Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Hence why developers, publishers DO NOT commit to games running on your PC because they CANNOT test every possible PC config out there. They list min, rec specs to remove liabilty.
Valve cannot commit to another developers game running on your PC, again liabilty and would open themselves up to be sued by both the developer and the user.
Sites like "canyourunit" also do not commit to games running on your PC, they only give you a general idea.
The mantra is KNOW your PC and what it is capable of based on the current games you have.
Microsoft tried that within the OS and it failed hard so they removed it and the MIcrosoft store does not "guarantee" it will run on your PC with good performance.
And finally User generated reports would make Valve liable because they would be "hosting" that information.
https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/10/3476233614749313502/
Best to search first. Anyway, too many configurations and settings for such to be accurate enough.
Liability is why not.
Consoles do not have the same restriction as the hardware is all the same.
Because. Liability. Even systemrequirementslab has a big old warning that canirunit is by no means a guarantee
In the EU, which represents about a third of Steam's user base, that liability already exists regardless. Listed system requirements form a part of the essential product characteristics which form an integral part of the contract of sale. If content ultimately fails to meet its own listed specifications, then those directives classify that as non-conformance with contract - for which the trader is liable.
A trader can't dodge that by not listing requirements either; because where such essential characteristics are not explicitly described, EU legislation allows for consumers to assume what is reasonable, given the nature of the digital content; its price; and the circumstances of similar, comparable content.
So, liability is already a factor - like it or not.
A prudent question is: how does that liability work out in practice then?
And the answer to that is: on average, as a big nothing.
Liability just means the trader has to organize the issue being resolved, whether it's an issue with the content itself; a yet-to-be-discovered system incompatibility -- whether that be in software; hardware; or configuration -- or of course: whether the consumer is just lying through their teeth about their system meeting listed requirements, in which case they don't have to see to anything being fixed.
The process is the same: the trader redirects you to the publisher to sort the problem out in their name. They will likely ask you to use - ironically - automated means to assay your system and whether it actually meets requirements; as well as possibly tell them about any system settings outside the normal. And then the trouble-shooting starts.
So; just like any other technical problem, really. Legal liability doesn't have to be this big ol' boogeyman that businesses fear and loathe.
------
That said, even if you would find liability for a positive statement of compatibility objectionable, then the core idea of an automated check still has some value. It does not necessarily have to explicitly tell you your system is compatible; just warn you when the checker believes it's not.
And actually, automating such a non-enforced system requirements check before install could work towards lowering the amount of support cases the trader or publisher have to deal with. Because it ensures that systems you know are not supported, will with far lower likelihood have the game installed to lead to problems. It's an excellent way to discourage consumers from attempting to do silly things.
Even without hard-handed solutions such as flat-out refusing to install or start after installation -- as some games actually are written to do!
Yes legal liability is a big ol' boogeyman that businesses will continue to fear and loathe because people have made it quite clear they're happy to file lawsuits over everything under the sun.
Ah! another EU reference and two thirds of Steam users do not live in the EU despite you feeling we need to be informed.
Secondly you missed the entire point. Valve is "not obligated" to provide a system checker for other developer games when developers, publisher already list on Steam and other PC platforms the minimum, recommended specs. A system checker creates liability by giving a definitive "yes it will run on your PC" a big difference from listing just specs.
Weird that there are no STores or EU developers that provide such checkers for some strange reason.
Valve can at best tell you what's in your system but not how well its maintained or configured.. Also the very question of 'run' is a sticky question. As in. 540x480 25fps ? That's running..
Classic example - Ubisoft does not provide one on their PC client, store Ubisoft Connect and they are an EU company.
And why a system checker would be inaccurate.
Though I suppose many would 'understand' their specs to say they can totally run the game they had already made up their mind to buy.
It's mostly up to the devs and publishers.
They can provide a demo or benchmark to show how the game runs. Plenty already do.
Exactly. My CPU is below Deathloop's minimum spec but it runs very well on my PC.
This is one of the things Microsoft tried.
Irrelevant and attempting to construct a straw man.
The example of the EU legislation is to illustrate that companies already need a procedure in place to handle liability for a substantial portion - i.e. one-third - of their target market. The explanation of how that legislation works out in practice is to illustrate that its effects are compatible with what currently would already be considered standard trouble-shooting practices.
In short: liability is already a factor at play - whether you like it or not.
As I had written before.
The presence of an automated checker changes little wrt to that. At worst, companies would have to extend capacity for procedures that are already in place when false positives happen. However, I did actually go into that in the second part of my post...
And oh look; you again jumped the gun on me mentioning the EU and didn't bother to read what I wrote at all. Predictible. If you actually had read what I wrote, which is why I even explicitly demarcated my post with a horizontal separator, you would've clearly seen the following follow-up:
The nice part about an automated checker is that it doesn't have to provide positive affirmation. There is no functional need for it to. It only has to warn - but important in case of false negatives: not forbid! - when it believes a system is not compatible.
That way it is there for user convenience; will hopefully prevent some support cases due to mismatched system requirements landing with support agents; and can't possibly trigger any issues of liability where people start to sue "because you told me it would work!"
... Not that I've ever seen anyone rational ever do so, mind. But maybe it's an American cultural thing to over-eagerly reach for a court solution when feeling wronged, because American consumer-rights protection is comparatively slim compared to other areas of the world - i.e. it's easier for some to feel backed into a corner and lash out?
:: Points at Windows 11 ::
It's baked right into the update tool, my friend. Internationally.