exist on the store pages. "Does my system meet the requirements that the developers published? Yes, then I'll purchase this." If you have multiple devices with ranging specs, you would have to take that into consideration. Valve's job as the storefront is to present these games and as a storefront can allow to sort by price as that is a certain amount. One person's machine may not run a game as another person's with the same specs due to software differences each person's machine may have, the way their machine is maintained, the quality of the hardware (ie: one person's gfx is somehow defective, the other's isn't). So to ask "can this run on my machine?" will not produce an accurate result, simply an educated one based on what the hardware *should* run. Obviously Valve as the storefront will not sort the games based on system specs since those can vary greatly, prices can be easily and safely sorted.

[Mad Scientist]

EW Mitsie a écrit :

You are really taking this badly aren't you? You lost the argument so you feel the need to lash out.

What argument?
You wanted Valve like everyone else to do something for you, claimed it would take a long period of time, and magically pull out something not much later. That does add strong suspicion.

EW Mitsie a écrit :

The actual fact you are trying to use benchmark tests to determine the gaming performance of two similar laptops

Nope. Did not do, blatant lie. Re-read it; hint: it's not edited after the fact like you do against nx.

EW Mitsie a écrit :

after saying it wasn't possible to use gaming performance to match hardware to gaming performance. That's priceless..

Average not equating to your systems. You keep misrepresenting and twisting what was said, which is unsurprising since this is a standard for yourself.

EW Mitsie a écrit :

You seriously have Issues, Why would you think I was making it up that I have programmed the script I wanted ? I told you I'm a software developer for a living.

People don't say something will take an overly long period of time and then magically spit something out. That usually means they found a script on github that does that and applied it to their own thing.

EW Mitsie a écrit :

EW Mitsie a écrit :

Probably months worth of work to hack together something that could be implemented easily by Valve as they already have the information to hand, something that would benefit their customers who have multiple devices with differing specs.

I said probably months worth of work, not years, now you are just making up exaggerations for your own affirmation.

Months, years. Spitting out in a day seems overly suspicious, but im certain it said years before the edit. Either way, you've been the only dishonest one through this entire thread.

EW Mitsie a écrit :

I've sent you screenshots of the code in Notepad++, I've sent you screenshots of the program working. I've gave you the output of the program and the calculations that it has made. I'll make you a video of it working on multiple machines just to show you how wrong you are.

If you want to go ahead, doesn't change the fact you wasted everyones time with something you supposedly made after wanting Valve to do it.

EW Mitsie a écrit :

This is a screenshot of the GPU performance database, that I apparently Faked for the software to cross reference with.

And?
I can also make/take screens from PhpMyAdmin/XAMPP.
I've also worked with Game Servers that simply requires an import to fill out database tables for me, so I can get to running the server itself rather than having to do everything by hand.

EW Mitsie a écrit :

Do you think i'm going to go to all that trouble of writing Fake coding and make Fake screenshots and hand write out about 5000 lines in a command window and create fake screenshots of MySQL Databases to try and fool Mr Gentlebot on the Steam Forums, to pretend to you I've written a program? You seriously need to take a hard long look at your life.

Given how much fuss you're putting up - Yes. Screens / script itself could be from anywhere, so the rest is unimportant. I can download stuff from github, open in notepad++, import to my own PhpMyAdmin/XAMPP testing environment. Anyone can claim credit for anything, so yes, I would not be surprised. Anything "months" (or years - magically appearing after asking for something to be made from the company is always going to get scrutiny.

I can buy a friends game engine, open the various parts in various programs on multiple machines and also claim it's mine if he gives me a simple run down of the mechanics involved. You're jut not a trustworthy source, that's the gist of it. The suggestion is over, because you made the thing you wanted for yourself - flaws and all in the program. Mostly flaws.

EW Mitsie a écrit :

NO GUARANTEES.. A list of games with a STRONG POSSIBILITY they will work on my machine specification

In other words not that different from the pre-existing places.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Nx Machina a écrit :

EW Mitsie a écrit :

You only make things better by working out how you can achieve things, not making excuses about why you can't achieve things.

Nothing is impossible.

In life, there are always the people who get things done and the people who sit on the sidelines and tell everyone else why nothing can ever be done.

You missed one.

There are people who believe, vehemently, that Valve should cater to their every niche need.

They buy a crappy laptop with an Intel UHD 620 card, better suited to spreadsheets, and expect every game they own to work. Now there is a very big difference between a game performing when in-game and booting to the menu and working.

Strawman.

Mr. Gentlebot a écrit :

EW Mitsie a écrit :

Lots of people have Multiple devices with differing performance GPU's, I'm a gamer, I have a game library that I want to play on any device I have to hand, when I get a spare minute.

Most gamers don't ever say "I'm a gamer" as that's absolute cringe for starters, and they usually play on a device capable of handling what they want to play, know how to identify if their system can/can't play a game, etc. It's best to not try that kind of thing.

It's like a living meme of "How do you do, fellow kids?"

You obviously haven't seen the number of times that actual people who actually play games cringely try to defend the honor of the label "gamer".

Nx Machina a écrit :

EW Mitsie a écrit :

It can play 364 of my games fine, so it isn't really a crappy laptop at all. There is no need to lash out because you have been proven wrong.

(Funny before I built the tool, I couldn't even tell you how many games the laptop played.)

So magically you write a tool that cannot know every possible PC variable config out there and manage to "playtest" 364 games in the same day.

The eqivalent of "and there be dragons".

Don't need that to have a rough guideline for whether stuff might work.

Nx Machina a écrit :

As a sidenote - "a gamer" does not have 400+ games on their account unplayed but you do and yet you claimed all games worked on your main desktop, plus you have 700+ games not 900, 608 are not F2P.

Do you seriously not know about backlogs?

EW Mitsie a écrit :

Nx Machina a écrit :

So magically you write a tool and manage to "playtest" 364 games in the same day.

The equivalent of " and there be dragons".

I've just said I tested the most newer, more demanding (I thought were unplayable) games in my library what the "Tool" you told me to go away and build, retrieved in the list. Why do I need to test Doom, Doom II, and Counterstrike source etc. on a machine that I know can definitely handle them? No doubt there will be games on the list that do not work because they are broken in the Steam Library. "Shiny" Doesn't work on any of my machines because the source code is broken by the developer.

I wasn't looking for games that would definitely work, I was looking for games that are in the performance range of my machine and I've achieved that. So problem solved.

This is just going around in Circles, You are being pedantic, just to try and win an argument.

Nx Machina a écrit :

As a side note - "a gamer" does not have 400+ games on their account but you do and you claimed all games worked on your main desktop.

FFS, how many times Do i have to explain this. I have 900 Games in my Library, 608 Paid for games on my account, NO GAMES ARE "FREE TO PLAY" !!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you not understand what Family Library Sharing is?

https://store.steampowered.com/promotion/familysharing

Is he having trouble distinguishing between absolutes and approximations again?

Nx Machina a écrit :

EW Mitsie a écrit :

Ok your logic is flawless and you have clearly won the argument, well done you..

It is not about winning it is clearly about you could not have downloaded, installed and played 364 in the timeframe.

It was about you trying to prove your tool worked and be damned the facts.

One doesn't need to have played all the games to have reasonably useful information about what is likely or not likely to work.

Start_Running a écrit :

MagicMight a écrit :

The whole 'liability' issue that is being touched upon can be easily bypassed. Instead of a message/filter saying "Your PC can run this game very well I promise you can sue me otherwise" the message/filter could be "Your computer components do not meet the minimum specs listed by the developer". There you go: liability (if there was any in the first place) removed.

And if they ever get it wrong. That's a hundred's of thousands.of dollars.

No it's not.

System requirements on store pages right now aren't even guaranteed to work anyway.

And there's even less reason for Steam be liable for player-generated information.

Start_Running a écrit :

There is no way the usual contrarians could not come up with this or another helpful idea if they actually wanted to contribute, however they just need to "win" the argument while putting you down, thus this thread.

if your uggestion there was supposed to be an example of a helpful idea,. One should be glad most people let their ideas cook a little longer before voicing them.

Just because you don't like an idea doesn't mean it's not helpful.

[Nx Machina]

EW Mitsie a écrit :

Yes it is about winning, otherwise you would understand the concept of what I was trying to achieve

I understood very clearly it was a flawed concept because your tool does not do the following.

It does not take into consideration multiple PC configurations. CPU, GPU combinations, ram installed, manufacturer, speed, timings, overclocking, liquid cooled, air cooled, hdd, ssd, installed software including anti virus, monitoring programs, GPU driver, Mouse driver, motherboard drivers, out of date drivers, borked Windows updates, corrupted Windows installs, malware infection, failing hardware, low end CPU with an high end GPU, defragged hdd or not, conflicting software, lose cables, failing PSU. Each and everyone of those can affect a PC.

EW Mitsie a écrit :

I understand that i can never know what game will work on what machine. It is impossible to work out what game will work on what machine without testing them all. That is an absolute fact. I'm not disputing that, I have never said I wanted that. I said from the very start that I wanted a way to filter the games that will POSSIBLY not work and what will POSSIBLY work on my machine.

EW Mitsie a écrit :

I DON'T WANT A GUARANTEE, as described in the original post, I want a list of games with a strong possibility they will work.

Except it was not about possibly was it and you do want a guarantee:

EW Mitsie a écrit :

Even the ability for the Steam client to be able to detect your Hardware and automatically cross reference it with the Game's store page minimum spec to create a "Works well on this Device" tab.

"Works well on this Device"

EW Mitsie a écrit :

It would be a dream to be able to just pick up any device and be able to click on my Library and choose the "Works well on this device"

"Works well on this Device"

EW Mitsie a écrit :

Wouldnt it be great if I was able to visit the Steam store and purchase a game, Knowing that there is a very strong possibility the game that I'm buying, will work on my device, because others before me have tested it ?

"will work on my device, because others before me have tested it".

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Nx Machina a écrit :

EW Mitsie a écrit :

Yes it is about winning, otherwise you would understand the concept of what I was trying to achieve

I understood very clearly it was a flawed concept because your tool does not do the following.

It does not take into consideration multiple PC configurations. CPU, GPU combinations, ram installed, manufacturer, speed, timings, overclocking, liquid cooled, air cooled, hdd, ssd, installed software including anti virus, monitoring programs, GPU driver, Mouse driver, motherboard drivers, out out of date drivers, borked Windows updates, corrupted Windows installs, malware infection, failing hardware, low end CPU with an high end GPU, defragged hdd or not, conflicting software, lose cables, failing PSU. Each and everyone of those can affect a PC.

Your argument is a flawed argument because your argument does not do the following.

It does not take into account the fact that a tool doesn't need to be absolutely perfect to be useful.

Nx Machina a écrit :

EW Mitsie a écrit :

I understand that i can never know what game will work on what machine. It is impossible to work out what game will work on what machine without testing them all. That is an absolute fact. I'm not disputing that, I have never said I wanted that. I said from the very start that I wanted a way to filter the games that will POSSIBLY not work and what will POSSIBLY work on my machine.

EW Mitsie a écrit :

I DON'T WANT A GUARANTEE, as described in the original post, I want a list of games with a strong possibility they will work.

Except it was not about possibly was it and you do want a guarantee:

EW Mitsie a écrit :

Even the ability for the Steam client to be able to detect your Hardware and automatically cross reference it with the Game's store page minimum spec to create a "Works well on this Device" tab. Its an almost impossible task to cross reference your library with the store pages manually when picking a game.

"Works well on this Device"

EW Mitsie a écrit :

It would be a dream to be able to just pick up any device and be able to click on my Library and choose the "Works well on this device" and not have to test out numerous games until I find a game that works. If you are on a metered connection, this becomes even more of an obstacle.

"Works well on this Device"

EW Mitsie a écrit :

Wouldnt it be great if I was able to visit the Steam store and purchase a game, Knowing that there is a very strong possibility the game that I'm buying, will work on my device, because others before me have tested it ?

"will work on my device, because others before me have tested it".

That doesn't say a guarantee. In fact, the last one says "a very strong possibility", not a guarantee.

You are trying to shove your choice of words into someone else's mouth.

[[EW] Mitsie]

Quint the Alligator Snapper a écrit :

That doesn't say a guarantee. In fact, the last one says "a very strong possibility", not a guarantee.

You are trying to shove your choice of words into someone else's mouth.

I've been saying it repeatedly to him over and over throughout the full thread, I don't think he is going to get it, no matter how many people tell him. He wants to hear what he wants to hear. I've gave up trying to explain it to him.

[Nx Machina]

EW Mitsie a écrit :

I've been saying it repeatedly to him over and over throughout the full thread, I don't think he is going to get it, no matter how many people tell him. He wants to hear what he wants to hear. I've gave up trying to explain it to him.

"Works well on this device" is a guarantee and those are your words.

If you had added "possibly" (works well on this device) it would not be a guarantee.

For example - "the best lager in the world" requires proof as it is written as a guarantee and hence why it is actually written as "probably the best lager in the world".

Sidenote:
Quint and i have history. Quint likes to correct me. Important - my opinions do not change.

[[EW] Mitsie]

Nx Machina a écrit :

EW Mitsie a écrit :

I've been saying it repeatedly to him over and over throughout the full thread, I don't think he is going to get it, no matter how many people tell him. He wants to hear what he wants to hear. I've gave up trying to explain it to him.

"Works well on this device" is a guarantee and those are your words.

If you had added "possibly works well on this device" it would not be a guarantee.

Sidenote:
Quint and i have history. Quint likes to correct me. Important - my opinions do not change.

I've told you repeatedly you have taken it out of context. I said can't we have something like a "Works well on Device" Similar to the "Works well on Deck". How many times do i have to explain this to you.

We are just going around in circles, no matter how many times I clarify my position, you can not take this on board. Taking everything out of context for your own affirmation.

The problem has been solved, I've clarified my position repeatedly, you don't want to listen. Lets just end it here please and agree to disagree.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Nx Machina a écrit :

EW Mitsie a écrit :

I've been saying it repeatedly to him over and over throughout the full thread, I don't think he is going to get it, no matter how many people tell him. He wants to hear what he wants to hear. I've gave up trying to explain it to him.

"Works well on this device" is a guarantee and those are your words.

If you had added "possibly" (works well on this device) it would not be a guarantee.

For example - "the best lager in the world" requires proof as it is written as a guarantee and hence why it is actually written as "probably the best lager in the world".

Has it ever occurred to you that the wording in some posts on a thread isn't actually important to the usefulness of the tool itself?

(Also, you forgot the fact that "works well" is itself unspecific.)

Nx Machina a écrit :

Sidenote:
Quint and i have history. Quint likes to correct me and believes he is right.

Oh, yes, I've seen the variety of ways you can twist logic in your posts just to try to win arguments.

One of them is on full display here -- you're ignoring the actual purpose or use of a tool for estimating whether a game will run, and only focusing on the wording just to prove someone wrong. You're ignoring the practical matter of such a tool, in order to argue about someone's wording.

Once again, a tool need not be perfect to be useful.

Nx Machina a écrit :

Important - my opinions do not change.

The opinion that you, specifically, hold is not really that important anyway.

[Nx Machina]

EW Mitsie a écrit :

I've told you repeatedly you have taken it out of context. I said can't we have something like a "Works well on Device" Similar to the "Works well on Deck". How many times do i have to explain this to you.

We are just going around in circles, no matter how many times I clarify my position, you can not take this on board. Taking everything out of context for your own affirmation.

The problem has been solved, I've clarified my position repeatedly, you don't want to listen. Lets just end it here please and agree to disagree.

Oh! please did you forget you asked if Valve was liable for having "Works well on Deck" because by having that they were making a guarantee and yet here you are stating "my Works well on those device statement" is not a guarantee.

You dug yourself into a corner and you keep digging yourself further in.

[[EW] Mitsie]

Nx Machina a écrit :

EW Mitsie a écrit :

I've told you repeatedly you have taken it out of context. I said can't we have something like a "Works well on Device" Similar to the "Works well on Deck". How many times do i have to explain this to you.

We are just going around in circles, no matter how many times I clarify my position, you can not take this on board. Taking everything out of context for your own affirmation.

The problem has been solved, I've clarified my position repeatedly, you don't want to listen. Lets just end it here please and agree to disagree.

Oh! please did you forget you asked if Valve was liable for having "Works well on Deck" because by having that they were making a guarantee and yet here you are stating my "Works well on those device" statement is not a guarantee.

You dug yourself into a corner and you keep digging yourself further in.

No.. You said "Works well on Device" would be liable, I said well is "Works well on Deck" Liable, you said "No" Totally contradicting yourself.

Even twisting the arguments to suit your agenda now.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Nx Machina a écrit :

EW Mitsie a écrit :

I've told you repeatedly you have taken it out of context. I said can't we have something like a "Works well on Device" Similar to the "Works well on Deck". How many times do i have to explain this to you.

We are just going around in circles, no matter how many times I clarify my position, you can not take this on board. Taking everything out of context for your own affirmation.

The problem has been solved, I've clarified my position repeatedly, you don't want to listen. Lets just end it here please and agree to disagree.

Oh! please did you forget you asked if Valve was liable for having "Works well on Deck" because by having that they were making a guarantee and yet here you are stating my "Works well on those device" statement is not a guarantee.

You dug yourself into a corner and you keep digging yourself further in.

You're still arguing over wording?

Also, once again, a tool need not be perfect to be useful.

[Nx Machina]

EW Mitsie a écrit :

No.. You said "Works well on Device" would be liable, I said well is "Works well on Deck" Liable, you said "No"

Even twisting the arguments to suit your agenda now.

You really need to remember what you post.

Do you see "Works well on Deck" in those quotes

EW Mitsie a écrit :

Game gets update from developer, its in the Store as "Great on Deck" but no longer works anymore on Deck. Are they Liable ?

EW Mitsie a écrit :

If the game is still in Great on Deck" category in the store and it doesnt work anymore.
Are Valve Liable ?

Been an interesting conversation but if you are going to move the goalposts it is always best to check there is not a ball or two already in the net.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Nx Machina a écrit :

EW Mitsie a écrit :

No.. You said "Works well on Device" would be liable, I said well is "Works well on Deck" Liable, you said "No"

Even twisting the arguments to suit your agenda now.

You really need to remember what you post.

Do you see "Works well on Deck" in those quotes

EW Mitsie a écrit :

Game gets update from developer, its in the Store as "Great on Deck" but no longer works anymore on Deck. Are they Liable ?

EW Mitsie a écrit :

If the game is still in Great on Deck" category in the store and it doesnt work anymore.
Are Valve Liable ?

Been an interesting conversation but if you are going to move the goalposts it is always best to check there is not a ball or two already in the net.

Has it ever occurred to you how pointless your arguing over wording is?

You're trying to accuse EW Mitsie of talking about a guarantee, except he already said he's not, and a database of information about what runs on what systems and on the benchmarks of various graphics cards is not going to be a guarantee anyway, but it doesn't need to be a guarantee to be useful.

Heck, many people already use such tools despite that they are not guarantees. This is a testament to their usefulness.

So trying to pin him on a "no, you said it's a guarantee" is entirely pointless. It isn't even an argument against the proposal.