Instalar o Steam
Iniciar sessão
|
Idioma
简体中文 (Chinês Simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chinês Tradicional)
日本語 (Japonês)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandês)
Български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol de Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol da América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Brasil)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar problema de tradução
Este tópico foi fechado 
Regras e Orientações das Discussões
Denunciar este post
In your example, the i7 9700k shows exactly that. How far are you from achieving a good performance? Not much, and that's the problem. Later, you'll just change the GPU to a more powerful one and voila the difference is not huge.
The Ryzen 5 5600X is 4 years old and still running the newest games and I get you, it sucks because there are resources that can be used for whatever you want to make a game more interesting somehow.
indeed... thats the point.. consoles always were about 15 year behind on pc hardware (that is if you bought an average 2400 euro pc 15 years ago.. the kind of games it could run would only start to run on console 15 years later..
basicly if you figure each gpu generation is about 1,5-2 years apart... and were now about to hit nvidea 5000 series..
so a console now should run games like released in 2009, and running like a geforce 200 series (likely close to what a geforce 275 or 260 did)
that gap has been squandered.. on multiple fronts...
-first the software started to stop demanding the latest hardware to run.... as well if it must run on console than by default it can also run on 15 yuear old computers..
-next the speed at which new hardware was released started to decline.. for without games pushing the need for new hardware (and gaming always was one of the MAYOR driving factors for the speed of new hardware development)
so basicly the hardware sold today is 8 years behind what it should be due development of it being lazy
while games are also 8-10 years behind.
but there is more there is the MINDSET.
tradiotionally pc gamers are male, 16-26yo, iq 120+, nerd type, and will have gaming as their main hobby,
***
they are much less sensible to advertisement, and pretty pictures (critical consumers).. and more to a lot of inteligent storywriting, smart deep boardgame elements, and ofccourse they like steep learning curves.. and freedom, they usually also have vast knowledge of hard and software (thats needed to mod and troubleshoot to get local lans etc working like in the old days..) and build their own pc..
while console gamers are generally 12yo, equally both genders, avagere iq, and as they often only game short moments, desire handhelding, and plug and play, and do not want to waste any time in manuals and such..
causuals aka non gamers who happen to have a pc now.. are of all ages, all genders, average iq, and while they aint time restrcted like console kids, they usually not have gaming as their main hobby but just occatially play a game.. thus they too like causualised aka dumbed down games, and tend to be more sensible to advertisement and pretty pictures as they not invest the time to get into the lore, mechanics etc.. they usually just buy a stock pc or laptop and not even know what parts are in it.
well now guess what happens when you want to cater games to all these groups.. which group which tradtionally were the only gamers.. gets now ignored and feels the games are dumbed down?
-> we see that games loose complexity in gameplay (dumbed down) and an idiotic spike in budget for marketing, while the budget for good writers have decrteased and many games are released totally buggy and incomplete
-> simply put games before were like haute cuisine, or classical orchestra.. now they cater to the masses.. and well the masses like mcd and popmusic.. but thats terrible taste to the original consumers of gamers.
oh you see it also reflected in type of games... strategy games (my favorite genre)(once a sizable chunk of the gaming market) has decreased a lot.. look at the number of new releases per year.. basicly after 2005 it dried up completely just as the above changes started to happen.
why.. cause strategy as it is the one genre that is very hard to play properly on console... and wasting weeks and hundreds of hours in a sigle match again not what casuals want.
role playing games... still excist but if you look at the quality of writing lore, the attention to item design and the shear number of ability's and skills.. it has massively gone down the drain. while stuff like unkillable npx (handhelding) and fasttravel (cause short attention span) ruin the immersion..
why this was done?
well short reason : greed... much more customers = much more money.
was it needed? no. the CLASSIC core of what I call true gamers still excists in about the same number and it is still as profitable. but back than you invested 10 million and made 11 million back.
but now they invest 500 million(400 of it on marketing) and make over a billion back.
like with movies investers got involved budets got bloated.. and any creativity went out the window as investers hate risk.
it also has destroyed quality control for in the past the tighter margins ment
even after multiple well recieved releases 1 bad recieved release could bankrupt your situdi
so you HAD to release a good product.... now many crap and mostly negative recieved products still make a profit.
(the introduction of drm and the destruction of the 2d hand market and right of return has ofcourse not helped there either)
so no I not blame the causuals... nor the console kids.. once each had their own games catherer to their own desires and we all were happy.. but this one size fits nobody just has degenerated the art of gaming... and slowed technogical progress.
and those who were once on the cutting edge of it the classic true gamers.. notice this decline the strongest.
🤣 Absolutely rekt. 👏
not at all.. I have no nearly decade old hardware...
1 the date I bought it is not the date it was released.
2 I have an intel enthousiant cpu and despite those comping out AFTER the mainstream series, having many features mainstream only gets 1 or 2 generations later... they generally classify as a generatioon older.,
basicly its like if intel now would release an gen 11-super that outperforms the gen 14 cpus and is released after gen 14.. and has already ddr6 and pcie6 and other stuff you wont see until gen 16... yet somehow to win 11 is red as gen 11..
3 I prefer windows 7. heck likely my system would run better on win10.. I just not want win 10 cause I hate that os.
4 I have a pc that was over 10k and that still outpulls many.. and while I will soon buy a new pc.. I still like to play my windows 7 games on a windows 7 system.. I spend a fortune on having acces to windows 7 ultimate and get the extended support beyond the normal support regulair windows 7 get (I bought myself in the kind of service usually only for compagny's to extend win 7 lifespand at a price of 500 euro a year)
don't mistake me for a poor pauper who cannot afford new hardware.. I just not LIKE newer OS.
**
that whole debate is about the fact that steam dropping OS support without removing drm is very very wrong.
***
if you bought and installed a game on a certain os you should always be able to install and play it on that os.. just as I can with all my casette, disks, and cdroms, for basic, dos, win95, win98, winxp before..
===
steam dropping win 7 support means some games in your library are bricked.. they will imediatly never be playable again as those games only run on windows 7 or older.,.
so basicly the game needs an older os.. to work yet steam won't let you.. than steam should hand you a copy without steam drm to use for that retromachine.
.....
but even games still working.. why should you be forced to an os you not want if the game works fine on the os you already got?
this is not about me not being ok that newly released games need a minimum amount of hardware and a certain os.. that is normal.. that newer games not run on older hardware..
what is NOT normal is basicly that the games you already own and work fine on your current os.. now are prevented from launch by a drm layer that says NOPE need newer os.. but if you launch that drm layer on that newer os the game is bricked...
THATS the issue..
and if steam does this now win win 7 and 8.. they will repeat it with 10, than 11 and so on until every game ever made will never be playable ever again.
as I like to revisit the games I played 20 years ago.. and believe games are like books and movies art that should be preserved.. THAT kind of disregard for preservation games for posterity.. .is what I am outraged about.
if steam would just said ok for any game you purchased before date x you can download an .exe file to instal and play your game on your original os without ever needing steam+
meanwhile to log in and purchase more games.. you will now need minimum win 10.
that be ok.. it is totally fine that steam pulls your acces from the store, the forum etc for not upgrading.. but it should not suddenly spike up the os demand for products you already bought (especially if those products often not even WORK on that newer os)
fyi.. I likely be buying a new pc late this year when the 5xxx series of nvidea hits, alongside a proper 40 inch 4k screen... and as that won't work anymore with windows 7.. I likely will instal linux on it (as I still hate very much windows 10 and 11 for personal reasons)
***
now the whole debate about win 11 demanding new enough hardware..
and me complaining bout that.. is something different... it is more like well lets compare to phone updates
if you buy a 2000 euro flagship phone.. it often has a more modern cpu, more memory, more ram.,. be on all fronts newer and better than a 2 year later released budgetphone of 50 euro..
but if your than not getting that latest android release and that budgetphone does.. than yeah THAT feels wrong.
in the past windows versions just demanded a certain processing power, an amount of memory, and so on.
->
and that ment that basicly you either had to had a high end cpu of a 2 gens back, a mid end or high end of 1 gen back, or any cpu of todays get.
if your cpu is more powerfull than 99% of the cpu's that do run windows 11.. heck even the creappy 150 euro models that were released a year before your 2000 euro cpu was.. do support it... than yeah you be angry too...
I am all ok with progress.. but there is simple "sorry your crap is to slow now" and... than there is arbitrairy cut off..
as for games.. in the 90s.. yeah they sometimes did basicly deny any gpu older than 1 generation ago... but back than the progress between gpu generations was so large that even the best gpu 2 gen back was worse than the worst one of current gen..
+ it actually added features you wanted... like game breaking new features..
like how certain gpus have rtx and others don't. no matter how potent your old gpu is.. if it aint got rtx and new games all need rtx it won't run it..
but nothing is added that warrants such a demand..
the whole reason win11 needs those new cpu's is cause microsoft want root acces.. with some some lame "security reason" excuse.. but in truth it is just in the interest of data collecting aka microsoft.. not something an end user should even want.
but ok aside the ludicrus what cpu's can and cannot run 11 line.. and the reason why... the basic "need hardware newer than x to run win 11" is fine.
ofcourse if steam drops win 7 support when win 10 is no longer sold and win 11 needs hardware demands you don't met cause arbitrairy barriers.. yeah that sucks..
-> and for users without my kind of budget it is still wrong.. for well.. why should they not be allowed to keep playing the games they bought on their win 7 forever on win 7.. the worst steam should do is block their acces to the forum,. their profile. the steam store, the marketplace... but the ability to install and play their games should be left alone.
Imagine.. your car came with a log in layer.. a service provider you were forced to log into when starting... it provides gps, and direct contact to emergency services, should you get in an accident or break down.. it even will collect data on how long you have been using each part so your garage won't replace them to late or soon.. saving you money.
- and than that service provider would drop support for your car meaning you cannot log in with your car in that provider service anymore.. meaning you cannot start and drive your car.. cause they made it so..
what they should have done is release a fix so your car no longer demands a login in that sevrice provider to be driven.. you would no longer get that gps service, secirity service etc... but it still can drive fine.
instead.. services like this make sure that no car sold today ever becomes an oldtime classic to be cherished but is trashed just a decade orso from now.
that is what steam does to games by dropping os support like that.
What exactly is your issue(s) with Win10?
I'm curious.
You can customize Win10 pretty much any which way you want, just like XP or 7.
You can go and disable pretty much any data collection, telemetry in the OS, along with Edge, OneDrive, Defender if you wish. You can make the StartMenu just like it was on XP/7 if you wish.
So where is the problem?
You gain apps & drivers support, along with Microsoft Store and access to things like Xbox Gamebar and Xbox Gamepass. It's a win-win.
I've run Win10 and 11 on PCs that date back to i5-2500K, not problems, as long as the GPU wasn't too old, which today you really shouldn't be using anything older then RX 580 / GTX 1070 perhaps would be good bottom-line. Especially if you plan to run Games. Aside from that, just need a couple SSDs and 16-32 GB of RAM (again depending on your Games demands; 16GB is usually enough)
There's is nothing about 30 or 60 or higher-than-60 that is "PC". Back in the day, everything was 60 or less, just because that's what everyone's hardware was. Been playing computer games since the 80's, there's nothing about personal computers that requires super FPS.
And Bethesda games being limited to 60 has nothing to do with "programming down for consoles" - it's a limitation of their game engine, which has existed since before all this "omg, consoles are ruining everything for PC!" stuff. The physics & script execution is tied to the framerate, so they go berserk above 60 (because, again, the engine was originally developed back when PC's & monitors were limited to 60 in the first place.)
And yeah, with mods it's possible to break that link. So you can play above 60 all you want. (It's even advantageous for loading times to have the loading screens run at 350+ fps. Fallout 4 on an SSD has loading screens in the ~5 second range with that framerate.)
first is the lack of legency support.
win7 ultimate has very good backward compability with all my old xp games on cdrom.. and can run them fine.. win 10 can not.
** sure the time may have come to use a retromachine for that anyway... but still it is an argument.
next there is the forced updates (I had to put in considerable effort to keep my windows 7 from updating to win 10 against my will and win10 does not even give you that control to deny updates anymore)
than there is the whole lack of a proper start menu, control menu and all that I won't dive to deep into (but short tory they got rid of key administrator features...which is great if you like plug and play.. not so much if you like to control things)
next windows 10.. has many ways it collects data on you.. just look into the processes going on in the background.. sure windows always had it's issues in this regards.. but windows 10 does it way worse.
ofcourse I hate the look.. those ugly tiles... make a pc look like a bloody smartphone.. windows 8 did that worse and they did tone that down.. but combined with the lack of proper administrator features this can not fully be reverted to be clean you may get it to look on the surface cleaner.. but like a modern crappy phone.. there is always crap you can only disable not remove..
changing the facade does not mean whats behind it is not still a pile of crap.
next I really really hate consoles.. so if you see xbox in your windows.. that is already for me a BIG nope..
so adding crap like windows store to my windows.. is a big NEGATIVE to me.
those are just a few reasons why I hate windows 10..
the 60fps link has 100% to do with console.
morrowind was designed for pc.. it was eventually 12 years later ported to console...
-this is why morrowind has spells like levitation that the pc can handle fine but had to be scrapped in oblivion and skyrim cause consoles cannot handle the physic calculations for that well
skyrim was designed for console first and foremost.. and was ported to pc..
and that difference in where it was ported to.. IS exactly why the physics are tied to the fps.. and the fps is capped to 60 (which is also the cap of consoles of the day)
-> this trick is not unlike how once gamespeed was once tied to the mhz the cpu ran at
it helps performance when your hardware is not that good yet.
but it also gives issues.. once you try run such a game on hardware that is better...
but for pc.. who can easely surpass that 60fps.. it ment you had to install fps limiters to run skyrim..
meaning willfully in the very design of the engine they screwed pc performance over to make console performance better.
and I agree pc gaming used to be about much more than just higher fps and "eyecandy"
it was also about better physics, better ai, much more units.. (aka things that make a game actually better, not only look better but that console hardware just cannot run)
and than there is where you allocate the budget into..
as a general rule a good game is also playable as a boardgame.
well now the kind of games made origianally resempled the kind of insane games (civilizations was a boardgame first, and boardgames like axis and allies also could take whole weekends and thats just for starters there are way more complex games with very very steep learning curves)
pc games used to have that kind of dept in their gameplay too.
ofcourse the causual person not plays those insanely complax taking dosins of hours to play a game kind of boardgames.. heck even risk likely takes to long for them, you very well know what games take under 1 hour and would be played by families including those of young ages..
pc games have likewise been dumbed down and causualised.
next there is the actual writing.. again.. if you have a story.. some of us like proper writing.. academic books.. and high literature..
and than there is people who just want to read a comic.
->
lets say the quality literature let alone the acedemic works, are not red by the masses..
even many they may say they are into geek culture usually only have scratched the surface and are still only going along with what is populair now.. they only touched the tip of the iceberg.. they did not dive underwater.
games as made for an inteligent audience.. had a strong emphasis on good lore and much writing.. example are all those books written in morrowind.. they serve no use.. why would somebody actually take time to write pages inside books in an imaginary world.. like what gamer is going to pauze his game and read that.,. and obsess about the lore that will construct?
**the classical gamer that is..
-> but as games dumbed down.. what we see same as with moving nothing new is written.. what excisted get copy pasted into new games... and some halve ass new narative for the new game is stapled on top.. without proper working things out.. meaning nothing new to explore..while it is full of discontinuety errors and plotholes.. for well they care more about the gameplay than asking.. does this fit with estabilised lore.. n
the looks of a game.. always were the least important thing to consider.. in fact it is one feature of a casual to be so distracted by the cover.. aka the grafics.. they cannot see that older games often are vastly superior to newer ones...
sure I like new grafics and high fps.. but gameplay and good lore matters more.
and yeah many true gamers have given up any new games together.. disapointed by the trash released today... and stuck to 1990-2005 games which are better than almost anything made today.
and I would say that a person who has high iq programming skill etc.. but is just poor.. and thus is stuck to 2005 hardware.. still could be more a true gamer.. than some casual kid who just aks daddy to buy him a 5000 euro prebuild watercooled pc.. but who has not a single idea how computers, programming or any of that works.
however often when it comes to "I don't have a good pc" is not cause people opted to go retrogaming or are truelly to poor.. but cause bad financial manegment..
-> this is not just with buying pc hardware.. you would not know how often I hear friends complain their car broke, their washer broke and now they have nothing to eat this month..
**I get kind of angry about that for that behavior is often used as excuse to mooch aka not buy gifts at birthdays, get others to cover their share when we go do an activity as a group, and to get more free handouts.
--- basicly people generally start only to think (and plan) for replacing an item.. once it breaks.. or start to get near breaking.. but by than most of it's lifespan is already gone..
***they also have no idea if their lifestyle is beyond what they can afford...
---what everybody should do is list every item they own.. the cost to buy a new one.. and divide that by how many months it on average last.
**do this with anything, your car, your washer, your pc, but also stuff like your clothing, your furniture etc..
---add all that together add a little cause "unforseen" and force yourself to set that much aside in a savings account each month..
----
if that leaves you to little to eat/live.. than you are living above your means and must decide TODAY which things you go to reduce spending on..
**
yeah it means that even with 10k on your savings account you may not be able to afford that 5k computer THATS how you do your finances.
.. the current height of your savings amount is totally irrelevant for what you can afford or not.
I mean how many kids you know who do get 10 euro a week pocketmoney.. recieve each year 100-200 euro cash for their birthday/saint nick..
yet are always broke cause they always waste it on instant gratification instead of thinking what purchase would give me the greatest pleasure?
how many teens you know who earn with their sidejob 20-50 euro a week but blow it all on buying snacks and coffee and go clubbing.. and other nonsense??
and even how many adults you see leeking money on eating out, ordering coffee.. subscriptions.. many things that were they doing their finances properly would agree it does not bring the most happyness per euro spend.
if you get a brand new pc (case only) once every 3 years for 2400 euro. and you sell it for 2000 secondhand
and once every 6 years (so they last you 2 builds) you spend 800 euro on a good monitor, keyboard and mouse.
than yeah for a kid of teen thats an astronomical 3200 euro.. even most adults thats a monthincome and quite the sum.
but if you divide 2400 by 36 months and 800 by 72 months.. than combined it adds up to just under 80 euro a month.
which is much less than most teens (including young teens of 12/13) have per month
let alone adults.
and if you go budgetbuild.. 1200 including perifials once every 4 years
thats just 25 euro a month.. most kids get if you add pocketmoney + birthdaymoney together much more than that.
so yeah.. when people complain that "we cannot all afford such a pc"
no we CAN.. you are just not a true gamer who makes sure the bulk of their expendable income goes towards buying their hardware and the rest to games and is not wasted on other things.
now if your a poor person in nigeria (where average wage is like 45 euro a month for adults and many 18-21yo work on just 15-20 euro a month) and thats full time working month.
or in some 2d world economy where even a phd educated teacher is lucky to earn 500 euro a month, and minimumwageworkers earn closer to 200-300 euro a month..
than I fully can get how spending 1000+ euro on a computer is utterly impossible..
but if thats your situation I'd say you got better things to do with your time than wasting it gaming...
but well than there is always retrogaming.. nothing shamefull for that 2d world economy person importing 15-20 year used computers at 10% their original price and play games 15-20 years later than westerners do.
they may be old.. but still are gold.
for that true 3d world person on like 50 euro a month income.. likely even that aint feasable and while they MIGHT have acces to some old 486 from like way back.. like I said.. they got worse things to care about than entertainment.
Consoles weren't always about fifteen years behind. Sometimes, at least in some ways, they weren't even always behind at all.
I think (?) somewhere in the 1980s and around the time of the NES, PCs were actually struggling to do things that consoles were doing. I think it was with scrolling backgrounds in particular. The CPUs of PCs apparently couldn't handle it well, and it would take a while for the more "general purpose" PC CPU to get enough hardware capability to be able to do it. So consoles were, in some regards, ahead at times.
In the 1990s, at least in the late 1990s, when 3D was still developing, you can't tell me consoles were even five years behind, let alone fifteen.
Here's a consideration too. Hypothetical hardware advantages mean nothing for games when you need said games to exist in order to compare them, right? And games tend to get more done with less hardware on consoles for a number of reasons, which makes comparing them "objectively" much harder to do. Development also started focusing on said consoles as a baseline, and true "PC first" games became less of a thing.
Hardware doesn't follow a consistent growth pace. It's been slowing for a long time. Also, diminishing returns exist, which make that worse.
That's what's been happening.
Whelp! I didn't know I had to be all of those things because I'm... *checks* none of those. Well, not sure about the IQ thing because I don't care/know about that.
I guess I am a casual after all. Which I'd have little to no problem with, I guess.
Once again, steam hardware survey contradicts your claims https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/. Your average system runs a 6 core CPU, 16GB RAM, RTX 3060 at best a 3070, 1080p. Running 1440p is possible, especially with 3060 Ti and 3070 but xx60 tier cards tend to be the most popular and their sweetspot tends to be 1080p These types of systems are nowhere near the 2,4K to 3,6K Euro range in terms of price you have claimed that the average person spends on a system.
You are also forgetting the fact that alot of people prefer 144hz monitors, meaning it requires much more GPU horsepower at 1440p. 1440p @ 144hz is also really hard to run and requires mostly like a 500 euro card at the minimum to run comfortably and even then not in newest triple A games. You also cannot blindly assume that everyone who has a low end/mid range system is lazy to work for a high end one. People have to pay bills (house, loans/mortgage, water, electricity, kids, food etc..). People simply have a life outside of games and they do not wish to blow their money on PC upgrades they might not need whatsoever.
I also know personally people that have worked really hard most, if not the entire life and something like a 4070(S) is a tough pill to swallow for them financially. Also, people tend to spend their money on other hobbies, such as biking or other type of sports.
Sorry to have to break it you, but 1080p will stay relevant for more years to come, especially given the fact that NVIDIA and AMD like to strangle the market below the 500 Euro mark.
- No direct storage dedicated decompression hardware so all decompression is done either by the CPU or GPU and it's very demanding. That's why so little games use it.
- More importantly CPUs can't use super fast GDDR6 or soon GDDR7 and it's stuck with much slower DDR5. Current PCs (Windows specifically) need to decompress data to system RAM first and then move it to VRAM. Such a silly bottleneck and a waste of computing power. No way to have unified fast memory like on consoles.
There are plans for PC to catch up with that technology but who knows when and if that will happen.
accounts is not users (many bot accounts)
and users is not the same as customer
and customer is not the same as a gamer.
sure there are many people who will just log in on the old clunker their parents gifted them for homework on steam.
those are ofcourse not gamers by the propert definition.
where I do agree gpu prices have gone out of control (a lowend x60 cpu used to be 200 euro a midend x70 cpu used to be 350 euro an high midend x80 used to be 500 euro and a highend x80ti used to be 700 and a extreme highend titan (now x90) used to be 1100 euro
but the pain of this is more noticable at the highend (where prices have EVEN if corrected for inflation have doubled or trippled.. than at the mid and lowend (where corrected for inflation they increased still by 30-50%)
on top of that powerdraw for these also has gone out of control... which matters if you pay the powerbill
stilll a decent budgetpc can be build for 1200 euro can if you don't reuse parts can last you likely 4 years.
thats just 25 euro per month.... what person cannot afford to set aside 25 euro a month??
yeah life is expensive.. but come on? what else are you wasting money on be honest?
if you orderd this month pizza delivered.. or got coffee instead of homebrewing it.. or got an overpriced soda from a machine rather than buying b-brand in supermarket.. you still got room to do better..
and upper midend.. yeah that cost you more 80 per month.. but low midend can already be done for 50 a month..
you really going to tell me thats unafordable..
again 99% of households have just really crappy financial skillll.. and yeah I actually help people in problems... you can survive and buy your budget pc even on bloody welfare... if you manage your finances well..
and 144hz monitors.. as stated.. there is NO human whoes eyes can see more than 110fps... I see personally no benefit between a 120hz and a 144hz minitor.. but regardless just cause you got a 144hz monitor does not eman you need to run 144fps too.. generally you want your monitor to have more hz than your fps.. else your effectively wasting frames...
aka the bottom of the barrel.
**and did split their budget basicly the classic way :
1/4 for monitor, mouse, keyboard
1/4d for gpu
1/4d for mobo+cpu+ram
1/4d for psu+case+storage+cooling+drives+rest
they will likely be running an RX6650xt given it's pricepoint and performance.
if they went nvidea most likely they be running 3060ti
those are budgetgamer cards and about the worst the lowest spending gamers the furtherst away in their upgradecycle any card less performing than those has no right to be still in use.
now looking at 1440p ULTRA setting sperformance :
ok now look at 3060ti a solid 70 fps
that 6650xt now shows it age and is failing.. with 55fps
but thats ultra.. not realistic setting for an BUDGET build... so we drop to low average settings... and we see fps rise in the stable 80s... not idea but hey it's an aging budgetsystem.
the average gamer now.. will have gpu 3 years old at best and in a higher pricerange.... low midend would likely spend 2400 euro on a system.. if split same 4 ways... thats 600 euro for a gpu.. but likely they can spend 800.. as a nice 1440p monitor + keyboard can be had even 4 years ago for 400.
well than that would mean that those who are about to upgrade again before this year is over aka the average gamer..
has at least an
Radeon RX 6800 XT
or an GTX 3080
both are still capable to run 1440p at ultra settings just shy of 100fps 92-99 fps)
and thats again those who are the furtherst away from updating.
so of REAL gamers likely :
5% low end late cycle : RX6650XT
5% low end early cycle : RX7700XT
20% low mid end late cycle : 3070ti
20% low mid end early cycle : 4070 Super
15% high mid end late cycle : 3080
15% high mid end early cycle : 4070 ti Super
7.5% low high end late cycle : 6900XT
7.5% low high end early cycle : 7900XTX
5% ultra high end : 4090
thats about the spread you expect in what they own.
and if that is what true gamers.. aka those who will buy your game full price at release.
..with all those in late cycle likely to buy a new system in their pricerange end of this year when both the new series of gpu's and the new series of cpu's have been released.. would you still design your game for 1080p? you would not.
->
the only reason is if it is a shooter where some somehow are obsessed with 200+ or 400+ fps ranges in 1080p... (despite human eyes cannot possibly see more than 110fps)