"What i think" and the implication that i lack common sense because i didn't immediately agree wasn't the point but thanks for that.

Since everyone (except one other person) is allergic to citing the docs as their grounds for rebuttal, I'll go ahead and do the citing for others (like i find myself doing every single day).

From the docs, an extremely ambiguous incarnation of what seems like the usual definition of "playable" in comparable contexts (except, here, written as more centered on controls for whatever reason), which would be something that might inform my preconceived assumption, had I previously seen it:

>"• Playable: Your game functions on Deck, but may require manual work from the user. (Examples: manually selecting a community controller config, requiring the user to manually bring up the on-screen keyboard, or requiring the user to use the touchscreen to navigate a launcher.)

That being said, curiously enough, zero people in this thread so far (including yourself) have chosen to cite this FAQ entry on the same docs page which happens to more strongly support your argument than some (such as myself) might have perceived the former to challenge it:

>"What does it mean when a compatibility test says one of my games is currently Unsupported on Deck?
>Almost always, an Unsupported rating
comes from one of two issues:
> • *Your game relies on a piece of middleware or technology that Deck doesn't currently support. Some anti-cheat providers are currently unsupported, for example*, as are some media codecs used for video or audio. While we're constantly improving the range of software Deck supports, *if we don't yet support middleware that's required for part or all of your game to function, your game will be considered Unsupported.*"

And irrespective of all that, personally speaking my first core expectation would be more one of adherence and consistency, rather than interpretations of intentionally ambiguous blanket definitions. Therefore, if, for example, we're to mark Ghosts of Tsushima (disclaimer: idk anything about it) as "Unsupported" due to inoperative online features which as I understand are not absolutely essential to the product as sold, then the features of GTA should obviously be reviewed under the same criteria. Otherwise, it must be accepted that if GTA V is "Playable" while missing an arguably much more involved online aspect than Tsushima, then Tsushima needs its category changed to "Playable" in order to reflect meeting this standard. Either we (as a collective industry, setting aside perhaps only the hardest-core underground enthusiasts) have standards or we don't.

Conclusion: We don't, and GTA V is bought and paid for, while Ghosts of Tsushima is not an industry plant, hence why GoT is "Unsupported" despite meeting higher standards of compatibility under the same constraints. This, of course, is a personal hypothesis (but a fairly sane one, all things considered).