kasparov77
Bob-omb
- Pronouns
- he/him
The Steam Deck, while a great device has I feel one of the worst communities to this date. And it's all because of completely unnecessary lies they love to spread.
Despite it being able to withstand on it's own merit when it comes to price x performance, believe it or not, the device isn't quite capable of 'everything' like their insecure community behind it wants you to believe.
As it stands, Valve's handheld is a device capable of 720p to ~900p low-medium graphics on most intensive triple A titles released recently. But when it comes to titles like these, even locking the framerate at 30, utilizing low settings and limiting the TDP to 7-10W (as anything below will make most heavy titles have a hard time running steadily at 30) that will net you around 2 and half to 3 hours at best and 1 to 1.5 hours at worst (in case you don't want to settle for 30FPS and worse settings).
Here's a couple of examples to prove my point with the device being properly optimized for each title:
Elden Ring
God of War
MOD EDIT: The wizard game is a banned topic here at Famiboards. See Moderation thread for more details.
3 Hours is indeed possible, but it's certainly not the average. 2.5 hours is a more realistic metric.
And here are more examples of titles running at over 30 FPS without the user properly optimizing in-game settings:
Doom Eternal
Cyberpunk 2077
Death Stranding
On really intensive titles, the device mostly struggles reaching even 2 hours at 60FPS, averaging out 1.5h or slightly above.
Whenever these facts are brought up, the average Steam Deck fanboy will try to counter argument by saying the usual "You're doing it wrong" to which I normally reply: "Okay, so you realize that in handheld mode it makes no sense to run this title at 60FPS, here's the runtime with the right settings, TDP and locked at 30" (it's about 3 hours or less) to which they usually deflect with "but at least I can do it" or "here's a <completely different title that wasn't even the point of the conversation> you can run it at x for y hours".
And by that point, I question if it's even worth it to keep discussing because the person has completely missed the point.
Thing is, every discussion about the Deck has the Switch and it's family of devices being used as a comparison. Some might say it's dumb to compare a 2015 budget mobile chip vs a 2022 chip on a whole different architecture; But I believe price-wise, it's an interesting comparison. But this is where we start getting into some issues.
The first issue being: the Switch has an older brother, released in 2017 on a way less efficient node A.K.A the "v1 Switch". It's battery life while running intensive 3D titles can range anywhere from 2.5 to 3.5 hours. But since 2019 this model has been retired and replaced with it's younger brother that's way more energy efficient: the "v2 Switch" which typically lasts anywhere from 4.5 to 5 hours on a really intensive 3D title. Despite that, most Steam Deck users will still compare the performance x battery x price ratio of the v1 Switch to Valve's handheld even though the 2019 v2 revision costs exactly the same as the original (299$).
And now I'd like to talk about those "comparisons":
Usually, when discussing the Deck vs Switch, the first comparisons being made are across games available on both devices. Eg: Doom Eternal, The Witcher 3, Nier Automata, Overwatch 2, Wolfenstein II, etc... And while yes, even setting the Deck at the lowest possible configurations for battery life woes, these games will typically look better than they do on Switch. This is due to many factors: lightning, asset quality and aliasing differences across both versions of each game. But what every Deck owner cleverly hides is the fact that in nearly all cases, doing so not only closes the graphical fidelity gap between both devices but it still leaves a considerable 1-1.5+ battery runtime gap that expands even further depending on the title and settings.
Now, an even more problematic comparison: Switch emulation on Steam Deck vs running native games on Switch. Nearly every time I've seen it done by the Steam Deck community, it was in really bad faith. Leaving piracy arguments aside (as this is a mere technical comparison and yes, believe it or not, there are multiple Deck users who own a Switch and dump their games from it to play in other platforms), the reason why I think most of these comparisons are frustrating (to say the least) is how often Deck users try to hide things like:
All of that said, I'll focus on the most important point (imo): battery runtime comparisons. It's ridiculous how often you'll see Deck users compare native switch vs deck with an emulator and say with a straight face that battery life's comparable between the two. Look man, a 2 hours or more difference isn't "comparable".
They also love to use lighter 3D games as a metric and even worse: taking the first runtime estimation as the truth instead of leaving the estimator running for a while while actually playing the game (which often results in a ~30-50 minutes difference). Eg: look at how the estimator drops from 2.5 hours all the way to a bit over 1.5 hours just from leaving a loading screen. This is pretty common on native triple A titles too: you will often see Deck users say things like "I can get over 3 hours on this, look: <screenshot>" and then, you look a video on Youtube with the same settings and the estimator drops over half an hour just from the person recording you know, actually playing the game.
And mind you, the battery runtime estimator on steam deck is pretty reliable, it just turns out that it will quickly fluctuate on certain workloads (eg: games with multiple loading screens).
Whenever you discuss these things with Deck users you can feel how insecure they are when trying to defend their platform as if it's some kind of sacred relic or something. I mean, competition from another company alone (ASUS with the ROG Ally) set a shitstorm in the PC gaming community of deck fans in full defense mode for something that really can't compete with a way cheaper device with a better battery runtime and control options.
And if you think I'm exaggerating or something, just google any video on the ally made by a big enough tech channel and you'll easily find comments being protective over Valve's handheld while downplaying ASUS's option. Hell, /r/SteamDeck's title alone changed to "Dollar-for-dollar, the best ally money could buy". Need I say more?
TL;DR: Dear Deck users, Valve's handheld is great and all but it can stand on it's own, you don't need to babysit it. If the product wasn't great, it wouldn't have sold over a million units for something that is essentially not being produced nearly in the same rate as a MS/Sony/Nintendo console. You don't need to lie about what it can do, let people reach their own conclusions and present the information as it is, don't fabricate it.
Despite it being able to withstand on it's own merit when it comes to price x performance, believe it or not, the device isn't quite capable of 'everything' like their insecure community behind it wants you to believe.
As it stands, Valve's handheld is a device capable of 720p to ~900p low-medium graphics on most intensive triple A titles released recently. But when it comes to titles like these, even locking the framerate at 30, utilizing low settings and limiting the TDP to 7-10W (as anything below will make most heavy titles have a hard time running steadily at 30) that will net you around 2 and half to 3 hours at best and 1 to 1.5 hours at worst (in case you don't want to settle for 30FPS and worse settings).
Here's a couple of examples to prove my point with the device being properly optimized for each title:
Elden Ring
God of War
MOD EDIT: The wizard game is a banned topic here at Famiboards. See Moderation thread for more details.
3 Hours is indeed possible, but it's certainly not the average. 2.5 hours is a more realistic metric.
And here are more examples of titles running at over 30 FPS without the user properly optimizing in-game settings:
Doom Eternal
Cyberpunk 2077
Death Stranding
On really intensive titles, the device mostly struggles reaching even 2 hours at 60FPS, averaging out 1.5h or slightly above.
Whenever these facts are brought up, the average Steam Deck fanboy will try to counter argument by saying the usual "You're doing it wrong" to which I normally reply: "Okay, so you realize that in handheld mode it makes no sense to run this title at 60FPS, here's the runtime with the right settings, TDP and locked at 30" (it's about 3 hours or less) to which they usually deflect with "but at least I can do it" or "here's a <completely different title that wasn't even the point of the conversation> you can run it at x for y hours".
And by that point, I question if it's even worth it to keep discussing because the person has completely missed the point.
Thing is, every discussion about the Deck has the Switch and it's family of devices being used as a comparison. Some might say it's dumb to compare a 2015 budget mobile chip vs a 2022 chip on a whole different architecture; But I believe price-wise, it's an interesting comparison. But this is where we start getting into some issues.
The first issue being: the Switch has an older brother, released in 2017 on a way less efficient node A.K.A the "v1 Switch". It's battery life while running intensive 3D titles can range anywhere from 2.5 to 3.5 hours. But since 2019 this model has been retired and replaced with it's younger brother that's way more energy efficient: the "v2 Switch" which typically lasts anywhere from 4.5 to 5 hours on a really intensive 3D title. Despite that, most Steam Deck users will still compare the performance x battery x price ratio of the v1 Switch to Valve's handheld even though the 2019 v2 revision costs exactly the same as the original (299$).
And now I'd like to talk about those "comparisons":
Usually, when discussing the Deck vs Switch, the first comparisons being made are across games available on both devices. Eg: Doom Eternal, The Witcher 3, Nier Automata, Overwatch 2, Wolfenstein II, etc... And while yes, even setting the Deck at the lowest possible configurations for battery life woes, these games will typically look better than they do on Switch. This is due to many factors: lightning, asset quality and aliasing differences across both versions of each game. But what every Deck owner cleverly hides is the fact that in nearly all cases, doing so not only closes the graphical fidelity gap between both devices but it still leaves a considerable 1-1.5+ battery runtime gap that expands even further depending on the title and settings.
Now, an even more problematic comparison: Switch emulation on Steam Deck vs running native games on Switch. Nearly every time I've seen it done by the Steam Deck community, it was in really bad faith. Leaving piracy arguments aside (as this is a mere technical comparison and yes, believe it or not, there are multiple Deck users who own a Switch and dump their games from it to play in other platforms), the reason why I think most of these comparisons are frustrating (to say the least) is how often Deck users try to hide things like:
- battery runtime when emulating
- how forcing 60FPS will break most 30FPS switch games (Nintendo titles are usually coded with physics and game logic bound to framerate)
- graphical glitches and crashes on games with know issues
- the lack of proper NSO support (they deflect this by mentioning how emulators are capable of simulating local co-op as if it was the same thing)
- ease of use
- feature parity (what if I want to read/write from my amiibos? the Steam Deck has no NFC reader, why should I settle with an amiibo picker?)
All of that said, I'll focus on the most important point (imo): battery runtime comparisons. It's ridiculous how often you'll see Deck users compare native switch vs deck with an emulator and say with a straight face that battery life's comparable between the two. Look man, a 2 hours or more difference isn't "comparable".
They also love to use lighter 3D games as a metric and even worse: taking the first runtime estimation as the truth instead of leaving the estimator running for a while while actually playing the game (which often results in a ~30-50 minutes difference). Eg: look at how the estimator drops from 2.5 hours all the way to a bit over 1.5 hours just from leaving a loading screen. This is pretty common on native triple A titles too: you will often see Deck users say things like "I can get over 3 hours on this, look: <screenshot>" and then, you look a video on Youtube with the same settings and the estimator drops over half an hour just from the person recording you know, actually playing the game.
And mind you, the battery runtime estimator on steam deck is pretty reliable, it just turns out that it will quickly fluctuate on certain workloads (eg: games with multiple loading screens).
Whenever you discuss these things with Deck users you can feel how insecure they are when trying to defend their platform as if it's some kind of sacred relic or something. I mean, competition from another company alone (ASUS with the ROG Ally) set a shitstorm in the PC gaming community of deck fans in full defense mode for something that really can't compete with a way cheaper device with a better battery runtime and control options.
And if you think I'm exaggerating or something, just google any video on the ally made by a big enough tech channel and you'll easily find comments being protective over Valve's handheld while downplaying ASUS's option. Hell, /r/SteamDeck's title alone changed to "Dollar-for-dollar, the best ally money could buy". Need I say more?
TL;DR: Dear Deck users, Valve's handheld is great and all but it can stand on it's own, you don't need to babysit it. If the product wasn't great, it wouldn't have sold over a million units for something that is essentially not being produced nearly in the same rate as a MS/Sony/Nintendo console. You don't need to lie about what it can do, let people reach their own conclusions and present the information as it is, don't fabricate it.
