Kinda needs to be default. I mean, I’m a privacy buff, and I don’t care if you know my raw specs if I’m telling you how a game runs in a public forum. Because without the specs, that information is worthless.
Even if we anonymise the specs and just say “this user has a more powerful rig than you do,” that tells me I can disregard their claim the game runs good. But if it says “this user has a less powerful rig than you do,” I can take that review more seriously. And if I can hover over it and see exactly where my rig is better or worse comparatively, that matters too. I don’t need to know what the specs are because we have benchmarks that place numerical values on performance based on different parts. So we can directly compare the performance of my M2 Pro (Mac mini) with 16GB RAM to, say, a 10th generation i7 with 32GB of RAM and a 1080. They win on RAM, I probably win on CPU (at least single core, they might have me on multi), and the GPU is kinda up in the air. On one hand, they have a dedicated graphics card. On the other, mine’s way newer. So it’s hard to guess. However, I could look it up on Geekbench and tell you exactly which part wins and by how much.
Kinda needs to be default. I mean, I’m a privacy buff, and I don’t care if you know my raw specs if I’m telling you how a game runs in a public forum. Because without the specs, that information is worthless.
I’m against sharing privacy information by default. This has to be opt-in. Also a review without specs is not worthless. All the years I found the reviews without specs still helpful in Steam. Having specs gives a little bit information, especially important when you want to understand some performance or compatibility issues. But most reviews don’t need that.
As a matter of general principle, I agree with you. That said, I never opt in to writing public reviews on store websites to begin with, both because I don’t care to give free labor to for-profit corporations, and more importantly, because disclosing my consumer preferences is already a privacy risk in and of itself.
I don’t care about benchmarks; I care about compatibility and errors. The specs that would matter to me would be things like CPU architecture, which team made the GPU, and which Linux distro they’re running. Maybe number of monitors/resolution/framerate/use of freesync or framegen, too, since that can affect glitches.
Maybe number of monitors/resolution/framerate/use of freesync or framegen, too, since that can affect glitches.
The problem with that is, this is highly dependent on the settings you set to play the game. Your system may have 4k, but you maybe play the game at 1080p with upscaling and RayTracing enabled. I mean this is just an example. Therefore it could be misleading information for many. There is a reason why even Protondb doesn’t list that. In my initial reply and suggestion here I excluded stuff like refresh rate and resolution for that reason.
.
Kinda needs to be default. I mean, I’m a privacy buff, and I don’t care if you know my raw specs if I’m telling you how a game runs in a public forum. Because without the specs, that information is worthless.
Even if we anonymise the specs and just say “this user has a more powerful rig than you do,” that tells me I can disregard their claim the game runs good. But if it says “this user has a less powerful rig than you do,” I can take that review more seriously. And if I can hover over it and see exactly where my rig is better or worse comparatively, that matters too. I don’t need to know what the specs are because we have benchmarks that place numerical values on performance based on different parts. So we can directly compare the performance of my M2 Pro (Mac mini) with 16GB RAM to, say, a 10th generation i7 with 32GB of RAM and a 1080. They win on RAM, I probably win on CPU (at least single core, they might have me on multi), and the GPU is kinda up in the air. On one hand, they have a dedicated graphics card. On the other, mine’s way newer. So it’s hard to guess. However, I could look it up on Geekbench and tell you exactly which part wins and by how much.
I’m against sharing privacy information by default. This has to be opt-in. Also a review without specs is not worthless. All the years I found the reviews without specs still helpful in Steam. Having specs gives a little bit information, especially important when you want to understand some performance or compatibility issues. But most reviews don’t need that.
As a matter of general principle, I agree with you. That said, I never opt in to writing public reviews on store websites to begin with, both because I don’t care to give free labor to for-profit corporations, and more importantly, because disclosing my consumer preferences is already a privacy risk in and of itself.
Agreed. Generally, I don’t play high-end graphically intense games. It’d be nice to know for some games, but generally a review is useful without it
I don’t care about benchmarks; I care about compatibility and errors. The specs that would matter to me would be things like CPU architecture, which team made the GPU, and which Linux distro they’re running. Maybe number of monitors/resolution/framerate/use of freesync or framegen, too, since that can affect glitches.
The problem with that is, this is highly dependent on the settings you set to play the game. Your system may have 4k, but you maybe play the game at 1080p with upscaling and RayTracing enabled. I mean this is just an example. Therefore it could be misleading information for many. There is a reason why even Protondb doesn’t list that. In my initial reply and suggestion here I excluded stuff like refresh rate and resolution for that reason.