Yeah. I love my deck, but I'm realistic that it's not going to run Starfield lol.
this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
46 points (100.0% liked)
Steam Deck
14772 readers
90 users here now
A place to discuss and support all things Steam Deck.
Replacement for r/steamdeck_linux.
As Lemmy doesn't have flairs yet, you can use these prefixes to indicate what type of post you have made, eg:
[Flair] My post title
The following is a list of suggested flairs:
[Discussion] - General discussion.
[Help] - A request for help or support.
[News] - News about the deck.
[PSA] - Sharing important information.
[Game] - News / info about a game on the deck.
[Update] - An update to a previous post.
[Meta] - Discussion about this community.
Some more Steam Deck specific flairs:
[Boot Screen] - Custom boot screens/videos.
[Selling] - If you are selling your deck.
These are not enforced, but they are encouraged.
Rules:
- Follow the rules of Sopuli
- Posts must be related to the Steam Deck in an obvious way.
- No piracy, there are other communities for that.
- Discussion of emulators are allowed, but no discussion on how to illegally acquire ROMs.
- This is a place of civil discussion, no trolling.
- Have fun.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
You beat me to it. The Deck is great but we have to be realistic about the limits of the hardware.
It’s. Not like it gets to break the rules because it’s popular!
I think it speaks to the power of the Steam Deck that Starfield can even run at all, I certainly wasn't expecting that.
We had this conversation over on Beehaw chat just yesterday. I absolutely think it's okay for Valve to say "No, your has to meet performance standards to become verified." Personally, I feel like Verified should guarantee 60 FPS, with dips in places. Playable should be a stable 30 FPS. That said they have zero performance requirements right now so running 10 FPS could potentially be verified status.
Right now though, Valve is verifying everything they can to say "see we have high-end releases on the steam deck." and in the end, it's going to hurt them.
While I appreciate a 60fps experience as much as the next gamer, this game targets 30fps on consoles. A 60 fps guarantee for Verified status is totally unrealistic.
I agree that there needs to be some sort of performance standards, but not everything has to run at 60 fps to give an absolutely fantastic experience. 30fps (as long as it's a solid 30 fps) can do that too.
It's also okay for Valve to accept that some of these new releases aren't going to run well on the steam deck. I don't think they are willing to take that answer though. Frankly, in my mind, Starfield should never be verified on steam deck. It's not playable at 20 FPS.
I think they should add some eplanation to each "Verified" status game, giving some insight as to what performance to expect. Games that run at a stable 60fps deserve to be separated from games that only just run at 30. At least make separate "Verified (60fps)" and "Verified (30fps)" tags.
Many people play games at 40fps on the deck. Maybe taking a look in ProtonDB or Steam reviews is more useful than having a 8 tier verification system?
As I understand Verified should be runs on the deck in SteamOS stable, at 30fps most of the time, text can be read, game is 100% playable with gamepad.
Playable should be you will jump hops. Text is not legible on the deck screen, input with a keyboard or mouse is required, launchers make weird launching the game.
The Verified program is not a performance benchmark. It’s a baseline and each gamer has different performance thresholds.
Some games won’t run at 60fps in any platform (Dark Souls original release) so they should not be PC verified?
Some games won’t run at 60fps in any platform (Dark Souls original release) so they should not be PC verified?
Sounds good to me. I'm not part of the group that thinks every game has to run at 240FPS to be an acceptable port, but if you don't run at 60 you're absolutely a bad port.
It’s not (only) a port thing. The game is 30fps locked in every platform.
Doom was 35fps hardcode locked. Could not go above that. Not a port. There are always compromises, and sometimes they are in frame rate.
And, in another order of things, what do you get from 60fps Europa Universalis? 60fps is a cool metric for the usually available monitors and TVs, and I love having at least that in most games. But in many games 30fps and 60fps are the same with a somewhat jumpier mouse cursor. And they are usually the most PC games of them all.
Would I play 30fps Devil May Cry? I don’t think I could if I wanted. Would I play Baldur’s Gate 3 at 24fps? Doesn’t really make that much of a difference in most of the gameplay. Would it be cool to play BG3 at 120fps? Yeah, but my computer is ancient and the deck does not have that kind of power.
I can’t play Deathloop for example. 30fps first person games are really hard in my eyes. The camera movement and input lag are too much.
It doesn't matter. 30FPS is a technically bad game if it's literally flawless in every other aspect.
It's one thing to say "the switch is such shit that that's all we can handle" and ship it without limitations, but there is no game where it isn't a significant limitation. It's not suddenly OK just because your actions aren't in real time.
I could see that being better than Verified/Playable. At the end of the day though, seeing these games under 30 FPS getting verified is a shocker.