Playstation The Official Playstation 5 Thread

[Mjolnir Reborn]

oh I see. I don't know how long ago it was that the gap in performance between PCs and consoles not as significant. was it during the 7th generation, or earlier?

I remember when Ps4 & Xbone launched and a lot of people were calling them underpowered when coming from the Ps3 & 360, respectively. but people say that the Ps5/Series X consoles are the significant leap that console generations are supposed to be. but so far, I haven't seen any video game that blows me away visually. I feel like one could argue that these consoles haven't even tapped into their full potential which begs the question, why is a Ps5 pro even necessary, practically speaking?

keep in mind though, last year Sony raised the price of the Ps5 by $30 in several other regions outside of the US. I also think the fact that Sony's sales forecast had to be slashed by 4 million units is also kind of a testament that it is chasing off customers on some level.

I don't remember the individual comparisons perfectly as I was primarily a PC gamer for most of that, but I do remember it taking a couple of years or so before PC got the clear advantage over some consoles.

The PS5 was definitely more competitive in performance at launch than the PS4 was, but I agree that it wasn't all that strong compared to what was available on PC. Hence why I think it would be interesting to see an option to bring that a bit closer. A problem is the escalated prices though as console prices aren't really increasing much but PC components are much more expensive than they used to be. That's a significant part of why consoles can't compete since while consoles can be better optimized you still get what you pay for.

As for the benefit of a Pro version, it will likely just be with the goal of not having to choose between performance and graphic fidelity modes in games but to get both in one.

Increased prices of course can change the sales a bit but we're also talking about increasing the price on the same performance and a ton of people that want a PS5 already have it. That's a tougher sell than selling something that's significantly better at a higher price.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

I don't remember the individual comparisons perfectly as I was primarily a PC gamer for most of that, but I do remember it taking a couple of years or so before PC got the clear advantage over some consoles.

I don't remember it either, but I think it was some time around the seventh generation. That was when consoles made the jump to HD and sub-HD resolutions.

The PS5 was definitely more competitive in performance at launch than the PS4 was, but I agree that it wasn't all that strong compared to what was available on PC. Hence why I think it would be interesting to see an option to bring that a bit closer. A problem is the escalated prices though as console prices aren't really increasing much but PC components are much more expensive than they used to be. That's a significant part of why consoles can't compete since while consoles can be better optimized you still get what you pay for.

The bolded was the sign for me back in 2020. You mention this later in your post, but I remember when Demon's Souls was announced and that there was a fidelity mode and a performance mode that you would have to choose from when playing. And when all the talk came of the jump in power from Ps4 to 5, one that was supposed to make a real difference compared to the jump from the Ps3 to 4, immediately I thought..."well the important thing to take away here is that the possibility exists on PC to have both graphics and performance without having to compromise"

so after 7 years if the Ps5 really is a better jump than its predecessor was from its predecessor, why are there still shortcomings of this sort? that's what I was asking myself, and others. and I know that we live in an age where PC will just always outperform consoles, but the example I brought up was Demon's Souls. That's a Ps5 exclusive game, built from the ground up with only one console in mind. The developers knew that they had boundaries for what they were capable of and for their vision, there were already limitations and thus had to force players to make a choice.

So right out of the gate, going into the ninth generation was a bit of a disappointment for me already.

As for the benefit of a Pro version, it will likely just be with the goal of not having to choose between performance and graphic fidelity modes in games but to get both in one.

for the latter half of the generation, sure. but it will likely just be a half step from the Ps5, just like the Ps4 pro was to the OG. we'll have to wait and see for the actual reveal of this gen's pro console and then what the pricing is going to be. for the next generation though, I really hope it's a leap significant enough that there won't be setbacks for developers and at the same time that we won't have to pay more than half a thousand dollars for the entry level console.

Increased prices of course can change the sales a bit but we're also talking about increasing the price on the same performance and a ton of people that want a PS5 already have it.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. yes, a lot of people who wanted the Ps5 have one, but the console generations last at least 7 years so the Ps5 is meant to continue its appeal over that time with more and more new software.

That's a tougher sell than selling something that's significantly better at a higher price.

I don't know about that yo. I think any video game console hardware priced above $500 is going to be a tough sell to consumers especially when there is appealing hardware that is retailing for an amount much more affordable than that. this is what history has shown us.

 

[Drizzle]

Me: I think companies might be flooding the market a little too much with rereleases of old games.

Also me when rereleases of the original Battlefront games are announced:

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Me: I think companies might be flooding the market a little too much with rereleases of old games.

Also me when rereleases of the original Battlefront games are announced:

hey yo, I would have the same reaction if Sony ever remasters LittleBigPlanet 2! Those games are still stuck on Ps3

I have been dying to do a playthrough of that game with my wife and I would really love to not have to plug in the Ps3 just to do that

 

[Drizzle]

hey yo, I would have the same reaction if Sony ever remasters LittleBigPlanet 2! Those games are still stuck on Ps3

I have been dying to do a playthrough of that game with my wife and I would really love to not have to plug in the Ps3 just to do that

I just want a GTA IV port myself.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

I just want a GTA IV port myself.

quite a few people have been asking for this. I don't know how what the chances of this is. I feel like Rockstar wasn't exactly happy with the outcome of the Ps2 GTA remasters

 

[Drizzle]

quite a few people have been asking for this. I don't know how what the chances of this is. I feel like Rockstar wasn't exactly happy with the outcome of the Ps2 GTA remasters

Those remasters were a colossal waste of money, especially since they already ported the PS2 trilogy over. That was all anyone needed, the remakes weren't necessary at all.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Those remasters were a colossal waste of money, especially since they already ported the PS2 trilogy over. That was all anyone needed, the remakes weren't necessary at all.

dang...that was always the creeping suspicion that I had about those remasters. they weren't really something that the masses were asking for, and they were subpar or below subpar as far as remasters go. and on top of that, they were pretty much forgotten about because of how unfavorable the release was.

 

[KillerMcQueen]

quite a few people have been asking for this. I don't know how what the chances of this is. I feel like Rockstar wasn't exactly happy with the outcome of the Ps2 GTA remasters

R* only has themselves to blame on that one, the trilogy remasters should've been an easy win for them, but they handed them off to GSG, who had already mishandled those three games on their mobile ports.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

R* only has themselves to blame on that one, the trilogy remasters should've been an easy win for them, but they handed them off to GSG, who had already mishandled those three games on their mobile ports.

yeah, the onus is definitely on them for fumbling the release of that remaster. it must be one of the biggest blunders that they've ever had. and like you said, it would've been a very easy success for them in every sense of the word

it's because of that though that I feel like remasters are going to be unlikely. a lot of people weren't happy with the Red Dead Redemption port either.

 

[KillerMcQueen]

yeah, the onus is definitely on them for fumbling the release of that remaster. it must be one of the biggest blunders that they've ever had. and like you said, it would've been a very easy success for them in every sense of the word

it's because of that though that I feel like remasters are going to be unlikely. a lot of people weren't happy with the Red Dead Redemption port either.

It's absolutely wild to think that R* of all companies has fallen so low that they're put off by the very idea of putting even a sliver of an effort into more than one project at a time.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

It's absolutely wild to think that R* of all companies has fallen so low that they're put off by the very idea of putting even a sliver of an effort into more than one project at a time.

I had to look this up because you mentioned it...the Red Dead Redemption port wasn't even done by them either! Not that I cared because I thought it was a ripoff to begin with so I didn't buy it, but all this time I just assumed they ported it, but they outsourced it to a developer called Double Eleven!

 

[KillerMcQueen]

I had to look this up because you mentioned it...the Red Dead Redemption port wasn't even done by them either! Not that I cared because I thought it was a ripoff to begin with so I didn't buy it, but all this time I just assumed they ported it, but they outsourced it to a developer called Double Eleven!

To Double Eleven's credit, they at least managed the bare minimum of not making the game actively worse than the original at launch, it's a bare minimum remaster and overpriced, but they at least did it competently. The GTA Trilogy took months of updates to get to the point where it debatably became better than the originals.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

To Double Eleven's credit, they at least managed the bare minimum of not making the game actively worse than the original at launch, it's a bare minimum remaster and overpriced, but they at least did it competently. The GTA Trilogy took months of updates to get to the point where it debatably became better than the originals.

yeah, that's true. I was just piggybacking off of your point about how Rockstar couldn't be bothered to do a remaster on their own. as far as I know, the game ran just fine, but the controversy surrounding it was how they charged full price for it

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

The bolded was the sign for me back in 2020. You mention this later in your post, but I remember when Demon's Souls was announced and that there was a fidelity mode and a performance mode that you would have to choose from when playing. And when all the talk came of the jump in power from Ps4 to 5, one that was supposed to make a real difference compared to the jump from the Ps3 to 4, immediately I thought..."well the important thing to take away here is that the possibility exists on PC to have both graphics and performance without having to compromise"

so after 7 years if the Ps5 really is a better jump than its predecessor was from its predecessor, why are there still shortcomings of this sort? that's what I was asking myself, and others. and I know that we live in an age where PC will just always outperform consoles, but the example I brought up was Demon's Souls. That's a Ps5 exclusive game, built from the ground up with only one console in mind. The developers knew that they had boundaries for what they were capable of and for their vision, there were already limitations and thus had to force players to make a choice.

So right out of the gate, going into the ninth generation was a bit of a disappointment for me already.

The choice between frame rate and maximum graphics can always be there. You can design any game so that even the most powerful computer can't run it at max settings at X fps. It's just a game design choice and they could have made Demon's Souls only run at 60 fps and not offered a higher graphics choice. The only actual difference would be just that though; that there wasn't a choice for the player. The only way to make it actually better than what we got is to throw more money on it to get better components, and seeing how Sony already sold the console at a loss at the start it would definitely mean a higher selling price.

for the latter half of the generation, sure. but it will likely just be a half step from the Ps5, just like the Ps4 pro was to the OG. we'll have to wait and see for the actual reveal of this gen's pro console and then what the pricing is going to be. for the next generation though, I really hope it's a leap significant enough that there won't be setbacks for developers and at the same time that we won't have to pay more than half a thousand dollars for the entry level console.

Yes, it's because it's just a half step that I think they'll settle for something that, hopefully, can do normal PS5 graphics mode at 60 fps. That way it doesn't really change much for developers, and it won't have to cost that much more.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. yes, a lot of people who wanted the Ps5 have one, but the console generations last at least 7 years so the Ps5 is meant to continue its appeal over that time with more and more new software.

I mean that increasing the price on the existing console just means value for the money, and demand should be lower at this point in the cycle since all the ones that want it the most will have gotten it already. If you create a better version that costs more you can still maintain the same value for the money if you want, it's just a product that is more premium.

I don't know about that yo. I think any video game console hardware priced above $500 is going to be a tough sell to consumers especially when there is appealing hardware that is retailing for an amount much more affordable than that. this is what history has shown us.

While things are tighter for many now with widespread high inflation and so on I don't think there's any lack of a market for premium products in general. For example, tons of people buy new flagship smartphones every 2 years, despite quite small differences from year to year, and that's far more expensive than even getting a $1000 console and keeping it for the expected generational cycle. It wouldn't be as attractive as the normally priced edition but that is why my hypothetical scenario still has that and just adds a premium option. I'm not saying that I think it will happen, but I find the scenario interesting.

 

[darthcoolness3]

Since Microsoft is planning on porting Xbox exclusives to other platforms, Sony should do the same thing and port their Playstation Exclusives to other platforms as well

 

[Gee]

Since Microsoft is planning on porting Xbox exclusives to other platforms, Sony should do the same thing and port their Playstation Exclusives to other platforms as well

They already are. The "other platforms" are PC and mobile for now and possibly their streaming service.

There's a document with graphics and all from their last fiscal year (or was it the previous one?) detailing what those platforms are. And Sony's president, and current interim PlayStation's CEO, talked about multi-platform releases just last week.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

The choice between frame rate and maximum graphics can always be there. You can design any game so that even the most powerful computer can't run it at max settings at X fps. It's just a game design choice and they could have made Demon's Souls only run at 60 fps and not offered a higher graphics choice. The only actual difference would be just that though; that there wasn't a choice for the player. The only way to make it actually better than what we got is to throw more money on it to get better components, and seeing how Sony already sold the console at a loss at the start it would definitely mean a higher selling price.

wow, I never knew that. I would think that if a game like Demon's Souls released on PC, that there would be no compromise; you get the best possible graphics, with the best possible performance

I mean that increasing the price on the existing console just means value for the money, and demand should be lower at this point in the cycle since all the ones that want it the most will have gotten it already. If you create a better version that costs more you can still maintain the same value for the money if you want, it's just a product that is more premium.

I think a lot of people that want it still haven't gotten it, to be honest and it could just be because they are waiting for a price cut. like I said, the generation is supposed to last for a little less than a decade, and the attraction to the console is supposed to last overtime because of the ongoing software availability. hell, GTA was mentioned earlier and I bet a lot of people might be holding off on buying a current gen console because they're just waiting for that game to release first.

While things are tighter for many now with widespread high inflation and so on I don't think there's any lack of a market for premium products in general. For example, tons of people buy new flagship smartphones every 2 years, despite quite small differences from year to year, and that's far more expensive than even getting a $1000 console and keeping it for the expected generational cycle. It wouldn't be as attractive as the normally priced edition but that is why my hypothetical scenario still has that and just adds a premium option. I'm not saying that I think it will happen, but I find the scenario interesting.

I understand what you are saying here, but I think we may have to just agree to disagree. no two ways about it, I just do not feel that releasing a console upwards of $500 is a good idea in any way shape or form. the smartphone industry is often compared to the video game industry because of the hardware cycles but just like how it isn't a 1 to 1 comparison with movies and tv, it isn't a 1 to 1 comparison here either.

cell phones are an actual necessity and the life cycle of a generation is on a yearly basis with them. but hey, I have been wrong before so I could be wrong now too! we'll just have to wait and see what happens. as of right now, the Ps5 pro itself existing is still just a rumor so we have no idea what the price will be and if the standard console will get a price cut before then.

before the Ps5 launched, I was really advocating for them to price it below $500 but a lot of evidence pointed toward that being the retail price, which ended up being true.

They already are. The "other platforms" are PC and mobile for now and possibly their streaming service.

There's a document with graphics and all from their last fiscal year (or was it the previous one?) detailing what those platforms are. And Sony's president, and current interim PlayStation's CEO, talked about multi-platform releases just last week.

I think @darthcoolness3 means porting playstation games to other consoles and I don't think that is going to happen, not unless Sony is on their last fumes with playstation as a business and the only way to survive would be to go that way.

Since Microsoft is planning on porting Xbox exclusives to other platforms, Sony should do the same thing and port their Playstation Exclusives to other platforms as well

absolutely not. Nintendo is definitely not going to do that, and playstation won't do it either. Xbox is the odd one out, and the only reason they are doing this is because it's a last resort and the higher ups at Microsoft are forcing the leaders at Xbox to do it for a ROI from all the investments they have been making.

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

wow, I never knew that. I would think that if a game like Demon's Souls released on PC, that there would be no compromise; you get the best possible graphics, with the best possible performance

You can make things as detailed (and thus computing intensive) as you want, with the extreme being CGI for Hollywood movies. To make an example, I think one scene in Frozen took 30 hours per frame to render, and they used 4000 computers simultaneously. So the sky is the limit (well, you're limited by your game engine and so on, but still). The old PC game Crysis was famous for that no computer could run it at max settings with good fps when it was released, so it became a meme for many years to ask "can it run Crysis?" when someone reviewed new hardware.

You have to design your game with an intended level of hardware in mind, which is especially true for consoles where everyone will be using the same hardware, and you try to make it as good looking as possible while hitting acceptable frame rates. 30 used to be the console target but the current gen went for 60, which I think was the right move.

I think a lot of people that want it still haven't gotten it, to be honest and it could just be because they are waiting for a price cut. like I said, the generation is supposed to last for a little less than a decade, and the attraction to the console is supposed to last overtime because of the ongoing software availability. hell, GTA was mentioned earlier and I bet a lot of people might be holding off on buying a current gen console because they're just waiting for that game to release first.

I agree, to get the people that's been on the fence a price cut is the best way to go if it's possible. Hence why actually increasing the price made clearly harder to sell, even though the price increase was due to components getting more expensive.

I understand what you are saying here, but I think we may have to just agree to disagree. no two ways about it, I just do not feel that releasing a console upwards of $500 is a good idea in any way shape or form. the smartphone industry is often compared to the video game industry because of the hardware cycles but just like how it isn't a 1 to 1 comparison with movies and tv, it isn't a 1 to 1 comparison here either.

cell phones are an actual necessity and the life cycle of a generation is on a yearly basis with them. but hey, I have been wrong before so I could be wrong now too! we'll just have to wait and see what happens. as of right now, the Ps5 pro itself existing is still just a rumor so we have no idea what the price will be and if the standard console will get a price cut before then.

before the Ps5 launched, I was really advocating for them to price it below $500 but a lot of evidence pointed toward that being the retail price, which ended up being true.

Yes, it's fine that we don't agree. It's just about sharing opinions.

Smartphones are more vital in everyday life but so many people buy much more expensive phones than what's needed for how they use them, and they buy new ones way more often than they need as well. The cheapest version of the iPhone top model costs more than twice as much as a PS5, and Samsung aren't shy in their pricing either. I think it's highly unlikely that any other product can fool people out of their money as well as smartphones do, but if you can convince people that they want a premium product it will sell and I do think there is a market for a premium console somewhere between current consoles and higher end gaming PC's.

The problem with low pricing points is that PC components (and current consoles are pretty much just custom PC designs) have gone up quite a bit in price so that, and general inflation, does require higher prices to make new consoles that have the same relative power as previous ones at their releases. It's a tough balance for the companies between price and performance. With the Xbox team saying that the next generation will be a much bigger leap in performance I'm assuming the next generation will be more expensive, as Sony of course have to match that power to not seem like they have a poor product in comparison. But that's a matter for a few years from now.

 

[darthcoolness3]

They already are. The "other platforms" are PC and mobile for now and possibly their streaming service.

There's a document with graphics and all from their last fiscal year (or was it the previous one?) detailing what those platforms are. And Sony's president, and current interim PlayStation's CEO, talked about multi-platform releases just last week.

we need Ratchet and Clank, and the Spider-Man games on Nintendo Switch and Xbox

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

You can make things as detailed (and thus computing intensive) as you want, with the extreme being CGI for Hollywood movies. To make an example, I think one scene in Frozen took 30 hours per frame to render, and they used 4000 computers simultaneously. So the sky is the limit (well, you're limited by your game engine and so on, but still). The old PC game Crysis was famous for that no computer could run it at max settings with good fps when it was released, so it became a meme for many years to ask "can it run Crysis?" when someone reviewed new hardware.

I remember the Crysis games, and for a while they were the most photorealistic games we ever saw! The last time my mind was blown like that again was with Red Dead Redemption 2. I haven't been as active this generation as I was last generation but honestly, I don't think I have seen a game from this generation that blew me away the same way.

Take Spider-Man 2, for example. to most other people its visual fidelity is probably something to impress, but to me without a side by side comparison, my brain just doesn't register much of a difference between it and the first game. I'd go so far as to say Redemption 2 was the greater technical feat.

I agree, to get the people that's been on the fence a price cut is the best way to go if it's possible. Hence why actually increasing the price made clearly harder to sell, even though the price increase was due to components getting more expensive.

the other thing about that I don't get is that with video game generations being more than half a decade long, I would think that overtime, with the cost of the old hardware going down, the cost of the newer hardware would be staying consistent in pricing and therefore should be something similar to what the old hardware was when it was brand new, if that makes sense. that's why I was really thinking the Ps5 could have been $400 at launch, since its hardware launching 7 years after its predecessor.

Yes, it's fine that we don't agree. It's just about sharing opinions.

certainly! you are clearly very knowledgable on this subject, and as I said, I've been wrong about these things before so for right now only time will tell.

Smartphones are more vital in everyday life but so many people buy much more expensive phones than what's needed for how they use them, and they buy new ones way more often than they need as well. The cheapest version of the iPhone top model costs more than twice as much as a PS5, and Samsung aren't shy in their pricing either. I think it's highly unlikely that any other product can fool people out of their money as well as smartphones do, but if you can convince people that they want a premium product it will sell and I do think there is a market for a premium console somewhere between current consoles and higher end gaming PC's.

it is an unfortunate truth, and I feel like a lot of this is Apple's doing. they were the first to remove the headphone jack from their smartphones, they were the first to remove the charging adapter from the packaging, and they were the first to mark the price of a smartphone up to $1,000. ultimately though, there are more people with smartphones than video game consoles and they generally sell more and faster than video game consoles do.

since they come at more of a yearly basis, there is a more present trade-in program than there is for consoles so it's less of a perceived value lost for customers as well.

The problem with low pricing points is that PC components (and current consoles are pretty much just custom PC designs) have gone up quite a bit in price so that, and general inflation, does require higher prices to make new consoles that have the same relative power as previous ones at their releases. It's a tough balance for the companies between price and performance. With the Xbox team saying that the next generation will be a much bigger leap in performance I'm assuming the next generation will be more expensive, as Sony of course have to match that power to not seem like they have a poor product in comparison. But that's a matter for a few years from now.

this goes along with what I was saying before; yes, the next Xbox will be a much bigger leap in raw power, but that's still several years away; if it were to come out now, it would be more expensive than the current Series X, but by the time it comes out, why wouldn't be a similar price to the Series X now?

we need Ratchet and Clank, and the Spider-Man games on Nintendo Switch and Xbox

why exactly do we "need" that? and do you feel the same way about Mario, Pokemon, Zelda & Metroid on Ps5 and Xbox?

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

I remember the Crysis games, and for a while they were the most photorealistic games we ever saw! The last time my mind was blown like that again was with Red Dead Redemption 2. I haven't been as active this generation as I was last generation but honestly, I don't think I have seen a game from this generation that blew me away the same way.

Take Spider-Man 2, for example. to most other people its visual fidelity is probably something to impress, but to me without a side by side comparison, my brain just doesn't register much of a difference between it and the first game. I'd go so far as to say Redemption 2 was the greater technical feat.

Different things can appeal to us so it may affect how we view graphics. If we're talking the previous console generation I was the most impressed with TLOU2 from a graphical standpoint. Very surprised that they made something that nice on a PS4.

the other thing about that I don't get is that with video game generations being more than half a decade long, I would think that overtime, with the cost of the old hardware going down, the cost of the newer hardware would be staying consistent in pricing and therefore should be something similar to what the old hardware was when it was brand new, if that makes sense. that's why I was really thinking the Ps5 could have been $400 at launch, since its hardware launching 7 years after its predecessor.

Prices tend to go up over time in most things, particularly in fields where you keep advancing the technology. We can take an example of graphics cards. I remember the release of The Witcher 3 very well so I'll use that time (2015) to compare to today. Back then the best and most expensive graphics card was a GeForce GTX Titan X and the Asus version released in Sweden at a price of about $1200 (including tax, and for simplicity I'm using today's exchange rate). It's possible there was some cheaper version available.

Fastforward today and the top graphics card is the GeForce RTX 4090. The cheapest version I can see in Sweden is $2250, and since most stores sell it at a higher price it's double the price of what was best in 2015. I bought a GTX 970 for The Witcher 3 which was about $400 and discounted to $320. You can't get any of this generation's Nvidia cards for that money and a 4070 costs $700 and up.

With this price history it's quite amazing how low console prices are. Now they are using AMD hardware but prices have still gone up, and not just for GPU's either. This is why I'm more surprised at the low prices than I would be if prices were increased.

it is an unfortunate truth, and I feel like a lot of this is Apple's doing. they were the first to remove the headphone jack from their smartphones, they were the first to remove the charging adapter from the packaging, and they were the first to mark the price of a smartphone up to $1,000. ultimately though, there are more people with smartphones than video game consoles and they generally sell more and faster than video game consoles do.

since they come at more of a yearly basis, there is a more present trade-in program than there is for consoles so it's less of a perceived value lost for customers as well.

Yes, there's certainly a difference in the markets for phones and consoles. My main point was just to make an example of how luxury consumption is still quite strong.

this goes along with what I was saying before; yes, the next Xbox will be a much bigger leap in raw power, but that's still several years away; if it were to come out now, it would be more expensive than the current Series X, but by the time it comes out, why wouldn't be a similar price to the Series X now?

I don't know what the price will be for the next generation. As said I have expected more of an increase before, but have been surprised at the low prices.

To look a bit closer to current day I think the Pro release will be quite interesting to follow. It was reported today that Sony will market it as capable of 120 fps at 4k, which is very surprising to me. Granted the PS4 was sold on 60 fps and 4k but in practice we have to choose between the two rather than get both. Still they would have to do some quite special things to get close to that goal with the Pro since the reports haven't been particularly impressive in terms of hardware upgrades.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Different things can appeal to us so it may affect how we view graphics. If we're talking the previous console generation I was the most impressed with TLOU2 from a graphical standpoint. Very surprised that they made something that nice on a PS4.

Oh yeah, for last generation for sure tlou2 was a technical feat, as tlou1 for the seventh generation. But I'm talking about this generation. Has anything stood out to you so far?

For me, it's hard to see the difference in graphics capabilities from last gen to this gen. It's better sure, but not my much from what I can tell.

I've been eyeing Helldivers 2 a lot lately because of all of the hype around it, but if I didn't know it was a Ps5 game, I'd think it's a Ps4 game from watching YouTube videos of it.

Prices tend to go up over time in most things, particularly in fields where you keep advancing the technology. We can take an example of graphics cards. I remember the release of The Witcher 3 very well so I'll use that time (2015) to compare to today. Back then the best and most expensive graphics card was a GeForce GTX Titan X and the Asus version released in Sweden at a price of about $1200 (including tax, and for simplicity I'm using today's exchange rate). It's possible there was some cheaper version available.

Fastforward today and the top graphics card is the GeForce RTX 4090. The cheapest version I can see in Sweden is $2250, and since most stores sell it at a higher price it's double the price of what was best in 2015. I bought a GTX 970 for The Witcher 3 which was about $400 and discounted to $320. You can't get any of this generation's Nvidia cards for that money and a 4070 costs $700 and up.

With this price history it's quite amazing how low console prices are. Now they are using AMD hardware but prices have still gone up, and not just for GPU's either. This is why I'm more surprised at the low prices than I would be if prices were increased.

Dang, nearly a whole $1K increase for the cutting edge gaming tech nearly 10 years later. I guess that's how things just are in this industry. We compared it to smartphones earlier so I guess this is another example of how the comparison isn't always 1 to 1.

Smartphones come out every year, and the price doesn't change that much between them. Let's say video game consoles also came out every year, and the difference in hardware would be incremental too, just like smartphones.

With that in mind, if there was a Ps5 pro with a new version that came out every year until 2028, do you think a Ps6's price would remain consistent? Or would it have already started increasing with the yearly incremental upgrades?

Yes, there's certainly a difference in the markets for phones and consoles. My main point was just to make an example of how luxury consumption is still quite strong.

I agree with you here as well, I just think that people are just willing to spend more and more often on the luxury consumption of smartphones than consoles.

I remember back in 2014 I think it was...the iPhone 5 or 5S sold 10 million smartphones in one weekend, the weekend that it came out. It took the Ps4 several months to achieve the same feat.

I don't know what the price will be for the next generation. As said I have expected more of an increase before, but have been surprised at the low prices.

To look a bit closer to current day I think the Pro release will be quite interesting to follow. It was reported today that Sony will market it as capable of 120 fps at 4k, which is very surprising to me. Granted the PS4 was sold on 60 fps and 4k but in practice we have to choose between the two rather than get both. Still they would have to do some quite special things to get close to that goal with the Pro since the reports haven't been particularly impressive in terms of hardware upgrades.

Yeah, this is why it's still just a guessing game for us until the Ps5 pro is announced. There is a chance that there still might not even be a Ps5 pro at all as it's just a rumor but I admit that it's likely.

It will be interesting to see for sure but I just can't hold high hopes for PlayStations's image if there are no price cuts on the Ps5 before that, because it's going to mean another $600 PlayStation. We'll just have to wait and see. If it's released this year, I think the announcement might come after Nintendo's next console reveal.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

PlayStation 5 Pro Will Be Marketed as a 120 FPS, 4K Machine; Performance Improvements Will Require Little Work

Thanks to AI upscaling and better specs, Sony will market the PlayStation 5 Pro as a 120 FPS, 4K machine

wccftech.com

 

[Iceman]

PlayStation 5 Pro Will Be Marketed as a 120 FPS, 4K Machine; Performance Improvements Will Require Little Work

Thanks to AI upscaling and better specs, Sony will market the PlayStation 5 Pro as a 120 FPS, 4K machine

wccftech.com

120 FPS might be cool for fast twitch competitive multiplayer. I don't need it as a priority above 60 FPS for campaign stuff though. On that pump up the visuals, interactive environments, enemy/ally/NPC numbers and AI please!