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
hey morans, am i happy a 3070 is five hundred dollars? no. but i paid four fifty for a 1070fe four years ago and got great value out of it. so if technology trends continue, i hope to get at least five from next gen. and if i' wrong? fuck it, toasters for everybody.

 
Going by the first benchmarks someone was allowed to release, I dont think nvidia is particularly scared of amd

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWD01yUQdVA

In non-RT/DLSS games its a 65-80% performance jump from a 2080->3080. With RT enabled the RT perf is 80-100% that of the 2080

Since the uptake on the 20 series was so small, this is a huge performance jump for all those people with 10 series cards out there, and a worthwhile upgrade

 
*shrug* or those running with 1060/70/80's at 1440p and starting to feel the performance hit of newer games and would like high fps again like they had with 1080p

 
Mooby said:
I guess that's good news for the 2-3% of PC gamers with 4k setups.
Click to expand...
Sure, probably. I don't really see why people are complaining though. If you're gaming at 1080p and don't intend to change then chances are you don't need a new GPU anyway or can just wait until the 3050 cards come out or AMD comes out with their budget models.

I'm using a 1080 at 1440 and will probably upgrade this generation. I don't feel a need to upgrade right now but I've noticed newer games are pushing the card harder or tending more towards Medium setting than High/Ultra. Once the full range of 3000 series cards comes out to make a choice (so I don't kick myself when a 3070 Super comes out or something) and Nvidia reacts to the latest AMD stuff, I'll settle on an upgrade path.

 
Not that I have had much time for gaming lately but the rare times I have played anything recent, my 1080TI has done the job at 1440p for now.  I am not sure I will need to upgrade for a while.  Everything I play (or install with intent to play) seems happy at max or near max settings.  I am hoping it can last me another year or two but maybe I'll catch up a bit on my backlog and get to something new enough to change my mind.  I'll probably be wanting to upgrade if I start having to drop games down to medium.  Something tells me this fall and winter I'm going to be knocking some decent chunks out of the backlog since I usually spend a lot of time going to college football and basketball games and I have no intention of doing either this year for obvious reasons, assuming the games even get played.

 
Heh, I had seen a bunch of people praising the low-priced Nvidia cards yesterday so glad to come here and see some other takes. I admit that the prices aren't that bad, but I've never spent $500 on a single piece of computer hardware and I've been building my own PCs for over 20 years, so it is a little disheartening to see the cheapest of these awesome new cards to be at that price point. 

It's also kinda crazy how I've been hearing people for months groaning at the idea of paying $500 for the new consoles and saying that there's no way that the new Xbox or PS5 would be priced at over $500 because nobody would buy them. And yet people are overjoyed at only having to pay 500 or 800 for a new video card.

Even crazier to hear the same people excited by these prices get angry over Avengers' battle passes which are practically free and only give you cosmetics. 

 
Mooby said:
I guess that's good news for the 2-3% of PC gamers with 4k setups.
Click to expand...
The question remains though: how many will buy the 3070 (or better) and move their way up to 4K? Will that 2-3% number increase? And if so, how much?

Literally, hardware swap on Reddit looks like a 9xx series, 10xx series, and 20xx series fire sale/purchasing marathon right now - https://www.reddit.com/r/hardwareswap/

I do wonder if this "systemic shift" Digital Foundry's mentioning on the 3070 here on demanding games like Shadow of the TR and Control getting a 60-80% performance increases for one entire generation will just cause people to upgrade; especially those really due for one (i.e. 9xx series owners and older).

I also could even see some moving up to even 1440p now b/c of the performance increase and to make their way into much higher framerate turf. I do wonder how many more users might move their way to 1440p now too, since not everyone's going to go to 4K-Land.

I've never really looked at the $500 range for a vid-card myself (I usually sit in the $300 or below range) - but man, a $500 card running at last gen's $1500 does look good. Usually, takes a few gen's to get there, not one. And if a lot of people move that way (i.e. to 3070 or above), who knows; might have to bite that bullet, as my aging desktop (i7 950; GTX 970; 16 GB RAM; W7 x64) is seriously 9 years old or so.

Sure, my laptop is newer (i.e. 2 years old or so) - but even now, it feels like w/ some games, it's only getting me so far (i.e. I have to lock down Wasteland 3 to 40fps to get it stable on a GTX 1060 6GB laptop card at 1080p; and went through something similar foir performance w/ A Plague's Tale: Innocence). I don't wanna burn or stress that thing (laptop) to death, either; I'd rather do that with a desktop.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you will start to be forced to upgrade to some of the higher end cards at some point even on PC. Developers are slowly starting to increase required specifications even on older games with a new expansion. Take a look at World of Warcraft Shadowlands as an upcoming example. Minimum requirements even suggests a SSD. Recommended suggests a GTX 1080 and a SSD. This directly ties into RTX IO and how the upcoming console generation talked about loading game data in the background to essentially eliminate load times. How many people on Steam that are gaming at 1080p for example have a dedicated SSD for gaming? I bet the overall percentage is fairly low. That alone is why the consoles are better for the mass market. The general population doesn't research enough to know all the ins and outs to maximize their experience. They just want it to work and be handed to them.

As far as the GPU's go. There will always be the next big thing in line regardless of industry. PCI Express 4.0 and 5.0 both of which essentially double the bandwidth for each upgrade. PCI Express 4.0 only has a handful of motherboards that even support it out on the market but that is the next gen for now. One could always argue that what you are buying today is already outdated as far as technology goes. The 3000 series is definitely a huge upgrade over the last generation and gives more than enough reason to upgrade from the 1000 series if you care about PC gaming. If you only care about 1080p then it's still hard to justify upgrading. Nvidia is counting on a few people to stick with 1080p because why else would they push a 360hz monitor out the door? The sweet spot is still going to be 1440p at 144hz for most people that is at least somewhat affordable. Ultimately they don't want to leave out any potential customer base. If someone wants 360hz then let them have it, if they want 8K then here is an option. it is up to the individual as to what they truly want or need for their gaming set-up.

 
Syntax Error said:
Sure, probably. I don't really see why people are complaining though. If you're gaming at 1080p and don't intend to change then chances are you don't need a new GPU anyway or can just wait until the 3050 cards come out or AMD comes out with their budget models.

I'm using a 1080 at 1440 and will probably upgrade this generation. I don't feel a need to upgrade right now but I've noticed newer games are pushing the card harder or tending more towards Medium setting than High/Ultra. Once the full range of 3000 series cards comes out to make a choice (so I don't kick myself when a 3070 Super comes out or something) and Nvidia reacts to the latest AMD stuff, I'll settle on an upgrade path.
Click to expand...
My complaint is solely based on the dramatic price increase that the market/consumers have conceded to based on demand. I'm guessing you got that 1080 several years ago for $500 and therefore got a pretty good price/performance/life-span out of it. $500 today is not going to get you same ratios it did not so long ago. If I'm shelling out $500 for a GPU I'd expect the high-end/enthusiast tier and not the mid-range tier which is what you'll get with the 3070. If this were a simple matter of normal inflation, I'd be fine with it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
nny said:
Heh, I had seen a bunch of people praising the low-priced Nvidia cards yesterday so glad to come here and see some other takes. I admit that the prices aren't that bad, but I've never spent $500 on a single piece of computer hardware and I've been building my own PCs for over 20 years, so it is a little disheartening to see the cheapest of these awesome new cards to be at that price point.

It's also kinda crazy how I've been hearing people for months groaning at the idea of paying $500 for the new consoles and saying that there's no way that the new Xbox or PS5 would be priced at over $500 because nobody would buy them. And yet people are overjoyed at only having to pay 500 or 800 for a new video card.

Even crazier to hear the same people excited by these prices get angry over Avengers' battle passes which are practically free and only give you cosmetics.
Click to expand...
You seem to be conflating a lot of different people and opinions here. Sort of like each season when people say "You guys say this sale sucks but then post giant haul lists!!" when the people saying it sucks and the people buying twenty new games at 20% off are two different camps. That said, it's legitimate to value things differently and to say "I think this piece of premium enthusiast computer technology is worth $699 to me" and then say "There's no way I find $12 worth of value from this other object" be it a battle pass or hamburger or anything else.

Mooby said:
My complaint is solely based on the dramatic price increase that the market/consumers have conceded to based on demand. I'm guessing you got that 1080 several years ago for $500 and therefore got a pretty good price/performance/life-span out of it. $500 today is not going to get you same ratios it did not so long ago. If I'm shelling out $500 for a GPU I'd expect the high-end/enthusiast tier and not the mid-range tier which is what you'll get with the 3070. If this were a simple matter of normal inflation, I'd be fine with it.
Click to expand...
Launch MSRP on the 1080 was $699 for the Founders Edition and technically $599 for the partner cards although it was more like $600-$650. Then, of course, they never really went down during Crypto-Mania. Nvidia "lowered" the price on the 1080 but no one was buying $500 1080s in that era. $699 launch pricing for the 3080, two generations later, doesn't really strike me as a huge deal. I mean, I'm not defending it and I'd love to pay less any day of the week but it doesn't strike me as anything to get bothered about either. I also don't doubt that a 3080 is going to last me for five years if I'm looking to spend five years with it. I'm still able to run stuff on my old R290X if I'm happy with lower resolution, etc.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Syntax Error said:
You seem to be conflating a lot of different people and opinions here. Sort of like each season when people say "You guys say this sale sucks but then post giant haul lists!!" when the people saying it sucks and the people buying twenty new games at 20% off are two different camps. That said, it's legitimate to value things differently and to say "I think this piece of premium enthusiast computer technology is worth $699 to me" and then say "There's no way I find $12 worth of value from this other object" be it a battle pass or hamburger or anything else.
Click to expand...
I'd pay $12 for a battle pass hamburger.

 
Syntax Error said:
You seem to be conflating a lot of different people and opinions here. Sort of like each season when people say "You guys say this sale sucks but then post giant haul lists!!" when the people saying it sucks and the people buying twenty new games at 20% off are two different camps. That said, it's legitimate to value things differently and to say "I think this piece of premium enthusiast computer technology is worth $699 to me" and then say "There's no way I find $12 worth of value from this other object" be it a battle pass or hamburger or anything else.
Click to expand...
I admit the Avengers thing is a pretty different argument, but it's literally some of the exact same people, not just like a general "everybody is saying this" kind of thing.

Ultimately, the Nvidia news is a good thing. I'm just surprised by that I was seeing near universal acceptance that this is how much money you should spend for gaming. Being a cheap-ass, I often look for the cheaper alternative, but the 2000 series and the current AMD cards seem really weak in comparison, so I feel like I'm going to be pressured into going with a expensive card when it does come time to upgrade.

 
nny said:
I'm just surprised by that I was seeing near universal acceptance that this is how much money you should spend for gaming. Being a cheap-ass, I often look for the cheaper alternative, but the 2000 series and the current AMD cards seem really weak in comparison, so I feel like I'm going to be pressured into going with a expensive card when it does come time to upgrade.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's the case. Nvidia will release a 3050 and 3060 card and probably Super versions. AMD will come out with their new cards that will target the low-mid range market. Any of those will be a substantial increase over what the current mid-range card owner is running today.

 
hqdefault.jpg


 
nny said:
I admit that the prices aren't that bad, but I've never spent $500 on a single piece of computer hardware and I've been building my own PCs for over 20 years, so it is a little disheartening to see the cheapest of these awesome new cards to be at that price point.
Click to expand...
What? Twenty-plus years ago, mid-range CPUS were over $500. I paid like $600 for a Pentium 2 or 3, I forgot which, and it was like the second to last tier. WTF were you building 20+ years ago?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Some gamey stuff/initial thoughts on Avengers:

I found the Avengers beta to be somewhat jarring because the weekend I participated in the closed beta, the first campaign mission, which involves controlling Thor, Hulk, Iron Man, Black Widow, and Captain America in different sections, was what was on offer. The mission was fine except for some platforming segments relying on characters' abilities to make superhuman leaps or just be preternaturally agile where a misstep meant a reset. I have a feeling there will be a lot more of that later. Each hero has a different set of abilities and a somewhat different control scheme. Within the space of a single mission, that isn't necessarily the most straightforward way to introduce a game. 

I played the same mission in the full game last night and it felt like it made more sense given the context of the introductory cinematics and Avengers Day stuff that was missing from the beta. Otherwise it unfolded in pretty much the same way. Then you get to work with Kamala Khan's character and the story is definitely shaping up to be "How I Spent My Summer Vacation Becoming An Avenger." There's nothing necessarily wrong with that. I am actually hoping that this means that the game will focus on individual heroes for each chapter or maybe even several sequential chapters. 

It's not easy to figure out the marketplace and hero screens at this early stage as the game doesn't explain these things and the text is sufficiently tiny that it can be a bit hard to read a lot of it if you're playing on a console. I can already tell that this game is not going to be as much fun as Spider-Man, easily my favorite PS4 game to date, because the combat and  movement controls are much more complex and awkward. 

 
According to my Bezos' account history, on June 25 2016, I paid $699 ($50 of it was tax) for this here card: https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B01GRRRW0A/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
If I remember correctly, the Founders 1080s launched about a month before, so that means the 3rd party boards were on shelves a week or 2 afterwards, during which time, I spent nearly day and night constantly refreshing online store's hardware shipment/in-stock availability info for a chance to snag one and upgrade from sli 970s.

Why I'm personally upgrading:
Between the 2 generations, I don't recall any particularly impressive cutting edge graphical features that demanded new, better hardware (maybe hair physics, but whoopdeefuckingdoo). I agree that RTX 2000s were overpriced with technology that was half baked and didn't totally impress, imo anyway. No one is here to force you to spend money on new cards, but most bigger game makers are going to move to developing for the most widely available hardware in mind: peasant boxes. With these new consoles and their combo CPU/GPU/SSD streaming technologies, upgrading is going to be inevitable, unless you're only focused on indie stuff. Content with that? Bully for you, but it's not just about the resolution you intend to play at and I'm afraid buying/installing a SSD will only get you so far for so long. Because AMD supplies the silicon for new Xbox and PS, it's more than safe to say their next cards will have something similar to the announced RTX IO, and obviously ray tracing, that may be required by some games and soon.

Arguing the cost of these particular gpus is pointless as there'll be cheaper, chopped down lower ends announced by the new year. Pay what you're comfortable with/can afford, but accept that prices on electronics (or just about anything else) will inevitably cost more than previous iterations. It's like listening to my grandparents when I take them shopping, "Do you know what bread cost when I was your age?" etc.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
elessar123 said:
What? Twenty-plus years ago, mid-range CPUS were over $500. I paid like $600 for a Pentium 2 or 3, I forgot which, and it was like the second to last tier. WTF were you building 20+ years ago?
Click to expand...
I may have built a computer before this, but the first computer I remember building was with the Celeron 300a which easily overclocked to 450mhz. I think that one was under $200. Of course that was a bit of an outlier though being one of the best values in hardware ever. Don't really recall what I built after that but I always tried to find the best value and I feel like I typically stayed in the $200 range for both video cards and processors for a long time.

 
elessar123 said:
What? Twenty-plus years ago, mid-range CPUS were over $500. I paid like $600 for a Pentium 2 or 3, I forgot which, and it was like the second to last tier. WTF were you building 20+ years ago?
Click to expand...
Depends on the chip. I dont remember the cost of my P2 400mhz chip but the total system cost was $1800 or so. 3 years later in 2001 I built an AMD Duron 1ghz with the cpu around $80. Mobo, cpu and ram for that system was around $150-200 total. I had a college buddy who had a Celeron 300a clocked to 450mhz around 2001.

CPU's at the mid and high end have traded blows with graphics cards for highest depreciation of a computer's parts for over 20 years but in the last 13-14 years gpu's started winning that battle for the most part. Ever since 2011 and Intel's i7 2600k "sandy bridge" generation we've had top end consumer chips in the i7's lasting 5 years or more. Mid range i5 at 3+ years easily too.

 
Tibor said:
CPU's at the mid and high end have traded blows with graphics cards for highest depreciation of a computer's parts for over 20 years but in the last 13-14 years gpu's started winning that battle for the most part. Ever since 2011 and Intel's i7 2600k "sandy bridge" generation we've had top end consumer chips in the i7's lasting 5 years or more. Mid range i5 at 3+ years easily too.
Click to expand...
^

But it is still similar to the gpu realm. You can get an i7 since sandy that will easily go 5 years, but thats if you spent the money on an i7 to make it worth it, the i5's fared nowhere near as well. Same goes for the i5 4xx intel series, they couldnt even keep up with the 10 series nvidia cards without horribly bottlenecking them in lots of games. I had a couple of friends that had to return their 1080's over that.

Its always the more you pay (to a certain extent, theres always way overpriced enthusiast parts) the more lifetime you will get out of it. Which is something that sometimes seems to get lost in this 'CAG' realm. People looking to skimp 25/50/100$ here and there on a build but end up with something that lasts 2 years less.

Its all a trade off. Just like the gpu realm, the 1080's are good enough to last well into their 5 year birthday next May, but Im not sure the same can be said of the lower end cards in that same time frame (which will have only been 2 years for the 1660's), how many people will jump on the 3060 when that releases in 6mo-1year, giving them at most 2.5-3 years out of their investment. Thats an extra 2-3 years of game play with much higher settings (and presumably enjoyment depending on the definition) to the higher end card, but of course at an extra cost, that basically balances out in the end but you can play at higher settings through the life of the card in the higher end case.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
elessar123 said:
What? Twenty-plus years ago, mid-range CPUS were over $500. I paid like $600 for a Pentium 2 or 3, I forgot which, and it was like the second to last tier. WTF were you building 20+ years ago?
Click to expand...
Yeah. My first PC was a Compaq in 1999 with a massive 684Mhz Pentium processor, 512MB RAM, a Voodoo 3 GPU, and a 40GB hard drive. That cost $2000.

 
My first PC, that I built, was a 486 DX 50 (because I needed the boost in the math co-processor damnit.) 

Wish I would have kept it rather than selling it all those years ago....

Those were the days.....

 
nny said:
Heh, I had seen a bunch of people praising the low-priced Nvidia cards yesterday so glad to come here and see some other takes. I admit that the prices aren't that bad, but I've never spent $500 on a single piece of computer hardware and I've been building my own PCs for over 20 years, so it is a little disheartening to see the cheapest of these awesome new cards to be at that price point.

It's also kinda crazy how I've been hearing people for months groaning at the idea of paying $500 for the new consoles and saying that there's no way that the new Xbox or PS5 would be priced at over $500 because nobody would buy them. And yet people are overjoyed at only having to pay 500 or 800 for a new video card.

Even crazier to hear the same people excited by these prices get angry over Avengers' battle passes which are practically free and only give you cosmetics.
Click to expand...
You are talking about 2 different market segments here. High end PC gaming versus Console gaming. Why don't you throw in mobile gaming while you are at it? Apple vs. Orange here

 
Blade said:
Yeah. My first PC was a Compaq in 1999 with a massive 684Mhz Pentium processor, 512MB RAM, a Voodoo 3 GPU, and a 40GB hard drive. That cost $2000.
Click to expand...
It's funny, I actually forgot how cheap graphics cards were. My Voodoo 3 3000 from ~19981 was like $125, and that was relatively high end at the time.

1. I don't get to tell this story much, but a friend of a friend was like a tester or something, and got us Voodoo 3s like 6 months early for cheaper than MSRP. I don't remember the details, but I think he asked about them summer '98 and got them around Christmas? It was in the same retail boxes that the actual releases were in. Still the only time I've seen someone use a full size tower irl. And he had like 10 SCSI hard drives, though I don't remember how much space that was. Probably some massive number, like a gigabyte2. His setup was like 10 grand back then.

2. lol. I might even be overestimating.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My first PC had Windows 95.  133mhz Pentium. And a good old CD drive. I think the vid card might've been....1MB and integrated back then? God that from a custom-build shop; a local spot around here. Doubt it's here anymore. Man, those were the days! DN3D, Quake 1 + 2, MechWarrior 2 Mercs - a lot of really old classics on that one!

Oooh, I had a Compaq back in early 2000's or so. W98 SE was on it. Circuit City had it on sale w/ a good deal of $ off (hundreds of $). Had a AMD Athlon 700Mhz in there. 2 drives - DVD burner and DVD-ROM. I had to upgrade the vid card at some point. I think it had a TNT Riva, originally? I needed a new one and put in a 64MB GeForce 2 MX 400; I think that was like $80. My first real video card upgrade. Ahhh, yes; that was great. Good old days. Ran Deus Ex 1, BG games, PST, and other classics on that PC; especially after that awesome upgrade.

Years later, in very early 2005, found another good local PC shop. Win XP PC. Bought a custom built PC there. Ran stuff like Half-Life 2, Bloodlines, and Riddick on that one. I think I had a 6600, in there? I don't remember what I had out the gate, but...I think I put in a GeForce 8800 GT, when it was upgrade time.

The first PC built - 2011. W7 PC. All over the place, I got parts - Microcenter, TigerDirect, Amazon, NewEgg, etc etc. The aging desktop that's been upgraded a few times. Put in a 560 Ti 1GB, back then - to get it going. Had Witcher 2 on pre-order and was ready for it, on day 1. Got it built, not long before W2's launch. Eventually bought a GTX 960 4GB (that was a little over $220, I think?) from the Bezos store. A year later or so after the 960 4gb purchase, since a buddy bought a new Alienware and had to have the latest and greatest when it hit the shelves, as his PC wasn't loaded with it - so he sold me a barely used GTX 970 for $100 back when he decided to change his PC's card to a GTX 1070 when it launched (at $700!). That 970's been in there ever since.

And sure I've had some laptops in the time (Acer Nitro with a 4gb 960M and now a SC15 laptop with 6gb GTX 1060) - but yeah, here I am, in desktop build or buy mode again. And now, I'm staring at 3070's aiming for the $500 range, yet curious how a 3060 might turn out and how much VRAM that might have. Sheesh.

Man, Windows PC's, games, and whatnot have came such a long way since 1995.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Windows 3.1, baby. CD drive? Try a 5.25" floppy disk drive, not that 3.5" rigid thing you call floppy.








I'll wait.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Z-Saber said:
... not that 3.5" rigid thing you call floppy.
Click to expand...
That's what MysterD's mom said to rcsample! AMIRITE?!?!?!?

That is what the young people these days call a burn. Tremendous burn! I burn LIKE NO PRESIDENT HAS EVER BURNED BEFORE!! The RADICAL LEFT wouldn't even attempt such a burn!!! TOO POLITICALLY CORRECT!!!!! TERRIBLE FOR OUR COUNTRY!!!!!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Avengers preview.

https://youtu.be/8EvK8_8Dfsg

Tldr: better performance than beta, story is better, voice work is weak, level design is atrocious, gameplay is fun for a bit but it doesn't have lasting power.

Kind of what I thought it would be.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sasquatc4 said:
^

But it is still similar to the gpu realm. You can get an i7 since sandy that will easily go 5 years, but thats if you spent the money on an i7 to make it worth it, the i5's fared nowhere near as well. Same goes for the i5 4xx intel series, they couldnt even keep up with the 10 series nvidia cards without horribly bottlenecking them in lots of games. I had a couple of friends that had to return their 1080's over that.

Its always the more you pay (to a certain extent, theres always way overpriced enthusiast parts) the more lifetime you will get out of it. Which is something that sometimes seems to get lost in this 'CAG' realm. People looking to skimp 25/50/100$ here and there on a build but end up with something that lasts 2 years less.

Its all a trade off. Just like the gpu realm, the 1080's are good enough to last well into their 5 year birthday next May, but Im not sure the same can be said of the lower end cards in that same time frame (which will have only been 2 years for the 1660's), how many people will jump on the 3060 when that releases in 6mo-1year, giving them at most 2.5-3 years out of their investment. Thats an extra 2-3 years of game play with much higher settings (and presumably enjoyment depending on the definition) to the higher end card, but of course at an extra cost, that basically balances out in the end but you can play at higher settings through the life of the card in the higher end case.
Click to expand...
I've got an i5 that's 5-6 years old and a 1070 and I can still run most games at high settings. That's partially why I'm shocked at people so willing to lay down large amounts of money on hardware. There just isn't that much software out there that takes advantage of that gap in quality even 4-6 years down the line.

In regards to paying for a longer life, computer parts used to die off more frequently so it wasn't as worth it to pay for higher priced parts back in the day if you were going to have to replace parts regardless after a couple years. I am more willing to lay down a little extra nowadays since the overall quality of parts is so much higher. Even though I got a good deal on my 1070 4 years ago, I still felt like I was splurging to buy it since I was paying over $300 for a video card. I felt like it would be worth it since I'd be getting a better experience up front and future-proofing myself and I'm really happy with that purchase. It's just that I was used to paying ~$200 for video cards for a long time and for my last build I had to pay over 300 and when I most likely upgrade next year, I'll probably have to pay over 400 to get the best value. In the span of 2 generations for me, the price for a decent card has more than doubled while it seems like most other people think $500 is cheap.

Maybe it's also just a part of getting older. Like when I go to a fast food restaurant and end up paying close to $10 for a meal and think about how we used to be able to get a meal at a decent restaurant for that price.

 
Remember when you could go to Taco Bell, pay $5 and eat for a week?

Pepperidge Farm I remember.

I also remember $.78/gallon gas.

And Bernoulli drives.

And Adventure on tape on my TI-99/4A.

 
I mean, Taco Bell still has some of the better values in fast food with their $5 boxes.

Also, I know none of you losers have friends, but if you do make friends, this seems like a decent free MP game:

https://www.epicgames.com/store/en-US/product/diabotical/home

All hail the Epic overlords!

Also, the bros played Killstreak.tv this week - F2P on steam.  It's a fun deathmatch game with some fun classic modes like golden gun and armory.  Could use more maps but not complaining at free.

 
INMATEofARKHAM said:
Avengers preview.


Tldr: better performance than beta, story is better, voice work is weak, level design is atrocious, gameplay is fun for a bit but it doesn't have lasting power.

Kind of what I thought it would be.
Click to expand...
I can't really tell any difference in performance. The V/O seems fine to me so far, although the design decision to make the protagonists look similar-to-but-different-from their movie counterparts is a bit peculiar. Not-quite-Scarlett-Johannson and Not-quite-Mark-Ruffalo just look odd. I would agree about the design so far. The levels I've been playing through with Ms. Marvel involved a LOT of janky platforming and CD took the lazy way out by making missteps fatal (I'm comparing this to Spider-Man again, fairly or unfairly, but that cat could fall from the top of the Empire State Building and land on his feet, perfectly unharmed, and I'm attributing that at least in part to the fact that that dev actually took the trouble to properly map out the areas the character was traversing), which requires waiting about 5-10 seconds for the level to reload once you plummet to your death. That actually gets old quite quickly. The combat is entertaining enough and the story is interesting so far. Whether all of that will end up outweighing the frustration from all of the jumping and faffing-about and dying because I didn't press X at the right time or I held it down instead of tapping it only time will tell.

RealCheapLikeAFoxOfficial said:
I mean, Taco Bell still has some of the better values in fast food with their $5 boxes.

Also, I know none of you losers have friends, but if you do make friends, this seems like a decent free MP game:

https://www.epicgames.com/store/en-US/product/diabotical/home
Click to expand...
Making friends just to play this doesn't seem worth it.

Cheesy Fiesta Potatoes are quality.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So it looks like THQ Nordic finally addressed what they plan to do for previous owners of Kingdoms of Amalur on Steam when the re-release comes out next week.

https://steamcommunity.com/app/1041720/discussions/0/2950376208531890295/

If you own the original game on Steam you will get a 50% discount on the re-release.  And this will stack with the launch 10% discount they're going to be doing as well.  Also, this applies to the base game (MSRP $39.99) or the Fate Edition (MSRP $54.99), which is the bundle that will include the brand new expansion when it releases next year.  This offer will run for two months.

This deal does not apply to people who own the game on Origin though.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BMXJouster said:
So it looks like THQ Nordic finally addressed what they plan to do for previous owners of Kingdoms of Amalur on Steam when the re-release comes out next week.

https://steamcommunity.com/app/1041720/discussions/0/2950376208531890295/

If you own the original game on Steam you will get a 50% discount on the re-release. And this will stack with the launch 10% discount they're going to be doing as well. Also, this applies to the base game or the Fate Edition, which is the bundle that will include the brand new expansion when it releases next year. This offer will run for two months.

This deal does not apply to people who own the game on Origin though.
Click to expand...
Hm. Sounds mildly tempting. Unlike many folks, I enjoyed KoA back in the day, but if this expansion business requires starting over. . . well, I'd probably just as soon play something new.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top