Yea the value is pretty meh but gpu manufacturers can pretty much sell cards at any prices these days which is a shame. I suspect Nvidia is waiting for AMD's gpus to release a 3060 Super which will slot in between a 3060/3060 Ti. But otherwise, getting a 3060 Ti for a bit more money is a much better value

At this rate, me as well...

Me. 3060 seems good enough for its MSRP, and even the MSRP of 3060 Ti is more than I'm interested in paying for a graphics card. On the other hand, going for anything much weaker than 3060 is already going pretty low.

I don't get how this makes sense. A company that has nothing to do with this lawsuit gets dragged into it? How does that even make sense? I mean I guess it could, but there's got to be some elaborate argument behind this.

I think Nvidia messed up this time and the 3060 should have had the performance of the 3060Ti. Then it would have been a good upgrade. But given how it performs, it could have been the 3050Ti that Viv is asking for.

Of course, it also depends on where you come from and how big the upgrade will be but, comparing it with theprevious generation, the performance jump is smaller than the rest of the Ampere cards.

As for Valve-Apple-Epic, they say it in the article posted by Yuri. Epic says that the 30% cut that Apple makes is unfair, and Apple is using Valve to defend themseles because Valve also get a 30% cut, and they'll use that to claim that it's a common practice.

The problem here, and it's something that Epic can use against that if they have better lawyers (or at least better than  Valve's), is that developers are given free keys that they put on sale at other platforms like Humble Bundle, Fanatical, GMG, etc. from wich Valve gets nothing, something that Apple doesn't do.

In hindsight I looked on Ebay back in November and they (2080Ti) were going for 500 bucks and passed because I wanted a 3070, seems like a bargain now. But those guys got burned, hard. GPU's are going for waaaaay more than MSRP even old Pascal cards.

Could definitely be better, but roughly moving up a tier per generation (xx60 -> xx70) seems fine to me. It's not the best jump, but it seems acceptable to me. It's probably not the best value for money, but personally I don't find the value too low (assuming the prices do drop to MSRP at some point). That said, it probably does depend on where you're coming from. 970, like me? Definitely worth it. 2060 or 2070? Probably not.

I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't make much sense to me. That's like saying "everyone's committing this wrong, so it's OK", and the next step would be 'you must sue everyone instead of just us to correct this wrong'. Besides, to me it sounds like what Apple requested (and got) was more than they needed to prove that point (at least that what it sounded like when I read the earlier news regarding this, but I don't care enough to look for the news again to check).

Yeah, I was playing a Cappadocian (middle ages setting) or a True Brujah (Modern nights), both Promethean (as in, believing in a society where Kindred and mortals live side by side) on the Path of Entelechy (Roads and Paths have also been eliminated btw). Neither character really works anymore with 5e.

Sadly, I never played Exalted, so I don't know very much about it.

Right now? Anybody who want a GPU, any GPU, to play some games.

On the long run? Probably not many people unless the price drops below $180.

The card itself is ok-ish as you say, the problem comes wihen you compare it to the rest of the Ampere cards already released. That the 3070 blows past the 2080 and 2080S and goes on par with the 2080Ti and the 3060Ti not only beats the 2070 and 2070S, but it also goes past the 2080 and ends on par with the 2080S. And the 3060 now released? It's "just" on par with the 2070 from the previous generation, it can't even come close to the 2070S.

So well, it's an ok card by itself but, compared to the rest of the family, it doesn't perform as well as them.

If I'm honest, the whole Epic vs Apple situation is the result of both sides being dicks, begining with Epic that tried to be smarter than everyone else by bypassing Apple's paying system to get 100% of the money to Apple overreacting and blocking Epic from its store entirely.

Beyond that, there are a lot of things I don't know that could shed some light into the data requested. Is the data from games released on both the Apple store and Steam? That could be understandable to make a fair comparion between stores. Does Valve get a cut from every microtransaction made in-game, even if the purchase doesn't go through Steam payment methods?

Other than that, I fail to see how Epic can win this lawsuit. PC is an open ecosystem with lots of manufacturers to choose from and several stores to use to purchase your games. With Apple that's not the case, it's a closes system and you know you'll be forced to use Apple's control to do anything. And when it comes to the Apple store, I'm sure any publisher signs a contract stating the terms of service, and Epic clearly violated those. It's a lost cause.

That judge is clueless views mobile market the same as pc

Sure, not much to argue here. If you're willing to pay more for better value, the 3060 doesn't seem like a great choice.

Epic is definitely being a dick, with both Apple and Valve, albeit in somewhat different ways. The point about the 30 % cut being too large is a good one though, but at the same time Epic is making itself look greedy. The whole situation is a bit of a mess, and seems like an expensive one for everyone involved. In the only, publishers will be the biggest winners, with consumers potentially being another if Apple's closed ecosystem somehow ends up opening as a result.

On PC there's no lawsuit and one wouldn't make sense anyway. With Apple, I can actually see this lawsuit making some sense, because Apple's closed ecosystem is actually not great for competition. The same goes for consoles and probably a lot of other stuff as well, so there's definitely been time for closed ecosystems on closed platforms to fall in courts, but that hasn't happened yet so it seems reasonable to assume that they are indeed legal. However, I'm sure Epic wouldn't have gone to court unless they thought they had a real chance to win. Indeed, the chance most lilkely is there (somewhere). And just to clarify, I doubt Epic breaking the terms of Apple's service are anything that's being discussed in the court; It was just the trigger for the lawsuit, which to my understanding is being pressed for formally different reasons.

(As for the 30 % cut, it's way harder for me to imagine there actually being anything that Epic can win. That's probably one reason why they decided to target Apple instead of Valve.)