Don
Yeah you say that now but the closer it gets to release the more chance you will change your mind
Nah, it would be like me upgrading my iPhone from the 15 to the 16, completely pointless.
Poll: *The Official PlayStation (PS5/PS5 Pro) Thread*
- Thread starter BMox81
- Start date
Nah, it would be like me upgrading my iPhone from the 15 to the 16, completely pointless.
Caporegime
Yeah you say that now but the closer it gets to release the more chance you will change your mind
Some people actually do have impulse control, I know that's a rare thing around these parts
It's a great way for developers to hide there crappy un optimised game engines by using brute compute power to achieve 4k 60 yes.
That is a rare thing indeed' we will seeSome people actually do have impulse control, I know that's a rare thing around these parts
I share the same feelings. My excitement is non-existent following this reveal. The price is off-putting ( especially when factoring in the additional cost of an optical drive / vertical stand ) and there are very few 1st party exclusives due over the next 2-3 years. If I want to play a 3rd party game at max graphical fidelity/performance then I'll buy that game on PC, not console.
Last edited:
Soldato
I voted Pancake, I'm really torn here.
I LIKE my OG PS5, it's a decent console, and sometimes it steals performance wins where it probably shouldn't due to better optimisation or plain focus vs the XBOX.
That said I'm struggling with the pricing equation here. I managed to get the PS5 fairly early, and paid a whole £450 for the disc drive version. I'd wanted to get the Pro, but £700 for a console that doesn't even have it's disc drive included (so basically its roughly double the price of the standard PS5 discless) feels rather steep, given manufacturing costs by all accounts should have gone down, and I'm not convinced its costing double to build cpmpared to what the PS5 does.
Throw on top, frankly I play my Switch (exclusives), PC (multiple reasons) and Xbox (Gamepass) more; and Gamepass has consistently been better than PSN IMO, to the point I've let my PSN lapse, but intend to renew my Gamepass Ultimate when it expires.
So, I can afford this, its a premium machine, I'm just struggling to justify it a bit, and I think they have to be careful as I CAN afford it, but at that price a lot of people cannot. I'd have had a much easier time justifying £750 with a disc drive included.
Need to think more, and hopefully as I read and hear more, there'll be more reasons to justify. Even less of an incentive for me now that they're slowly porting more of the former exclusives to PC.
I LIKE my OG PS5, it's a decent console, and sometimes it steals performance wins where it probably shouldn't due to better optimisation or plain focus vs the XBOX.
That said I'm struggling with the pricing equation here. I managed to get the PS5 fairly early, and paid a whole £450 for the disc drive version. I'd wanted to get the Pro, but £700 for a console that doesn't even have it's disc drive included (so basically its roughly double the price of the standard PS5 discless) feels rather steep, given manufacturing costs by all accounts should have gone down, and I'm not convinced its costing double to build cpmpared to what the PS5 does.
Throw on top, frankly I play my Switch (exclusives), PC (multiple reasons) and Xbox (Gamepass) more; and Gamepass has consistently been better than PSN IMO, to the point I've let my PSN lapse, but intend to renew my Gamepass Ultimate when it expires.
So, I can afford this, its a premium machine, I'm just struggling to justify it a bit, and I think they have to be careful as I CAN afford it, but at that price a lot of people cannot. I'd have had a much easier time justifying £750 with a disc drive included.
Need to think more, and hopefully as I read and hear more, there'll be more reasons to justify. Even less of an incentive for me now that they're slowly porting more of the former exclusives to PC.
Associate
Just watched this and was going to post. Not a short video and a fair bit of musing from the DF team as per usual. A few points that I'm torn on:
- They understate the impact of 'digital lock-in' when talking about Sony's decision to remove the optical drive. My guess is that there are a significant percentage of PlayStation users who have large digital libraries and that's always going to be a benefit when trying the migrate users to new hardware. The lack or extra cost of an optical drive is not going to be no issue for a lot of the customer base.
- "The lounge PC experience still sucks" (@dark1x / John's words). They make the point that Valve and Microsoft can address this easily. Albeit there is still the advantage of fixed hardware and the synergy this brings. I.e. Valve being able to 'fix' Elden Ring's stuttering problem before From could even address it on PC, or being able to eliminate the shader pre-caching issue on Steam Deck etc.
- And when John talks about the advantage of PC being an open platform and PS5 being closed, he's essentially hinting about piracy. i.e. if a storefront or service closes down. However that same community has also been pushing other platforms/projects too; i.e. being able to revitalise old consoles with new software, MiSTer's brutal development and the recent community's SNES Super FX 3 chip development etc. I feel the bigger issue is the lock-in to the service rather than worrying about the closed nature of it all. I think for archival purposes the community will always pick up the slack.
For me the PS5 Pro is a point to reflect on PlayStation and whether I'm still happy to continue buying into. Whether I buy PS5 Pro or not. Or in other words if I'm not going to remain in the PlayStation ecosystem then I might as well migrate to PC fully sooner. One advantage of owning a console has been I haven't needed such a powerful PC and therefore been able to run a relatively low-end machine (5600X/6650XT) for PC gaming. Which of course has it benefits in terms or costs, initial or running.
As DF noted there is still so much we don't know and until the machine is released a lot of these questions will likely remain unanswered. So I'll have a while to deliberate on the above.
Associate
I'm just waiting for Nintendo's response to this.
A Switch 2, that is 4K, Slghtly less powerful than the PS5/Series X, More on par with The Series S, Thus getting third party support and £449? I'd be okay with that.
A Switch 2, that is 4K, Slghtly less powerful than the PS5/Series X, More on par with The Series S, Thus getting third party support and £449? I'd be okay with that.
Wouldn't really call it an response. As Nintendo are in a league of their own and not competing against MS or Sony.
But plenty of people are ok with the Steam Deck prices. So Nintendo wont have any problems at £449.
Last edited:
Will see what games come out to actually make use of the power, if it goes down in price then perhaps pick one up in a few years if the PS6 hasn't appeared by then. That said I hardly use my PS5 but I only tend to play games once so if a big game has genuine advancements with the Pro then it could tempt me but not at full price.
Don
Not even pure computer power. Lets just add "AI" upscaling rather than even try and target native resolutions
The difference is that Valve will subsidise the cost of hardware. Nintendo never does, they always insist on making a profit. So even if it was priced the same as the Deck, it would have inferior hardware.
The only real way I can justify it to myself is that if I were to buy the Pro, I almost certainly wouldn't be looking to buy PS6 on Day One.
The generation leap from PS4 to PS5 felt massive. Even though I was using a PS4 Pro - I wanted the PS5, it felt really important. I was lucky enough to sail through pre-orders and I got mine on launch day.
However, PS5 to PS6 - albeit years in the future, doesn't feel like such a generation leap. Add in that if we were still getting releases on PS4/PS5 3yrs after the PS5 release, it would be almost certainly the same situation again.
So - that justification to myself is that I'd enjoy all future PS5 games in the best possible way. Then, once PS6 was released and under-utilised, I'd still be enjoying the new releases in the best way possible.
But as I said a lot earlier. For me it's a principal thing. That £700 should include an optical drive.
The generation leap from PS4 to PS5 felt massive. Even though I was using a PS4 Pro - I wanted the PS5, it felt really important. I was lucky enough to sail through pre-orders and I got mine on launch day.
However, PS5 to PS6 - albeit years in the future, doesn't feel like such a generation leap. Add in that if we were still getting releases on PS4/PS5 3yrs after the PS5 release, it would be almost certainly the same situation again.
So - that justification to myself is that I'd enjoy all future PS5 games in the best possible way. Then, once PS6 was released and under-utilised, I'd still be enjoying the new releases in the best way possible.
But as I said a lot earlier. For me it's a principal thing. That £700 should include an optical drive.
The PS5 will most likely be may last gaming console, part of the reason for that is the move to digital games, i refuse to pay £70 for a single game that i can't resell. As costs for everything seem to be spiralling out of control, they might run the risk of being too expensive.
Associate
It would be way faster,the GPU in the PRO is supposed to be around 7700XT in taster with better RT
Associate
The PRO will be able to play current games in fidelity mode at 60fps, but what about new and future game releases. All they will do is use the extra horsepower to make games look good rather than higher frame rates. It's just an viscous circle.
By the time they do make 2160p games running at 60fps, 8k will be the norm.
They will never make a console with all games running at 60fps minimum because they are hell bent on making games pleasing to the eye and pushing the system to it's limits. 2/3 of users choose performance mode, so does that not tell them something? People want frame rates rather than a 30-40 fps chop fest.
By the time they do make 2160p games running at 60fps, 8k will be the norm.
They will never make a console with all games running at 60fps minimum because they are hell bent on making games pleasing to the eye and pushing the system to it's limits. 2/3 of users choose performance mode, so does that not tell them something? People want frame rates rather than a 30-40 fps chop fest.
Associate
Yea, I think that is going to be a common response for some. I also think some long standing Microsoft Xbox users are going through the same thoughts. I suppose for me it doesn't matter where I buy the game for £70 digitally, i.e. whether it's on PC or PSN I still have the same lack of ownership issues. But there is a strong argument for consolidating future digital libraries. To be honest whether it's PC or console most of the game purchasing I do now is in the sales, buying games at heavy discounts.