Valve has just added average framerate data to the Steam Deck Verified system, and while it's a step in the right direction, it's also not a good idea.
It doesn’t matter what a Dev said a long time ago, it matters what they advertise. They advertise that a steam deck verified game “performs well on the Steam deck”. I know well is a broad term, but anything less than solid 30FPS should be immediately “Playable”.
Games like Final Fantasy 16 that frequently dip to 15 FPS cannot be marked as Verified. If they handed these badges correctly, there wouldn’t be a need for community based fps history or even protondb.
It matters, because that is an explanation to how it works. This (what I explained) explains it well. If you choose to ignore the logic, then all your argumentation makes no sense. Because you ignore what the verification actually means.
They advertise that a steam deck verified game “performs well on the Steam deck”.
Which is inline with what I said. It does not contradict to what the developer said.
I know well is a broad term, but anything less than solid 30FPS should be immediately “Playable”.
I strongly disagree. First it depends on what game. For a fighting game like Street Fighter or Tekken where all versions of the game MUST be 60 FPS to be on the same playing field, I can understand that 30 FPS leads to just a “Playable” rating. But if we talk about a strategy game like Civilization where FPS is not that important, or maybe a JRPG like Final Fantasy, a 30 FPS should not lead to just being Playable rating. That would be wrong.
Games like Final Fantasy 16 that frequently dip to 15 FPS cannot be marked as Verified.
Just because it sometimes goes below the mark does not disqualify the Verified rating. As explained in my previous reply. I think many (including you) misunderstand the Verification system with a Quality or Performance system. If the game however is constantly below 30 FPS and the FPS is crucial for the game, then I would understand it. But dipping here and there does not disqualify in my opinion. I think Valve handles the verification correctly.
It doesn’t matter because consumers aren’t going to hunt for Dev statements from years ago. They click the badge, the badge explains the criteria and that should be it.
I’m not saying all games with 30 fps should be verified. I’m saying all games below 30 fps should not be deck verified. That’s a very different statement.
You say I misunderstand the badge as a quality/performance metric but that is exactly what they say it is. I’m quoting them.
It doesn’t matter because consumers aren’t going to hunt for Dev statements from years ago.
I wasn’t talking about the public perception, but about OUR understanding of how Valve’s logic is. It doesn’t matter how the public perceives it, to understand how Valve operates. That was my point.
I’m saying all games below 30 fps should not be deck verified. That’s a very different statement.
And I was saying that should not be the case. A game that can dip below 30 fps should be allowed to be verified. The performance of a game is not the all and be to decide that. Especially depending on the game or genre, as explained before. A racing or first person shooter that constantly fluctuates and is most of the time below 30 fps? Well yeah I agree it should not get the “Verified” rating, but maybe “Playable”. The Playable rating isn’t an opinion of what is playable, but it means you can play the game with caveats. Maybe not for racing or first person shooters.
But a strategy game or heavy and slower paced menu based JRPGs has no reason for not being Verified if it is constantly at 25 FPS. Even more so if the game is emulated and is representing the original game as it is. Or if the game runs the same on Windows with similar hardware.
I’m sorry but I just strongly disagree. You can’t advertise a set of criteria and use another one. Not acceptable. Why would they advertise it must perform well and then instead use a comparison with a windows system, especially when no such system existed at the time? Madness, really.
We disagree on what the bare minimum acceptable performance is, that’s just it. Frequent deeps to 15-20 FPS is playable but not enjoyable. Certainly not something I would say that performs well.
You can’t advertise a set of criteria and use another one.
I don’t think Valve does that.
Why would they advertise it must perform well
It does not advertise that. Valve tests the games and according their ruleset the game is Playable or Verified. It does not mean the game is playable in a good state for everyone, because the quality of the game is not what the verification is about; it is about being compatible.
and then instead use a comparison with a windows system
Because that is what the compatibility is about. And the system with Windows is just to understand the point of the verification.
We disagree on what the bare minimum acceptable performance is
We do, but we also disagree on what the verification is about; the performance is not that important.
Frequent deeps to 15-20 FPS is playable but not enjoyable
Depends on the game. You still ignore that. Lot of games are still enjoyable at 15-20 FPS constantly.
Certainly not something I would say that performs well.
Verification is not about the performance of a game. See it like a PS5 console, if a PS4 game runs on the PS5 system the same or better through backwards compatibility, then it is verified. The game might run at 25 to 27 FPS most of the time, sometimes dip down to 23 and 19 FPS (in old PS3 days this was happening with games) on the Playstation 4, so if it runs the same on Playstation 5, it would be verified. That is the sort of thinking on the Steam Deck verification.
Verification is not about the performance of a game.
If it isn’t, they shouldn’t advertise that it is. There are subjective parts of this conversation, but them advertising performance as a part of the equation is certainly not one of them.
It doesn’t matter what a Dev said a long time ago, it matters what they advertise. They advertise that a steam deck verified game “performs well on the Steam deck”. I know well is a broad term, but anything less than solid 30FPS should be immediately “Playable”.
Games like Final Fantasy 16 that frequently dip to 15 FPS cannot be marked as Verified. If they handed these badges correctly, there wouldn’t be a need for community based fps history or even protondb.
It matters, because that is an explanation to how it works. This (what I explained) explains it well. If you choose to ignore the logic, then all your argumentation makes no sense. Because you ignore what the verification actually means.
Which is inline with what I said. It does not contradict to what the developer said.
I strongly disagree. First it depends on what game. For a fighting game like Street Fighter or Tekken where all versions of the game MUST be 60 FPS to be on the same playing field, I can understand that 30 FPS leads to just a “Playable” rating. But if we talk about a strategy game like Civilization where FPS is not that important, or maybe a JRPG like Final Fantasy, a 30 FPS should not lead to just being Playable rating. That would be wrong.
Just because it sometimes goes below the mark does not disqualify the Verified rating. As explained in my previous reply. I think many (including you) misunderstand the Verification system with a Quality or Performance system. If the game however is constantly below 30 FPS and the FPS is crucial for the game, then I would understand it. But dipping here and there does not disqualify in my opinion. I think Valve handles the verification correctly.
It doesn’t matter because consumers aren’t going to hunt for Dev statements from years ago. They click the badge, the badge explains the criteria and that should be it.
I’m not saying all games with 30 fps should be verified. I’m saying all games below 30 fps should not be deck verified. That’s a very different statement.
You say I misunderstand the badge as a quality/performance metric but that is exactly what they say it is. I’m quoting them.
I wasn’t talking about the public perception, but about OUR understanding of how Valve’s logic is. It doesn’t matter how the public perceives it, to understand how Valve operates. That was my point.
And I was saying that should not be the case. A game that can dip below 30 fps should be allowed to be verified. The performance of a game is not the all and be to decide that. Especially depending on the game or genre, as explained before. A racing or first person shooter that constantly fluctuates and is most of the time below 30 fps? Well yeah I agree it should not get the “Verified” rating, but maybe “Playable”. The Playable rating isn’t an opinion of what is playable, but it means you can play the game with caveats. Maybe not for racing or first person shooters.
But a strategy game or heavy and slower paced menu based JRPGs has no reason for not being Verified if it is constantly at 25 FPS. Even more so if the game is emulated and is representing the original game as it is. Or if the game runs the same on Windows with similar hardware.
I’m sorry but I just strongly disagree. You can’t advertise a set of criteria and use another one. Not acceptable. Why would they advertise it must perform well and then instead use a comparison with a windows system, especially when no such system existed at the time? Madness, really.
We disagree on what the bare minimum acceptable performance is, that’s just it. Frequent deeps to 15-20 FPS is playable but not enjoyable. Certainly not something I would say that performs well.
It’s alright to disagree. :-)
I don’t think Valve does that.
It does not advertise that. Valve tests the games and according their ruleset the game is Playable or Verified. It does not mean the game is playable in a good state for everyone, because the quality of the game is not what the verification is about; it is about being compatible.
Because that is what the compatibility is about. And the system with Windows is just to understand the point of the verification.
We do, but we also disagree on what the verification is about; the performance is not that important.
Depends on the game. You still ignore that. Lot of games are still enjoyable at 15-20 FPS constantly.
Verification is not about the performance of a game. See it like a PS5 console, if a PS4 game runs on the PS5 system the same or better through backwards compatibility, then it is verified. The game might run at 25 to 27 FPS most of the time, sometimes dip down to 23 and 19 FPS (in old PS3 days this was happening with games) on the Playstation 4, so if it runs the same on Playstation 5, it would be verified. That is the sort of thinking on the Steam Deck verification.
If it isn’t, they shouldn’t advertise that it is. There are subjective parts of this conversation, but them advertising performance as a part of the equation is certainly not one of them.
They are not talking about the FPS. That is YOUR interpretation of a word. A game can perform well despite getting dips under 30 FPS.
What do you think performance means? Especially when the very next sentence is average FPS?