But this is such a good example of why these hard metrics are terrible.
You actually probably don't want just 25% more, you probably want 30hz or 60hz or VRR support and you don't care about going from 92 to 118. The easy metric doesn't necessarily correlate to user desire.
And like you mention, it disincentivizes reprioritizing with changing user desires simply because you didn't predict it or could come up with some other better metrics for something else.
It's opposite of being agile but of course you see the same company claim they do both.
> You actually probably don't want just 25% more, you probably want 30hz or 60hz or VRR support and you don't care about going from 92 to 118.
Then someone probably ought to tell the GPU review industry, because for the past 20+ years FPS on current popular games has been a key focus of their reporting :)
You misunderstand. There are thresholds where FPS produces visible results and there is diminishing returns after 60fps as most displays cannot do more than that.
When you make a game you'd want to hit those thresholds for as many users as possible. When you're reviewing cards all you can do is give a sampling of the landscape to get a rough sense of how the card would do in any given game.
Or maybe yes; 120 Hz gaming monitors are a thing, and give some advantage. You probably want to target something like Doom Eternal, not BG3 though.
As you see, it all depends on who is your customer, and then what matters to your customer. This is the closest proxy to the company's bottom line, and usually is not as fickle.
Yes, it gives some advantage. The point is that its not a binary metric to hit 25% exactly, nor is it some linear correlation.
As stated its also likely not possible. Even a free 10% improvement across the board would be massive. Imagine only getting 20% more perf out of a driver and yet the bonus is marked as below target.
The numbers were picked because they were easy to pick, not because they were deeply thought through and that happens all the time with these OKRs. That's why they're dangerous.
You actually probably don't want just 25% more, you probably want 30hz or 60hz or VRR support and you don't care about going from 92 to 118. The easy metric doesn't necessarily correlate to user desire.
And like you mention, it disincentivizes reprioritizing with changing user desires simply because you didn't predict it or could come up with some other better metrics for something else.
It's opposite of being agile but of course you see the same company claim they do both.