Steam+ Deals Mega Thread (All PC Gaming Deals)

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:
I guess we can leave it at "You and I have dramatically different ideas on what constitutes a good example when you're blatantly lying to your customers for a cheap PR boost"
They had a bunch of free DLC.

no idea what you are goin on about. but k

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I do think this goes back to bah's point about value for money. I doubt anyone would seriously question the quality and quantity of content that was contained in the Witcher 3 or StarCraft II expansions. Yes, you can argue that a DLC and an expansion are not really different things, but I think qualitatively at least it's easy to tell the difference between the two. No one would call a costume pack or horse armor an expansion pack and not expect to be laughed out of the industry. Similarly, I don't think you could pass off paid content that consists of one or two single-player missions or quests as an expansion.
That's nonsense though. "DLC" doesn't mean "horse armor" or "rifle skins", it means downloadable content -- basically ANY content that comes out independently of the base game but requires the base game to function. That's everything from Oblivion's horse armor to Fallout 4's Far Harbor. No one else is claiming "Oh, our expansions aren't DLC!" It's a classic case of "All poodles are dogs even if not all dogs are poodles" -- Expansions are DLC even if not all DLC is an expansion.

The weird logic people use to defend CDPR lying to their customers is pretty baffling. Witcher 3 can be a good game AND CDPR lied to get some free PR. Those two ideas aren't mutually exclusive.

 
Probably cranky you missed out on those back to back chicken dinners too. YOU AREN'T THE ONLY ONE ANYMORE BAH! WHEN YOU SAY "ONE TIME WE HAD BACK TO BACK CHICKEN DINNERS," 3 MORE PEOPLE CAN NOW SAY "ME TOO!"
The first back to backs were on NA servers. And I was never the only one. dfg and Parallacks were there too :D

 
Last edited by a moderator:
They had a bunch of free DLC.

no idea what you are goin on about. but k
They literally stated that they would have no paid DLC. Did you just not know this? They came out of the gate with "We'll have no paid DLC; don't believe in it". Then after getting all the free press for their so-gamer-friendly stance, softened it to "Well, maybe if there was something REALLY big..." and then finished with "Here's some paid 'expansions' but those don't count towards our previous pledge".

It was obviously just to play people for good press. Worked wonders since people still continue to defend it and act like CDPR was the good guys for saying they'd have no paid DLC.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
They literally stated that they would have no paid DLC. Did you just not know this? They came out of the gate with "We'll have no paid DLC; don't believe in it". Then after getting all the free press for their so-gamer-friendly stance, softened it to "Well, maybe if there was something REALLY big..." and then finished with "Here's some paid 'expansions' but those don't count towards our previous pledge".

It was obviously just to play people for good press. Worked wonders since people still continue to defend it and act like CDPR was the good guys for saying they'd have no paid DLC.
https://www.vg247.com/2013/07/29/witcher-3-wild-hunt-devs-dont-believe-in-add-on-content/comment-page-1/

Speaking with Examiner, Tomaszkiewicz said, “We could sell extra content to gamers ‘down the road,’ but we don’t believe in that. We believe patches, fixes and additional content should be provided to gamers free of charge. Only something REALLY big, and something that will not make you feel ripped off, justifies a price tag.”

But if the studio ever did decide to release DLC, he added, “We think you will appreciate what you get in return.”

 
Would it make you feel better if the "Hearts of Stone" and "Blood and Wine" were purely physical releases?

I get what you're saying, TECHNICALLY everything is DLC because it's content that you download, regardless if it is content-content or non-content.

There should be a different word to better convey what was meant by "DLC".  How about shit?  Shit seems like a good word for what they meant.

 
Would it make you feel better if the "Hearts of Stone" and "Blood and Wine" were purely physical releases?
I'd prefer it if they had been honest out of the gate: "We're working on some large paid DLC and will also offer some smaller free DLC". That's not really hard, now is it?

You don't really need to hide behind "Well, uh, that's not really DLC" or "DLC isn't the right word for it" as your argument. Bethesda can release a major bit of content like Dragonborn and call it DLC because that's what it was.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's nonsense though. "DLC" doesn't mean "horse armor" or "rifle skins", it means downloadable content -- basically ANY content that comes out independently of the base game but requires the base game to function. That's everything from Oblivion's horse armor to Fallout 4's Far Harbor. No one else is claiming "Oh, our expansions aren't DLC!" It's a classic case of "All poodles are dogs even if not all dogs are poodles" -- Expansions are DLC even if not all DLC is an expansion.

The weird logic people use to defend CDPR lying to their customers is pretty baffling. Witcher 3 can be a good game AND CDPR lied to get some free PR. Those two ideas aren't mutually exclusive.
Think of the those crappy free DLCs as rhetoric in response to the state of the industry?

They literally stated that they would have no paid DLC. Did you just not know this? They came out of the gate with "We'll have no paid DLC; don't believe in it". Then after getting all the free press for their so-gamer-friendly stance, softened it to "Well, maybe if there was something REALLY big..." and then finished with "Here's some paid 'expansions' but those don't count towards our previous pledge".

It was obviously just to play people for good press. Worked wonders since people still continue to defend it and act like CDPR was the good guys for saying they'd have no paid DLC.
Some idiot that said some dumb things to an online publication isn't damning to a reputable product/company. The proof is in the final product. but that's just me.

Who else is looking forward to Cyberpunk 2077 !!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Think of the those crappy free DLCs as rhetoric in response to the state of the industry?
I'm not really bothered by horse armor and rifle skins. I just don't buy them. If other people want to support the industry by buying them, that's great. If people buy them and then whine about the "state of the industry" because they bought cosmetics then those people are idiots.

Some idiot that said some dumb things to an online publication isn't damning to a reputable product/company. The proof is in the final product. but that's just me.
So we place different values on honesty and what that means towards a company's reputation. That's cool.

 
No, we just place different values on what someone named Tomaszkiewicz said to "Examiner" (whatever the fuck that is) as reported via vg247 (who?), apparently. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Would it make you feel better if the "Hearts of Stone" and "Blood and Wine" were purely physical releases?

I get what you're saying, TECHNICALLY everything is DLC because it's content that you download, regardless if it is content-content or non-content.

There should be a different word to better convey what was meant by "DLC". How about shit? Shit seems like a good word for what they meant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJTu5nG9_98

 
Witcher 3 didn't have paid DLC, or rather, It didn't have anything stripped off the main game to sell or piecemeal to the player, like virtually every other AAA "experience". That was the point CDPR was making. I thought that was obvious.

What little DLC and updates did come wasn't even planned until after the game initially launched, were entirely free, and genuinely improved the game over the next year.

The expansions are entirely standalone. They could have been billed as individual "mini" sequels and no one would have scoffed. Hell, Hearts of Stone was something like 10 hours while Blood and Wine lasted me around 40 or so, in an entirely new and expansive map, no less. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's nonsense though. "DLC" doesn't mean "horse armor" or "rifle skins", it means downloadable content -- basically ANY content that comes out independently of the base game but requires the base game to function. That's everything from Oblivion's horse armor to Fallout 4's Far Harbor. No one else is claiming "Oh, our expansions aren't DLC!" It's a classic case of "All poodles are dogs even if not all dogs are poodles" -- Expansions are DLC even if not all DLC is an expansion.

The weird logic people use to defend CDPR lying to their customers is pretty baffling. Witcher 3 can be a good game AND CDPR lied to get some free PR. Those two ideas aren't mutually exclusive.
It's not nonsense to me. I respect that you hold a different viewpoint on the matter, but I really think there are differences that are readily discernible between a DLC pack and an expansion pack.

Some idiot that said some dumb things to an online publication isn't damning to a reputable product/company. The proof is in the final product. but that's just me.

Who else is looking forward to Cyberpunk 2077 !!
Well, actually the idiot in question was a spokesman for CD Projekt RED. Whether you think he lied or misled people with his comments depends on how you view the expansion content.

I'm definitely intrigued by Cyberpunk 2077 but am still trying to figure out whether I want to invest a significant amount of time in GWENT or not.

 
The funny thing is that Nothing371 mentioned publishers calling DLC "expansions" to market them as something other than DLC.  CDPR did literally this, I mentioned how CDPR used the change in terminology to circumvent their earlier statements and then the apologist white knighting dogpile started :lol:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The funny thing is that Nothing371 mentioned publishers calling DLC "expansions" to market them as something other than DLC. CDPR did literally this, I mentioned how CDPR used the change in terminology to circumvent their earlier statements and then the apologist white knighting dogpile started :lol:
tJ8smuY.jpg

 
It wasn't so much "funny" as it was manipulating the gaming press and their customers (via their fawning comments on message boards, social media, etc) by running a line of shit about their DLC pricing and then going back on it with a ridiculous bit of sophistry about how "expansions aren't really DLC".
They released like 10'ish free dlc that added armor and stuff to the game. Then they added two pieces of paid content that combined takes around 40+ hours to complete. You can argue semantics all you want but dlc and expansions aren't the same thing. They released free dlc and paid expansions and they did it the right way.

Edit: And according to that article they even stated that they would do as much so I'm not sure what the fuss is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They literally stated that they would have no paid DLC. Did you just not know this? They came out of the gate with "We'll have no paid DLC; don't believe in it". Then after getting all the free press for their so-gamer-friendly stance, softened it to "Well, maybe if there was something REALLY big..." and then finished with "Here's some paid 'expansions' but those don't count towards our previous pledge".
Is this what you're talking about?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/126404-Witcher-3-Dev-Doesnt-Believe-in-Paid-DLC

Because in that very article from 2013 he says:

"We could sell extra content to gamers 'down the road,'" he said, "but we don't believe in that. We believe patches, fixes and additional content should be provided to gamers free of charge. Only something really big, and something that will not make you feel ripped off, justifies a price tag."

It should be noted that Tomaszkiewicz doesn't completely rule out the possibility of paid content for The Witcher 3, but stresses that "If we ever decide to charge you for something, we think you will appreciate what you get in return." Considering that The Witcher 2 received over 10 gigs of free content, it would have to be something absolutely massive to justify being charged for it!"

Care to provide an article earlier than this where they straight up say they will NEVER charge for any kind of additional content to back up your claims? I'm genuinely curious because I can't find anything like that.

Oh, and it should also be mentioned that CDProjekt RED gave away both the Enhanced Edition for Witcher 1 and the Enhanced Edition for Witcher 2 free to owners of the original game (the latter of which added an additional 4 hours of gameplay and a bunch of other new things that cost them quite a bit of money to make). Can't think of many companies that will do that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can tell you from first hand knowledge that most 8-bit original NES games were around $35-40 in the 1990's. And I rarely saw a PC game at Babbage's or Electronic Boutique for more than that price. Yes, there's inflation. Such that $50-60 isn't effectively a cost increase. But wanting $100 or more for games with DLC that come out within a couple of months is, in fact, an increase.

Obviously today the prices on MOST games tend to drop rapidly after launch but that's rarely the case with Activision/Blizzard titles.

Edited to add: I don't know how Destiny works but the argument that you don't 'have' to buy the expansion while technically true, is like arguing you can play D3 without Reaper of Souls. If you're at all interested in the online/grouping aspect (which Destiny apparently focuses on heavily) then chances are you're going to want access to the content most players are currently doing.
Base-games seem to drop rapidly these days b/c they are constantly pushing out new DLC's, Season Passes, micro-transactions, and other ways to keep the player interested. This might not be the case w/ some games and companies (i.e. see Blizzard and Activision), but most seem to operate this way.

The hardest thing I've seen of late is many other companies following the Bethesda and BioWare methods of Base-Game/DLC/Season Pass stuff. DLC's and Season Passes might be expensive, but Base-Game can possibly get cheap quick; and maybe the Re-Release With Everything gets discounted better much later. I've not really seen Mafia 3's Season Pass discounted much - but the Complete Deluxe Edition is your best bet to get it all. Hell, we really didn't see many discounts on even Homefront: TR's Season Pass, until probably recently - even though again, your best bet (before the Base-Game was Humble'd) was to spend the extra few bucks and go Freedom Fighter Edition (to get it all).

There's a ridiculous ton of competition out there for your game-time and money w/ many different games in many different genres, the same exact genres, and even games mixing genres - more so than the old days, IMHO.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, like, can't we argue about something that matters?

Like Dominos or Pizza Hut.
Neither. They both suck.

Sorry, but pizza from places like Pizzeria Regina's, Capone's Prohibition Pub - and hell, even Bertucci's - put those two you listed to shame.

I didn't even get into other chains like say Papa Gino's.

EDIT:

Holy shit nerds go find something productive to do.
Like chip away at our backlog?

C'mon, we'll never catch up w/ our incredible backlogs.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I suspect that this is probably right on the money. The idea is probably to get the DLC out in time to capture the early adopters because once those people "finish" your game, they probably won't be going back to it. Unless you've announced a specific plan of expansion content just after or prior to the release of your main game, it's harder to make your money back on something that you produce post-release. Personally, I find it hard to go back to a game to play an expansion if I've spend 100+ hours on a base game if I don't have that content waiting for me when I finish. I think the way many games probably work these days is that the dev starts working on season pass content before the initial release and continues working on it post-release.

I do think this goes back to bah's point about value for money. I doubt anyone would seriously question the quality and quantity of content that was contained in the Witcher 3 or StarCraft II expansions. Yes, you can argue that a DLC and an expansion are not really different things, but I think qualitatively at least it's easy to tell the difference between the two. No one would call a costume pack or horse armor an expansion pack and not expect to be laughed out of the industry. Similarly, I don't think you could pass off paid content that consists of one or two single-player missions or quests as an expansion.

That's why I am still of the opinion that CD Projekt RED was true to its word regarding DLC for The Witcher. They released a bunch of relatively-straighforward DLCs alongside the main game for free, but the Blood and Wine and Hearts of Stone expansion packs contained significant additional material (20-50 hours' worth); I just don't see the argument that charging for this content was reneging on their promise in some way. If you don't like The Witcher 3, that's one thing and you're certainly entitled to that opinion, but I believe--as a fan of the Witcher games--that most of the people who do like it are glad to have the opportunity to play these continuations of what, if CD Projekt RED's statements on the subject are to be believed, will be their last Witcher game featuring Geralt.
Games like GTA4 (i.e. go see The Lost and The Damned and also Ballad add-ons) and Skyrim (i.e. go see Dragonborn and Dawnguard) w/ their labeled "DLC's" really extended things on what a DLC was and actually should be. More or less, they released what we called in the old days "expansions" (bigger sized content-rushes - but they were often used the same engine & added more content + features to the game) - but basically labeled them as "DLC's". Before those games, most DLC's were small and episodic type of sized things (i.e. could be 30 minutes to maybe 3-5 hours or so; or might even be items/weapons/armor).

CDPR said, "We're going to have no paid DLC's", but then released "expansions." And they didn't call it a "Season Pass", they went and called it a "Expansion Pass." More or less, they're the same - thanks to GTA4 & Skyrim showing everybody how to do DLC's. That was CDP with all their marketing bullcrap. As much as I love CDP for releasing great games and doing Free Enhanced Edition overhaul/patches (i.e. see how they did W1 and W2), even I have to call "bullcrap" on the way they labeled and marketed their DLC/Expansion nonsense for W3. They really should've been more explicit on what they see as differences of DLC's and Expansions, when given their interviews before popping out the "Expansion Pass" plan.

Regardless, W3 is great and has tons of content in all of their packages - so, most gamers should at some point get both the W3 game and Expansions/DLC's/Extra Content/Whatever They Want To Call Them - even if they decide to buy them on sale and much cheaper.

EDIT:

It's not nonsense to me. I respect that you hold a different viewpoint on the matter, but I really think there are differences that are readily discernible between a DLC pack and an expansion pack.

Well, actually the idiot in question was a spokesman for CD Projekt RED. Whether you think he lied or misled people with his comments depends on how you view the expansion content.

I'm definitely intrigued by Cyberpunk 2077 but am still trying to figure out whether I want to invest a significant amount of time in GWENT or not.
DLC = "DownLoadable Content." Basically, these days - any extra content can be considered DLC; since we're in a world where it's very easy to get more content via the Internet to download it straight to our computers. Steam (and other digital stores that are lagging behind, like Origin, UPlay, Battle.Net, etc) took over PC gaming and pretty much, you likely have good Internet access if you want to keep your games up-to-date w/ patches, DLC's, Season Passes, or whatever. Hell, you can even download base-games or full-blown complete editions here.

An expansion is, more or less, a DLC these days. GTA4 and Skyrim set the bar and standard here, redefining what DLC could be and should be. They basically released "expansions" and labeled them as "DLC's."

EDIT 2:

Oh, and it should also be mentioned that CDProjekt RED gave away both the Enhanced Edition for Witcher 1 and the Enhanced Edition for Witcher 2 free to owners of the original game (the latter of which added an additional 4 hours of gameplay and a bunch of other new things that cost them quite a bit of money to make). Can't think of many companies that will do that.
I remember when Black Isle released Trials of the Luremaster as a free "DLC" (before the term was really coined and made famous) for Icewind Dale: Heart of Winter expansion b/c many gamers complained HoW was too damn short as an expansion pack, in their opinion.

CDP ain't the only ones to have pulled such a stunt, to add more content to a game as a patch/free-DLC/or whatever the hell they want to call it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Neither. They both suck.

Sorry, but pizza from places like Pizzeria Regina's, Capone's Prohibition Pub - and hell, even Bertucci's - put those two you listed to shame.

I didn't even get into other chains like say Papa Gino's.
None of those are national chains.

Comparing national chains to local or regional chains is silly.

 
CDPR said, "We're going to have no paid DLC's", but then released "expansions." And they didn't call it a "Season Pass", they went and called it a "Expansion Pass." More or less, they're the same - thanks to GTA4 & Skyrim showing everybody how to do DLC's. That was CDP with all their marketing bullcrap. As much as I love CDP for releasing great games and doing Free Enhanced Edition overhaul/patches (i.e. see how they did W1 and W2), even I have to call "bullcrap" on the way they labeled and marketed their DLC/Expansion nonsense for W3. They really should've been more explicit on what they see as differences of DLC's and Expansions, when given their interviews before popping out the "Expansion Pass" plan.

Regardless, W3 is great and has tons of content in all of their packages - so, most gamers should at some point get both the W3 game and Expansions/DLC's/Extra Content/Whatever They Want To Call Them - even if they decide to buy them on sale and much cheaper.
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/09/27/which-witcher-is-the-witcher-2-2-0/

"Anyway, our approach is different and relatively simple. All DLC for the PC version is and will remain FREE. That’s not likely to be the story for the Xbox version, because of certain Microsoft policies that need to be followed. But on PC, once you buy our game, you don’t need to worry about any additional costs – we will provide all updates, including those featuring new content, for free. I think it’s reasonable than when you buy our product, you can expect us to service it for you quite a long time after release, though less intensively as time goes by. Any payable DLC that appears is likely to be a more classic expansion pack along the lines of, say, Baldur’s Gate: Tales of the Sword Coast. But this is a purely theoretical discussion at this point, as we have yet to confirm or even plan any official expansion packs."

This article was from 2011 by the way. And they re-iterated the "free DLC is stuff like gameplay updates, cosmetic items, weapons and gears, etc" point again and again later on.

I remember when Black Isle released Trials of the Luremaster as a free "DLC" (before the term was really coined and made famous) for Icewind Dale: Heart of Winter expansion b/c many gamers complained HoW was too damn short as an expansion pack, in their opinion.

CDP ain't the only ones to have pulled such a stunt, to add more content to a game as a patch/free-DLC/or whatever the hell they want to call it.
I'm sorry, care to say where I said CDProjekt RED was the only company or the first company to ever do that? I don't seem to recall saying that. I'm pretty sure I said "can't think of many companies who do that".

 
People like Witcher games cuz they want boobies.
Witcher series does way more than that. Witcher games usually have excellent character development, storytelling, side-questing, atmosphere, and especially choice/consequence on branching paths.

Witcher games are often bleak, so you won't get the typical BioWare choices of "doing good gets good results" or "doing bad had bad results". Witcher's more complicated than that, as good-natured choices could be the worst outcome you make, whereas an evil choice might be the easiest pathway to take w/ the least issues in the outcome. Maybe even being neutral in another quest could be your best option; who knows.

And likely, unlike most RPG's - yeah, you won't see your results w/ a Witcher game, especially with major decisions, until numerous hours later - so you just can't do a quest, see the result instantly, and then reload your save from 5-10 minutes ago. You'd have to go much further back, if you really want to. Often, Witcher games give you a choice and if you really to travel numerous hours back - so you'd have hope you kept the old save before that choice some hours ago and reload it; but w/ so many hours passed already, you likely will just stick w/ whatever choice you made and deal with it.

Witcher games are also huge and definite time-sinks - expect at least 40 hours here on a play-through; and likely even more if you do more than the main-quest. W2 might not have as great of a story as W1 (since W2 has some cliffhangers and Chapter 3 feels rushed as can be and a set-up for W3); and also W3 have good combat and W3 has a huge open-world, so I do think a lot of gamers will gravitate towards that. Sure, W3 does have some of the new-school MMO "collect X" this and "find X" that - but it's also stacked w/ tons of other regular side-questing that seems like other big open-world games like Mass Effect: Andromeda and Dragon Age: Inquisition really seem to be missing if they aren't "Loyalty Missions".

I don't think W2 & W3 has the best combat - but in the more direct action-style it has attempted since W2, it improved immensely over the original game. Witcher series wears so many hats and does so many things well, it's hard to ignore the sum of its parts, in many and most regards.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Been have a pretty crap few weeks. Decided to go through my unredeemed bundle keys.

It's no Witcher 3 but they certainly have lots of boobs and butts

 
Sakura Beach
JB623-YYWWA-7EFF7
 
Sakura Beach 2 
J3776-Q36L8-DAIR4
 
Sakura Angels 
JCVL9-6BTWD-NKAGP
 
Sakura Spirit 
HVHKR-WA50R-7297I
 
HuniePop 
IKX2J-99JRX-P059B
 
Epic Battle Fantasy 4
C9N7P-F5IQA-IL4AP
 
bread's done
Back
Top