.
Who in the world has 30 GB of RAM? It feels like this should be illegal.
I suspect it may be bios level allocation of system ram to an igpu? I think that could affect how the system reports ram??
RAM used to grow on trees next to the money bushes. We used to grab a few bucks and smoke under the shade before picking a few rams on our way back home.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think all the replies are misunderstanding you as saying ‘who has so much RAM’, when you’re actually referring to 30 being a bizarre total number of GB of RAM to have.
I can’t even think of a combo of (certainly-mismatched) sticks of RAM that’d get you to 30 even. 8-8-8-6?
It is probably 32 GB with 2 GB allocated to the iGPU.
Usually just from trying to max out what they have without replacing sticks. I had 80gb for a while when I added 2 32GB sticks to my 8GBx2 setup. I eventually removed the two 8GB sticks due to stability issues.
30gb RAM, 2.3TB hard drive, 7-core Intel Q-447, and an NVIDIA BTX 8675309 graphics card.
Many laptop-users I knkw, which fell for the “more is better”-strategy. A friend has 40 GB of RAM, because his laptop came with 16 GB preinstalled, and he added 24 GB more. Yes.
I mean, jokes on you, now it’s impossible to buy
40, sure. 1x16+3x8 in the previously empty slots. Its silly and probably causing an issue somewhere, but it makes some logical sense. What insane person is installing 1x16, 1x8, 1x4 and 1x2
The minimum you can get per stick is 16GB for DDR5. You usually want 2 sticks for dual-channel memory
Man I love Steam. One good thing in the cesspool of greed and enshitification.
Gabe is one of the few US billionaires who is not implicated in the epstein files in any way.
few
Did you know there are well over 1,000 billionaires in the US? Have even 10 of them been implicated in the files, that you can name?
I’d say it’s more likely that a significant majority of them aren’t.
– yet
there are still more file dumps coming our way.
Great addition. ProtonDB had this for a long time and it is a useful information. Maybe in Linux it should list the Kernel (Linux version) too. And for Nvidia the driver version would be useful to have too. Protondb does that already for anyone who opted into sharing specs: https://www.protondb.com/app/379720
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.
Brainstorming: maybe make it mandatory only when a review is about performance of the game, because that’s when it’s relevant. Maybe a checkbox as you’re writing a negative review that’s something like ‘what aspect(s) of the game don’t you like’, and if ‘performance’ is checked, a little addendum that says ‘your specs will be added to the review to give context’. In that case, people who want to look through reviews would also be able to filter by those same ‘types’ of reviews, or see what percentage of negative reviews are due to performance, or other things. Could be a good addition overall.
But generally, if someone wants to write a bad review because of shitty controls, or plot, or the game being too short for its price, etc., there’s no need to have specs attached to that kind of review.
I don’t care if you know my raw specs if I’m telling you how a game runs in a public forum
It may not be harmful by itself, but combined with other information it can definitely help identify you to your account. It could easily be the final piece of information that enabled you to be doxxed.
Loss of privacy is cumulative, like radiation.
Not to mention certain hardware level vulnerabilities like Heartbleed.
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.
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.
That’s fair, but I think it’s a different argument. Benchmarks are an easy solution to the problems I presented. Your situation is a bit more niche, and while there should be a way to identify and track more niche hardware/software setups, I’m not sure a casual review saying “runs great on my rig” is exactly the place for it.
Conversely, I would think people who do use niche gaming setups (like gaming on Mac, for instance… or Linux) would be more than happy to share the details of their setup to help others as they would want to be helped.
Right, “more powerful” or “less powerful” are completely meaningless without context. E.g.: hollow knight has some serious bugs on the controller input (for some popular controllers like 8bit do ones) on the Linux version due to some outdated version of a library they use on some input modes. Silksong doesn’t even register the inputs for that same setup. Both work perfectly on proton with the same hardware. Drivers and software play a more important role in playability than raw specs and benchmarks.
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.
I wonder how this works if you have two or more PCs or write reviews from a non-gaming device.
Like a gaming laptop running windows and a gaming desktop running Linux but you write the review from your phone.
You likely have the option only on pc and the specs from the current device.
That doesn’t answer the question? Let’s say you have two PCs, or a laptop and a Steam Deck. You play on one device, but usually write your reviews on the main PC at home in example. Which would have different specs.
I never claimed to definitively answer, only to speculate. Was that a worthwhile contribution ? Maybe not.
Best option is probably that they report the specs on the pc you played the most hours with for that game. Not sure if they currently track that though
Good question. Because I would play on Steam Deck, but write a review on my PC. Maybe this could be done with profiles or something like that? But it would vastly complicate things for most people.
Weird to deify a billionaire.
No one is actually worshiping him, it’s just a meme, relax.
Also this image is probably older than his being a billionaire, it has to do with Steam, not his net worth.
Pretty sure the deification isn’t his billionaire status, but his founding and direction of Steam. Would the picture be more acceptable to you if his net-worth were only 999million? At what level of wealth would that picture be acceptable to you?
Well, I’m an atheist, so frankly I find deifying anyone weird. I just find it particularly weird to deify a billionaire. And I never said that his billionaire status is why he’s deified, nor does it change my original sentiment: it’s weird to deify a billionaire (implied: irrespective of what else they’ve done).
I use and like Steam. Still think Gabe doesn’t deserve a billion dollars. No one does. Not while people are starving and homeless.
Finally
That’s great and depending on how it’s made, maybe Proton DB isn’t gonna be necessary for Linux gamers anymore.
Although, I wouldn’t want Steam to become even more powerful this way compared to something like GOG.
