sort of. but not to the extent that 60-100 gives. if you have a monitor capped at 60 and an fps at high, it does feel better, and it’s much more stable, and every refresh is all but guaranteed to have the most up to date frame.

if you are stuck at 60, check your monitor, and its cable. you can have a 120 refresh on the monitor, but if the hdmi cable is only rated for 60 the computer will only allow 60. had me doubting my self until i found it

It will ensure the frame being sent to your display is more recent and represent the game state the best.

It depends on the game. If the game doesn't tie input handling to framerate, then yes, because your inputs will feel better.

setsubyou got it more correct, my terminology is a bit off.

Yeah, you can lock the refresh rate at basically 15hz intervals (i think, last time i checked?), which is not true VRR, but, if you take the time to configure profiles and graphics settings per game, get stable and consistent frame rates, and then match the configurable refresh rate to that...

... this is sorta close to the ... idea/performance of what true VRR is going for, it just doesn't all work 'automagically'.

I have an OLED, not an LCD, so yeah it looks like the LCD tops out at 60hz.

So with an LCD, you could aim for basically 'always a bit above 30 fps' and then 60hz, for that 1:2 ratio, and with an OLED, aim for 'always a bit above 45 fps', and then 90hz, for the same 1:2 ratio.

Its not the same, of course, as actually having 60 or 90 fps, but, as long as your fps never dips below the screen refresh rate, it looks/feels smoother than doing a 30fps or 45fps traditional vsync.

But of course, you'll probably only need to do this for... significantly graphically heavy games... tons of less graphically intense / better optimized games will not need this level of tinkering min maxxing.

It doesn’t have VRR but it does have a configurable refresh rate. So e.g. if a game runs at a stable 40 fps you can run the display at 40 Hz too (or 80 Hz for the OLED model) and then you don’t get the uneven frame spacing you’d get from vsync with 40 fps on a 60 Hz display. With VRR the screen would also adjust to whatever frame rate the game produces even if it’s not stable, and the Deck doesn’t do that. But being able to get 40 fps with uniform frame timing instead of the 30 fps you’d have to use if the display was locked to 60 Hz (LCD model) or 90 Hz (OLED model) is a huge difference.

It's fine, it's always the case with opinions like this :D Downvoting will always be used as a disagree button, that's never going to change.

Its an opinion, I am used to a smooth experience, I play some fast paced games at 60 on my Steam Deck, its passable, but I'd obviously rather be having it run silky smooth on my PC.

If you have never really played games at higher than 30/60, then it's impossible to understand.

Ahahah, only play it at 4K 240FPS HDR, or its not a true experience!

Its definitely something you get used to, I really dont enjoy low framerate anymore. If I forced myself to play it for hours and hours, maybe I would eventually be able to put up with it again. I can stomach 60 in most games. But ever since I've had access to high framerates, 30 and 60 just dont cut it for fast moving games.

Why do people like you always have to defend what a company does all the time?

Because it's pretty fucking obvious that the 12% cut was just Tim Swiney trying to grab market share for EGS without actually putting in the work to develop it.

Remember how it took over 2 years for them to add a cart? Remember how they just laid off 1000 employees? Using Fortnite money to pay for exclusive deals and game givaways instead of actually developing the store hasn't turned out profitable.

Also, ever notice how nobody was complaining about Steam's cut before that? And let's not forget that Steam Greenlight and subsequent opening up of allowing nearly any game onto their platform is what made the indie market more than an extremely small niche. Or the fact that much of the 30% cut is getting reinvested into Linux and FOSS to keep PC gaming an open ecosystem, which benefits everyone, including indie studioa

Why do people like you always have to defend what a company does all the time?

I'm not defending them. I'm saying that a service has to be financially successful, something that many people on lemmy seemingly forgot after reading too much Marx. Are they making more than they need? Absolutely. But the value they are providing is just worth a great deal to devs and I just don't think that giving up 30% of your sales is a bad deal for handling the entire distribution. I've worked in E-Commerce for over 10 years now and 30% is like the standard fee for this kind of stuff - in many industries, the fees are way higher.

So, COULD they charge less? Very likely. But I don't really see why. The service they provide is just worth that much. I think it's a fantasy that companies can suddenly start to charge less just because they already have a lot of money.

Notably, the Epic layoff was for Fortnite, because of a reduction in players, not the Epic store team.

Afaik, theyl aid off people across the entire company. The reason was a reduction in fortnite money, but the layoffs were even across the UE development teams.

Why can’t we criticize them? Why does anyone still have loyalty to any corporation in the modern day?

You can. I just don't agree with that criticism. Valve does shitty things at times. The fact that they are really opaque when it comes to algorithms and support decisions is shit, the price parity rule, while being standard in the industry, is shit and the lack of control for early access games is pretty shit - we can criticize all that and more.

And yes, you can also criticize the 30% cut. That's your right. However, I'm just not agreeing with that stance. That isn't defending a company, even tho you're trying to frame it as such. That's just me having a different opinion. And you trying to frame disagreement as "being loyal to a company" is a great way to completely stifle a discussion. Why even argue at that point, just insult me and move on lmao.

Fair enough - I was thinking in terms of choice rather than justification. A better question, then, would be: what is a fair percentage given Steam's services both developer-side and player-side (more satisfied players are also a perk for developers)?

Sure, a lot of this is likely funded by Fortnite

If it needs to be subsidized by Fortnite then it's by definition not profitable

Well, the closest they have to a decent competitor is GOG. Epic is only good for free games (and supports AI slop).

Disagree. Not because I don't want corporations to do something, but because the ways they'd need to implement are a net-negative overall.

There's a huge discussion going on right now about age verification on OS level. That's exactly the kind of shitty results we get when we have other entities being responsible for child safety than the parents. And that's not a world I want to live in. I don't want to have to upload my government ID to any service I want to use and live in a borderline surveillance state because parents aren't able to pay attention to their children.

And I was talking about literal casinos running on steam and not the exploitative games in there. There's absolutely no reason for steam virtual market (don't remember the name) to exist (besides it making valve money) and they could crack down on casinos easily but again, that makes them money. Also steam popularised lootboxes and they have this dumb case + key psychological trick in cs to drive more purchases. As for the 30% cut, the indie devs already have it rough. Developing a game takes a lot of effort and time. Taking 30% cut while publishers take another cut on top makes it hard for indies to sustain themselves and so they often close down. Not to mention the insanity of steam actually lowering the cut for really big studios (the more you earn the lower the cut) to keep them on the platform when corporations will do just fine and the indies need the money the most.