PC Exclusive Features for Sleeping Dogs

[Ps360]

[JackAttack]

These aren't really PC exclusive features. The main difference stated here is that they've worked more extensively on the PC version's graphics because a PC can support better graphics than consoles.

[Ps360]

These aren't really PC exclusive features. The main difference stated here is that they've worked more extensively on the PC version's graphics because a PC can support better graphics than consoles.

higher quality textures

Exclusive clothing in-game


Promised 60 FPS at 1080p

[AizawaYuuichi]

Promised 60 FPS at 1080p

What bugs me is that Super Stardust HD runs at 60 FPS at 1080p on the PS3, so we know it's possible on the console. But most devs are just too lazy to put in the effort to make the larger textures and smoother framerates. So, while this is only for the PC version of Sleeping Dogs, it's nice to see that some devs haven't given up on quality yet.

[ant1th3s1s]

What bugs me is that Super Stardust HD runs at 60 FPS at 1080p on the PS3, so we know it's possible on the console. But most devs are just too lazy to put in the effort to make the larger textures and smoother framerates. So, while this is only for the PC version of Sleeping Dogs, it's nice to see that some devs haven't given up on quality yet.

60FPS @ 1080p is entirely game resource and hardware-dependent. That feature comes with a huge caveat...a max spec gaming enthusiast rig with recent GPU, not a min spec Mom and Dad out-of-the-box desktop with on-board graphics. The latter is a fairer comparison with 5 and 6 year old consoles.

Super Stardust HD is a mini-game in comparison to a full-blown FPS or 3PS game running at 1920 x 1080. So is Wipeout HD. They barely scratch the surface of a modern PC's capabilities but push a 5 year old PS3 at 1080p. There's no way a current-gen console can pump out any half-decent shooter at 1080p, no matter how optimized the game assets and code.

PC master race...wonk wonk wonk. It's true, but only if you're prepared to pay for it.

[Ps360]

PC master race...wonk wonk wonk. It's true, but only if you're prepared to pay for it.

The Reward is bigger than the risk

[JackAttack]

The Reward is bigger than the risk

Considering you're spending a shitton of money every 3 years or so just to stay current, and all you're getting in return is slightly better entertainment, I'd say it highly depends on what kind of person you are if the reward really is better than the risk.

[AizawaYuuichi]

60FPS @ 1080p is entirely game resource and hardware-dependent. That feature comes with a huge caveat...a max spec gaming enthusiast rig with recent GPU, not a min spec Mom and Dad out-of-the-box desktop with on-board graphics. The latter is a fairer comparison with 5 and 6 year old consoles.

Super Stardust HD is a mini-game in comparison to a full-blown FPS or 3PS game running at 1920 x 1080. So is Wipeout HD. They barely scratch the surface of a modern PC's capabilities but push a 5 year old PS3 at 1080p. There's no way a current-gen console can pump out any half-decent shooter at 1080p, no matter how optimized the game assets and code.

PC master race...wonk wonk wonk. It's true, but only if you're prepared to pay for it.

I was speaking more in general, rather than just about shooters. I just mean even a lot of download games that aren't necessarily resource hogs don't get these kind of specs. And it's because the devs are lazy, and 30fps@720p is easier (and cheaper).

Considering you're spending a shitton of money every 3 years or so just to stay current, and all you're getting in return is slightly better entertainment, I'd say it highly depends on what kind of person you are if the reward really is better than the risk.

There's really no risk at all, though. Other than wasting money. But if you've got the money to drop on a top of the line computer every three years, I'd say there's no real risk involved, as you'd hopefully be buying enough games to make it worth it. Or... obtaining them in some other fashion... >.>
So it's more like, the Reward is there, if you choose to accept it and pay for it.

[JackAttack]

There's really no risk at all, though. Other than wasting money. But if you've got the money to drop on a top of the line computer every three years, I'd say there's no real risk involved, as you'd hopefully be buying enough games to make it worth it. Or... obtaining them in some other fashion... >.>
So it's more like, the Reward is there, if you choose to accept it and pay for it.

The 'risk' that I was referring to was wasting money.

[ant1th3s1s]

Considering you're spending a shitton of money every 3 years or so just to stay current, and all you're getting in return is slightly better entertainment, I'd say it highly depends on what kind of person you are if the reward really is better than the risk.

That's precisely why I dropped PC gaming for consoles. I spent at least $3-4K on a new gaming PC every 3 years dating back 20 years and it just wasn't worth it for the time I have available to play.

In terms of total cost of video game ownership, factor in the 90% piracy rates on PC and it may end up being cheaper overall to go with PC. But that makes you a dirty thief who steals from the industry instead of supporting it.

The Reward is bigger than the risk

You mean because the games look better? Tsk tsk tsk doodles...you're a walking contradiction.