Your target market with that feedback (the devs) was solid, and I agree with the merits of some sorta check, at least on a version by version patch release, as a qualifier for whether thing ‘improved or remained the same’/a sets a likely explaination.
I probably +1d devs responce saying it wasnt likely to happen, on basis it is a ‘worst case scenario test’(perfect for its intent) so customers who have no interest in understanding hardware/computers dodnt set an expectation that it is possible.
(As an aside, Frel, I enjoy running the test and have not one iota of missed texture or popin through the whole run, on a slowish horse, on PC ultra +)
It is a great test.
Frelmedievals idea is sound… if the popins in vanilla KCD started happening around the first corner, and Warhorse, via updates have improve the consoles rendering (generally they do), patch 1.4, might have extended it to no pop ins till the town square… 1.5 no pop in- but a slow down until top courtyard, (with texture misses), until popins hit outside of castle…
Feedback like this isnt for everyone.
The rypical console gamer grabs new patches as the come out, something consoles and steam likes doing automatically.
The point raised is obvious; if they are going to make decisions that alter performance either way, then we need an indication of whether the patch fixes quest bugs or changes graphics quality.
We then choose whether to break our working version for something else…
The twch peeps moght want an indication of the change… the horse run through rattay is a stable worse case scenario to set expectations (and can reveal whether improvements should be expected ‘for the majority’).