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
Secondly. THe upgrade is free so there's nothing being sold and thusly that removes a substantial bit of liability.
Thirdly, It;'s a bit difference between checking for an os in which case you just need to chack if the hardware possesses tyhe right capabilities., and a game . Because Your OS doesn't need to manage a smooth 60fps at a given resolution.
See the difference there. No one really cares or notices if an OS slows down by half here and there. But you will notice if Say DOom eternal's frame rate drops by even as much as 10.
Irrelevant? Exactly two thirds of the world do not live in the EU.
Secondly Valve does not need to provide a system checker but feel free to provide the EU law and or case requiring Valve to do so because so far you have failed to provide examples when asked for other examples such as auto-updating.
Does Ubisoft (an EU company) have a system checker? The answer is no.
Thirdly i read your post and pointed out the flaw - Valve does not need to provide a system checker and doing so WOULD create liability.
And finally Microsoft = Windows 11 which has no relevance to the OP's suggestion.
We don't need specific this or that, just that if anything is done, the Devs need to know what generally will or will not work and users need to do research before buying as ultimately, if you know your system you'll know what will/wont work or you'll find a video that gives you specs vs performance, often with varied settings.
If it isn't broken, don't "fix" it.
Nice bait. And my answer is: no.
I already explained why I mentioned the example of the EU; and it has nothing to do with specifically it being the EU. Could be any jurisdiction where liability already exists based on listed system requirements. I could've mentioned Australia, for instance - where iirc this type of thing also applies to a certain degree.
And I am not going to cite any laws or cases which would place an onus on Valve to supply an automated checker, because that is not the point; was not the point; and never will be the point. That is merely another straw man you are attempting to put up.
The actual point I was making - and which apparently went completely over your head - was that the presence of an automated system checker cannot introduce liability or the need to put procedures into place to handle liability; when liability and those procedures are already present.
Furthermore: they already exist for one part of the world, where it hasn't lead to an obscene amount of lawsuits against publishers or platforms - now has it? So why should the presence of an automated checker that just reports back "probably compatible" or "probably incompatible" for user convenience be any different?
And if said liability existing in some areas of the world did actually lead to an hotbed of court cases... cite them please? Your burden to prove.
Exactly.
Exceptionally well, actually. To the point that tech-savvy users have to try to work around it to get the OS running on non-supported hardware.
Microsoft added that check to the upgrade tool to ensure they wouldn't have a repeat of accidental upgrades towards an OS incompatible with the user's hardware, like they had when they accidentally moved a few users over from Windows 7 and 8 to a non-functioning Windows 10 and iirc actually were sued over. (Or were in danger of being sued over until they settled out-of-court, maybe? Don't quite recall the exact specifics there.)
That said, they also added the same checker to the actual install medium as well. And it'll refuse to install on incompatible hardware. So your second point
is effectively moot. It is being equally applied to purchased install media.
In fact, the net effect is that its presence actually actively prevents liability for those cases where users explicitly circumvented the compatibility check. Which is why it's such a strong example here of an automated checker cutting both ways.
Both would still need to check for minimal hardware requirements that are required for the thing to even work at all, such as minimal required DirectX hardware level -- which btw. is also a thing for Windows 11 as it requires a DirectX12 and Windows driver model 2.0 compatible card and driver.
Note also that we're talking compatibility here, i.e. "will it run?" and not benchmarking, i.e. "how well will it run?" The argument for a continuous 60 FPS belongs to the latter and not the former, and therefore does not apply.
So the comparison stands.
ANd the problem again becoems the first point. It is not a sure indicatopr. Also a point I forgot to mention is that this checker is put out by microsoft. This is them applying their checker to their product. They are not doing this to someone else's product.
Any developer can develop and put out benchmarks. Few bother to because it simply does not work very well, because as mentioned an OS can have performance hiccups and no one notices. But would you call doom eternal bobbing between 20 and 10fps constantly as running? I don't think so.
SO the point still stands It is not something VAlve can do since outside 20 or so games Valve does not own any of the software sold on their platform. Hence why most software stores do not have such things. Liability doesn't seem like a big issue from your perspective because you're not on the side of the equation that stands to lose tyhousands to millions of dollars.
There's a reason no store does this and the sidtes that do this have no affiliation with any store.
Except he did not as the following PC clients do not have system checkers.
Epic Launcher, GOG Galaxy, Battlenet app, Rockstar Launcher, Ubisoft Connect (an EU company) and Origin.
They do not have said checkers because they are inaccurate and would cause liability by giving a definitive answer.
Liability is removed from guaranteeing a game will run on your PC with minimum, recommended specs provide by the developer, publisher.
PC's are not solely made from video cards to determine performance as a number of components decide numerous reasons for performance and or issues.
As previously stated my CPU is below the minimum spec for Deathloop and it runs very well on my PC while others with higher spec PC's have issues.
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1252330/discussions/0/3471730015124556650/
Except I did, because I already stated that it's perfectly possible for an automated checker to only warn when it either knows or strongly suspects that the system does not meet the title's requirements; but to otherwise not do anything - i.e. to not include an affirming message that would open up the liability of "you told me it would work."
You just continue to ignore that; even after I have already brought this to your attention explicitly before. So at this point, I can make no other conclusion than you are willfully ignoring statements that don't fit the narrative you wish to establish; and that you are arguing in bad faith.
Irrelevant and beside the point. The example of Microsoft incorporating a system compatibility checker in their product came in reply to the suggestive argument that no company ever did it; and therefore it's a bad idea. (Which is the reverse complement to the 'bandwagon' logical fallacy; actually.)
Besides that: apparently Microsoft is fine with it not being a 100% sure indicator. It doesn't have to prevent false negatives or false positives. The wording they give you back is that your system is "probably compatible." There is no certainty.
The reason you have this kind of thing is user convenience and to automatically signal to the bulk of users that might attempt to install or use software on a system that with high likelihood is incompatible, that they're about to do something they shouldn't.
Simply by never 100% affirming something will work, you already avoid most issues one could possibly have over liability.
Here's a curated list counting approximately 150 of them[www.pcgamingwiki.com] including fairly recent titles ranging from indie to triple-A. Must be working well enough, considering I'm seeing multiple successive titles from the same series where the benchmarking tools are kept in.
Have you considered that maybe the reason they're not included on other titles is simply because some developers/publishers don't want to bother with creating a benchmark, because it's nothing but a money-sink for them?
(And again: benchmarks are different from compatibility checks.)
And that would not affect liability.
You really need to think about this from all angles. m8.
The fact that you had to use the word 'suspect' shows you know that no certainty is possible.
Tell you what. Why don't you try pitchiong this idea to the management of GoG. as an EU based company thaey would surely be the easiest to convince no?
An automated checker not stating anything, whether in the positive or the negative, would indeed not affect liability.
Yes; thank you for that obvious statement. That's the whole point of such a checker only warning when it knows or strongly suspects something wouldn't work; but never telling customers/users that it knows something would work - exactly because it can't 100% guarantee that.
It doesn't matter from a risk of liability point of view to give out a false negative; especially not if the wording is kept advisory, i.e. "It looks like your current system may not meet this title's minimum system requirements. Are you sure?"
Only a false positive matters, because that's what malignant consumers might actually use to sue. What are they going to do in the other case of a false negative? Sue the company over misinforming them that the software wouldn't work, when actually it would - which caused them to not spend money they otherwise would have?
And believe me since we are talking thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars. That'sd basically have every single dev pub looking really hard for those wrong answers, even knowingly engineering them.
If it were that simple every store would be doing it already. Why then is the practice so very, very rare among software developers on a whole, let alone game developers?
Think.
At worst with the consumers you have to refund what they paid, it results in what amounts to a near net 0. But the liability to the dev/pubs...yeah that will cost Valve thousands out of pocket.
This as said is why NO SOFTWARE STORE DOES this. The only example you could find of that is Micropsoft doing it for one of THEIR products, which is basically akin to a dev/pub on STeam releasing a benchmarking tool . They can do it since it's THEIR PRODUCT. Valve and other stores cannot do it because the products AREN'T THEIR'S.
Did you read the OP?
Translation: a guaranteed yes or no.
Now this cannot work because PC's are made up of variable components which should work in unison yet have variable results per PC.
As previously stated my CPU is below the minimum spec for Deathloop and it runs very well on my PC while others with higher spec PC's have issues.
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1252330/discussions/0/3471730015124556650/
I could therefore sue Valve after the system checker told me Deathloop would not run on my PC hence why for Valve it is a liability issue.
None of those other PC clients offer this feature : Epic Launcher, Battlenet app, Rockstar Launcher, Ubisoft Connect (an EU company), GOG Galaxy (an EU company) and Origin and yet get a free pass for not doing so.
Two EU companies yet you focus on the US company.
And finally "suspect" is not accuracy hence why it is a tool which creates liability.
Do you realize the goal of replying to suggestions in this board is to help refine them from a potentially non-working format into a working format; or improved format? That's what constructive argument does and is an important facet in how it differs from dismissive argument.
I've already acknowledged that if positive affirmation -- i.e. "this game is compatble" / "we suspect this game is compatible" -- would pose liability that parties are not comfortable with, you can avoid it by only supplying negative affirmation -- i.e. "this game is not compatible" / "we suspect this game is not compatible".
Right; I can see it right now:
It'd be such a blast to see that get laughed out of court that I'm almost sad it'll never happen.
Because; yes, it won't.
Because you agreed to Steam's terms of service, which includes binding arbitration clauses and waiver of liability.
Now I know for a fact those wouldn't be binding in the EU, but then: you're not domiciled in the EU, now are you? Yeah... given how vehemently you protest that the one-third of Steam's market that is the EU, doesn't matter -- you're probably not in the EU. Probably you're based in the US where those clauses are 100% binding. I.e. not only would you not be able to sue in court, but you would have already agreed that you will not hold Steam liable.
Really, the only one in this thread so far who has made any argument wrt liability that makes any amount of sense, is Start_Running:
Kudos. That's an example of actual liability.
Albeit, it's really no different a form of liability than Steam going down during a major sale and publishers missing out on commerce. Or the Steam Overlay introducing problems into a game due to incompatibilities -- Recent patch to the Steam Client fixes a few of such problems with Vulcan, I believe? -- which could negatively affect the reputation of a game for being 'buggy' and causing prospective buyers to avoid it.
Or the liability introduced by offering a review system that allows prospective buyers to read both positive and negative reviews directly on the Steam storefront, which is not content curated by the publisher but by Valve - and can affect the purchase decision of prospective buyers.
Why is this type of liability no different than the ones I just listed?
Because like the other ones, it can be handled in contract. I.e. when a publisher opts to publish something on Steam, they have to agree to a publishing contract that includes certain terms which waive these type of liabilities.
Still; That is an actual valid hurdle you'd need to ensure is taken and is a valid point against.
Nowhere is it a goal that one must agree with or improve anothers suggestion. That is also why people are free to give feedback, suggest improvements/more problem-proof something, point out why it wont work, or otherwise. Any one part in itself can be constructive as showing issues also points to that more thought needs to be put into it, something an individual making a suggestion is free to do when any one thing is pointed out. OPs with good faith have actually demonstrated this and been given kudos to improving their initial suggestion to make it more valuable.
It just happens that on more occasions any one individual can be around for, they happen to be disliked. Though for others more involved; it's a mixture. I would likely be more adept to making this sort of suggestion a reality, though it would be expensive to maintain especially given current game version/demand and would thus need access of such as well to give an immense of accuracy and expectations including various warnings based upon what hardware of what issues to expect, most notably temperature. This is why such largely does not exist outside of overly specific places and manufacturers and it would be too specific and too accurate pending any one particular piece of hardware or running software, system/bios settings etc.
Could one make a lesser and still likely accurate version? Yes, but it'll still cost you, and I doubt Valve would want to pay for that kind of service rather than allowing Devs to make a Min/Rec specs section. People complain of privacy intrusions anyway, and people like to complain if a tool is inaccurate vs what they actually see in the game which often does not account for any one thing that may cause the issue, as simple as one little setting to cause annoyance.
For PC users, it's just best to give the initial Dev source, point to videos of their specs, and show the expected performance with res/settings with those pieces of hardware. Heck, they could just make the tool find such videos, verify, and let the tool play the video based upon detected hardware and the selected game, much like some MOBAs do to explain how something works. Then, that comes down to if the video is accurate, unedited, doesn't have content that they'd have an issue with.
More pain than valuable, unless you like throwing money around for personalized and moderated output.
TL;DR: Want something specific, it'll cost you a premium.
See; now that is a quality constructive reply.
Well done.
And yes; of course disagreeing with a suggestion is always an option and if you have good arguments that point out real flaws, then that can be actually constructive - because as you state: it can still set the original poster or others contributing in the thread on the path to ironing out the flaws.
As such it is still a constructive argument that moves towards refining a suggestion.
And note: the outcome of such refinement can still be: "okay, this is without hope of having the flaws ironed out - and they're too big to move passed, so maybe just give up on it?"
That's what I was getting at when I said that the goal is constructive contribution to refining a suggestion. I think we're saying the same thing here, just in different words.
But that's different from a suggestion being dog-piled with verbiage consisting of non-arguments; cheap digs; or off-hand dismissal. Which is certainly not constructive and accomplishes nothing but stymieing discussion or offending users.
Again; good reply. Lots of valid points and different points of view.
In particular the cost of maintenance is one that wasn't brought up before.
Breadth of factors involved in compatibility had been brought up before; but there's some interesting considerations there for things like BIOS / UEFI firmware versions being relevant as well. And privacy considerations in how much information Steam would be digging out of user's systems. Which, I imagine, would be something of relevance in the EU wrt the e-Privacy regulation more so than the GPDR.
The salient question maybe is:
How much worth does an automated topical analysis for the low-hanging fruit like out-of-spec video hardware -- which this suggestion would almost certainly need to be reduced to, to be capable of being implemented at all -- still represent, when all it can do is produce a warning towards users to double-check in the event that they haven't checked the system requirements manually yet?
Or, more to the point:
How many Steam users commonly purchase without bothering to check the system requirements; don't understand the system requirements; or don't know they're even listed at the bottom of the store page (admittedly, not the most visible place) ?
Again this is the reason why literally no store does this. dev/pubs can do this for their products because its for their products. They are labelling their products.
Which is why the overlay is entirely optional and can be disabled. It's usually the first troubleshooting tip they give. So again even if it introduces something Valve has taken reasonable steps to ensure that it does not prevent someone from playing the game..ie they made it optional.
Er....you do realize one. Valve aren't the ones developing Vulkan. and two thsoe fixes may well just be working around Vulkan's known bugs. and three. What rendering engine the game uses is up to the dev pubs and their implementation.
There's a difference between some random person saying your game is bad, because you know, prove that they are lying about their opinion. And you as the store saying this game in incompatible with your system.
See above.
And again. if rthere is noreal liability as you say. Then why has NO OTHER PC SOFTWARE STORE DONE THIS?
You think there maybe some reaso? Like maybe their educated and paid legal teams know something about the laws and applicatuions thereof that you don't?