The next-to-last day of Steam's "
Early Holiday Sale" brings with it an eclectic collection of discounted PC titles, including last year's
Prince of Persia ($14.99),
Battlefield 2 ($14.99),
Lucidity ($2.49) and
Guild Wars Trilogy ($24.99). Also, here's a link to a Black Friday sale for a
1TB internal HDD. If you've been following this Steam sale for the past few days, you're probably hurting for hard drive space right about now.
Make sure you free up some room before tomorrow -- at 8 a.m. PST, the last batch of 24-hour sales will be announced. Stay tuned!
{ Nov 29th 2009 at 12:30PM } 
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Darth Bradwart, The Dark Lord of the Sith [ATDF Co-Founder] @ Nov 29th 2009 12:43PM
Best Buy and Amazon have already started their Cyber Monday sales, though Amazon's game deals are non-existent today.
But BB is doing a nice deal where you buy a PS3 game (nearly all AAA titles) and get a $20 PSN card for free.
Awetoebawt @ Nov 29th 2009 12:52PM
That's actually a good way to tell a friend you got him Borderlands Game of the Year Edition, but you have to download the DLC.
Alasdair @ Nov 29th 2009 12:52PM
Now's your chance to pick up World of Goo if you haven't done so already.
No excuses.
FraGNeM @ Nov 29th 2009 1:18PM
You'd think they would mention the game on that list with the highest Metacritic rating.
EGOvoruhk @ Nov 29th 2009 2:36PM
@FraGNeM: BF2 is rated 1 point higher
eldee @ Nov 29th 2009 6:04PM
probably because it's an overhyped 'game' that contains about 15 minutes worth of actual entertainment.
Carrie @ Nov 29th 2009 6:06PM
Eldee: Go troll somewhere else.
Everyone else: WORLD OF GOO IS FIVE DOLLARS. BUY IT.
Filthy Assistant @ Nov 29th 2009 9:14PM
I paid a penny for world of goo and I don't regret it!
I might if I had paid 25 cents.
jonbo298 @ Nov 29th 2009 12:52PM
That 1TB link, is actually to the 2TB drive ;)
Not THAT Matt @ Nov 29th 2009 1:24PM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148433
is for the 1TB drive.
I'd recommend picking up two 1TB drives if you can swing the case space and extra cash, since the 1TB drive runs at 7,200rpm - it's quite a bit faster than the 2TB drive, and a bit more proven. We all saw how the 1/1.5TB firmware issues affected some Seagate drives. :) In their defense, I know three of the 1.5TB drives that were all picked up within two weeks of the drive's launch, and none of them are affected by the firmware issue.
With that being said, I use nothing but Seagate in my builds for myself, home users and business customers - had nothing but reliability with them. At my small business, and through collective groups of friends, we have seen... five or six? Western Digitals die/fail in the past five years, though. I haven't touched one in four years, personally.
Typically that 2TB drive is I want to say $180 or $190, so it truely is double the price of the 1TB drive - nice sale price, though!
Darth Bradwart, The Dark Lord of the Sith [ATDF Co-Founder] @ Nov 29th 2009 1:26PM
1TB drives have been appearing for 70 or so, so buy two and get it cheaper than a 2GB drive.
Personally, I prefer Western Digital for HDD's, but as long as you stay with a good brand you should be fine.
Cheesus Crust @ Nov 29th 2009 3:45PM
I don't know man, WD AAKS has been pretty good for me.
Foetoid @ Nov 29th 2009 4:43PM
What shocks me is Joystiq linking to a SEAGATE Hdd. I've had 4 Seagate drive die in the last 14 months, with the 2 Western Digital hard drives that are older than the seagates (and one newer) working perfectly. I wouldn't touch Seagate again even if they were free.
Not THAT Matt @ Nov 29th 2009 9:33PM
I'm sure part of it is luck of the draw - all I can say is that I work with a couple hundred hard drives throughout the year, and of those drives WD's tend to have more problems developing loud operational noises along their lifetimes, along with stuttering and drive failure.
With that being said, this is in Wisconsin, where the atmosphere is usually fairly cold/humid/smoke-filled (lots of Wisconsinites are hunters, and lots of hunters smoke cigarettes) which is going to probably be different than the operational environment in other states/regions of the country.
That being said, Joystiq doesn't have a reason to have a brand bias, so "being shocked that Joystiq would link to a hard drive that's on sale for a good price" is a pretty goofy thing to be shocked about.
Awetoebawt @ Nov 29th 2009 12:53PM
By the way, does anyone know how to install steam games when your running Wine through Ubuntu?
Not THAT Matt @ Nov 29th 2009 1:19PM
Not sure Steam works with Linux - I'd recommend running Windows if you want to game on your PC, you'll have a much nicer experience and larger selection to choose from. ;)
And even if you hate Vista and refuse to beleive Windows 7 is excellent (which it is) than Windows XP can be picked up for $89.99, and is super fast and just great for gaming in general. It'll also run on lower end machines (one of the selling points of Linux).
Sagan @ Nov 29th 2009 1:14PM
It should just work. Just make sure that you have the newest version of Wine from winehq. You can also try using PlayOnLinux, which just uses Wine, but sometimes includes new patches before they make it into a new Wine version.
Darth Bradwart, The Dark Lord of the Sith [ATDF Co-Founder] @ Nov 29th 2009 1:24PM
Dual-booting Windows is the best way.
Windows XP is good and all, but 7 is absolutely spectacular. Microsoft got that one right, and nearly everyone is happy.
Not THAT Matt @ Nov 29th 2009 1:28PM
Yeah, aside from the optical device driver signing problem which seems to keep popping up with 7 (and apparently originated from Vista, but I've never seen affect a VIsta machine), I love it.
It runs a lot faster, and those of us who use IE benefit from that greatly - IE7/8 feels super slow in VIsta, but it's actually usable in Windows 7.
I just wish Tribes would work in Windows 7. :(
CaramelZappa @ Nov 29th 2009 2:14PM
Really, if you want to play games on your linux machine, just dual-boot windows. Linux is great for what it can do but it's really too much of a hassle to get stuff like Steam to work properly with Wine. Just dual-boot, use linux for everything you normally do and boot up windows when you want to play a game. It might not be ideal for you but it "just works" so why not?
Sagan @ Nov 29th 2009 3:02PM
No really Steam has been one of the things which has worked fine on Wine for a long time. Downloading games has worked since at least a year ago (that's when I switched to Ubuntu) and the Wine developers are working on getting the store and stuff to work, too. Also in my experience, the chance that a new release works is now over 50%. And if you add in those that require some fiddling the number might even be 90%.
At least to me it feels like gaming in Linux might work well enough for normal people soon.
Not THAT Matt @ Nov 29th 2009 3:17PM
Or you could just use WIndows and have a 100% "my game actually works" rate - considering the games are made for Windows, I fail to see any excuses as to why this wouldn't work. Sorry, but this is one time when going against "the man" and not using Windows is going to be a bad idea, if you actually want to play games.
Windows XP uses what, 500MB of hard drive space? It can't be that difficult to install/use it...
CaramelZappa @ Nov 29th 2009 3:30PM
Maybe my expectations are high, but when I buy a game I want it to work 100% of the time, and as for that fiddle to get it to work 90% of the time: I buy games to have fun, and fiddling with linux for an hour before even getting to play the game I bought every time I get a new game just seems silly when you can install xp and play hassle free. Hey, if buying a game knowing half the time it isn't going to work and then messing around with linux for a while and searching for fixes is your idea of a good time, go ahead. It just seems like installing windows is a much easier, much more foolproof option, and with the huge chance of games you buy not working in linux, it might end up saving you money.
CaramelZappa @ Nov 29th 2009 3:32PM
I am the king of run on sentences.
Not THAT Matt @ Nov 29th 2009 3:37PM
But Caramel, if he installs Windows XP and his stuff just... works, how will he ever fight the good fight?!
vir1980 @ Nov 29th 2009 11:26PM
jajajaja, i use vista to play my games and use ubuntu for everything else
Sam Beckett @ Nov 29th 2009 1:05PM
I'm confused... Why do you need the disk space?
Just because you buy them, does not mean you have to download them today.
Play one game. Finish it, Uninstall, then install the next game.
This is the 2nd time I saw you guys mentioning needing disk space when you don't.
Darth Bradwart, The Dark Lord of the Sith [ATDF Co-Founder] @ Nov 29th 2009 1:16PM
Installing takes time. A lot of us prefer to have everything ready on the HDD, so we can play on a whim. It's why I upgraded my 360 hard drive, so I could have multiple games installed at once.
HighFiveJesus @ Nov 29th 2009 1:17PM
Truth, i have a massive catalog of games but only a handful are still installed, mostly the ones I just picked up in the last month or so.
I wish you could trade the right to keep downloading all those games for a little store credit or somethin..
Not THAT Matt @ Nov 29th 2009 1:19PM
Given how inexpensive hard drives are, unless you're unemployed or really oor, there aren't a whole lot of reasons to not buy one. A 1TB high performance drive will run you $89.99. That drive after formatting will hold around 920GB of space - let's say the average game size is 10GB (it isn't, lots of games are 3-5GB or smaller) and that's being conservative, than this drive will hold 92 games.
One drive will last you easily 5 years or more before you'd ever need to consider a new one, unless you do a lot of downloading.
Point being - it's inexpensive and a good idea for most people to get a drive if it saves them the hassle of having to download, install, uninstall, redownload and reinstall games every time they want to play a new one.
Also, some people (bless their hearts) have ISPs that limit downloading - they don't have the luxury of having to redownload and install games every time they want to play something.
Me? I have a gaming laptop with two 320GB drives in it - I have the following titles installed:
Age of Empires 2, Age of Empires 3 w/ The Warchiefs, American McGee's Alice (lovely game), Batman - Arkham Asylum, Borderlands, Buccaneers (also a nifty game, from Steam), CoD Modern Warfare 2 (not all that fun, I'll be looking forward to Bad Company 2 next year), C and C Red Alert 3, Dead Space, Postal 2 (classic), Prototype, Resident Evil 5, Risen, Section 8, Steam itself, Supreme Commander, Tribes, the excellent Trine, Tropico 3 (Juanito!!!!) and lastly, World of Warcraft.
I also have Half Life 2 with Episode's 1 and 2, Lost Coast, CS Source, Left 4 Dead 2, Portal, Shadowgrounds, Shadowgrounds Survivor, STALKER, TF2 and Torchlight included with my Steam install - oh, and I just picked up Osmos yesterday for $2. Definately worth it - gotta love Steam/Steam sales, a couple of those games I'd never heard of until I started using Steam!
There are probably a dozen games I own that aren't installed, but all of these games are installed on my second hard drive which means that (most of) they/them won't need to be reinstalled when I reformat my Windows 7 drive. There are a couple titles that simply won't work that way (Half Life 2 is one of them, for instance, along with basically every other Steam game) and that's fine, but it's all easily accessible for me.
CaramelZappa @ Nov 29th 2009 2:16PM
Giant enemy wall of text.
JerJer @ Nov 29th 2009 6:44PM
tl;dr
Joanna D @ Nov 29th 2009 1:11PM
Trackmania is the best game on the list and you don't mention it.
Once again you guys are doing the dirty on the best genre of games - driving.
CaramelZappa @ Nov 29th 2009 2:45PM
I would say "but it's just another driving game" but trackmania is loads of fun.
Katana Master @ Nov 30th 2009 3:00AM
I hate driving games :/
More of a FPS and RPG fan myself.
Solace @ Nov 29th 2009 1:17PM
how is Lucidity?
Hooded Miracle @ Nov 29th 2009 1:26PM
I have not heard kind things.
Great story, great graphics, but horrendous gameplay. That's the gist I get.
All I know is that you get a random selection of items that need to be used to move throughout a level. Problem is, if you don't have the right item to use, or you don't use it the exact correct way, you start the level over. And considering that the main character moves on her own, that means that it ain't your fault.
However, it IS only $2.50, and they said they're putting out a patch to add checkpoints, so if you pick it up for this price, it shouldn't be bad.
CaramelZappa @ Nov 29th 2009 2:20PM
The closest I can describe it is like sideways tetris. You have to put your random differently shaped pieces in just the right spot in order to survive, though there's usually more than one option and it allows you a little wiggle room most of the time. I personally love the gameplay, but it isn't for everyone. It can be a little jarring that a game with such a charming innocent style has such brutal gameplay mechanics. Still though, even if it ends up too hard for you, $2.50 is a great price for a unique little gem like this.
ripslymemc @ Nov 29th 2009 1:26PM
Damn...no Torchlight...
I can wait though, because I bought L4D yesterday (going to play right after this comment) and I need to play through that a bit before I buy another. Steam sales FTW!
Not THAT Matt @ Nov 29th 2009 1:26PM
Yeah, aside from the optical device driver signing problem which seems to keep popping up with 7 (and apparently originated from Vista, but I've never seen affect a VIsta machine), I love it.
It runs a lot faster, and those of us who use IE benefit from that greatly - IE7/8 feels super slow in VIsta, but it's actually usable in Windows 7.
I just wish Tribes would work in Windows 7. :(
Darth Bradwart, The Dark Lord of the Sith [ATDF Co-Founder] @ Nov 29th 2009 1:31PM
I can't believe anyone still uses IE.
Though IE 8 is a big improvement over 6 and 7.
Windows 7 is such a great OS. I'd run it on my netbook, but there were some driver issues I'm too lazy to fix. Still...it feels odd to be running an eight-year old OS.
I definitely upgraded my Vista laptop as soon as I could. Vista Business wasn't bad, but 7 blows it out of the water.
Not THAT Matt @ Nov 29th 2009 1:36PM
I'm just not a huge fan of Firefox, I guess. IE is familiar to me, probably because I use it all day at work. Browsers have always been a personal prefernece, to me, which is why it annoys me how all the "pure nerds" or whatever always try and push Firefox down my throat.
Sorry, but IE8 does the things I need, and as far as I can tell the only huge difference between IE8 and Firefox is that Firefox can accomidate a larger array of browser add-ons.
Not to mention I used Firefox for years, and can't remember a time I used it and didn't encounter horrible memory leaks. :P
Darth Bradwart, The Dark Lord of the Sith [ATDF Co-Founder] @ Nov 29th 2009 1:42PM
The main reason I switched to Firefox (it was 1.5 back then) was because it loaded pages much faster than IE 6, and when you've got a dial-up connection, every bit of speed helps. Even though I switched to broadband later, I stayed with Firefox, mainly because of familiarity. I just prefer the interface over IE's.
To each his own, though.
Not THAT Matt @ Nov 29th 2009 1:46PM
I used it back in the 1.5/2 days :D
EGOvoruhk @ Nov 29th 2009 2:42PM
Oh yeah? Well I used it back when it was called Firebird!
Darth Bradwart, The Dark Lord of the Sith [ATDF Co-Founder] @ Nov 29th 2009 3:01PM
I used it back when it was called Netscape Navigator...
Foetoid @ Nov 29th 2009 4:48PM
I cant stand IE or Firefox. Google Chrome FTW! I havent used anything else since it launched.
gonintendo @ Nov 29th 2009 6:54PM
yeah, google chrome is awesome, the only things that were keeping me from switching were adblock and smooth scrolling. both are availible as extensions now, and the scrolling is actually alot smoother than FF ever was.
CheeziePotato @ Nov 29th 2009 7:49PM
I use Firefox and sometimes Safari (SUPER FAST). I have been hearing great thing about Chrome, but I have a Mac and Chrome isn't released for OSX yet.
Not THAT Matt @ Nov 29th 2009 9:36PM
Adblock is a pretty nifty addition.
Yeah, I'd use Safari if I had a Mac (part of me wants to put OS X on a netbook just for an excuse to use Safari in it's native environment), but I am simply not a fan of the Windows version of Safari - I've also heard from Mac elitists that it's apparently fairly different than the OS X version, fundamentally, and that makes it "not as good."