So a few days ago TotalBiscuit released a video regarding a Steam curator he was building called The Framerate Police, sparking what might be one of the dumbest “debates” yet to grace the gaming community… Again…:

Fixing the System

Currently Steam offers no way to easily establish whether a game is locked at 30 frames per second (fps) from within Steam before purchasing. Attempts to use the tagging system have been blocked hence the approach taken by TotalBiscuit above.

Some developers have weighed in on this (please don’t judge me for linking to Ghazi, I don’t support them and I’m not involved in GG) raising issues like input delay and the realtionships between AI, physics, gameplay, controls and the fps. But all of these are factors for the consideration of game DESIGNERS, not consumers. At least not in the sense that consumers only need to worry about whether they want to pay for features or not, they don’t need to worry about how to implement them. This is true for every game feature, not just fps, and I’m not sure why fps always gets singled out.

Consumer Preference Vs. Developer Decisions

This whole debate really frustrates me because all of the main points seem to be a diversion from the only component that actually matters regarding this debate: fps is ultimately just a consumer preference regarding visual fidelity. Things like input delay and processing synchronisation, whilst being something consumers might care about, are other things consumers might care about. Whether the game was designed to run at 30fps because of processing requirements has no bearing on whether I prefer my games to look a certain way. This is no different from a personal preference of not liking cell-shaded graphics. If cell-shaded graphics= instant NOPE, then processing synchronisation doesn’t really matter.

But somehow people have found fault with this curator. Despite noting that it might actually be mostly okay. In a video entitled “PC Gamers KILLING GAMES?”(… click-bait much?) The Know argues that the curator might create a group of people who feel like they shouldn’t purchase a game that they might otherwise have been happy with, only because the curator marks it as a “bad” game:

I actually think this is could be true. People subscribe to curators because they value the opinion or information provided by them. But there is a major problem with how this argument is used in this video: the key to the reasoning as to why the curator is bad because it potentially effects peoples’ choices is, “His [TotalBiscuit‘s] subjective opinion is what led to the list in the first place“.

In other words, The Framerate Police is a bad curator because it might lead to purchases, or a lack of purchases, based on another persons subjective preference (for higher fps)… Is that not the literal definition of what the curator system is for? Curators are there so that people can have their purchasing decisions guided or altered by the subjective views of others whose views they value.

Briefly also, “but you can get a refund anyway” suggests that sales should serve the developer and not the consumer. The goal here should be to inform people before they make purchases, not exploit their lack of knowledge on the off chance of an extra sale.

Spoilt Gamers?

But the issue runs deeper still; towards the end of the video (08:55) we get the line: “I’m not going to scream at someone for not doing a thing that I wanted” (emphasis added). This framing of the issue is what I find the most distasteful; that consumers wanting to only pay for a specific product should be equated with them feeling overly entitled. Markets work both ways. If a product simply can’t be provided to meet demand at the demanded price, by anyone, it won’t be provided, regardless of “screaming” or not. Consumers will ultimately have to settle for what’s on offer. I have no obligation to pay for a product I don’t want whether it’s more work for you to produce or not. However, demanding I make purchases without information that I care about is entitled.

Finally, there is a concern regarding games where lower framerates “make sense”. One group would be games like Baldur’s Gate, for which I think there are a low number of consumer who would misunderstand the fps issue. BG is a classic game and one where I suspect that many people purchasing it will fully understand framerates and their lack of importance to this game. The second group are games like RTSs, card/turn based games, and games like Guild of Dungeoneering that don’t fundamentally need 60fps to be visually interesting. But this is really just another subversion of the only thing that matters: consumer choice regarding visual fidelity. I’d still think it would look smoother at 60fps. I’d still rather buy something else instead that runs at 60fps. That’s not entitlement, that’s not “screaming”.

Ironically, the Guild of Dungeoneering devs blocked the curator from appearing on their game page. They later reinstated it after backlash from the community. Whilst trying to explain themselves they stated: “…Apologies if anyone didn’t know we were locked at 30 FPS.” Well… People would have known if you hadn’t blocked the curator.

People Can’t Tell The Difference Anyway

Shortly: if you can’t; I feel bad for you. I can. I want to pay for more frames. My personal purchasing decisions have never been based on a third-party’s visual acuity. Why would it matter now?

TL;DR:

fps is a graphical preference no different from animation styles like cell-shading.

If you want your games to run at 60fps or more: that’s fine.

If you don’t care about your games running at 60fps: that’s fine.

If you value some else’s opinion and want to make purchases based on that: that’s fine.

None of the above are altered by the existence of the curator.

If you want to pretend people are children, “killing games, or “screaming” for not wanting to pay for a specific visual output: that’s dumb.