Topic: PlayStation 5 --OT--

So I think when PS5 is released I think PS4 Pro is going to be discontinued. Games will still supported but sony will stop selling it when ps5 is out. Also ps4 slim i think will be replaced with a super slim with a ps2 slim style top loader design.

@WebHead The superslim would need Xbox S style 4K upscaling. But yes the doesn’t seem to be much point selling a premium version of the last generation console.

@Ryall indeed especially if PS5 is $399 with BC which it probably will be. The Pro has served its purpose. I expect the same with One X.

@WebHead If anything, I can see Sony dropping the base PS4 and just making the PS4 Pro - if not in the current shape, in a smaller form. It really doesn't make sense to continue making the base console at all. I know the Pro is a 'half step' into the 4k generation BUT it also has a lot of advantages for those still stuck in the HD era. The 'extra' resources available in the hardware can be used to ensure at least a full HD image quality and performance gains too.

Take Kingdom Hearts 3 as an example. Its only 900p on PS4 and has the worst frame rate of ALL consoles. The Pro may well be 1296p but if you force it to 1080p - as you would do with a HD TV and turn off Super-sampling, you get a full 1080p, best frame rate of any console and consistently plays at 60fps - there are drops here and there but its still the 'best' frame rate of any console - you also get better shadow quality and better anisotropic filtering over the PS4 version. The only way to play RDR2 at 1080/30p on PS is with the Pro (the PS4 isn't all that consistent in towns). Fighting games like Tekken and Soul Calibre have better visuals and higher resolution - a full 1080p on Pro.

Point is, with the fact that games are having to make more and more compromises for base hardware - some that are affecting not just visual quality but consistency and stability of frame rates. If you want at least 1080p and the better frame rates, then it makes sense to buy a Pro - regardless of whether you have a 4k or HD TV. In a lot of cases, its perhaps better for HD TV users as that forces the Console to play games at 1080p and use the extra resources to improve the frame rates. 1296p for example isn't going to look 'significantly' better on a 4k screen and in a number of games, the 'Pro' version is just full HD anyway. There are also a few games that offer a 'performance' mode to play games at higher frame rates than the PS4 can offer.

The Pro also will be a better console long term. If you keep your consoles as I do, it will offer a 'better' experience if/when you do upgrade to a 4k TV. Upgrading a 900p game on a 4k screen isn't going to look as nice as you remember it to be on your HD TV but playing on a Pro, apart from the frame rate advantage it has in basically every game, the visual quality is also better. Not just resolution in some cases.

As we will be even deeper into the 4k era when the PS5 does arrive, it makes NO sense to be making a console that barely does full HD any more, let alone the more inconsistent frame rates. It makes much more sense to stop making the base hardware and drop the Pro hardware down to PS4 (or thereabouts) prices. The advantages it has over the much older hardware would make sense regardless of what display technology you have - inc VR too. It makes sense to keep the 'best' PS4 and drop the weakest!

@WebHead Considering the 'expected' specs, $399 for a console wouldn't buy you much better than an X let alone a Zen CPU, 12+ Tflops GPU, 18GB RAM and a 4k HDR Bluray player. And people want/expect BC too.... Its like wanting a Ferrari for Skoda prices!!!

@BAMozzy I could not give 2 poops about on paper specs. Sony home consoles have never failed to deliver breath taking games. I suspect history will repeat itself, regardless of the TF count people on the web obsess over.

@WebHead Part of the reason Sony consoles have delivered Breath taking games is because of the specs - being at the forefront of technology (for consoles). Whether you care less or not, its part of the reason why the PS4 beats the Xbox One on visual quality AND general Performance. Its Specs that Allow devs to realise their visions, to make the 'games' they want and to deliver the breath talking visuals that suck you in to their games - after all its visuals that are often the 'first' impression. Its specs that allow them to craft expansive and detailed worlds as your playground without interrupting the game-play by loading screens or breaking the immersion with texture, shadow or objects popping in. Its specs that allow the devs to create emotive moments, to tell their stories and bring their characters to life.

Sony know that too and the fact that the PS4 was more powerful than the Xbox contributed to its success this generation. You can blame E3 2013 as much as you want for MS's failings but I bet if the PS4 had been the '900p' weaker console, things would have been different. Specs matter - not just for visual quality but for actual game performance. Whether you actually care about specs or not, I am sure you care about them being playable and looking great too. Naughty Dog, Guerrilla Games, Sucker Punch etc will all be crafting games to look visually appealing - like an artist with a paint palette and canvas - and will be relying on the hardware to deliver their vision at a frame rate that is playable as well as befitting of the era - ie 4k. Hence specs will make that possible or not. If specs were not important, then Sony and MS could well of just made do with their current gen hardware instead of bringing out mid gen refreshes to not only improve the visuals for those who have a higher resolution display but to also run games at 'better' frame rates. You may well be happy with declining visual quality (and yes lower resolution is lower quality as it introduces upscale 'blur' which is much worse if you own a 4k TV and using a base console, softer presentation with less detail) and its not just resolution but also shadow quality, draw distances (not necessarily just objects, but shadow, textures etc), anisotropic filtering, anti aliasing etc. You may be happy with inconsistent and unstable frame rates, screen tear etc too - all things that can be cured with higher specs.

For $400 you will be lucky to get anything much better than Xbox One X. By the time you take out the cost of the controller, HDMI, USB charging and Power cables, as well as packaging and leaflets, as well as all the manufacturing, shipping and distribution costs, that doesn't leave a lot for the consoles hardware specs - certainly not enough for a 'generational' leap over anything this generation has to offer. Its not likely to be much more than 4x a PS4 (2x a Pro) and people would expect it to last a 'generation' as well as be a generational leap. Specs are important - not necessarily the minutiae but the overall aspect of the specs and what the enables the console to deliver...

I do feel people need to chill on specs. People seem to want $800-1,000 specs in $400-500 boxes. Consoles always punch above their weight.

@BAMozzy and again on the part you clearly did not read, sony home consoles have never failed in delivering on this. I have zero reason not to trust that they will. I truly do not care how many teraflops the GPU has. What others think does not concern me. I choose to trust sony. Price is key.

@WebHead Of course consoles do - because they are built specifically for gaming with dedicated hardware rather than more general hardware with more background processes that a PC does. The games too are streamlined/optimised for a specific spec hardware because the consoles are (generally) a single set of specs and parameters to work with - that can also affect the Backwards Compatibility too - regardless of the architecture.

The combination of dedicated hardware and devs optimising for a single set of specs is what allows Consoles to punch above their weight.

That being said though, you can't make a Ford Focus compete with a Ferrari regardless of how much you strip out and and tune up the engine. Maybe if you invest in a bigger, better engine but you can't replace the 'engine' in a console or over clock it so you are relying on devs to strip out any 'bloat' in the software - streamline and optimise the game to run on the engine.

I also know that you can't look at the high street price of a GPU, CPU and RAM and use those as a 'guide' price on what a console could offer in a certain price point. MS and Sony won't be paying 'street' prices but manufacture prices. Even still, you can look at the Xbox One X and what that offered for $500 and use that, as well as the Pro at $400 a year earlier and make an educated guess at what $400 is likely to buy you in a years time - not much more than the X offered! That's say 2yrs later and $100 less. It would be unlikely too offer a Zen CPU with a 12Tflop GPU (2x the X's GPU if the numbers mean little) that's state of art (Navi with perhaps Ray Tracing capability) and custom built with 18GB of RAM (6 (or 50%) more GB's than the X) as well as a 4k HDR Bluray player, at least 2TB HDD (double the X) as well as perhaps HDMI 2.1 with VRR, HFR and Dolby Atmos audio - lets not also forget the cooling system to prevent YLOD (or equivalent). This is basically double the X offers - and the Zen is likely to be an 8core/16thread CPU - clocked faster of course. I would love all this for £400, let alone $400.

I can understand why people are speculating that the PS5 should be around this spec (+/- a bit here and there) as this is around a 2x jump up from an X, around a 3x jump up from the Pro and around a 6x jump up from the PS4 - which is a little bit less of a jump up from the PS3. I have seen people assume it will be around 14-15Tf which would be around 8x the PS4's computational power - which would be the upper limit we have seen in generational leaps before.

For a game that's say 1080/30 to go to 2160/60 - ie full 4k and 60fps, the GPU would need to be around 8x as powerful because it has to render 4x the image size in half the time. It may take more than 8x if you want to increase the visual quality and add more post processing to the pipeline too. But then if you have a more efficient GPU with lower latency, you may not need 8x the computational power but the point is, you still need a sizeable step up to go not only increase the image size but to also render it in half the time.

Regardless of whether Consoles punch above their weight - its obvious by looking at any gen console - but if you do the maths on what the current consoles offer and multiply that up to get 4k/60 as a 'minimum' - makes sense for a 4k era console with the X delivering 4k/30 on a LOT of games now - then you would get 12-14tflops to make those 4k games run at 60fps, render twice as many images per second so have half the time per frame. Everything needs to be done in half the time so everything has to be beefed up. And some games don't even run perfectly at 1080/30 on PS4 now - not without either dynamically reducing the Picture Quality or dropping frame rates. All this is based on the current consoles and their specs - doing the maths on what they are currently offering, not based on PC figures at all. If they are 'punching' above their weight for HD gaming, then extrapolating those specs and multiplying up to get the resolution and performance metrics would tend to need around the 6-8x increase in specs.

As I said, I would love to get a PS5 based on those specs for just $400 - even in a years time, I would be surprised if Sony could make their console and sell it for $400 without selling at a 'big' loss. $500 would be pushing it too and possibly still be selling at a loss.

Tbh I'll gladly take a $400 checkerboard 4k console. I'll happily accept an imperceptibly softer image to save ob costs and uses the spare you resources elsewhere.

Here’s an interesting question I heard posed: Cost being equal, would you rather have a PS5 that comes with a full VR kit or full PS1-PS4 backwards compatibility?
Lets say you can only have one feature that comes built in with the unit and the PS5 specs are the same either way. Obviously you can buy the other feature separately — like if the PS5 comes with full BC then you can buy a VR unit, or if it comes with the VR attached you can buy a PS1, PS2, PS3, PS4 and have all those consoles separate.

For me, I probably would use either feature only sparingly. And honestly, I would actually use BC more than VR. So many times this gen I have thought about playing a PS3 game and I think I would have if I could have just booted it up on my PS4 but I couldn’t bother to fire up a separate console so I didn’t. And I haven’t felt inclined to get a VR due to cost and just not having much interest beyond mild curiosity. I have a feeling I might have motion sickness problems too, in addition to the fact that I hate the idea of all the complex wires and set up. If the VR was an upgraded VR2 that was wireless and better integrated into the PS5 from day 1, then it may be more tempting though.
It boils down to a basic question of would you rather have your console built for the new future potential innovations with VR or the ability to live in an endless sea of thousands of past experiences with full BC (all in addition to all the new ongoing PS5 developed titles)?

@Th3solution VR all the way. I always keep my old consoles so no BC isn't much of an issue to me.

I really do not care about the technical mumbo jumbo. Just give me a good system with good games. The devs will work with whatever sony gives them as long as the platform will be viable. Its their job.

If PS5 has no BC at all it will be a long time till I get one if ever.

@WebHead I'd presume people buy a console to play the new games coming to that system, instead of the old games they already own, but I could be wrong

@Octane that is not the point. A lot of people have bought digitaly this gen including me. We are in an age where all your past stuff carries over in other devices. Its nice to have BC to fall back on in regards to personal droughts like when money is tight. There will be no arch excuse this time either. I consider no BC not only stupid but outright disrespectful to those that have poured hundreds of dollars into their ecosystem.

indeed - especially as I can already play ALL the games I own on the Consoles they were made for. I don't want to be spending 'extra' to play some 'old' games that I can play ANYTIME on the Console they were made and licenced to work on.

Is it spending extra if the architecture is similar enough for emulation? Sony fans and their attitudes lately.

You paid 'hundreds of Dollars' to play them on a PS4 and the games were licenced and released for PS4 - it says so on the box, in the Digital Store etc. It NEVER once said that the games you were buying were for PS4 & any subsequent console thereafter. Sony and MS are under NO Obligation to offer Backwards Compatibility regardless of whether you bought digitally or physical releases. The games you bought were advertised for PS4, licensed and rated for PS4 and as such, they will work on PS4.

Its entirely up to Sony as to whether they look to add any form of Backwards Compatibility - whether that's Full or Partial or not at all. Just because you (and others) have opted to go more digital this generation is absolutely irrelevant. There were a LOT of people who purchased or acquired Digital games, DLC etc on last generation too yet Sony opted not to build in any form of BC - whether that was Physical (as in a PS3 chip set) or software (as in PS3 Emulator). People could and did spend 'hundreds of Dollars' or equivalent in their currency on Digital content - let alone Physical content and still upgraded to a PS4 with the ONLY way to play PS3 games is on a PS3.

Buying Digital was your choice - no different from others spending a fortune on Physical games. You can still access EVERY game on your PS4 - even when the PS5 launches. You can download every games, save it on an external HDD and play long after the PS4 is 'turned off'. Your choice to buy digital is NO different from those who choose o buy Physical. There is NO more obligation from Sony (or any other Console manufacturer) to offer Backwards Compatibility regardless of whether you opted to buy Digital or physical - you purchased them to play on your PS4 as they were advertised to work on.

If Sony do add some form of BC, bonus - if not, then you will have to stick with playing the games on the console they were built to run on - exactly the same as those who purchased their games Physically - inc ANY additional Digital content they may of bought too...

Well thats a pretty good way to lose customers especially ps plus subs. There is NO obligation for me to support them if they do not have the decency to allow me to play my games on future hardware.

However I feel like i am talking to a brick wall here.