It seems like this could be massively improved by not including play sessions that’re less than some baseline duration, only including data where people have more than say, 2 hours of total playtime, and throwing out outlier data.
It’s fairly impossible to get perfect data here, but Valve has historically been pretty good about iterative improvements.
If you want accurate numbers, then visit benchmarks. This is just a rough estimate and I think its doing more good than harm. Its not perfect, but I do not agree with the conclusion. If many people get a 60 fps, then at least you know it is possible. And most people do not fiddle long time with the settings. It’s just another tool next to the verified rating.
It’s in Beta right now, and Valve expects discussions. But even in the current form, I think this is better than not having this.
Some good points here. This makes more sense if the metrics are taken when based on the default graphics settings that are triggered when a game detects that it’s running on a SteamDeck.
And some game locations can absolutely skew the results. Including the menu FPS will also be misleading. Still, I think it will be useful to some degree.
I feel like there could be really good data from this framerate pool, but it needs to be sorted in some way.
For example, you could probably split it into “target” fps categories based on where that player’s majority fps is. Knowing that someone playing at 30fps target is seeing sustained drops below 25fps is more telling than knowing that the average fps is 37.
I don’t think it’s “more harm than good”, just need some changes
I guess they’ll soon see that it can be improved and they probably will.
Still, it’ll never be perfect and that’s why a website like SteamDeckHQ is great and should be supported.
