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
This topic has been locked 
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
1 I not care for most used.. thats "causual" games should not push for casual.
(and how many bot accounts excist to farm steamcards or banana's with)
2 the fact that people with old resolutions are online does not mean they should be able to play future releases.. they can buy the old stuff
3 games are an art.. as artist you want to make the best you can regardless of how well it sells.. that means not multiplatform and not for potato pc.
=> so you would exclude anybody not considered "a real gamer"
4 if you go for profit.. than NUMBER of users should not count.. but only how much they spend.
so now correct these resolution "by euro/dollar spend per year this account excists"
5 while personally I think mass is trash fastfood sells more than haute cuisine, more people pay to go to a popconcert than to hear a classical performance by an actuall world best classical orchestra, and so on.
still if you think like this :
-> lets correct for "actual hours played" -> and lets make that REAL played so not "logged in a game but not actually playing" but actually playing.
so basicly what resoltion spends more, what resolution plays more hours a week.
that would be the demografic a developer would be interested in.. not merely "what is the largest group.
if a user in europe spends 50 euro for my game.. and a user in africa only 50 cent.. than I rather have 1 european buyer than 99 african ones.
(personally I oppose regional pricing alltogether and would like steam would remove it and just force all devs to list their games in ONE usd price.. and charge us all whatever that is converted in our own currency
I personally find that I pay 50 euro for a game another person pays much less for not proper.. it is unfair.
and even worse.. even though european region is the most expensive one.. I still cannot use those games in other regions (one would think region locking only works one way aka one cannot play a cheap copy in a more expensive region.. meaning european copies would be the only ones that could be used worldwide... americans and japanese anywhere but in europe and so on... but thats not how region locking works sadly.
/eyeroll
That's quite a set of crazy opinions you've got there.
I constantly tell my son to make sure he is running games without this crap on.
I hope you don’t play with lower settings than those console kids. Like the Last of Us below 4K. Or Elden Ring.
I don't suppose you have any sort of convincing sources to support this?
Even among enthusiasts, the vast, vast majority don't constantly buy the best of the best of everything the very moment it's released.
What you're describing is like the 0.01% within the 1% or something. I honestly think I'm overestimating it too. Almost nobody does it to that extent.
Yikes. This is some serious "the plebeians I don't want to see don't count". Sorry, but I'm not entertaining your "people I don't want to count, don't count, because it allows me to establish my imaginary facts" narrative. We're talking reality here.
Aren't you the same person who made a massive thread because your nearly decade old hardware that ran Windows 7 and didn't support Windows 11 was losing the support of Steam?
I'll use what I already have until I'm fussed enough to change it.
It's a bit amusing to me that something as reasonable and logical as that eludes you so much that you launched into a multi-paragraph reason why things have to be changed.
300 euro PC building experience is normal here :D
True, but just look at the hardware. AMD releases processors with a minimum 6 cores. Intel's Pentium costs like an i3 and nobody wants a Celeron these days, so you get a CPU that is good enough to not be the bottleneck at 4K resolution with most GPUs. That's the problem you are seeing. This is the problem you see. An average person has an office PC and at any moment he/she can change the power supply and put a GPU inside and start gaming at 1080p or 4K, it doesn't matter what resolution because it just works. Don't forget that the average person is more likely to have a laptop than a desktop, and that's what's holding them back from normal gaming experience.
DLSS can AI upscale 1440p to 4K with a very minimal hit to performance.
Same as upscaling 960p to 1440p with dlss quality.
I've tried over-60 a couple times, and didn't notice any difference except for louder cooling fans. So I capped back to 60.
I just assume I'm not as sensitive to framerates (I've played games at mid-30's just fine, too. Like Cyberpunk back at launch, when I just had an RX570). Kind of like how different people have different hearing ranges (all the way up to people with perfect pitch).
I choose to see it as a positive, because I can get by with cheaper GPUs. :)
Playing with a controller helps me with that by a lot. I like to have 120fps with a mouse and keyboard but I’m OK with 60fps when using a controller. More is better of course but 60 is a sweet spot for me.
Also watching YT videos when people are playing on a controller over mouse and keyboard is more pleasant. M&K camera movement feels so bad for a spectator.
human vision is not equal for all humans.. some have better sight than others.. the low end is at 60fps.. the high end at 110fps
so some humans can really not see the difference between 60fps and 100.. most can..
but the difference between 80 and 100.. is again a smaller group which truelly can see it.
but thats just one side of the story.. for even if people cannot "see" it.. than we get how "synced" these frames are.. yes our eyes see the world in 60-110 fps.. but the interval between those frames is very stable... so if we look at a screen thats not properly synced... than we will notice..if not by seeing than by getting tired eyes looking at it faster..
while freesync/gsync does help it does not fully elimitane the non synced issue.. so thats why generally you want a few frames more than what you actually can see..
I personally think that anything above 100fps is fine... so those people going for 240fps nonsensical NO human eye nor any humans responcetime is that fast that we can see the difference between 120fps and 240fps.
but I too prefer a lower resolution 100+ fps over a higher resolution 60fps..
with that mindset if you now bought a card.. many models make NO sense to me
4070S can run 1440p ultra just fine at 100fps
so can :
3080 12tb, 3080ti, 3090, 3090ti, 4070ti, 4070tiS, 4080, 4080S
6900XT, 6950XT, 7800XT, 7900XT, 7900XTX
but NON of those can run 4k at ultra 100fps.. so why do they excist? why do those other models excist.. they cannot run 4k.. and they are not needed to run 1440p
you can have an 7800XT for 500 euro, an 4070S for 600..
if you want the next step up from there.. you need to jump straight to a 4090 to run 4k at 100fps.
if your on a budget.. and cannot spend 500 euro on a gpu... but only got about 300 (thats what a budgetbuild would spend on gpu) than you need to lower settings a bit below ultra to still run 100fps
less so the closer you get so the range of cards below this point does make sence...
if you lower settings a bit, than 100fps at 1440p is also doable for
4070, 3080, RX6800XT, RX6800, RX7700XT
at minimum settings 6750XT likely even.. and at ultra it still runs at nearly 80fps.. not ideal but at least comfortably above 60fps.. which is why that card is the goto budgetcard.
if you want the next step up from there.. you need to jump straight to a 4090.
agreed.. though since a 4090 is the only card that can do that.. the people who run 4k at 80-100 fps.. with like a 7900XT or 7900XTX I do get somewhat.. thats in the solid 90+ fps range..
your widescreen resolution to me is much more horrible than that.. I HATE widescreen.. if they still made it I would have prefered the old 4:3 size.. I certainly not want to go wider than 16:9
well a bit of jesting is alowed even if my anger at what the modern community has done to the quality of games is true.
but well 300 euro for a pc to me is ridiculous.. like I said I consider 1200 euro (for a complete system with perifials) or 900 euro (for just a case) the absolute minimum to build a game pc.. below that I tell people.. go buy a 2d hand system.
for 300 euro you can buy a fine 2d hand pc from like 8 years old for that..
like intel i7 9700k + 16Gb ddr4 and a GTX 1070 or RTX 2060..
some system like that can be had 2d hand for 300 euro.
and a system like that should NOT run anything recently released.. but games from 5 year old or older.. should run fine on it.
which means that games released 5 or more years ago.. should probably run fine on it.
and those older games still support 1080p.
(which you need for the listed 2d hand system can likely run 1080p at medium at 100fps, and ultra at 60fps.. but 1440p would be a 40fps mess)
it is only for games released TODAY that I say they should not support resolutions below 1440p
nothing bad with buying secondhand and games out what used to be the budgetbin (where games would be sold 2.99 euro each)
where others buy games at release 60 euro each..
and yeah if your a programmer/modder keeping that old stuff alive, basicly a proper hacker just you use decade old hardware.. in the retro-gaming community you will be respected.
still does not mean your system should run the latest titles... and thats no problem.. the systems now sold 2k will you buy 300 euro a few years from now and than you can play the games releasing now...
same as that our old school materials and hospital materials and cars etc get shipped 2d hand to the 2d and 3d world.. as we get new...
and to support a modern gpu.. you still need a decent cpu.
if we say that you need at least a 4070S to run 1440p 100fps (or something equavalent)
and at least a RX 6750 to ruin 1440p at 80fps (which is still acceptable for budget)
than you need something like a Ryzen 5 5600X as bare minimum for cpu.
not the most expensive cpu.. but you know there are PLENTY of crappy i3, and xeon systems out there.. than would bottleneck a proper gpu bigtime.
(and that is even IF they add that gpu)
sure you likely can turn an office/school pc into something that can run 1080p.
but it has it's limits unless it is a really high end office system.
but a modern GAME pc even a budget one.. can run 1440p
games with 60fps cap.. I hate.. deeply.. it is what I hate in skyrim.. and it is the clearest sign of "screw pc gamers this is a console game" which especially if done to an originally for pc only series like the elder scrolls feels like big time sellout.
Sure, but please don’t insult people who have different opinion or buy a cheaper or more expensive PC than you.
I switched to PC because I wanted console games in better quality. In my specific case it means 4K on a big screen.
I have a smaller 4K screen for daily use and a bigger, 4K 144Hz gaming TV in 75’ inches for media and games.
I wouldn’t like playing at 1440p on a tiny 28-32 inches knowing that some console games run in real 4K on a more immersive screen.
I’m surprised how you insult others for not spending more on their PC or playing on consoles or using wrong in your opinion aspect ratio for their monitors. Please, don’t do this.