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 ?

[[EW] Mitsie]

Originally posted by EW Mitsie:

Originally posted by Nx Machina:

No. Valve are not liable.

The developer created the UPDATE, that selfsame UPDATE breaks the game on Proton. Why then is Valve responsible? Care to explain.

You said if Valve state that game "Works Great on Device" and it doesn't they would be Liable.
You said if Valve state that game "Works Great on Deck" and it doesn't they would be Liable. You said it all the way through this thread.

Now are by your own admission pointing out Valve are Liable for stating a game will work and you purchase it and it doesn't work? You keep contradicting yourself repeatedly. Are they Liable or not?

Originally posted by EW Mitsie:

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.

Originally posted by EW Mitsie:

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".

Originally posted by EW Mitsie:

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

[Nx Machina]

Originally posted by EW Mitsie:

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

You missed a few when editing your posts. Mr. Gentlebot was correct.

Originally posted by Mr. Gentlebot:

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.

Originally posted by EW Mitsie:

Just to put that into context, if I installed and tested a game a day, it would take me 10 years to test every game on every system.

Originally posted by EW Mitsie:

That would take me another 3 years to test the new system. I would be burning the graphic chips out before I had managed to test them all.

[MagicMight]

Originally posted by Start_Running:

Originally posted by MagicMight:

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.

You are right that different combinations can bring about different results. The above filter could work when all the minimum requirements are not met. Worse cpu than the requirement, worse gpu than the requirement, worse amount of ram than the requirement listed by devs.

And there is no getting it wrong since it would be a report of whether you meet the specs the developer lists, not whether you can actually run the game. It is up to you if you decide to buy aferwards. If you disagree with this and you still believe it to be a liability then you would certainly agree that the minimum specs listed by the dev are a liability as well. You can't have it both ways.

Heck let's suppose it was a liability. Just put a disclaimer. "This is indicative, in no way accurate, etc".

As for the line of thought: "it is no good because none has done it or managed to", it is a weak argument. It is the same concept as asking someone to prove a negative. Proper arguments please.

[Brian9824]

Originally posted by MagicMight:

And there is no getting it wrong since it would be a report of whether you meet the specs the developer lists, not whether you can actually run the game. It is up to you if you decide to buy aferwards. If you disagree with this and you still believe it to be a liability then you would certainly agree that the minimum specs listed by the dev are a liability as well. You can't have it both ways.

Sure you can, the problem is that its not just raw power. Some games require specific features for instance that not all CPU's perform. So you can have a stronger CPU then the minimum, but if its missing 1 specific feature that is required.

For instance Diablo 2 R required CPU's that support AVX. If your card doesn't support that then it won't run even if the benchmark score on your card is higher then the minimum. No amount of stronger GPU, Ram, etc will make up for that.

Other games you could be perfectly fine with a weaker card and a stronger CPU/ram and it will play fine. Hence why its not reliable. A flat score isn't sufficient, you have to look at the features and what each card, cpu, ram, provides and can run, and then know the details of the game and why it requires what it does.

Originally posted by MagicMight:

Heck let's suppose it was a liability. Just put a disclaimer. "This is indicative, in no way accurate, etc".

As for the line of thought: "it is no good because none has done it or managed to", it is a weak argument. It is the same concept as asking someone to prove a negative. Proper arguments please.

So again why would someone take the time to implement a unreliable feature that doesnt work

[[EW] Mitsie]

Originally posted by brian9824:

Originally posted by MagicMight:

And there is no getting it wrong since it would be a report of whether you meet the specs the developer lists, not whether you can actually run the game. It is up to you if you decide to buy aferwards. If you disagree with this and you still believe it to be a liability then you would certainly agree that the minimum specs listed by the dev are a liability as well. You can't have it both ways.

Sure you can, the problem is that its not just raw power. Some games require specific features for instance that not all CPU's perform. So you can have a stronger CPU then the minimum, but if its missing 1 specific feature that is required.

For instance Diablo 2 R required CPU's that support AVX. If your card doesn't support that then it won't run even if the benchmark score on your card is higher then the minimum. No amount of stronger GPU, Ram, etc will make up for that.

Other games you could be perfectly fine with a weaker card and a stronger CPU/ram and it will play fine. Hence why its not reliable. A flat score isn't sufficient, you have to look at the features and what each card, cpu, ram, provides and can run, and then know the details of the game and why it requires what it does.

Originally posted by MagicMight:

Heck let's suppose it was a liability. Just put a disclaimer. "This is indicative, in no way accurate, etc".

As for the line of thought: "it is no good because none has done it or managed to", it is a weak argument. It is the same concept as asking someone to prove a negative. Proper arguments please.

So again why would someone take the time to implement a unreliable feature that doesnt work

That would be true if technology moves backwards but it doesnt, it moves forwards. When games are released they need to support the hardware of the time. And future graphics cards must be backwards compatible. For instance I have a Intel UHD 620. It has the performance of a 10 year old card but supports Direct X 12. No card from 10 years ago supports Direct X 12. It has a similar benchmark performance to a Geforce GTX295 which released in 2009 and had Direct X 10, it didn't have Vulkan support which all latest GPU's support. You either have the minimum power card from the time which has the features or you don't.

If your card is old and under performs, it's probably not going to have the performance or the features the play the game. If your card is newer but has a lower performance rating than the minimum specs. It will have the features, but not the raw power to run the game.

So either way, your not going to be able to run the game.

[Start_Running]

Originally posted by EW Mitsie:

That would be true if technology moves backwards but it doesnt, it moves forwards. When games are released they need to support the hardware of the time.

And you do understand thatt. Which hardware of the time. The hardware ecosystem has typically 3+ generattions of hardware kicking around at any given time. Heck They still make Celeron CPU's.. And when you combine that with the time taken for game development, which can be upwards of 5 years.. Y

You're kinda illustrating that you're not terribly aware of the realities of hardware and software.
There's also the idea that different chips in the same generation can support different feature sets and instruction sets, because you know, people have different needs.

And future graphics cards must be backwards compatible.

Nope...
YOu clearly haven't paid attention to the history of Graphics cards.
There is a reason many older games have to use cpu based software rendering as opposed to GPU based hardware rendering. THat's because api's, rendiering engines, and such tend to get depricated pretty quickly.

Hell you don't even hacve to look hat hardware, this ♥♥♥♥ happens wirth Oes all the time. EVer noticed that around the time there's a new windows release there's a spike in "how to get this game to run on WIndows (whatever)?" threads.

If your card is old and under performs, it's probably not going to have the performance or the features the play the game. If your card is newer but has a lower performance rating. It will have the features, but not the raw power to run the game.

It mighrt not even have the instruction sets if its current because the standard has been either completely abandoned or...the sandard has changed so much that it no longer functions in the same way it did prior.

TYhis is why games from the directX 3 era are notorious for being PITA to get running graphically.

[Brian9824]

Fortunately steam isn't stupid and they aren't going to do something that will cost them millions.

So at this point really wondering why this thread is even still going. OP made his request that will never be done, argued with nearly every poster because he knows better then everyone, and has said his piece. The last 200 posts consist of the OP basically stating the same thing over and over and ignoring everyone because he knows better

[Brian9824]

Originally posted by Start_Running:

Originally posted by EW Mitsie:

That would be true if technology moves backwards but it doesnt, it moves forwards. When games are released they need to support the hardware of the time.

And you do understand thatt. Which hardware of the time. The hardware ecosystem has typically 3+ generattions of hardware kicking around at any given time. Heck They still make Celeron CPU's.. And when you combine that with the time taken for game development, which can be upwards of 5 years.. Y

You're kinda illustrating that you're not terribly aware of the realities of hardware and software.
There's also the idea that different chips in the same generation can support different feature sets and instruction sets, because you know, people have different needs.

And future graphics cards must be backwards compatible.

Nope...
YOu clearly haven't paid attention to the history of Graphics cards.
There is a reason many older games have to use cpu based software rendering as opposed to GPU based hardware rendering. THat's because api's, rendiering engines, and such tend to get depricated pretty quickly.

Hell you don't even hacve to look hat hardware, this ♥♥♥♥ happens wirth Oes all the time. EVer noticed that around the time there's a new windows release there's a spike in "how to get this game to run on WIndows (whatever)?" threads.

If your card is old and under performs, it's probably not going to have the performance or the features the play the game. If your card is newer but has a lower performance rating. It will have the features, but not the raw power to run the game.

It mighrt not even have the instruction sets if its current because the standard has been either completely abandoned or...the sandard has changed so much that it no longer functions in the same way it did prior.

TYhis is why games from the directX 3 era are notorious for being PITA to get running graphically.

Yep already provided perfect example with D2R and AVX, lots of cards don't support it, but on paper and by benchmark scores they are superior to the minimum requirements.

Hence why everyone with the most basic knowledge of software knows you can't go by just a benchmark. You have to look at all the functionality in that card because if your going to claim a game works it better be pretty accurate, otherwise valve is losing money due to refunds, upset customers, annoyed devs, etc.

Again, Microsoft tried it and stopped because of these exact issues. Too much variability and not enough detailed information on how a game would actually run versus how they THOUGHT it would run.

Even developers don't know how the game will run on your specs because they only test on a handful of specs out of trillions.

[[EW] Mitsie]

I said I use the tool I have built as a rough estimate, you said it would be an "unreliable feature that doesn't work" I was explaining why using performance ratings to get an estimation does work. You start talking about very specific situations. I said it's not supposed to be perfect and I've explained it through this whole thread.

Just to sum up, people on this thread have said the answer was to go away and spend years testing every game on all my devices, or alternatively spend months checking store pages and categorising by minimum specification.

I have built a Tool that instead of manually checking the minimum specs, it automatically does the work for you in under a minute.

Your Answer is: "well there might be a game from the Direct X 3 era that is a PITA to run."

I say it is possible. I prove it's possible as a rough estimate of what each system can play. You keep picking any little hole in it you can, instead of trying to grasp the bigger picture.

We can end the thread here.

You said what I was asking for was impossible. I built it, it works like an absolute charm. Has saved me years worth of time, now and in the future.

That's the end of it. Job done. Finito

[[EW] Mitsie]

Originally posted by brian9824:

Originally posted by Start_Running:

And you do understand thatt. Which hardware of the time. The hardware ecosystem has typically 3+ generattions of hardware kicking around at any given time. Heck They still make Celeron CPU's.. And when you combine that with the time taken for game development, which can be upwards of 5 years.. Y

You're kinda illustrating that you're not terribly aware of the realities of hardware and software.
There's also the idea that different chips in the same generation can support different feature sets and instruction sets, because you know, people have different needs.


Nope...
YOu clearly haven't paid attention to the history of Graphics cards.
There is a reason many older games have to use cpu based software rendering as opposed to GPU based hardware rendering. THat's because api's, rendiering engines, and such tend to get depricated pretty quickly.

Hell you don't even hacve to look hat hardware, this ♥♥♥♥ happens wirth Oes all the time. EVer noticed that around the time there's a new windows release there's a spike in "how to get this game to run on WIndows (whatever)?" threads.


It mighrt not even have the instruction sets if its current because the standard has been either completely abandoned or...the sandard has changed so much that it no longer functions in the same way it did prior.

TYhis is why games from the directX 3 era are notorious for being PITA to get running graphically.

Yep already provided perfect example with D2R and AVX, lots of cards don't support it, but on paper and by benchmark scores they are superior to the minimum requirements.

Hence why everyone with the most basic knowledge of software knows you can't go by just a benchmark. You have to look at all the functionality in that card because if your going to claim a game works it better be pretty accurate, otherwise valve is losing money due to refunds, upset customers, annoyed devs, etc.

Again, Microsoft tried it and stopped because of these exact issues. Too much variability and not enough detailed information on how a game would actually run versus how they THOUGHT it would run.

Even developers don't know how the game will run on your specs because they only test on a handful of specs out of trillions.

By AVX do you mean. Intel AVX that Diablo 2 Ressurected players with older CPU processors couldn't use. That is Processor bound not Graphics card bound.

https://www.gosunoob.com/guides/diablo-2-resurrected-avx-issue/

If you are going to make a point, at least know what you are talking about.

[Nx Machina]

Originally posted by EW Mitsie:

Just to sum up, people on this thread have said the answer was to go away and spend years testing every game on all my devices

No it was you who said that:

Originally posted by EW Mitsie:

Just to put that into context, if I installed and tested a game a day, it would take me 10 years to test every game on every system.

Originally posted by EW Mitsie:

That would take me another 3 years to test the new system. I would be burning the graphic chips out before I had managed to test them all.

[Start_Running]

Also Why would it take 'years' Set aside a couple hours a day and you could blow through that in a month easy.

Originally posted by EW Mitsie:

I said I use the tool I have built as a rough estimate, you said it would be an "unreliable feature that doesn't work"

Rough estimates are rough estimates because they are inherently inaccurate.
Inaccurate information is generally considered unreliable when one is concerned with concrete answers.

I was explaining why using performance ratings to get an estimation does work. You start talking about very specific situations. I said it's not supposed to be perfect and I've explained it through this whole thread.

Those specific situations are far more common than you think.

I have built a Tool that instead of manually checking the minimum specs, it automatically does the work for you in under a minute.

And how much time have you spent checking how well those results line up with the game's actual performance on your system?

Your Answer is: "well there might be a game from the Direct X 3 era that is a PITA to run."

You don't even need to go that far back. Brian should you a very recent example in DIablo 2:R
And directX 7 games also have their quirks and issues,

The point They were making uis that performance numbers don't take into account certain data points.

I say it is possible. I prove it's possible as a rough estimate of what each system can play. You keep picking any little hole in it you can, instead of trying to grasp the bigger picture.

And again. For a business like Valve. ROugh estimates aren't good enough.

[Brian9824]

Yep, knowing a card or processor scores 2000 points is meaningless if it doesn't have a needed function.

I know same issue happened with far cry 5. People exceeded minimum specs and it still couldn't run because they were missing something.

Hence why you can't rely on the score and why a rough estimate isn't sufficient for a business to use as advertising or marketing.

[Start_Running]

Originally posted by brian9824:

Yep, knowing a card or processor scores 2000 points is meaningless if it doesn't have a needed function.

I know same issue happened with far cry 5. People exceeded minimum specs and it still couldn't run because they were missing something.

Hence why you can't rely on the score and why a rough estimate isn't sufficient for a business to use as advertising or marketing.

ANd how it gets that 2000 may very well offer key details.
You can have 2 different cards hitting 2000 but still yielding entirely different performance results.

Example. A card can have a super cpu buy low grade ram. basically the CPU is compensating in a sense for tthe ram, but in real world performance this means you're apt to see a whole lott of pop in, and textureissues any time the game has rto swap in textures and models on the fly.

Or you can have a moderate processor paired with High quality ram and alot of it which means the texttures are fine and your frame rate will be consistent but they'll be consistently low compared to a stronger processor.

[[EW] Mitsie]

Yes and just to finish this off, I built a tool in a day and a half. It is rough and rudimentary but it works. My database doesn't have information in such as Direct X version, Vulkan support, Open GL version. Same as all my CPU in my machine will out perform all my games minimum specs I don't filter by CPU.

I also filter by RAM, if you look at the screenshots, you will see I get system RAM and convert it into MB and KB. All my Systems have over 8GB of RAM above all my games minimum specs so that doesn't apply.

I could create a database of CPU with performance and features to cross reference with.

The whole point of the thread was a Playability database.

Then the database search for Diablo 2 would be SELECT * FROM cpu_performance WHERE cpu_year >= 2011 AND avx_support = true AND cpu_score > 500"

That would say find all CPUs on the market that are later than 2011 that support AVX and have a higher performance of 500 so they work with Diablo 2.

This would get you all supported CPUs for that game. Then you match RAM, then GPU by features and performance and so on.

I said my Tool was rudimentary, built in a day and a half. I can only Imagine what Valve could do with it's resources and man power if they put their time and effort into it.

Like I said, I've tested all the games I never thought would work on my Integrated GPU that the tool revealed. I've tested them and they all play Native 1080p above 30fps at a playable rate.

For NX Machina and others who want to be pedantic and take my words out if context.

Yes I haven't tested all my games like the original DOOM from 1994, I don't know for certain it will work, but I have a good estimate it will. That's why looking at the list generated. I could estimate that the whole list is accurate as a lot of the games in the list are old and require a lower GPU as recommended specs. And the ones that I thought were performance hungry, work great.

Don't worry im going through and Testing and taking screenshots of all games with FPS Counter active in game.

But no doubt I will come back to share my results and will be called a liar again, by some in this thread who can't handle the fact that they might be proven wrong.