Playstation 5 Pro(blog.playstation.com)
blog.playstation.com
Playstation 5 Pro
https://blog.playstation.com/2024/09/10/welcome-playstation-5-pro-the-most-visually-impressive-way-to-play-games-on-playstation/
182 comments
You are grossly overestimating what PS5 can do in regards of 4k, let alone 8k (which nowadays is used by very small percentage of enthusiasts). 4k native is not something most of the modern releases target on PS5, perhaps in some specific moments when the resolution is dynamic and not much is happening on the screen. Or if you're playing at a locked 30 FPS, which is a major tradeoff.
Not disagreeing with you that many heavy PS5 games rely on dynamic resolution to hit a good frame rate. And for some people, that's enough reason to upgrade. They want they best available no matter what.
But my point is that a holding a solid 4k vs dropping down from 4k to 2k upscaled when the action ramps up is barely visible to most people sitting 6 feet from a TV. It's diminishing returns. And what does 8k bring if you don't have a 200in tv? Can you even see the difference?
Digital cameras went through a similar cycle. Since about 2008, high-end digital cameras have been good enough that the pictures from them still look great when produced by a good photographer. There has been a lot of sensor improvement since then around dynamic range, etc, but it is not super obvious in a sales demo. Digital camera sales have totally fallen off a cliff and now what sells now is software improvements on cell phones that make it easier to take good pictures with no thought, not drastic hardware improvements.
I think that consoles are starting to hit a point where they are powerful enough for the kinds of games that we currently have the resources to build. Making the graphics even "better" requires an enormous development investment that only pays off for the few most popular blockbuster games. It's hard for a console maker to find compelling demonstrations of why they need more power right now.
Like with cameras, miniaturization and new form factors is really interesting. Nintendo is killing it with the Switch despite the dinosaur hardware. It's a lot easier for them to demo improvements for a Switch 2 because the Switch isn't at the point of "good enough" yet for many types of games.
Of course computers will get more powerful and console development isn't done forever or anything like that. But it feels like the hardware is currently a bit ahead of the software maybe for the first time in history which makes the value of a upgrade tenuous for many consumers.
But my point is that a holding a solid 4k vs dropping down from 4k to 2k upscaled when the action ramps up is barely visible to most people sitting 6 feet from a TV. It's diminishing returns. And what does 8k bring if you don't have a 200in tv? Can you even see the difference?
Digital cameras went through a similar cycle. Since about 2008, high-end digital cameras have been good enough that the pictures from them still look great when produced by a good photographer. There has been a lot of sensor improvement since then around dynamic range, etc, but it is not super obvious in a sales demo. Digital camera sales have totally fallen off a cliff and now what sells now is software improvements on cell phones that make it easier to take good pictures with no thought, not drastic hardware improvements.
I think that consoles are starting to hit a point where they are powerful enough for the kinds of games that we currently have the resources to build. Making the graphics even "better" requires an enormous development investment that only pays off for the few most popular blockbuster games. It's hard for a console maker to find compelling demonstrations of why they need more power right now.
Like with cameras, miniaturization and new form factors is really interesting. Nintendo is killing it with the Switch despite the dinosaur hardware. It's a lot easier for them to demo improvements for a Switch 2 because the Switch isn't at the point of "good enough" yet for many types of games.
Of course computers will get more powerful and console development isn't done forever or anything like that. But it feels like the hardware is currently a bit ahead of the software maybe for the first time in history which makes the value of a upgrade tenuous for many consumers.
I agree with your point re people not even noticing. There are so many titles with jaw-dropping visuals on PS5 and it's hard to complain. But the numbers are numbers - PS5 isn't suited for 4k native gaming and it's not even close. Perhaps with the new upscaling? I don't know. I've RTX 4090 that is leagues ahead of PS5 and there are games that reach its limits in 4k (see Alan Wake 2 - a great game btw, or Black Myth Wukong).
It also boils down to the software part - sadly a lot of games are badly optimized due to laziness. UE5 is getting popular and games made with it have already demonstrated that PS5 may struggle with them. I believe over time PS5 Pro will become the baseline for optimization, leading to more frustrated PS5 owners wanting to upgrade.
Speaking of handhelds, Steamdeck is also mind-blowing good.
It also boils down to the software part - sadly a lot of games are badly optimized due to laziness. UE5 is getting popular and games made with it have already demonstrated that PS5 may struggle with them. I believe over time PS5 Pro will become the baseline for optimization, leading to more frustrated PS5 owners wanting to upgrade.
Speaking of handhelds, Steamdeck is also mind-blowing good.
I doubt they anyways expect the majority of existing PS5 owners to rush to upgrade. Mid cycle console releases are done for the enthusiast crowd and the holdovers from the last generation.
> But I bet 99% of people wouldn't even be able to tell the difference in most real world situations unless they were staring at the two systems side by side with magnifying glasses
I don't think this matters at all. The market of people who uses consoles + care about graphic fidelity / fps count are basically like the audiophile community today, eating up what the companies are pushing on them.
I don't think this matters at all. The market of people who uses consoles + care about graphic fidelity / fps count are basically like the audiophile community today, eating up what the companies are pushing on them.
I know a lot of console fanatics like that and they all like to keep games on disc, shunning digital. The new ps doesn't seem to have an optical drive so I'm really not sure who they're aiming this at.
It does have an optical drive but it is sold separately
$700 and it doesn't even come with an optical drive, oof. The optical upgrade kit for the digital-only PS5 Slim is $80, so the Pro is probably going to be closer to $800 in practice unless you're already all-in on digital.
Asking this as a PC gamer who went fully digital ~15 years ago: why are optical drives such a big deal, is that because of buying/selling used games?
Sony released this tutorial years ago in response to Microsoft making it harder to share Xbox games with your friends: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWSIFh8ICaA
That's lived in my head since.
That's lived in my head since.
It's just below "$299" <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExaAYIKsDBI> among the greatest moments of console marketing.
(The single greatest moment isn't one moment, but turning an obscure technical description into "blast processing". <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bun8tA_ksZw>)
(The single greatest moment isn't one moment, but turning an obscure technical description into "blast processing". <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bun8tA_ksZw>)
Partly due to used games, but even when buying new it's often cheaper to buy physical than digital due to retailers undercutting each other, while the digital store strictly adheres to MSRP until the game has been out for a while.
Not just buying used games, but borrowing games as well. Being able to swap games with friends is a pretty compelling offer.
(I'm all-digital and have been for the last nine years, but there are compelling reasons not to go that route)
(I'm all-digital and have been for the last nine years, but there are compelling reasons not to go that route)
Digital works on PC because there is competition. There are dozens of stores you can buy from, and the developer or publisher can also just sell games directly. On consoles Sony & Microsoft have a monopoly on distribution. So being able to buy/sell/borrow used disks is a huge money saver.
I don't know about optical drives but I bought ~75% of my switch games as used cartridge.
I think a lot of people would stop buying consoles if they couldn't sell the games they have finished or do not like anymore to fund the purchase of other games.
I think a lot of people would stop buying consoles if they couldn't sell the games they have finished or do not like anymore to fund the purchase of other games.
Did you do it for nostalgic purposes? I buy the cartridges for nostalgic purposes. Most of the time the used games I want are only $10-$15 dollars less than a good Amazon or Target price.
I don’t think the younger generations care as much, they just play free games anyway.
I don’t think the younger generations care as much, they just play free games anyway.
> Most of the time the used games I want are only $10-$15 dollars less than a good Amazon or Target price.
I bought Zelda Breath of the Wild for 25€ while it is still sold around 60-65€ on my country's amazon market and is not available anymore in many places.
I mostly buy cartridge because I want to be able to play games regardless what happens of my nintendo account and I like being able to lend and borrow games with other switch owners.
I remember as a kid we would swap games with friends for a few months so we can have access to other games.
I bought Zelda Breath of the Wild for 25€ while it is still sold around 60-65€ on my country's amazon market and is not available anymore in many places.
I mostly buy cartridge because I want to be able to play games regardless what happens of my nintendo account and I like being able to lend and borrow games with other switch owners.
I remember as a kid we would swap games with friends for a few months so we can have access to other games.
I think it’s due to “used games” market about 80%. Some people just like having physical media that can’t be taken away from them; others don’t care and are through with the game for a lifetime after they beat it/grow weary of it. I personally have tons of old games and kind of stopped buying new stuff after PS4. One day you’ll go to download “Gulliver’s Golden Adventure” for nostalgia and Steam will tell you to “fuck off, that game is gone”, but that won’t happen if you have it on vinyl
The PlayStation Store is a monopoly on the PS5, so there's no price competition there.
I compared the prices of disc releases and digital releases on the PS5 in early 2023 and you could often get the physical disc release for cheaper than the digital:
Final Fantasy XVI (PS5): 65€ disc / 80€ digital. Hogwarts Legacy (PS5): 59€ disc / 75€ digital. Diablo IV (PS5): 70€ disc / 80€ digital. Resident Evil 4 (PS5): 60€ disc / 70€ digital.
I compared the prices of disc releases and digital releases on the PS5 in early 2023 and you could often get the physical disc release for cheaper than the digital:
Final Fantasy XVI (PS5): 65€ disc / 80€ digital. Hogwarts Legacy (PS5): 59€ disc / 75€ digital. Diablo IV (PS5): 70€ disc / 80€ digital. Resident Evil 4 (PS5): 60€ disc / 70€ digital.
And 30€ used or 10€ after they're past being brand new.
I refuse to have any business with digital only purchases; for a few reasons:
1. Just like movies, you don't own anything. Revocation can occur at any time.
2. More likely than movies, you might find your game patched to add or remove content you do not want.
3. You can't give your games to the next generation. Which matters a lot when your exposure to gaming started from NES and Atari hand-me-downs.
4. Every game you purchase is chained to just yourself. Which is actually stupidly selfish when you have a large extended family also interested in games. The Switch is a hit for borrowing back and forth from a large network of relatives and friends (and, if Nintendo's reading this and questioning the resale market - this has caused a lot of games to get bought that wouldn't have).
5. If you have a large NES collection, there will be someone interested in paying for it. If you have a large Switch collection, there will be someone interested in paying for it. Physical games have some asset value, and it can be thousands of dollars for larger collections. Digital games have zero value.
1. Just like movies, you don't own anything. Revocation can occur at any time.
2. More likely than movies, you might find your game patched to add or remove content you do not want.
3. You can't give your games to the next generation. Which matters a lot when your exposure to gaming started from NES and Atari hand-me-downs.
4. Every game you purchase is chained to just yourself. Which is actually stupidly selfish when you have a large extended family also interested in games. The Switch is a hit for borrowing back and forth from a large network of relatives and friends (and, if Nintendo's reading this and questioning the resale market - this has caused a lot of games to get bought that wouldn't have).
5. If you have a large NES collection, there will be someone interested in paying for it. If you have a large Switch collection, there will be someone interested in paying for it. Physical games have some asset value, and it can be thousands of dollars for larger collections. Digital games have zero value.
> More likely than movies, you might find your game patched to add or remove content you do not want.
Well this is a complicated point. A lot of games these days rely on digital distribution for day-one patches, a practice which allows developers to continue working on and polishing the game even after it goes gold. Physical only really gives you the option of "no updates at all" (including no day-one patch) or "every update so far to date" (including updates you don't want).
I agree with the rest of your points, but I think that this one would be relevant only in a few extremely niche cases.
Well this is a complicated point. A lot of games these days rely on digital distribution for day-one patches, a practice which allows developers to continue working on and polishing the game even after it goes gold. Physical only really gives you the option of "no updates at all" (including no day-one patch) or "every update so far to date" (including updates you don't want).
I agree with the rest of your points, but I think that this one would be relevant only in a few extremely niche cases.
> Physical only really gives you the option of "no updates at all" (including no day-one patch) or "every update so far to date" (including updates you don't want).
For Switch games, you can always refuse to upgrade the game (the cartridges are read-only, the updates are stored as overlays on the microSD card or internal storage). Switch game cartridges are just fancy flash cards with a long-since reverse engineered communications protocol [1], and there's multiple card dumpers and reflashable cards on the market.
[1] https://switchbrew.org/wiki/Gamecard
For Switch games, you can always refuse to upgrade the game (the cartridges are read-only, the updates are stored as overlays on the microSD card or internal storage). Switch game cartridges are just fancy flash cards with a long-since reverse engineered communications protocol [1], and there's multiple card dumpers and reflashable cards on the market.
[1] https://switchbrew.org/wiki/Gamecard
> 1. Just like movies, you don't own anything. Revocation can occur at any time.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you'll still rely on Sony's servers to get the updates that make the game playable, since it has become customary to ship games riddled with bugs to patch them afterwards (which doesn't happen with movies, yet).
And if they really want to target you specifically, they can still blacklist your console by id, unless you completely stop connecting your console to the Internet.
So, buying the physical version can only protect you against revocation in very specific cases, unless you want to limit yourself to playing the broken version that is shipped on the disc.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you'll still rely on Sony's servers to get the updates that make the game playable, since it has become customary to ship games riddled with bugs to patch them afterwards (which doesn't happen with movies, yet).
And if they really want to target you specifically, they can still blacklist your console by id, unless you completely stop connecting your console to the Internet.
So, buying the physical version can only protect you against revocation in very specific cases, unless you want to limit yourself to playing the broken version that is shipped on the disc.
I don't own a modern console other than the switch.
Can you play a ps5 game from optical media without having ever connected your ps5 to the internet or will some refuse to run?
Can you play a ps5 game from optical media without having ever connected your ps5 to the internet or will some refuse to run?
On the original PS5, yes.
On the PS5 refresh, no, an internet connection is required to activate the drive, whether or not it came in the box.
On the Xbox One... you haven't been able to, for over a decade.
On Switch... Switch is just delightful. The game cards even come with the required system updates (criticism for lack of theming or music aside, the whole OS is under 400MB, so amazing things are possible). You can also update your game or system wirelessly, from any other Switch, which has a higher version of either, no internet necessary.
On the PS5 refresh, no, an internet connection is required to activate the drive, whether or not it came in the box.
On the Xbox One... you haven't been able to, for over a decade.
On Switch... Switch is just delightful. The game cards even come with the required system updates (criticism for lack of theming or music aside, the whole OS is under 400MB, so amazing things are possible). You can also update your game or system wirelessly, from any other Switch, which has a higher version of either, no internet necessary.
>On the PS5 refresh, no, an internet connection is required to activate the drive, whether or not it came in the box.
Because the disc drive and the main board are required to be paired with each other since the PS3/X360 era. People who repair PS3s (except super slims, for some reason) and PS4s need to re-pair the disc drive board with the main board (or failing both, replace both boards with one that has been already paired) every time there is drive replacement: https://www.psdevwiki.com/ps3/Remarry_Bluray_Drive (for PS3)
Because the disc drive and the main board are required to be paired with each other since the PS3/X360 era. People who repair PS3s (except super slims, for some reason) and PS4s need to re-pair the disc drive board with the main board (or failing both, replace both boards with one that has been already paired) every time there is drive replacement: https://www.psdevwiki.com/ps3/Remarry_Bluray_Drive (for PS3)
They've been paired for a long time as you point out; however, that's missing part of the story.
In the past, they were at least paired from the factory. If you pulled your Xbox 360 out of the box, and never connected it to the internet, it would still work.
The PS5 refresh's disc drive is not paired, even from the factory. Without an initial internet connection, it will not work, even out of the box. Also, unlike the Xbox 360, it un-pairs every time you sign out of your personal account.
In the past, they were at least paired from the factory. If you pulled your Xbox 360 out of the box, and never connected it to the internet, it would still work.
The PS5 refresh's disc drive is not paired, even from the factory. Without an initial internet connection, it will not work, even out of the box. Also, unlike the Xbox 360, it un-pairs every time you sign out of your personal account.
Theoretically there is no problem with keeping your PS5 100% offline. It can read and play game disks perfectly fine without the internet. In practice though, plenty of games download additional content even if you have a disk, and there's no way to know in advance.
Yes. I recently did this with Armored Core 6.
> If you have a large NES collection, there will be someone interested in paying for it. If you have a large Switch collection, there will be someone interested in paying for it.
Well, yes for the NES. There's a limited number of cartridges made, there is no digital substitute, and the official cartridges are not being manufactured anymore. The demand for NES games is a product of their scarcity.
But have you tried actually selling a physical copy of a modern game? It's not like you're making your money back, you're lucky to recoup 1/3rd of the MSRP if there's even anyone interested in waiting for your copy to arrive in the mail. But there's also complicating factors like piracy, the immediacy of digital storefronts, and the used market controlling (and lowering) the price of used games. Famously, a trip to GameStop with a stack of PS3 games is worth maybe $5 of in-store credit and a complimentary soda pop.
Well, yes for the NES. There's a limited number of cartridges made, there is no digital substitute, and the official cartridges are not being manufactured anymore. The demand for NES games is a product of their scarcity.
But have you tried actually selling a physical copy of a modern game? It's not like you're making your money back, you're lucky to recoup 1/3rd of the MSRP if there's even anyone interested in waiting for your copy to arrive in the mail. But there's also complicating factors like piracy, the immediacy of digital storefronts, and the used market controlling (and lowering) the price of used games. Famously, a trip to GameStop with a stack of PS3 games is worth maybe $5 of in-store credit and a complimentary soda pop.
Nobody said you'd get all your money back. Used games historically were generally cheaper and unless we're talking retro games, used games are always cheaper. That's the point. You get games cheaper when you buy. You get some money back when you sell. The idea that you need to get everything you spent back is nuts.
>there is no digital substitute
Flash carts exist that can bridge your own digital ROMs to original NES systems.
Flash carts exist that can bridge your own digital ROMs to original NES systems.
> Revocation can occur at any time
Given most games won’t work without online activation, does it even matter in the case of PS? Or you’ll contain yourself to non Sony/Microsoft platforms?
Given most games won’t work without online activation, does it even matter in the case of PS? Or you’ll contain yourself to non Sony/Microsoft platforms?
On PC you have your choice of marketplaces so it's somewhat less of an issue. On console you're locked into just the one marketplace with digital-only consoles, so if Sony wants to charge $100 for a game then that's the price. Once you've paid the $100 it's also tied to your account which is not necessarily always guaranteed to exist or be accessible, and is non-transferable.
Whereas with a disk you can pay substantially less due to your choice of competitive retailers (in my region Space Marine 2 is $79 at some retailers or $109 from Sony), buy secondhand for older titles (most of my library is secondhand), and resell or trade-in games when you're finished with them. And of course it's not tied to an ephemeral account, so you will always have access to the titles you've purchased.
Also for my use case, my PS5 doubles as a Blu-Ray player which is worth a good $100-200 just by itself.
Whereas with a disk you can pay substantially less due to your choice of competitive retailers (in my region Space Marine 2 is $79 at some retailers or $109 from Sony), buy secondhand for older titles (most of my library is secondhand), and resell or trade-in games when you're finished with them. And of course it's not tied to an ephemeral account, so you will always have access to the titles you've purchased.
Also for my use case, my PS5 doubles as a Blu-Ray player which is worth a good $100-200 just by itself.
The situation for PC gamers is somewhat different than for console gamers. There's certain built in expectations in the market for compatibility across generations, long-term licensing, and free network services that just don't really exist in the console market. As a result it feels like you "own" games more with Steam and other similar services, while on consoles there is a history of closing down stores, and people simply losing access to purchased games.
Physical media gives the impression at least to console gamers that they "own" the game for the long term and the loss of a digital storefront won't impact them (even if it's not always true).
Physical media gives the impression at least to console gamers that they "own" the game for the long term and the loss of a digital storefront won't impact them (even if it's not always true).
Mostly because I simply like having a collection to look at. It's like comparing a small library to a list of ebooks on Kindle.
But yes, other obvious benefits include sharability, resellability (especially these days. So many childhood favorites sell for 200+ dollars for some reason), a perhaps false sense of preservation (I know there are some icky server issues on gen 7+ consoles, even for single player games), and simply liking the feel of a case and disc.
But yes, other obvious benefits include sharability, resellability (especially these days. So many childhood favorites sell for 200+ dollars for some reason), a perhaps false sense of preservation (I know there are some icky server issues on gen 7+ consoles, even for single player games), and simply liking the feel of a case and disc.
I stopped buying physical years ago when Amazon got rid of their 20%(?) pre-order discounts. However, I'd not trade my PS5 for a drive-less PS5 Pro, even if it was for free. Most of my PS4 games are on disc and I couldn't play them anymore. If Sony were to allow me to insert the disc and get the games added to my digital library (many platforms did this for Blu-Ray movies), I'd reconsider. But in the meantime I am tied to my disc drive
We don't have the option for physical on pc, but it's the only way to "own" a videogame. Even steam is at risk. If Gabe dies, bad stuff will happen.
So far no one has managed to escape that "if" unless we go down into religious beliefs.
Steam will go the way of dodo when the founder and his culture is no longer around.
Who knows, the new management might even sell it to Microsoft and retire for life.
Steam will go the way of dodo when the founder and his culture is no longer around.
Who knows, the new management might even sell it to Microsoft and retire for life.
It's a running joke that Gabe is a god and will live forever
In 40 years none of your digital only assets are going to work, if still accessible to you at all.
I played Excitebike [0] on a friend's childhood NES and CRT TV while visiting over Thanksgiving. All we had to do was blow the dust off the cartridge, and we were living in 1984 again. Having physical copies makes this scenario far more likely to succeed.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excitebike
I played Excitebike [0] on a friend's childhood NES and CRT TV while visiting over Thanksgiving. All we had to do was blow the dust off the cartridge, and we were living in 1984 again. Having physical copies makes this scenario far more likely to succeed.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excitebike
I'm shocked. 90% of my game library is physical. So if the console is priced at 799 € without a disc drive, and the drive costs an additional 149 €, that totals 948 € if I want to continue playing my existing disc collection.
No, thanks!
Storage went up from 825 GB to 2 TB though....
The disc drive is basically useless anyway from a long-term perspective (I don't say "preservation" because that's a farcical argument); because even on the bundled versions, it requires an internet connection to "activate" it. This also needs to be repeated when a user signs out or signs in as someone else.
On the other hand, you can sell a physical copy of a game you're not interested anymore. You can potentially buy another used game for the same money you got from the sales. Keep repeating and in theory you could play infinite games for the price of 1.
No optical drive, and the vertical stand is also sold separately!
Yeah... I was cautiously excited for the PS5 pro as I don't have a PS5 yet, but this announcement was disappointing. Long live the PS2, I say.
I don't think people commenting here realize how expensive gaming GPUs have become. A top of the line RTX 4090 is upwards of $1700. A mid range card that can play the latest AAA games at a decent resolution and frame rate (say RTX 4070) is $600-700. And if you're building a PC you still need to buy everything else around the card.
Yes $700 is expensive for a console, but that's just what the market rate is now.
Yes $700 is expensive for a console, but that's just what the market rate is now.
> Yes $700 is expensive for a console, but that's just what the market rate is now.
I remember buying PS3 at launch for $700.
I remember buying PS3 at launch for $700.
In what currency? It was USD $499 (20GB) and $599 (60GB).
Adjusted for inflation that PS3 is $1,100 now.
Based on what calculation?
I used this one: https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2006?amount=700
The US Government's BLS inflation adjustment calculator puts $500 in January 2006 to $793 today.
The base PS5 equivalent GPU is 2070 Super that goes for around 200$
>I don't think people commenting here realize how expensive gaming GPUs have become
I do. But I also have a lovely PS5 base for $500. If we're hitting the 900 mark why not just go full premium and jump into PC gaming? PS5 is competing with itself and losing horribly.
It's also simply a disappointing move from a software standpoint. Their showcases were basically for existing first party games and Hogwarts Legacy (oh and I saw a brief glimpse at FF7 in the sizzle reel. Square "soon™" Enix, great assurance), with a vague promise of "future games" using PS5 pro tech. It feels like Playstation has barely took advantadge of current hardware (which was the biggest benefit of consoles, having one explicit spec with almost all resources dedicated to your game), so even a great showcase full of new and exciting games would have been a hard sell to upgrade.
Pay 2-300 more to get maybe 10-15 games playing better before PS6 rumors start? Why not just do the full jump to PC?
I do. But I also have a lovely PS5 base for $500. If we're hitting the 900 mark why not just go full premium and jump into PC gaming? PS5 is competing with itself and losing horribly.
It's also simply a disappointing move from a software standpoint. Their showcases were basically for existing first party games and Hogwarts Legacy (oh and I saw a brief glimpse at FF7 in the sizzle reel. Square "soon™" Enix, great assurance), with a vague promise of "future games" using PS5 pro tech. It feels like Playstation has barely took advantadge of current hardware (which was the biggest benefit of consoles, having one explicit spec with almost all resources dedicated to your game), so even a great showcase full of new and exciting games would have been a hard sell to upgrade.
Pay 2-300 more to get maybe 10-15 games playing better before PS6 rumors start? Why not just do the full jump to PC?
This has been such a weird generation of consoles from a price standpoint but I know a lot of that is just due to pricing of things being weird anyways.
This is expensive, I am struggling to really justify it at the moment (and I have a 4090 in my PC so it isn't some thoughts about price or power or whatever). Games right now are just not really struggling. Last time around these pro consoles came out we were running up against the limits of the hardware at that time. That isn't the case yet.
It will be interesting to see what Xbox comes out with, the timeline for this coming out is pretty quick. So unless xbox was just about to announce something not sure how realistically they will have an answer to this
This is expensive, I am struggling to really justify it at the moment (and I have a 4090 in my PC so it isn't some thoughts about price or power or whatever). Games right now are just not really struggling. Last time around these pro consoles came out we were running up against the limits of the hardware at that time. That isn't the case yet.
It will be interesting to see what Xbox comes out with, the timeline for this coming out is pretty quick. So unless xbox was just about to announce something not sure how realistically they will have an answer to this
XBox is in a strange position, there are rumours of a next generation console, but I don't believe it matters.
Microsoft has been behaving as if XBox has become an umbrella brand for Microsoft Game Studios, after ABK acquisition.
They are going the way of SEGA, regardless how much Phil Spencer says they aren't.
Microsoft has been behaving as if XBox has become an umbrella brand for Microsoft Game Studios, after ABK acquisition.
They are going the way of SEGA, regardless how much Phil Spencer says they aren't.
They are in a strange position, but I don't think they are going the way of Sega right now. The market is very different now than it was at that time.
We are applying the status quo as the only possible way to run game consoles when that doesn't have to be true. AMD and Nvidia compete just fine on the merits of their hardware alone without exclusive games.
Even Sony is realizing that they can't only publish on their own consoles. What Microsoft is doing now with Playstation they have already been doing for quite some time already with their games launching day one also on PC.
We also can't ignore that the need for the console is changing with things like xcloud (which runs Xbox hardware on blades, so it gives them incentive to continue making xbox hardware that can both ship as a home console and in blades). xCloud you can even use without any extra hardware (other than a controller) right on your TV with Samsung.
Obviously xCloud isn't going to be the solution for everyone. But we can't apply how things previously worked to how Xbox is trying to just have a different business model. And it isn't anything new with the ABK acquisition. It is continuing what they have already been doing.
We are applying the status quo as the only possible way to run game consoles when that doesn't have to be true. AMD and Nvidia compete just fine on the merits of their hardware alone without exclusive games.
Even Sony is realizing that they can't only publish on their own consoles. What Microsoft is doing now with Playstation they have already been doing for quite some time already with their games launching day one also on PC.
We also can't ignore that the need for the console is changing with things like xcloud (which runs Xbox hardware on blades, so it gives them incentive to continue making xbox hardware that can both ship as a home console and in blades). xCloud you can even use without any extra hardware (other than a controller) right on your TV with Samsung.
Obviously xCloud isn't going to be the solution for everyone. But we can't apply how things previously worked to how Xbox is trying to just have a different business model. And it isn't anything new with the ABK acquisition. It is continuing what they have already been doing.
Yeah, however eventually XBox hardware will be a revamped version of Windows Media Center, and that will be as welcomed as XBox ONE original design as multimedia box was.
By the way, Dave Cuttler at the end of his interview on Dave's Garage mentions Microsoft is running XBoxes on Azure with Linux for Microsoft's AI purposes, that is how much they care about XBox hardware and cloud gaming.
By the way, Dave Cuttler at the end of his interview on Dave's Garage mentions Microsoft is running XBoxes on Azure with Linux for Microsoft's AI purposes, that is how much they care about XBox hardware and cloud gaming.
> however eventually XBox hardware will be a revamped version of Windows Media Center, and that will be as welcomed as XBox ONE original design as multimedia box was.
I don't see any indication that they are going down that path. The decisions that made the Xbox One a media center instead of a focus on gaming was made by leaders that are not there. Phil Spensor came in to fix that problem. Nothing they have done recent seems to be pointing in this direction except for doom and gloom speculation about Xbox.
> By the way, Dave Cuttler at the end of his interview on Dave's Garage mentions Microsoft is running XBoxes on Azure with Linux for Microsoft's AI purposes, that is how much they care about XBox hardware and cloud gaming.
I will have to look this up but that doesn't sound like a bad thing? Hardware having multiple purposes just incentivizes the creation of the hardware in the first place. We see this with how Apple is operating right now.
I don't see any indication that they are going down that path. The decisions that made the Xbox One a media center instead of a focus on gaming was made by leaders that are not there. Phil Spensor came in to fix that problem. Nothing they have done recent seems to be pointing in this direction except for doom and gloom speculation about Xbox.
> By the way, Dave Cuttler at the end of his interview on Dave's Garage mentions Microsoft is running XBoxes on Azure with Linux for Microsoft's AI purposes, that is how much they care about XBox hardware and cloud gaming.
I will have to look this up but that doesn't sound like a bad thing? Hardware having multiple purposes just incentivizes the creation of the hardware in the first place. We see this with how Apple is operating right now.
The rumors is that is going to be Windows based, and have all kind of stores in it, XBox, Steam, Epic, whatever.
Basically PC in a box, in kiosk mode.
It is a bad thing, because those boxes are surely not improving the XBox Cloud streaming experience, which is quite famous for not being that great, with long waiting queues.
Basically PC in a box, in kiosk mode.
It is a bad thing, because those boxes are surely not improving the XBox Cloud streaming experience, which is quite famous for not being that great, with long waiting queues.
Is this expensive because of the components or because you feel systems were priced lower in the past and this is a small upgrade?
I think for the number of hours people put into it gaming systems are actually quite cheap. You get to have them functioning for 5-10 years with 100s of hours played. On a per hour level, it provides massive amount of entertainment.
Now, if you already have a strong PC (which you allude to) and game on that, your ROI is probably going to be a lot lower.
I think for the number of hours people put into it gaming systems are actually quite cheap. You get to have them functioning for 5-10 years with 100s of hours played. On a per hour level, it provides massive amount of entertainment.
Now, if you already have a strong PC (which you allude to) and game on that, your ROI is probably going to be a lot lower.
I see it as expensive mostly because we have not had any drop in price this generation.
For example, take last generation. The Xbox One launched at (all USD) $500, $400 without Kinect once that was an option. PS4 launched at $400. The PS4 Pro also later launched at $400, The xbox One X launched at $500.
This is a $200-$280 (including adding the drive) jump in price and the base model is still the same price or more expensive in some places than it was at launch.
On the flip side, I also do worry about what exactly we are seeing from Sony again. We know that Sony can get cocky when they are on top (See PS3, cross play, etc) and make decisions that are not good for gamers. I worry this is a sign that they are going that way again.
For example, take last generation. The Xbox One launched at (all USD) $500, $400 without Kinect once that was an option. PS4 launched at $400. The PS4 Pro also later launched at $400, The xbox One X launched at $500.
This is a $200-$280 (including adding the drive) jump in price and the base model is still the same price or more expensive in some places than it was at launch.
On the flip side, I also do worry about what exactly we are seeing from Sony again. We know that Sony can get cocky when they are on top (See PS3, cross play, etc) and make decisions that are not good for gamers. I worry this is a sign that they are going that way again.
$700 and no disc drive? Yikes. I guess it makes sense when compared to the PS4 lineup cost wise, but usually when they launch the slims it drops the price to some degree. Doesn’t seem to be the case here.
PS5 Slim came out last year for $499 (same hardware, smaller footprint).
This is a hardware refresh, like the PS4 Pro.
This is a hardware refresh, like the PS4 Pro.
I haven't had a disc drive in any of my PC for a decade. I bought a USB DVD reader just in case, it's somewhere collecting dust — I've never used it. Why do you want one in a console?
Used games + retailers regularly sell games for much cheaper than the online store (which is a monopoly by PS/Xbox)
I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept for people.
Like other media, games are going the way of not caring about ownership. They just want cheapest and most convinient way to play new games. Microsoft had a point when the said the future was cloud. They simply underetimated when free money would end and are reeling over that long game.
And anyone that does, they will simply pirate the media anyway. So no loss on their end.
And anyone that does, they will simply pirate the media anyway. So no loss on their end.
I can buy PC games from gog.com and get something that will work in 20 years. Consoles don't have an equivalent DRM-free store like that, but discs can achieve that.
I've never owned a games console so I don't know, but I thought they could be used to play DVD films. It makes perfect sense as part of their function. ISTM anyway.
Well for one, it is a pretty good Blu-Ray player.
Another reason I like it is because I prefer to have my console games on a disc, this way I can share it with friends and I don’t have to be at the mercy of people like Sony who is not afraid to remove access to something you paid for.
Another reason I like it is because I prefer to have my console games on a disc, this way I can share it with friends and I don’t have to be at the mercy of people like Sony who is not afraid to remove access to something you paid for.
PC games are also for most part digital-only nowadays.
They can't drop the price because they can't shrink the chips anymore like they used to do.
> our most advanced and innovative console hardware to date.
This is a bit hyperbolic - there's no way a PS5 iteration is more innovative than the hardware in the PS3 or even 2, unless it suddenly stopped being an AMD box with a slightly funky system architecture.
This is a bit hyperbolic - there's no way a PS5 iteration is more innovative than the hardware in the PS3 or even 2, unless it suddenly stopped being an AMD box with a slightly funky system architecture.
This upgrade seems a bit one-sided.
Some badly optimized games are usually CPU limited, and this upgrade apparently will not improve on that.
I wouldn't be surprised if games like GTA 6 run at 30 fps on both PS5 and PS5 Pro, with some added effects and resolution for the Pro model.
Some badly optimized games are usually CPU limited, and this upgrade apparently will not improve on that.
I wouldn't be surprised if games like GTA 6 run at 30 fps on both PS5 and PS5 Pro, with some added effects and resolution for the Pro model.
Wow, the console is effectively 25% more expensive in Europe? That's crazy.
Yes, I'm aware of taxes, extended warranty and other requirements in the EU, but still. Usually, you had a simple 1:1 mapping $->EUR, which effectively is about 10% markup.
Yes, I'm aware of taxes, extended warranty and other requirements in the EU, but still. Usually, you had a simple 1:1 mapping $->EUR, which effectively is about 10% markup.
The taxes are about 20% in EU. And is included in advertised price. In us the tax is smaller and is not included in price.
Most US jurisdictions have a 7%+ sales tax that is not included in the advertised price. And VAT in Eurozone is roughly 20%, included in the Eurozone price.
the euro is very weak. many different reasons for this
i realised recently that the transition to HD made everything look and sound the same to me. unlike the distinctive eras of the 90s, 80s, 70s...so on.
and now with realistic graphics, even games are starting to all look the same to me. i feel that the limitation born art and era-specific traits of the pre-HD era have been lost.
i just dont feel anything looking at these new games. but then i'm not young anymore.
and now with realistic graphics, even games are starting to all look the same to me. i feel that the limitation born art and era-specific traits of the pre-HD era have been lost.
i just dont feel anything looking at these new games. but then i'm not young anymore.
Well, could I interest you in a Nintendo Switch?
Switch games still have markedly diverse graphic styles (and _great_ art direction).
Switch games still have markedly diverse graphic styles (and _great_ art direction).
one of the issues...i think. if you make a game now, it has to scale to different resolutions for different displays.
so to do that cheaply you need to use some kind of vector art. which gives everything this kind of vector smoothness which eliminates some of the roughness which gives character and charm.
but i agree that the switch is the closest remaining thing to that past era.
so to do that cheaply you need to use some kind of vector art. which gives everything this kind of vector smoothness which eliminates some of the roughness which gives character and charm.
but i agree that the switch is the closest remaining thing to that past era.
Only because they are underpowered with old hardware. Just overclocking gives better performance but still dips below 60fps on first party titles. But they had to make those sacrifices because it's a portable console first with a tv dock. Nintendo always had slowdowns from the beginning with nes, SNES, N64. But these days it's just not acceptable to have those kinds of performance issues.
> But these days it's just not acceptable to have those kinds of performance issues.
Somebody show this guy the PS4 sales compared to the Switch. If you actually believe this, you won't believe your eyes.
Somebody show this guy the PS4 sales compared to the Switch. If you actually believe this, you won't believe your eyes.
My wallet and battery life thank Nintendo for these compromises.
> Only because they are underpowered with old hardware.
yes, adversity breeds character. did Star Wars get better when Lucas got unlimited money and green screens?
Having hardware limitations forced devs to scope their vision appropriately and focus on the aspects they actually wanted to emphasize.
yes, adversity breeds character. did Star Wars get better when Lucas got unlimited money and green screens?
Having hardware limitations forced devs to scope their vision appropriately and focus on the aspects they actually wanted to emphasize.
Lots of PS2 games look similar, too with lots of games with colour palettes being variations on the theme of brown.
So I'm not sure it's a new thing, but I do get what you mean when you see the "Triple AAAAAAAAAAA" game of the day.
It’s actually just because they all use unreal.
4k also requires upscaling or minimizing work per pixel, which encourages everyone to use similar methods.
4k also requires upscaling or minimizing work per pixel, which encourages everyone to use similar methods.
To be fair, most games showcased were first party. And I believe they each used some proprietary engine.
FF7 and Hogwarts do both use Unreal, yes.
FF7 and Hogwarts do both use Unreal, yes.
How strange is it that this console is to be priced considerably higher in its home market than it is in the US.
Either that or Sony is hinting that they expect the yen to crash dramatically against the dollar (from 142:1 over 170:1) between now and the end of the year.
Either that or Sony is hinting that they expect the yen to crash dramatically against the dollar (from 142:1 over 170:1) between now and the end of the year.
They recently increased the price of the PS5 in Japan, presumably due to the weak yen.
The recent price increase was directly because of demand to import PS5s from Japan to China after the release of the Wukong game. I'm not sure exactly why, but importing Japanese consoles was cheaper than buying whichever ones were left in China.
>I'm not sure exactly why,
Simple. This was actually the second price increase in Japan. second one was recent. First one from 2022: https://blog.playstation.com/2022/08/25/ps5-price-to-increas...
China was also included on the first one, so I do think the weak yen is a strong factor behind the second increase
Simple. This was actually the second price increase in Japan. second one was recent. First one from 2022: https://blog.playstation.com/2022/08/25/ps5-price-to-increas...
China was also included on the first one, so I do think the weak yen is a strong factor behind the second increase
I suppose the "Ultra" model is going to come with either the optical drive or an even better chipset...
Seriously now, at $700 and at the pace Ryzen mini-PCs (with the 780m chipset) or new Alder Lake chips (with Xe2) are evolving, by next year you'll be able to build yourself a 4K Steam box running Bazzite.
(you can already spend that much and have a very good HD, maybe even 1440p gaming experience - I have a 680m iGPU machine I stream Steam games from, and it's pretty good for 1080p)
Seriously now, at $700 and at the pace Ryzen mini-PCs (with the 780m chipset) or new Alder Lake chips (with Xe2) are evolving, by next year you'll be able to build yourself a 4K Steam box running Bazzite.
(you can already spend that much and have a very good HD, maybe even 1440p gaming experience - I have a 680m iGPU machine I stream Steam games from, and it's pretty good for 1080p)
A lot of people seem to be unhappy with the price? Especially if you want to have disc drive. As someone who played through many of current gen titles already, I don't see the appeal. Might be worth it still if you already own a PS5 that you can trade in. Shame there's no comparison on how PSSR differs from DLSS/FSR.
PS5 Slim trade-in value is already tanking because of the PS5 Pro, though [1].
[1] https://twitter.com/Jebailey/status/1833540904797528080
[1] https://twitter.com/Jebailey/status/1833540904797528080
the appeal will probably come from gta6.
not sure if it helps anyone here, but: $700 is $575 in 2020 money
not sure if it helps anyone here, but: $700 is $575 in 2020 money
It is interesting but not surprising that it’s disc-optional with no pre-installed disc drive option available.
Otherwise, in terms of specs and price, I am somewhat amazed that the console market is clinging on to life at this point. The PS5/Series generation pushed me to PC and I’m really not understanding the appeal of the consoles anymore beyond the convenience of not needing to do assembly.
The consoles are just giving you hardware that PCs already had years ago and isn’t even really beating it on price all that well.
This thing is $700 and you’ll end up with a better system if you build a new PC with a $500 graphics card at about $1000 total build cost. And then you have way more flexibility overall and a much larger game library.
Otherwise, in terms of specs and price, I am somewhat amazed that the console market is clinging on to life at this point. The PS5/Series generation pushed me to PC and I’m really not understanding the appeal of the consoles anymore beyond the convenience of not needing to do assembly.
The consoles are just giving you hardware that PCs already had years ago and isn’t even really beating it on price all that well.
This thing is $700 and you’ll end up with a better system if you build a new PC with a $500 graphics card at about $1000 total build cost. And then you have way more flexibility overall and a much larger game library.
I spend all day making computers yield to my will. I like doing this. I enjoy it. But when I'm done with my work day, it's awfully nice to sit on the couch, pick up a PS5 controller, and start playing something that requires approximately 0 maintenance.
I couldn't care less about specs. I want games to look Good Enough. PC games might look slightly nicer, or perhaps not, given the enormous variety of configurations they have to support, but not so much nicer that I'm willing to be bothered with it. I'm totally capable of building a PC and going to ridiculous lengths to optimize it. I just don't want to anymore.
I couldn't care less about specs. I want games to look Good Enough. PC games might look slightly nicer, or perhaps not, given the enormous variety of configurations they have to support, but not so much nicer that I'm willing to be bothered with it. I'm totally capable of building a PC and going to ridiculous lengths to optimize it. I just don't want to anymore.
An argument is that Consoles are easier and safer to give to a child, they can't mess things up and Sony is moderating the online chat.
I do not recommend it , from my experience the moderation is a blackbox, I would get warrningss for my son;s activity with no clue what was wrong, some bullshit like it might have been one of the things in this list of bad things. Then they force you to buy a sbuscription to access online features/multiplayer and if they ban you without any right to appeal they will not return your money for the services they will not longer give you.
So fck subscriptions, fck moderation without transparency and without right to appeal and talk with a human. And also fck Sony for killing online features because are to lazy to keep a few server code safe, lazy and greedy bastards.
I do not recommend it , from my experience the moderation is a blackbox, I would get warrningss for my son;s activity with no clue what was wrong, some bullshit like it might have been one of the things in this list of bad things. Then they force you to buy a sbuscription to access online features/multiplayer and if they ban you without any right to appeal they will not return your money for the services they will not longer give you.
So fck subscriptions, fck moderation without transparency and without right to appeal and talk with a human. And also fck Sony for killing online features because are to lazy to keep a few server code safe, lazy and greedy bastards.
Let’s not forget that the target market for game consoles outside of Nintendo is ~40 year olds.
I think there’s a good reason Sony is themselves shifting toward the PC.
I think there’s a good reason Sony is themselves shifting toward the PC.
Convenience value: Stable platform, fast to start, nothing much do or address other than play.
And many more bluescreens/crashes/reboots from my experience. Godspeed if you aren't into tinkering and figuring out why your setup that worked yesterday is broken today. I moved from mainly PS5 to a beefy PC and the amount of troubleshooting you have to do is staggering. This kind of things never happened to me in years of playing on a console.
Yeah, gaming on a self built PC only makes sense if your time is worth ~$0.
That’s kind of an overstatement. Building a PC is a <1 day affair even for a novice.
And let’s not forget that pre-builts and laptops exist. The laptop mobile graphics situation is the best it’s ever been, it’s so easy to find an affordable gaming system that can handle AAA games.
Or there’s the steam deck, a “console” that can play PC games.
And let’s not forget that pre-builts and laptops exist. The laptop mobile graphics situation is the best it’s ever been, it’s so easy to find an affordable gaming system that can handle AAA games.
Or there’s the steam deck, a “console” that can play PC games.
A few crashes every month causing a few hours of lost time is likely worth more than any possible savings self-building could generate.
A few crashes a month is a massive overstatement. It isn’t 1998.
And FWIW my PS4 has crashed before. Most likely a software bug but it fully crashed while I was playing a game.
And FWIW my PS4 has crashed before. Most likely a software bug but it fully crashed while I was playing a game.
Well crashes, bugs, unusual workarounds, obscure error messages, etc…
Okay? My PS4 crashed. My PC crashed. It's rare on both platforms.
The rate of such is what is important… particularly the relative differences…
what crashes?
>I’m really not understanding the appeal of the consoles anymore beyond the convenience of not needing to do assembly...and isn’t even really beating it on price all that well.
It's a bit of the opposite direction for me. Crypto and now AI ruined the idea of a gaming PC being cheaper than a console. 3080's by themselves (which is what a $500 PS5 uses) can still go for $800 by itself on the used market. The gen 9 consoles are the cheapest way to buy 2020's tech right now.
It's a bit of the opposite direction for me. Crypto and now AI ruined the idea of a gaming PC being cheaper than a console. 3080's by themselves (which is what a $500 PS5 uses) can still go for $800 by itself on the used market. The gen 9 consoles are the cheapest way to buy 2020's tech right now.
I doubt the non-Pro PS5 is anywhere close to the RTX3080's performance.
It's between a 3080 mobile and a 3080 in terms of raw hardware, if that helps, closer to the mobile version (minus obvious heat mitigation shortcomings).
I compare it to a 3X series than a 2X because it's one specific spec that devs can target, leading to better optimization. And PS5 does have a few specific propreitary tricks to leverage as well compared to a PC.
Plus... it's not like the 2X GPUs are dirt cheap to begin with. I see $250-300 new. If I'm going to buy a gaming PC, it may as well at least be better than the machine I already own, and that one part is already half the price of a PS5 base.
I compare it to a 3X series than a 2X because it's one specific spec that devs can target, leading to better optimization. And PS5 does have a few specific propreitary tricks to leverage as well compared to a PC.
Plus... it's not like the 2X GPUs are dirt cheap to begin with. I see $250-300 new. If I'm going to buy a gaming PC, it may as well at least be better than the machine I already own, and that one part is already half the price of a PS5 base.
Simple, there are two markets:
- People who know about and build computers
- People who want to play games
There's some common overlap; but there are a lot of people who do not overlap. As long as that is the case, PlayStation will always have a market.
Also, I'm glad for this; the PC is not a completely stable platform. I remember playing games with NVIDIA PhysX from about a decade and a half ago, and the physics are just ever so slightly broken and off (to the point some levels are unbeatable).
- People who know about and build computers
- People who want to play games
There's some common overlap; but there are a lot of people who do not overlap. As long as that is the case, PlayStation will always have a market.
Also, I'm glad for this; the PC is not a completely stable platform. I remember playing games with NVIDIA PhysX from about a decade and a half ago, and the physics are just ever so slightly broken and off (to the point some levels are unbeatable).
[deleted]
Lot of downvoting for having a different opinion in this thread. So people disagree with you and think that warrants a downvote? That's counter to the HN ethos.
I agree with you, don't need to buy new 2024 PC components to have a great gaming PC, that seems to be the counter argument here which just isn't the case
I agree with you, don't need to buy new 2024 PC components to have a great gaming PC, that seems to be the counter argument here which just isn't the case
Downvotes for being outright unaware of the GPU market. If you can build me a PS5 equivalent PC build for $500 I'll take you up on that. Cheapest 3080 I could find used was $600 by itself (and that's probably a GPU already ground to dust from mining).
>don't need to buy new 2024 PC components to have a great gaming PC
No, you don't. But if you want to compare a PC to a console, you should use equivalent specs. People who just want a convinient way to play games (not AAA games) can pick up a steam deck for $200-300 and be set for life. But that's not who Sony is targeting.
>don't need to buy new 2024 PC components to have a great gaming PC
No, you don't. But if you want to compare a PC to a console, you should use equivalent specs. People who just want a convinient way to play games (not AAA games) can pick up a steam deck for $200-300 and be set for life. But that's not who Sony is targeting.
You’re the one who is unaware of the GPU market here. The 3080 is last generation’s hardware.
If we are comparing equivalent specs, we should note that this new PS5 Pro is not going to be equivalent to mid-high end graphics cards that cost $500.
Many outlets are comparing it to the RX6800 [1], which would put it at around a $380 retail graphics card like an RTX 4060Ti.
Here’s my PS5 Pro equivalent build:
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/q24H6D
It’s $900, but remember that PS5 online play costs $80/year. so you’re breaking even after about 2 years, not counting the cost savings of PC games (I can buy Elden ring for under $50 via cheapshark.com, but it’s $70 on the PS Store)
Also, common components like case, power supply, and storage almost never have to be replaced when a PC is upgraded. Sony is making you throw out all those common components.
[1] https://www.ign.com/articles/playstation-5-pro-vs-playstatio...
If we are comparing equivalent specs, we should note that this new PS5 Pro is not going to be equivalent to mid-high end graphics cards that cost $500.
Many outlets are comparing it to the RX6800 [1], which would put it at around a $380 retail graphics card like an RTX 4060Ti.
Here’s my PS5 Pro equivalent build:
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/q24H6D
It’s $900, but remember that PS5 online play costs $80/year. so you’re breaking even after about 2 years, not counting the cost savings of PC games (I can buy Elden ring for under $50 via cheapshark.com, but it’s $70 on the PS Store)
Also, common components like case, power supply, and storage almost never have to be replaced when a PC is upgraded. Sony is making you throw out all those common components.
[1] https://www.ign.com/articles/playstation-5-pro-vs-playstatio...
Yes, I'm comparing building a machine to to the base ps5. If I'm building my own machine I may as well use an Nvidia card. That's where the costs build up. Eeven a last gen used Nvidia card is more expensive than a pro. It's not even worth talking about the 4000 series if you care at all about costs.
>but remember that PS5 online play costs $80/year.
I don't play online. Sony's done a great job this year giving me less reasons to play as well.
>not counting the cost savings of PC games
This isn't Nintendo. You can get most AAA games half off of you wait 6 months post launch anyways.
Quantity of games doesn't rally matter these days anyways. Gamepass beats both if that's your most important metric.
>but remember that PS5 online play costs $80/year.
I don't play online. Sony's done a great job this year giving me less reasons to play as well.
>not counting the cost savings of PC games
This isn't Nintendo. You can get most AAA games half off of you wait 6 months post launch anyways.
Quantity of games doesn't rally matter these days anyways. Gamepass beats both if that's your most important metric.
The base PS5 can be beat with like a sub-$200 GPU or even a computer with high end integrated graphics like a Beelink mini PC or perhaps even a laptop that one may already own.
Quantity of games doesn’t matter but platform compatibility, extensibility, and longevity does. Consoles have compromised modding, no ability to install custom software like open source game engine replacements (OpenMW and OpenTTD), limited support of third party or customized hardware (Stream Deck, specialized simulation hardware, VR, etc).
Consoles make you throw out your old controllers when you get a new system, they often compromise or drop backwards compatibility with previous game libraries, and some even shut down their digital game stores. The PS3 almost shut theirs down before people complained. Now you can only buy games with PS Store balance, direct credit card purchases aren’t supported. The 3DS and WiiU eShop are gone.
And we didn’t even start talking about emulation or mouse and keyboard oriented games that suck on console. The most popular game of all time (Minecraft) is significantly worse on console and can’t be played with the extensive modding available that can completely transform the game (e.g., the Create mod). The Sims is awful with a controller. RimWorld, Stardew Valley, Cities Skylines, the entire survival crafting genre - all better games on mouse and keyboard.
Quantity of games doesn’t matter but platform compatibility, extensibility, and longevity does. Consoles have compromised modding, no ability to install custom software like open source game engine replacements (OpenMW and OpenTTD), limited support of third party or customized hardware (Stream Deck, specialized simulation hardware, VR, etc).
Consoles make you throw out your old controllers when you get a new system, they often compromise or drop backwards compatibility with previous game libraries, and some even shut down their digital game stores. The PS3 almost shut theirs down before people complained. Now you can only buy games with PS Store balance, direct credit card purchases aren’t supported. The 3DS and WiiU eShop are gone.
And we didn’t even start talking about emulation or mouse and keyboard oriented games that suck on console. The most popular game of all time (Minecraft) is significantly worse on console and can’t be played with the extensive modding available that can completely transform the game (e.g., the Create mod). The Sims is awful with a controller. RimWorld, Stardew Valley, Cities Skylines, the entire survival crafting genre - all better games on mouse and keyboard.
If you really think gen 9 consoles are comparable to a laptop, we aren't really having an honest conversation here. I say this as someone with a $2500 gaming laptop with top end 2021 specs.
I'm not interested in having a console vs. PC debate. I just wanted to emphasize that it's not 2015 anymore and crypto ruined the idea of an affordable high end gaming pc. The good news is that there's plenty of non-aaa games and any pc you pick up for college can probably play older AAA games and indies with no issue. hence why the steam deck is very popular among pc players who wanted some portability. The cheapest gaming is indeed whatever pc or laptop you can pickup, even pre-built.
Power isn't everything, but clearly the ps5 pro and higher end cards are targeting power users. Someone not price sensitive already has some $3k top end gaming rig and won't be convinced of any console (the camp it sounds like you are in). For those that want a taste of that high end but are cost sensitive will probably look towards the PS5 Pro.
Is that a sustainable market? I don't think so. But gen 9's theme has been unsustainability with the devs suffering for the state of the economy (no matter how good or bad your last release was), so this is just on point.
I'm not interested in having a console vs. PC debate. I just wanted to emphasize that it's not 2015 anymore and crypto ruined the idea of an affordable high end gaming pc. The good news is that there's plenty of non-aaa games and any pc you pick up for college can probably play older AAA games and indies with no issue. hence why the steam deck is very popular among pc players who wanted some portability. The cheapest gaming is indeed whatever pc or laptop you can pickup, even pre-built.
Power isn't everything, but clearly the ps5 pro and higher end cards are targeting power users. Someone not price sensitive already has some $3k top end gaming rig and won't be convinced of any console (the camp it sounds like you are in). For those that want a taste of that high end but are cost sensitive will probably look towards the PS5 Pro.
Is that a sustainable market? I don't think so. But gen 9's theme has been unsustainability with the devs suffering for the state of the economy (no matter how good or bad your last release was), so this is just on point.
> If you really think gen 9 consoles are comparable to a laptop
I mean, yes, I do. I can run new AAA games on my MacBook Pro via native ports on Steam and the Mac App Store or Crossover.
Hell, Resident Evil 7 runs on a fucking iPhone at this point.
Don't forget that many PS5 games' render resolution is 1080p and under and up to 60FPS. It really isn't that powerful. If you take your gaming laptop and play at 1440p and complain that you're barely getting 60FPS at high/ultra settings, well, you're already outperforming a base PS5.
> crypto ruined the idea of an affordable high end gaming pc.
idk if you have noticed but we aren't at peak crypto GPU prices. This isn't 2022. GPUs are relatively affordable.
> Power isn't everything, but clearly the ps5 pro and higher end cards are targeting power users
PS5 Pro is equivalent to mid-range PC graphics cards. At $700.
If you own a PC right now, let's say it's a similar age to the PS4. You've got an AM4 motherboard with a Ryzen 1000 or 3000 series and a GTX 1080 or 1070 or something like that.
If you spend $700 on an upgrade and get yourself a Ryzen 5700x3D and RX 7900GRE you are vastly outperforming the PS5 Pro. Heck, if your gaming is more GPU bound and your processor still holds up you could skip the processor and buy an RTX 4070 Ti Super for $700. That GPU will positively SMOKE the PS5 Pro.
I mean, yes, I do. I can run new AAA games on my MacBook Pro via native ports on Steam and the Mac App Store or Crossover.
Hell, Resident Evil 7 runs on a fucking iPhone at this point.
Don't forget that many PS5 games' render resolution is 1080p and under and up to 60FPS. It really isn't that powerful. If you take your gaming laptop and play at 1440p and complain that you're barely getting 60FPS at high/ultra settings, well, you're already outperforming a base PS5.
> crypto ruined the idea of an affordable high end gaming pc.
idk if you have noticed but we aren't at peak crypto GPU prices. This isn't 2022. GPUs are relatively affordable.
> Power isn't everything, but clearly the ps5 pro and higher end cards are targeting power users
PS5 Pro is equivalent to mid-range PC graphics cards. At $700.
If you own a PC right now, let's say it's a similar age to the PS4. You've got an AM4 motherboard with a Ryzen 1000 or 3000 series and a GTX 1080 or 1070 or something like that.
If you spend $700 on an upgrade and get yourself a Ryzen 5700x3D and RX 7900GRE you are vastly outperforming the PS5 Pro. Heck, if your gaming is more GPU bound and your processor still holds up you could skip the processor and buy an RTX 4070 Ti Super for $700. That GPU will positively SMOKE the PS5 Pro.
Yea and if Sony isn't targeting the super budget conscious then who does this target? I don't get it. $700 is too much to buy this console as a gift (say, for a kid), and if you're a passionate gamer then I think the argument that you might start looking at alternatives in the PC space is pretty compelling. For me, I think the PS5 has a real fit in my house especially as my kids play it, and so does my PC which I haven't upgraded in years. I see no reason to buy the PS5 pro given it's in that no mans land price-wise.
$700 for a full console and 1200 for a single GPU is still a magnitude of difference.
still no games unfortunately. :(
i had such a wonderful time with Demon's Souls - but the rest I just play on my pc with my rtx 4090. we need more console exclusives but the calculus does not make sense anymore i'm afraid. budgets has ballooned so much that games takes years to release, and release compromised. i wonder what the solution is. shorter more linear games? not everything has to be open world!
look at ghost runner 2, one of my favorite games of all time, linear, sharp, exciting!
i had such a wonderful time with Demon's Souls - but the rest I just play on my pc with my rtx 4090. we need more console exclusives but the calculus does not make sense anymore i'm afraid. budgets has ballooned so much that games takes years to release, and release compromised. i wonder what the solution is. shorter more linear games? not everything has to be open world!
look at ghost runner 2, one of my favorite games of all time, linear, sharp, exciting!
I feel like Hawthorne's law is ruining this solution. Last of Us 2 and God of War are about as linear as you can get away with and those games aren't able to be cranked out in 2-3 years, even last generation. I have various solutions in mind, but nothing that would be well received
I think the practical consumer solution is to simply stop hyping around these AAA games and invest more in studios that do in fact make smaller scale games. They won't sell 10 million copies, but they also need much less to succeed. Your $5 is proportionately way more valuable to an indie than $70 is to Demons Souls.
I think the practical consumer solution is to simply stop hyping around these AAA games and invest more in studios that do in fact make smaller scale games. They won't sell 10 million copies, but they also need much less to succeed. Your $5 is proportionately way more valuable to an indie than $70 is to Demons Souls.
The differences in strategies between Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo are absolutely wild, but I think it also really speaks to their respective DNA as a consumer electronics company, a software company, and a toy company respectively. Superficially they all look like videogame console companies, but they're very different companies that just so happen to use videogames as the means to execute their strategy.
Sony seems to presently be on a path that's somewhat dictated by their traditional console concepts of moving data around as fast as possible given consumer budgets, and using that as an enabler of greater and greater spectacle for consumers by a large and well rounded network of development houses. This has worked really well for them for all generations of their gaming strategy.
Microsoft is focused on developer experience and using that to drive consumer demand, just doing it in games. This has worked pretty well for them in the West, but has failed abysmally in some parts of the world where the relationship between software developer and consumer isn't as strong. They seem to be working overtime trying to confuse consumers, kill viable IP, and get themselves out of the market in the next generation or two.
Nintendo is focused on the best way to create unique experiences of "play" for the consumer where their own IP is the vanguard for the system, and every other company sits in "other play experiences you can also have...if you want". This will work for them on some generations, then completely bomb on others. But it has kept them viable as the smallest of the three companies for decades, and also near the top of the sales list in a few categories most generations. They also have absolutely impeccable Intellectual Property that they have maintained better than Disney, the former gold standard IP protection company.
To bring this point home, for years there was hubub in the industry that Nintendo would bring out some kind of Switch Pro with 4k output and faster guts, rumors swirled around and around until Nintendo finally brought out? The Switch Light. The opposite of that. Nintendo was answering the question "how do we get more people into our world of play?" And a cheaper, less capable, more rugged, system was their answer.
But for Sony, their DNA is "move electronics". So whenever they feel they can, they'll come out with a new revision or update or accessory to hardware they are already pushing. When Sony was pushing new VR headsets, Nintendo put our a toy kit made of cardboard. When Sony was pushing a handheld streaming accessory, Nintendo's system simply undocked. The PS5, which was at the bleeding edge of state of the art consumer electronics is around 4 years old. The Switch is about to be 8 and was basically a cheap tablet with clip on controllers when it was released.
This isn't for the idealized customer the Nintendo is after. This is for people who want the absolute best hooked into their home multimedia system to show it off, which Sony hopes is also a Sony TV, Receiver, Speaker set, and so on.
What Sony may run the risk for is becoming what NEC became. Lots of variations and incremental updates to their system, with different packaging, until they basically just suffocated themselves out of the running -- pursuing a strategy of pushing custom NEC electronics instead of going to where the industry was going. It could happen.
Sony seems to presently be on a path that's somewhat dictated by their traditional console concepts of moving data around as fast as possible given consumer budgets, and using that as an enabler of greater and greater spectacle for consumers by a large and well rounded network of development houses. This has worked really well for them for all generations of their gaming strategy.
Microsoft is focused on developer experience and using that to drive consumer demand, just doing it in games. This has worked pretty well for them in the West, but has failed abysmally in some parts of the world where the relationship between software developer and consumer isn't as strong. They seem to be working overtime trying to confuse consumers, kill viable IP, and get themselves out of the market in the next generation or two.
Nintendo is focused on the best way to create unique experiences of "play" for the consumer where their own IP is the vanguard for the system, and every other company sits in "other play experiences you can also have...if you want". This will work for them on some generations, then completely bomb on others. But it has kept them viable as the smallest of the three companies for decades, and also near the top of the sales list in a few categories most generations. They also have absolutely impeccable Intellectual Property that they have maintained better than Disney, the former gold standard IP protection company.
To bring this point home, for years there was hubub in the industry that Nintendo would bring out some kind of Switch Pro with 4k output and faster guts, rumors swirled around and around until Nintendo finally brought out? The Switch Light. The opposite of that. Nintendo was answering the question "how do we get more people into our world of play?" And a cheaper, less capable, more rugged, system was their answer.
But for Sony, their DNA is "move electronics". So whenever they feel they can, they'll come out with a new revision or update or accessory to hardware they are already pushing. When Sony was pushing new VR headsets, Nintendo put our a toy kit made of cardboard. When Sony was pushing a handheld streaming accessory, Nintendo's system simply undocked. The PS5, which was at the bleeding edge of state of the art consumer electronics is around 4 years old. The Switch is about to be 8 and was basically a cheap tablet with clip on controllers when it was released.
This isn't for the idealized customer the Nintendo is after. This is for people who want the absolute best hooked into their home multimedia system to show it off, which Sony hopes is also a Sony TV, Receiver, Speaker set, and so on.
What Sony may run the risk for is becoming what NEC became. Lots of variations and incremental updates to their system, with different packaging, until they basically just suffocated themselves out of the running -- pursuing a strategy of pushing custom NEC electronics instead of going to where the industry was going. It could happen.
> To bring this point home, for years there was hubub in the industry that Nintendo would bring out some kind of Switch Pro with 4k output and faster guts, rumors swirled around and around until Nintendo finally brought out? The Switch Light.
Switch Lite is not the console people were referring to in that context. And oddly enough, Nintendo themselves have pseudo-confirmed the launch will occur in Q1 next year via various official statements:
https://x.com/NintendoCoLtd/status/1787736518762881197
(and then they later confirmed that they won't discuss it this year... so it's going to be Q1 next year.)
And again, to underline this point: the hardware itself has literally been ready to go since 2022 or before (prominently, there was an enormous amount of stuff in the hacked nvidia data dump and it's all essentially confirmed accurate at this point) and the delay has frankly baffled industry-watchers. It’s not even just Nintendo being nintendo and favoring older cheaper hardware, they seem to have internally had some pullback or change of heart back a year or two ago such that they decided not to release it.
And obviously at some point the hardware will be relatively weaker than the original switch was at its launch, so at this point they may have to update the hardware again.
But yeah switch is a bad example of “see, rumors are sometimes wrong!” when Nintendo literally had a console generation ready to go, as confirmed by multiple sources, and then just inexplicably decided to pull the plug or delay it for 2 years for inscrutable Nintendo reasons. That’s the Nintendo being Nintendo part - and we have their confirmed-in-financials timeline for release now.
Switch Lite is not the console people were referring to in that context. And oddly enough, Nintendo themselves have pseudo-confirmed the launch will occur in Q1 next year via various official statements:
https://x.com/NintendoCoLtd/status/1787736518762881197
(and then they later confirmed that they won't discuss it this year... so it's going to be Q1 next year.)
And again, to underline this point: the hardware itself has literally been ready to go since 2022 or before (prominently, there was an enormous amount of stuff in the hacked nvidia data dump and it's all essentially confirmed accurate at this point) and the delay has frankly baffled industry-watchers. It’s not even just Nintendo being nintendo and favoring older cheaper hardware, they seem to have internally had some pullback or change of heart back a year or two ago such that they decided not to release it.
And obviously at some point the hardware will be relatively weaker than the original switch was at its launch, so at this point they may have to update the hardware again.
But yeah switch is a bad example of “see, rumors are sometimes wrong!” when Nintendo literally had a console generation ready to go, as confirmed by multiple sources, and then just inexplicably decided to pull the plug or delay it for 2 years for inscrutable Nintendo reasons. That’s the Nintendo being Nintendo part - and we have their confirmed-in-financials timeline for release now.
>Switch Lite is not the console people were referring to in that context.
I assume GP was talking more in the 2020 era than right now. That era where a "switch pro was rumored", and then they unveiled the Switch Lite.
Then rumors swirled again, and we got the Switch OLED.
by now we know they completely skipped the idea of a mid generation refresh, so current rumors go straight to a new generation.
>the hardware itself has literally been ready to go since 2022 or before (prominently, there was an enormous amount of stuff in the hacked nvidia data dump and it's all essentially confirmed accurate at this point) and the delay has frankly baffled industry-watchers
plans change, especially in this economy. It may be baffling to western economists, but the software side of Nintendo also isn't afraid to sit on fully finished games if the timing is off. Advanced Wars remake was delayed a year for bad timing (to put it lightly). Xenoblade was finished for a while, and decided to push its release date up to space it out from Splatoon 3.
They read the winds changing, and realized Switch base was still selling well (and even if it wasn't, Nintendo famously has a decent war chest for tough times). So they just sat. They aren't on the same pulse as Sony/Microsoft, so they aren't pressured by the competition or hardcore consumers to upgrade. Japanese companies have a different attitude towards shareholders, so they aren't afraid to push back if they deem the long term solution is to wait. Nintendo truly goes at its own pace, for better and worse.
>But yeah switch is a bad example of “see, rumors are sometimes wrong!”
I think it's the perfect example of "rumors are wrong". Because I'm sure most industry rumors are right... at the time the rumor holder got the info. That info can and often is outdated, simply because situations change so fast in gamedev. So don't take them as gospel.
I assume GP was talking more in the 2020 era than right now. That era where a "switch pro was rumored", and then they unveiled the Switch Lite.
Then rumors swirled again, and we got the Switch OLED.
by now we know they completely skipped the idea of a mid generation refresh, so current rumors go straight to a new generation.
>the hardware itself has literally been ready to go since 2022 or before (prominently, there was an enormous amount of stuff in the hacked nvidia data dump and it's all essentially confirmed accurate at this point) and the delay has frankly baffled industry-watchers
plans change, especially in this economy. It may be baffling to western economists, but the software side of Nintendo also isn't afraid to sit on fully finished games if the timing is off. Advanced Wars remake was delayed a year for bad timing (to put it lightly). Xenoblade was finished for a while, and decided to push its release date up to space it out from Splatoon 3.
They read the winds changing, and realized Switch base was still selling well (and even if it wasn't, Nintendo famously has a decent war chest for tough times). So they just sat. They aren't on the same pulse as Sony/Microsoft, so they aren't pressured by the competition or hardcore consumers to upgrade. Japanese companies have a different attitude towards shareholders, so they aren't afraid to push back if they deem the long term solution is to wait. Nintendo truly goes at its own pace, for better and worse.
>But yeah switch is a bad example of “see, rumors are sometimes wrong!”
I think it's the perfect example of "rumors are wrong". Because I'm sure most industry rumors are right... at the time the rumor holder got the info. That info can and often is outdated, simply because situations change so fast in gamedev. So don't take them as gospel.
800€? That's a Ryzen 7 5800X / i5-13500 + RTX 4060 Ti + 32GB RAM + 1TB SSD build. I'd rather have a PC
The prices and features of the latest Xbox and PS5 are making the Nintendo Switch 2 look like an amazing bargain.
> retail price (MSRP) of $699.99 USD
The pricing feels like a direct response to Microsoft essentially exiting the console market.
Except Microsoft has said they have new Xbox hardware coming.
We really need to stop spreading this misinformation (and hyperbole) just because Microsoft is operating a different business model than Sony is.
I am not happy about the price either, but this generation has been weird with Microsoft and Sony not dropping their price and increasing prices in some locations. I doubt this has anything to do with Xbox.
We really need to stop spreading this misinformation (and hyperbole) just because Microsoft is operating a different business model than Sony is.
I am not happy about the price either, but this generation has been weird with Microsoft and Sony not dropping their price and increasing prices in some locations. I doubt this has anything to do with Xbox.
That is whishful thinking, even if they release the magical console, it will tank, given their attitude of "You don't need a box to play XBox branded games", while putting their games everywhere there is a GPU.
I certainly don't care any longer about it beyond the XBox App on Windows.
I certainly don't care any longer about it beyond the XBox App on Windows.
How is it "wishful thinking" when they have said they are doing it?
I want to believe as much as you do.
Sarah Bond's exact words were: "And we're also invested in the next generation roadmap. And what we're really focused on there is delivering the largest technical leap you will have ever seen in a hardware generation which makes it better for players and better for creators and the visions that they're building."
Source (18m33s mark): https://youtu.be/KGlD9SO3rKU?t=1113
Sarah Bond's exact words were: "And we're also invested in the next generation roadmap. And what we're really focused on there is delivering the largest technical leap you will have ever seen in a hardware generation which makes it better for players and better for creators and the visions that they're building."
Source (18m33s mark): https://youtu.be/KGlD9SO3rKU?t=1113
Are there side by side videos or something of how this is better than a plain old PS5?
The second video in the article.
I'm getting really tired of this "Pro" bullshit. The issue with the PlayStation 5 isn't the bloody specs, it the f-ing price. The PlayStation 5 Slim is $600 already, we don't need a $700 one (which it won't be, because that is US pricing and probably not including tax).
Sony needs a $350 model, not this Pro nonsense. Who is the target audience for this?
Sony needs a $350 model, not this Pro nonsense. Who is the target audience for this?
Agreed. I’m still rocking the ps4 and enjoying its vast library of solid games. PS5 lacks games and is expensive.
They should have a $350 model with optical drive and one remote. Sell it on a plastic shopping bag for all I care.
They should have a $350 model with optical drive and one remote. Sell it on a plastic shopping bag for all I care.
Microsoft was upfront that they didn’t think a mid-gen price cut was in the cards, so here’s the series s, it’s what we can do and we’ll do it right now, etc.
They were right and not only have prices not really come down, but in some ways they’ve increased.
The unfortunate consequences of a post-Moores law reality. Like yeah nothing is getting 2x better for the same price even every 3-4 years anymore. Your expectations based on past history will no longer hold true, and this has been clear for a number of years now.
You can’t make a gamer understand something when his wallet depends on him not understanding it. People have been in active denial for years, in ways that have crossed into objective denial of reality. The "AMD is just choosing to join NVIDIA and gouge!" stuff has been joined by "and sony is in on it too!" etc. Yes, corporations suck but the margins are not actually very fat here, this is just what it costs now.
They were right and not only have prices not really come down, but in some ways they’ve increased.
The unfortunate consequences of a post-Moores law reality. Like yeah nothing is getting 2x better for the same price even every 3-4 years anymore. Your expectations based on past history will no longer hold true, and this has been clear for a number of years now.
You can’t make a gamer understand something when his wallet depends on him not understanding it. People have been in active denial for years, in ways that have crossed into objective denial of reality. The "AMD is just choosing to join NVIDIA and gouge!" stuff has been joined by "and sony is in on it too!" etc. Yes, corporations suck but the margins are not actually very fat here, this is just what it costs now.
Not just post-Moores, it sometimes feels like a reversal.
Look at high-end gaming PCs. Monster-sized GPUs and cases. CPUs with stupendous requirements for cooling. Insane power draws. The prediction for next gen (5000 series): significantly larger power draw still.
Things are not getting smaller and faster, they're getting bigger and hotter and more power hungry.
Look at high-end gaming PCs. Monster-sized GPUs and cases. CPUs with stupendous requirements for cooling. Insane power draws. The prediction for next gen (5000 series): significantly larger power draw still.
Things are not getting smaller and faster, they're getting bigger and hotter and more power hungry.
> Who is the target audience for this?
gamers who complain about 30fps on comments sections, apparently.
And in all fairness, Xbox tried the $350 gen 9 console... it apparently caused (and still causes) huge issues for development
gamers who complain about 30fps on comments sections, apparently.
And in all fairness, Xbox tried the $350 gen 9 console... it apparently caused (and still causes) huge issues for development
Which is kind of silly, given the miriad of PC and Android devices some of the same studios also target.
So they manage some potato PCs as minimum requirements but not the Series S?
So they manage some potato PCs as minimum requirements but not the Series S?
I thought there would be price drops with the Pro being launched. Should've seen the writing on the wall that this is just a more expensive SKU to sell alongside the existing ones.
I'd be much more impressed if they released one that was the same size as the PS2 slim; that might, maybe, come close to being worth the price.
It would still be a bit to pricy for me, but I can see the logic. Either get the old model, at a reduced price, or get the new slimmer version at the old price. I think many would take the new model in that case, while some of those who have been waiting for the price to drop would pick up the old model at the reduced price.
"Pro" is a funny qualifier for a game console. The definition has morphed from "for professionals" to "more expensive" or "more capable."
wake me up when there's a PS5 Pro Slim that only costs a couple hundred bucks, thanks, I'll be over on my couch with the Steam Deck
Will it play Concord?
0 PT compatibility, either. Guess there's still a reason to keep the PS4 around a little while longer, eh?
Honestly speaking though, I don't "get" Sony like I "get" Microsoft and Nintendo's business strategy. This feels like the PS3 launch all over again, a big console with a never-before-seen price tag, with few headline features besides "graphics". It appeals to the core fanbase, and absolutely nobody else. It's like Sony thinks they have Nintendo-tier market control.
I dunno, maybe they're leading up to some big software change that will really wow their users. It's a good day to be an offline PC gamer though (especially if you want to catch up on the state of Bloodborne emulation).
Honestly speaking though, I don't "get" Sony like I "get" Microsoft and Nintendo's business strategy. This feels like the PS3 launch all over again, a big console with a never-before-seen price tag, with few headline features besides "graphics". It appeals to the core fanbase, and absolutely nobody else. It's like Sony thinks they have Nintendo-tier market control.
I dunno, maybe they're leading up to some big software change that will really wow their users. It's a good day to be an offline PC gamer though (especially if you want to catch up on the state of Bloodborne emulation).
I’m actually amazed that it’s now Nintendo that is the only console manufacturer with a sane strategy.
Their strategy is simple: affordable portable console for the whole family with exclusive access to a wide library of acclaimed first-party titles. They essentially have zero competitors besides relatively obscure retro handhelds from China that are too difficult to use for the average person.
But Sony’s strategy is seems to be basically begging their users to ditch their PS5 for a PC. Go play our games on PC, here’s a Pro console that costs as much as a new PC or GPU upgrade.
At least Microsoft’s strategy to own a large chunk of the AAA software market makes some level of sense in a world where they see their console hardware possibly exiting the market.
Their strategy is simple: affordable portable console for the whole family with exclusive access to a wide library of acclaimed first-party titles. They essentially have zero competitors besides relatively obscure retro handhelds from China that are too difficult to use for the average person.
But Sony’s strategy is seems to be basically begging their users to ditch their PS5 for a PC. Go play our games on PC, here’s a Pro console that costs as much as a new PC or GPU upgrade.
At least Microsoft’s strategy to own a large chunk of the AAA software market makes some level of sense in a world where they see their console hardware possibly exiting the market.
I think Microsoft's strategy is sane, albeit kinda stupid. They're the "Windows" people - they know that better options exist. A timeline for depreciating Xbox hardware in lieu of Xbox services makes sense, doubly so when you realize most console players already subscribe to Xbox Live/Game Pass. It's not genius, but it does involve a level of foresight that could save them from a "hardware crunch" that ushers in $700 console hardware.
Sony seems to be entrenched in a weird hole of Nintendo envy that does them absolutely no good, as an outsider looking in. Nintendo has publishing power, actual franchises people will buy a console for. The PS5 has... Bloodborne. A few years ago there was Persona 5 too but now that's on most modern platforms so moot point. The biggest selling point for the PS5 is still last-gen exclusives, and I think that demonstrates Sony's deficiencies quite well.
Sony seems to be entrenched in a weird hole of Nintendo envy that does them absolutely no good, as an outsider looking in. Nintendo has publishing power, actual franchises people will buy a console for. The PS5 has... Bloodborne. A few years ago there was Persona 5 too but now that's on most modern platforms so moot point. The biggest selling point for the PS5 is still last-gen exclusives, and I think that demonstrates Sony's deficiencies quite well.
>Sony seems to be entrenched in a weird hole of Nintendo envy that does them absolutely no good, as an outsider looking in. Nintendo has publishing power, actual franchises people will buy a console for.
Sony themselves reported that "We’re lacking the early phase (of IP) and that’s an issue for us." Which isn't only baffling but a slap in the face of people like me that grew up on Jak/Ratchet, Wild Arms, the Ico games, and has some beloved hits for me as recent as Gravity Rush and even Freedom Wars and Soul Sacrifice. AFAIK those are all wholly owned franchises for them.
But I know what they are really saying. "We don't have our Fortnite. We don't have our Minecraft. We don't have COD". Thinking like that is exactly why they have exactly one franchise even close to 30 years old (Gran Turismo) and fumbled the idea of owning a half dozen IPs already assossiated with them, while Nintendo has at least 5 1st/2nd party IPs that old or older that are beloved. You're not gonna be Nintendo by trying to fix Destiny (and that's fine if that's Sony's direction. Just wish they'd be more honest about it).
> The biggest selling point for the PS5 is still last-gen exclusives
we can be fair here. It's not like the Switch had any truly new IP's this gen (Arms is the only one that comes to mind). Bloodborne and Persona (which Sony has no ownership of) also aren't current gen titles.
Sony has:
- Gran Turismo
- two souls games (I guess that's my "minimum" for a franchise. 2+ games with a current gen game on there)
- Ratchet and Clank
- The Last of Us
- God of War
- Horizon
and... that;s it. Ghosts of Tsushima looks promising, but that's a very late gen 8 one off as of this posting.
When looking deeper, GT fans are being squeezed by MTX, Insomniac is planning a new R&C game for PS6, because they became a marvel studio, and Souls depends on a 3rd party to execute right. Naughty Dog's already said they are moving to a new IP, so we're left with God of War and Horizon, probably both coming by the end of the generation at this rate. and hoping GoT doesn't crash and burn its strong start.
Again, they want to be Nintendo but sell out to being a Disney contractor at the firs convinience.
Sony themselves reported that "We’re lacking the early phase (of IP) and that’s an issue for us." Which isn't only baffling but a slap in the face of people like me that grew up on Jak/Ratchet, Wild Arms, the Ico games, and has some beloved hits for me as recent as Gravity Rush and even Freedom Wars and Soul Sacrifice. AFAIK those are all wholly owned franchises for them.
But I know what they are really saying. "We don't have our Fortnite. We don't have our Minecraft. We don't have COD". Thinking like that is exactly why they have exactly one franchise even close to 30 years old (Gran Turismo) and fumbled the idea of owning a half dozen IPs already assossiated with them, while Nintendo has at least 5 1st/2nd party IPs that old or older that are beloved. You're not gonna be Nintendo by trying to fix Destiny (and that's fine if that's Sony's direction. Just wish they'd be more honest about it).
> The biggest selling point for the PS5 is still last-gen exclusives
we can be fair here. It's not like the Switch had any truly new IP's this gen (Arms is the only one that comes to mind). Bloodborne and Persona (which Sony has no ownership of) also aren't current gen titles.
Sony has:
- Gran Turismo
- two souls games (I guess that's my "minimum" for a franchise. 2+ games with a current gen game on there)
- Ratchet and Clank
- The Last of Us
- God of War
- Horizon
and... that;s it. Ghosts of Tsushima looks promising, but that's a very late gen 8 one off as of this posting.
When looking deeper, GT fans are being squeezed by MTX, Insomniac is planning a new R&C game for PS6, because they became a marvel studio, and Souls depends on a 3rd party to execute right. Naughty Dog's already said they are moving to a new IP, so we're left with God of War and Horizon, probably both coming by the end of the generation at this rate. and hoping GoT doesn't crash and burn its strong start.
Again, they want to be Nintendo but sell out to being a Disney contractor at the firs convinience.
I'm still salty about them essentially killing Killzone.
Killzone 2 was the online multiplayer that I've enjoyed the most in my life.
Killzone 2 was the online multiplayer that I've enjoyed the most in my life.
What kind of work can I do with it?
Still has shitty backwards compatibility. Sony thrives on subscriptions. Vote with your wallet.
Not entirely convinced they do, but I unsubscribed already after the price hike and different divisions of tiers.
Beyond the exclusives, if you're willing to spend this much for a playstation why not just spend a bit more for a nice PC? I have the PS5 but barely play it since the gaming experience on PC is just better and you have a lot more selection and can upgrade it piece by piece as needed over the years, which I'm finding I rarely need to do.
A similar performing 4070ti alone will cost $750, and thats just gpu. Including cpu, memory, storage it will be more than $1500.
Thanks for the downvotes for pointing out that, as part of the target market for this product, I scratch my head a bit as it touches more in the PC territory than cheaper consoles did in the past. If you bought both this and the PS5 you're already at ~$1200, and a great PC build can be had for close to that. I think it's totally legitimate to point out this starts to encroach on the pc's territory.
>Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
reminder.
>If you bought both this and the PS5 you're already at ~$1200
why would I buy both? PS5 probably still sells for more than launch price in the US. I'd basically break even selling it and then proceed to spend $130 on a dang disc drive. So we're still 600-700 dollars in after 4 years.
>I scratch my head a bit as it touches more in the PC territory than cheaper consoles did in the past.
Mostly because PC's stopped enroaching in console territory some 7 years ago or so, when mining became popular. There was a time where you could build a PC for $400 with the equivalent specs of a PS4/XBO. Any premium was to get better performance.
PS5 Pro does start to enroach, but PC components (mostly the GPU, but a few other components as well) have inflated faster than the consoles. Feels like one of the worst times to buy a PC if your argument is price matching a console.
reminder.
>If you bought both this and the PS5 you're already at ~$1200
why would I buy both? PS5 probably still sells for more than launch price in the US. I'd basically break even selling it and then proceed to spend $130 on a dang disc drive. So we're still 600-700 dollars in after 4 years.
>I scratch my head a bit as it touches more in the PC territory than cheaper consoles did in the past.
Mostly because PC's stopped enroaching in console territory some 7 years ago or so, when mining became popular. There was a time where you could build a PC for $400 with the equivalent specs of a PS4/XBO. Any premium was to get better performance.
PS5 Pro does start to enroach, but PC components (mostly the GPU, but a few other components as well) have inflated faster than the consoles. Feels like one of the worst times to buy a PC if your argument is price matching a console.
Don't patronize me, you seem to think you're the authority when it comes to how people react to a $700 console when a great gaming PC is in reach, price wise. And you'd buy both because the target for this probably is already on the playstation upgrade path so very likely already owns the PS5. Looking at Twitter I'm hardly the only one that feels this way.
Yeah, additionally it seems really weird that most PC stores in shopping malls don't sell ready made desktops with anything beyond i5 as CPU, one has to go into custom desktops increasing the whole price.
It is no longer the case that buying a regular mid-range desktop PC was good enough for gaming purposes.
It is no longer the case that buying a regular mid-range desktop PC was good enough for gaming purposes.
I own both PC and consoles for gaming. A console still is way more convenient to play in a big tv. And HDR support is also better. Also plenty of games are terribly optimized on PC.
Many games I want to play these days barely take full advantage of the base PS5, let alone needing more hardware. A lot of cheaper titles aren't even bothering to take advantage of the PS5 over the PS4. There are some really stand-out PS5 titles like Ratchet and Clank that look amazing, but they are relatively few and far between and they don't really leave you wishing for "more power".
Sure, this will let you play some games at 8k instead of 4k. Or this will let you get more FPS in 4k. If that is enough to upgrade, great. But I bet 99% of people wouldn't even be able to tell the difference in most real world situations unless they were staring at the two systems side by side with magnifying glasses. There's just no big obvious difference in most games.