Steam+ Deals Mega Thread (All PC Gaming Deals)

Neuro5i5

Neuro5i5

CAGiversary!
Feedback
151 (100%)
This thread will attempt to provide a place to discuss past/present/future PC gaming deals. While mainly focusing on Steam games, any standout sales may also be presented. I will not be updating every Daily/Weekly/etc. sale. The tools to help individuals become a smarter shopper will be provided below.

See this POST for links to store sale pages, threads of interest and other tools to help you become a more informed PC game shopper.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 12 Downvote
warreni said:
full-throated
Click to expand...
Must take after his mom!

Big_Bang_Bazinga_Sheldon_Red_Shirt_LG.jpg


Here's some on-topic video game shiznits so I don't get riported to playfair!

https://www.dailyindiegame.com/site_weeklybundle_239.html

 
warreni said:
Naturally I already have an Ubi account, but is The Division worthwhile for SP? I don't know much about either of the entries in this series.
Click to expand...
Somewhat generic but alright. I actually rushed through the Division 1, and never really played the sequel. Decent enough gameplay and it's beatable enough at the lower difficulties if you play alone. Good shooting nonetheless and if you skip a lot of the collectibles it's not the longest either....maybe like 20 hours.

 
warreni said:
Naturally I already have an Ubi account, but is The Division worthwhile for SP? I don't know much about either of the entries in this series.
Click to expand...
Yes, the whole campaign cam be played solo (I've done it myself), and with it being free you should at least backlog it. Its going to be a bit different now with it being given away free but during normal play now I think you would be hard pressed to find people to play while leveling. Even Div 2 suffers from small low level population.

Skills, I would suggest turret and the healing. The ultimate skill as a solo player should always be the healing one also. (<- This is late game stuff.)

If you play remember to what your level vs recommended level. If you get behind do side stuff to catch back up. Don't fall in love with weapons. Discard them every few levels. Even a green can/will be better than purple if the base damage is high. (Talents can change this but as a baseline this is true.)

nitrosmob said:
Somewhat generic but alright. I actually rushed through the Division 1, and never really played the sequel. Decent enough gameplay and it's beatable enough at the lower difficulties if you play alone. Good shooting nonetheless and if you skip a lot of the collectibles it's not the longest either....maybe like 20 hours.
Click to expand...
I would think a bit higher since everything is new... and you got to level up or you won't make it through missions. (Also need to do the side stuff to get your skills unlocked.)

 
I haven't played it in years and am going on memory. It likely is a bit longer likely around 30 hours, but I still didn't find it a very good game. Generic open world shooter for me, though the shooting was pretty top notch.

 
I thought The Division had one of the most evocative settings I've played through in a long while and still looks great.  I enjoyed the gun play although it wasn't breaking any new ground.  The story is fairly average from a characters and dialogue standpoint but the story as told through the environment makes it worth the price of admission.  Which, uh, I guess is zero in this case.

These sorts of games always feel as though the story should be played in Single Player and then you get into MP for the end game grinding.  There's tons of details and recordings and stuff to discover as you explore and you might want to sit and observe/listen at your own pace without someone else sprinting in circles and firing their gun into the sky.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I played about two hours of the Derpvision 2 before uninstalling.  Setting was fine but I thought the gameplay was too generic third world shooter-esque.  In comparison I recently logged about 20+ hours in Just Cause 2.

 
Mooby said:
I played about two hours of the Derpvision 2 before uninstalling. Setting was fine but I thought the gameplay was too generic third world shooter-esque. In comparison I recently logged about 20+ hours in Just Cause 2.
Click to expand...
How can you watch someone play a game for that long on YouTube? ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mooby said:
I played about two hours of the Derpvision 2 before uninstalling. Setting was fine but I thought the gameplay was too generic third world shooter-esque. In comparison I recently logged about 20+ hours in Just Cause 2.
Click to expand...
I usually hate when people say this about games, but Division 2 really opens up deeper into the game. Initially, it's just sort of a generic third person shooter. Especially if you have no investment in the story from 1. Once you get deeper in, leveling up your character, unlocking skills, the game opens up a lot and you get a lot of diversity as far as builds and things you can do in game. At this point, if I just get bored I just throw together some wacky build and it feels fresh to me again. But I have close to 500 hours in the game, so it obviously hooked me. This is my first looter type game I've played but its the perfect one for me.

For Division 1, I actually didn't finish that until I got bored in Div 2 for a while and went back and finished it. My main recommendation is play Division 1 alone through the story. If you want to keep playing after that then you can do some matchmaking, but the story is best enjoyed once by yourself or with a team of similarly leveled people. Jumping into matches with people at higher levels than you is not recommended. Ruined the game for me when I first tried playing it. I love the Division 1 setting/story. It's miles better than Div 2 IMO. Especially since I played it during the current pandemic, it had a very eerie feel to it. Div 2 takes place way later and it loses a lot of that unique feeling. Division 1's survival mode is also amazing and worth playing.

 
RealCheapLikeAFoxOfficial said:
I usually hate when people say this about games, but Division 2 really opens up deeper into the game. Initially, it's just sort of a generic third person shooter. Especially if you have no investment in the story from 1. Once you get deeper in, leveling up your character, unlocking skills, the game opens up a lot and you get a lot of diversity as far as builds and things you can do in game. At this point, if I just get bored I just throw together some wacky build and it feels fresh to me again. But I have close to 500 hours in the game, so it obviously hooked me. This is my first looter type game I've played but its the perfect one for me.

For Division 1, I actually didn't finish that until I got bored in Div 2 for a while and went back and finished it. My main recommendation is play Division 1 alone through the story. If you want to keep playing after that then you can do some matchmaking, but the story is best enjoyed once by yourself or with a team of similarly leveled people. Jumping into matches with people at higher levels than you is not recommended. Ruined the game for me when I first tried playing it. I love the Division 1 setting/story. It's miles better than Div 2 IMO. Especially since I played it during the current pandemic, it had a very eerie feel to it. Div 2 takes place way later and it loses a lot of that unique feeling. Division 1's survival mode is also amazing and worth playing.
Click to expand...
Something about our generation loves looter-shooters.

Yeah, I thought the campaign and overall single-player presentation was a little better in Div 1.

 
wow, Nvidia fucking killed it.

RTX 3070 starting at $499

RTX 3080 starting at $699.  Jensen called it "their flagship", in spite of the 3090.

Greatest generational leap ever.  3070 beats the performance of a 2080 Ti. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Happy to wait for the 3080ti, personally.

Those "reactions" to the supposed 8K gaming experience were... embarrassing, to say the least.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
eulogywerd21 said:
Those "reactions" to the supposed 8K gaming experience were... embarrassing, to say the least.
Click to expand...
They were targeted to the people likely to pay 1,499+ msrp. But yeah, the video was very cringe-y at times "this is your time machine"

Still was informative enough to confirm my intentions in buying a 3070 or 3080 though.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
gospelman said:
They were targeted to the people likely to pay 1,499+ msrp. But yeah, the video was very cringe-y at times "this is your time machine"

Still was informative enough to confirm my intentions in buying a 3070 or 3080 though.
Click to expand...
I re-watched that part and saw the text about "we invited 4 streamers" to play. Threw up in the back of my mouth a bit.

 
What am I missing?  People are celebrating the **70 entry in this generation of video cards is $500?  Historically, that tier would have cards priced at $300ish.  Are mid-range cards no longer a thing?  I guess GPU prices will never normalize after the mining craze from a few years ago.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hasn't the XX70 variant of the card generally been on par with the previous gen's XX80 non-Ti variant? Seems like a larger increase than usual (wait for benchmarks, etc.). And I don't know if there's been an X70 card with an MSRP of ~$300 at launch since the 970. Mid-range might be the eventual RTX 3060. Perhaps 2080-like performance for $400? That could be really tempting.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, I'm still rocking my $240 BF Nitro Fury. Until I can get something in a similar price/performance range (or suddenly have disposable income), ima just keep waiting. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Insomniac_34 said:
Hasn't the XX70 variant of the card generally been on par with the previous gen's XX80 variant? Seems like a larger increase than usual (wait for benchmarks, etc.). And I don't know if there's been an X70 card with an MSRP of ~$300 at launch since the 970. Mid-range might be the eventual RTX 3060. Perhaps 2080-like performance for $400? That could be really tempting.
Click to expand...
Well, the hike was due to the mining craze. But I guess people have accepted that as the normal price now. The current tier-system seems to be: high-end, bleeding edge, and lol-wtf-who-spends-$1,500-on-a-GPU tier.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Insomniac_34 said:
Hasn't the XX70 variant of the card generally been on par with the previous gen's XX80 variant? Seems like a larger increase than usual (wait for benchmarks, etc.). And I don't know if there's been an X70 card with an MSRP of ~$300 at launch since the 970. Mid-range might be the eventual RTX 3060. Perhaps 2080-like performance for $400? That could be really tempting.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but the biggest thing is around double the Raytracing and DLSS capabilities from '18-'19 rtx models. You can run that stuff now without killing your framerate so intensely like before.

also this time the xx70 is on par with the xx80 Ti.

Mooby said:
What am I missing?
Click to expand...
A return to normalcy.

These cards were expected to cost A LOT more. This is the best Nvidia release since the 1080 (and later the Ti) in 2016.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seems like they're only releasing the 3070 later in October to get people to consider the 3080.

Will be interested to see temps on the new FE design.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nothing- said:
A return to normalcy.

These cards were expected to cost A LOT more. This is the best Nvidia release since the 1080 (and later the Ti) in 2016.
Click to expand...
Normal as compared to what? These specs/pricing only seem 'normal' in a world where 1440p is standard and at least 30% or so of PC gamers are at 4k. And I doubt that's even close to the current demographics.

 
Mooby said:
Did Raytracing even turn out to be a thing? I guess these specs are to push 4k to industry standard?
Click to expand...
I'd prefer if it's a push to make Ray-tracing an industry standard, if these cards can indeed provide it without a tank in performance. Looking forward to 3070 vs 2080 Ti benchmarks in games with RT now, specifially Control.

 
Insomniac_34 said:
I'd prefer if it's a push to make Ray-tracing an industry standard, if these cards can indeed provide it without a tank in performance. Looking forward to 3070 vs 2080 Ti benchmarks in games with RT now, specifially Control.
Click to expand...
Fair point as AAA games are becoming more 'cinetmatic.'

 
Nothing- said:
We get it, Mooby: you don't care.

message received loud and clear!
Click to expand...
That's not my message. 2080ti is what... maybe two years old? So now, not only is $500 the new mid-tier price but it's only going to get you a card that will be bested in that short time span. People who bought 1080's near release got a good four to five years of 'dominance' out of them for that price tag. Maybe it's just jarring to me that on Cheap Ass Gamer a lot of people here apparently buy $500-600 GPU's every other year. I also question what kind of games (and at what specs) actually need this kind of hardware.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey, the way I see it is if cosmetic (or any for that matter) microtransactions can get your knickers in bunch, it's perfectly reasonable to question the continued creep of "pay-for-performance" in GPU prices.

 
As someone realistically looking to buy one of these cards... that doesn't matter.  It's just branding, naming, numbers, whatever.  If you're wanting to look at the whole of pc gaming market in things like resolutions used, I think it would be hard to argue that the 3070 is a mid-tier card.  

What matters is performance relative to current gen and competing cards over the next few months.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mooby said:
...and lol-wtf-who-spends-$1,500-on-a-GPU tier.
Click to expand...
I assume the 3090 fits the same space as the RTX Titan right now. You buy one because you're doing professional video editing or AI research, not to make your pewpews prettier. Aside from the jump in VRAM, the actual GPU differences are pretty modest to justify a 100% increase in price for video gaming.

According to the July 2020 Steam Hardware Survey, 65% are gaming at 1080, 6.5% are gaming at 1440 and 2.25% are gaming at 4k.

Nearly 10% are gaming at 1366 x 768, probably on laptops.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it's funny that when games come out in early access CAGs get up in arms about lazy devs and paying for the opportunity to beta test a game, but when Nvidia does the same thing with their graphic cards everyone salivates.  RTX is a useless feature.  Something that should have been tested, perfected, and then only released when it was a usable feature.  Instead, it got tacked on in an incomplete form on cards that weren't really able to take advantage of it and people paid for it.  People are going to keep paying for it and in a few generations it might be something that the average consumer will use. 

I don't necessarily have an issue with new tech or it being priced crazy.  If people want to pay for that fine. I still game at 1080p.  No plans to jump in at anything more expensive.  Getting a card capable of 4K would mean I would need a new monitor, possible more RAM, etc.  It's just a money sink.  My main issue is with the constant price creep. When new amazing phones come out, I can count on being able to get a phone with last years top of the line tech for a fraction of the price.  That's not the case with Nvidia.  They just keep creeping higher and higher. It's not even inflation.  It's just because they can and consumers will pay for it.  It's the iphone of the PC world.  A 60 series card used to be considered a low end card.  Now it's a $300-400 card and everyone seems to be fine with that because it matches the performance of tech that came out a few years ago?  At that same price?  What sense does that make? 

 
Mooby said:
Did Raytracing even turn out to be a thing? I guess these specs are to push 4k to industry standard?
Click to expand...
Eh, not yet on RTX. It might happen w/ this or the next-gen of NVidia cards, though. I think many felt RTX wasn't there yet, w/ the 20xx series. More like 20xx was an Alpha or Beta test, more or less.

Consoles probably won't have RT until this upcoming X Series X and PS5 generation. Since most of this is powered by AMD (i.e. XSX and PS5), I am very curious what Big Navi will do w/ Ray-Tracing.

I'm in the market for a new desktop PC, so...yeah, I'm very curious at the 3070 here. $500 for a formerly $1500 card (2080 Ti) seems like a win, if going into the higher tier of cards. I also would be very curious, what a 3060 (regular), 3060 Ti, 3060 KO, or 3060 Super would look like, if they ever do any of those too; probably in due time.

I often seem to fall in the x60 to x70 range of things, when I get cards - i.e. GTX 560 Ti, GTX 960 (4GB version), GTX 970; and my laptop has a 6GB GTX 1060.

I think the odd thing is - the VRAM numbers. 3070 has 8GB, 3080 has 10GB, and 3090 has a crazy 24GB of VRAM. Where are like say variants of 12 GB, 16 GB or 20GB of VRAM? I'm guessing....that card would be a variant of the 3080? Maybe...Nvidia is making room here to see what AMD has coming down the pipeline....and then attack w/ other variants of cards and VRAM?

There seems like there's a huge gap of VRAM b/t 3080 at 10GB and 3090 at 24GB - plenty of room for say a 3080 variant with maybe 12, 16 or 20GB.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MysterD said:
I think the odd thing is - the VRAM numbers. 3070 has 8GB, 3080 has 10GB, and 3090 has a crazy 24GB of VRAM. Where are like say variants of 12 GB, 16 GB or 20GB of VRAM?
Click to expand...
I'm sure they'll release a Ti or Super version of the card 3070 & 3080 along the way, plus come out with the lower end 3050 & 3060 models.

 
Syntax Error said:
I'm sure they'll release a Ti or Super version of the card 3070 & 3080 along the way, plus come out with the lower end 3050 & 3060 models.
Click to expand...
3060 is low end? Typically it'd be *20-*50 and below is low end, *60-*70 mid end, *80-*90 high end, no?

I assume if they made a low end, it'd be like a 1750, like they had 1650s/1660s. Also, I seem to recall the 1660s coming out awhile after 2070s. I could be remembering wrong. Edit: About 3-5 months after, so yea.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RealCheapLikeAFoxOfficial said:
I usually hate when people say this about CAG moms, but MysterD's mom really opens up deeper into the game....

In Derpvision, Once you get deeper in, leveling up your character, unlocking skills, competing in fashion shows, the game opens up a lot and you get a lot of diversity as far as builds (e.g. Evening wear and pageant dresses you can buy) and things you can do in game (talent completion, swimsuit competition)
Click to expand...
ftfy
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MysterD said:
I think the odd thing is - the VRAM numbers. 3070 has 8GB, 3080 has 10GB, and 3090 has a crazy 24GB of VRAM. Where are like say variants of 12 GB, 16 GB or 20GB of VRAM? I'm guessing....that card would be a variant of the 3080? Maybe...Nvidia is making room here to see what AMD has coming down the pipeline....and then attack w/ other variants of cards and VRAM?

There seems like there's a huge gap of VRAM b/t 3080 at 10GB and 3090 at 24GB - plenty of room for say a 3080 variant with maybe 12, 16 or 20GB.
Click to expand...
Correct. This is Nvidia waiting to see what AMD has in store with Navi2 cards. There are rumors that we will get 20gb ram 3080 cards to beat AMD cards with 16GB ram and the 3070 will get 16GB as well. No definative info even in the rumor mill on the 3060 yet. If there is competition in the next 2 months Nvidia will probably drop the 3060 by the holidays, given past generations. The 960 was a 4 month delay, the 1060 was 2 months. 2060 was 3-4 months IIRC.

Odds are you will see a 3080ti mid next year if Nvidia feels the need to fill that gap in the market. Probably around $1200 for custom AIB cards. The 3090 is a new Titan level card to guarantee Nvidia holds the performance crown. A card that is almost twice the price of the 3080. A halo product, a joke price/perf wise.

The mid-range cards are now $400-600 because of Turing costs and even the 1070 card price increases which were $50-100 more than 970s. Are they worth it? This generation maybe but historically they are a rip off again. RTX was a joke, DLSS 1.0 was a blurry mess. 3000 cards are all hyped to be twice as good at RTX, who knows... we'll see them with Cyberpunk in 2 months. DLSS 2.0 is supposed to be the bee's knees but again all depends on game dev support or if Leather jacketman at Nvidia can get it to work on many/most games without dev support.

I would wait to see what AMD has to offer in the next month or so if you can. Nvidia is clearly a bit scared and like last gen leaving themselves breathing room to drop in new upgraded cards to compete at each level. I wouldn't be surprised to see Super or Ti variants within the year and certainly ram upgrades to compete with AMD. 8GB of ram on a $500 card is just sad. Not that it will probably be an issue for most games at 1440p for the next 2-3 years. The 10GB on a 3080 seems worse for 4k.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top