Topic: PlayStation 5 --OT--

@Ryall I don't agree that the newer consoles feel 'less' premium. That may well be down to the fact that launch models cost more and therefore must be more 'premium' rather than the fact that the general cost of components become cheaper and, in the case of consoles, reduce in size because the APU can be made smaller. If you look at the Launch PS3, that started off with a 90nm Chip and the Slim was on a 45nm chip - hence smaller. It can be argued that it was also 'less premium' because they also removed the old PS2 chipset and reduced the number of USB ports - but most of that was to compete with MS's much cheaper XB360.

If, however, you look at MS's XB360, the launch models were prone to RROD but they changed the chip and by the time the Slim launched, the console was much less likely to get RROD, also came with HDMI port (unlike the OG which was still using analogue) so it was a more 'premium' model.

The Pro is much more 'premium' than the OG PS4. That has been revised too (I think we are on the 3rd iteration now) whilst it may still look the same on the outside. The newest iteration is the 'best' PS4 you can buy - better than the OG (which I still own). I know the 'base' console can still offer HDR gaming - but it can't offer the 'premium' streaming experience (4k HDR Netflix/Amazon for example), can't offer 'Premium' gaming - UHD HDR and 'smoothest', most consistent frame rates. It has a 'boost' mode to improve a number of games - albeit slight but its still a 'better' frame rate than the base PS4 can offer. So even if you don't have 'Pro enhanced' games, the Pro itself can enhance some games to be 'better' than the OG PS4 model. I surely don't need to explain why 'enhancing' the gaming experience is testament to a 'premium' console.

If you look at the XB1, the OG Xbox was a monster - in terms of size and also had the old 'power brick' on the outside too. The 'revised' XB1, the S, is much more 'Premium' as it offers 4k HDR content - not games I know (although these are 'upscaled' to 4k internally) but Blurays, Netflix/Amazon etc. Its in a much smaller console and yet still has the power brick inside the console. It has 'slightly' improved gaming experience - thanks to a 'small' boost in power so is more 'Premium' than the launch model despite costing less. Obviously the X is the 'Premium' Xbox as it not only runs games at a full 4k HDR with better loading times and certainly better frame rates. It does everything and more than what the OG XB1 did and certainly delivers a 'Premium' gaming experience.

Whether the Pro costs less and the overall design is less shiny too (less of a fingerprint magnet) than the OG PS4, what it offers cannot be 'dismissed' as 'less premium'. Its obvious to me that it offers the 'premium' PS4 gaming experience regardless of what TV you own. If you only own a HD TV, you still benefit from its 'boost' mode AND the enhanced Games - especially as the PS4 games are reducing in visual and often in frame rate performance as we are progressing through this generation. In basically every game now, the Pro beats the PS4 and, with the ability to 'lock' games down to a Full HD, often giving the 'best' frame rates too. It out performs the PS4 in basically every criteria - regardless of what Display you have. I know that a LOT of exclusives are full HD - mainly because the Dev can make adjustments to the game design in order to hit full HD and a 'locked' (or close to it) performance but a LOT of games now are 'sub-1080p' and often rely on dynamically reducing the Picture Quality to try and keep the frame rates more consistent. The Pro is basically the ONLY PS4 that offers full HD in virtually every game and more consistent frame rates too.

I have a 4k HDR TV and I would still rather have UHD games and therefore the only PS4 that offers this is the Pro. From just a gaming perspective, the Pro is certainly the most premium and future proofed PS4 money can buy. Even after the PS5 launches, the Pro still makes sense for Sony to keep producing as the 'only' PS4 on the market. Sony, like all manufacturers are not making many, if any HD TV's. Whether you own a 4k TV or not, by the time you do buy, chances are you won't be buying a HD TV. The Pro will still offer a better PS4 experience. It offers the better experience on HD TV's and 4k TV's because its the 'premium' console. I haven't mentioned VR yet and the Pro offers benefits here too.

Point is, if my Pro does become irreparably dead, then I would want to replace it rather than drop back to the OG PS4 I still own. Its a drop down in visual quality, performance & stability (frame rates) as well as features too - like 4k HDR streaming. Going from playing a Game on a PS5 to OG PS4 will be far more of a drop in quality of that gaming experience and I am more likely to play older PS4 games on my Pro than on a base PS4 because of the more significant drop in quality - that alone should be indicative of which is the 'premium' console.

@BAMozzy If you’re simply looking at the numbers you’re absolutely right performance and power have improved for the pro whilst noise and reliability for the slim and later revisions have been improved.
I’m talking about the feel of the thing as a physical object. I think what I’m saying can most clearly seen on the Vita. On paper the last model is best with long battery life and 1GB of internal storage the original didn’t have. But subjectively looking at the screen be original looks nicer.

What I’m saying only applies to Sony not Microsoft and Nintendo.

@Ryall I can't comment on the Vita myself as I never bought one. I know they did 'perceivably' reduce the screen quality but that in part may well be for battery life improvements and moving from OLED also reduces the risk of Screen Burn-in.

In an interview with Nikkei, Sony's Andrew House said, "The main reason is that the LCD panel can now realize an image as high quality as that of the OLED panel." House also added that the LCD panel makes it easier to slim down the PS Vita. It may also have cost saving too enabling Sony to improve the Vita in several key areas - like Price, battery life, more storage and a 'better bang for your buck' with lower risk of screen burn-in. As I said, its perceivably worse but in general its still a bigger step forward in more key areas.

As a gamer, you want the 'best bang for your buck' on any console. Games too are important but if you can't play them because your battery has run flat or the frame rate makes it difficult to 'enjoy' the game. I know a LOT will say game visuals are not that important but these do create our firs impression. All you have to do is look at the comments in any game. Have a great looking trailer/tease and people are 'excited', they want to play it before they even know what the game-play is, what the story offers etc. If its not so great, people are instantly put-off. If a game doesn't 'look' like the first trailer, they are all shouting about 'downgraded' visuals.

Regardless of what people may say, Graphics are important - maybe not the 'most' important but still important. They do give people their first impression and first impression can have a big impact on sales of a game. Things like Frame rates often impact on people after a game is bought (or reviewed) but by which point, the publisher has often got the money in.

To a gamer, regardless of what they may say, Hardware Specs matter to their gaming experience. Whether that's the way a game performs, way a game looks or even what the devs can achieve to provide a 'better' experience. That maybe bigger, more densely packed open worlds without 'loading' screens (unless you fast travel) with more realistic vegetation, water etc. It maybe more realistic lighting, shadows, particles, etc with a much greater colour palette and contrast (HDR). More accurate skin and facial animations, more realistic hair/fur, more dynamic world with weather that impacts on the environment - like puddles that form when raining and evaporate in the sun. I could go on but the point is, specs matter and whilst its 'unusual' in a lot of console generations to get a more powerful version, it still matters.

In every way, the PS4 Pro is a 'premium' PS4. As I tried to say its not just 'gaming' that benefits from the Premium console. It offers more than a base PS4 - regardless of whether you purchased the Original or Slim model. It allows for you to access 'premium' streaming content from Netflix/Amazon. I believe it generally has faster load times too so whilst some aspects may well be of little use to a HD TV users (things like 4k & HDR content), the primary reason for buying a console does benefit EVERYONE regardless of the display tech.

What Sony may have done in the past, stripping out PS2 chipsets in their slim PS3, changing the screen in the Vita etc - most of which did benefit the gamer in other areas - doesn't mean that is always going to happen. If, for example, your OLED screen Vita breaks down irreparably, do you go looking for another OLED screen Vita or look to buy the one that will look 'almost' as good (although Sony do say the screen is as good), with much better storage, battery life to enable longer gaming sessions before recharging and at a cheaper price point?

When my OG 60GB PS3 ended up with YLOD (I never had RROD incidentally), I replaced that with 320GB Slim for a LOT less money. I may of lost access to a lot of my PS1/2 games (which I gave to my son as I was NEVER playing them) but it was and still is 'working', much better power usage and quieter too. Generally speaking, Electronics advance over time and therefore you can end up with a 'better' console later on in its life due to revisions. Gaming may not always have such a 'radical' improvement as the Pro/X offer over the 'base' hardware - but often get a 'better' bang for your buck as they are often cheaper, more economic to run and potentially revised to eliminate any issues that may have arisen - such as RROD/YLOD. Considering what I paid for my PS3 and how much I paid for my PS3 Slim, the loss of BC and a few USB ports, I gained a much slimmer, more efficient console that was still able to play All my games. When you look at what I paid for my PS3 and Pro, the Pro offers a LOT more benefits over the base PS4 so better bang for my buck.

I know this is the PC breakdown of Metro BUT it really does a great job of showcasing Ray Tracing and what that brings to this game. The reason I am posting it here is to highlight Ray Tracing and why it could transform gaming on the PS5 - if Sony do build Ray Tracing functionality into the PS5.

If I had the choice of Ray Tracing or Backwards Compatibility (if Sony had to focus on bringing one or the other) on the PS5, I would opt for Ray Tracing without any hesitation. Which would you pick?

I doubt we are gonna get Ray Tracing on consoles any time soon. Even pretty beefy PC's apparently struggle to cope with it so I hear. It's kinda like some people thinking PS4 and XBO were gonna be 4K 60FPS machines before we knew about them. For under 400 quid. There was no way that was ever gonna happen.

@JohnnyShoulder like I said people are asking too much. Xbox One X has lead to unrealistic expectations for next gen hardware.

@Kidfried Check out the smarty pants with all the Ray Tracing knowledge!

@JohnnyShoulder That's assuming the PS5 is £400 or even $400. The X was $500 and Sony will want to 'beat' MS which will be difficult to improve on with a budget of 'just' $400. The rumoured specs will be 'difficult' to hit at $500. Ray Tracing can be done with dedicated Ray Tracing component built into the APU. We are yet to see AMD's version of Ray Tracing so who knows if they have a 'cheaper' method and I expect it to work with traditional rasterisation anyway - not be the 'only' way of illumination and shadow generation.

Back in 2013, we were in a Global Economic crisis where analysts were predicting the death of consoles and releasing a new console would be a mistake because people would not spend money on 'Leisure' activities because of the global economic state of the world. That may well of influenced Sony and MS to be far more conservative on their entry Price point. It's not unreasonable for Sony to target $500 if you factor in inflation and economic growth - especially if they can sell the console on specs and game performance that the 'extra' money can allow them to do. The X for example was $500 and Sony will struggle to offer a 'next gen' leap over the X for $400 just a few years later.

Have you not seen the Ray Tracing Demo's and multitude of CGI animated movies that all use Ray Tracing - inc movies like Toy Story which isn't exactly 'realistic' looking. Admittedly, the movies can take hours to calculate and render just a single frame thanks to millions of rays to provide a realistic illuminated scene with realistic shadows and light bounce - but they don't just benefit 'realistic' visuals and can benefit every game regardless of artstyle as every game has a light source, shadows etc.

Granted its 'expensive' at the moment to incorporate ray tracing in a game where frames are rendered every 33ms (30fps) or 16.6ms (60fps) but it can still be possible and used in conjunction with traditional rasterisation and perhaps some AI to predict the way that many more rays would react in a scene without needing to actually trace the path of lots of rays. Much like we see 'low, medium, high, ultra' settings for a LOT of visual aspects in a game, Consoles may be able to offer Low/Medium levels of Ray Tracing.

As usual, time will tell. It really depends on whether they offer us a choice of settings - a native 4k with traditional lighting or a lower res, AI upscaled or CB rendered option with Ray Tracing. You have the option on PC's and don't actually need a ray tracing enabled graphics card either...

Not realistic visuals either...

Ray Tracing would be cool but I do not need it. I do not mind $500 but would prefer $400. Yeah I Know One X but that is not the same situation. One x is an optional premium edition not the start of a new gen.

Really we should not worry about it. The games will look great regardless. And that is good enough for me.

I would definitely prefer a PS5 that is capable of raytracing to one that had backward compatibility but was not as graphically capable.
Whilst APU have often being surprisingly competent when compare to a PC at the same price point I would expect the main increases to be in CPU performance rather than GPU and RAM. Compare to the Xbox X I would expect the CPU to be a order of magnitude better but the GPU and RAM to only increase by 10’s of %’s

@BAMozzy I'm not saying the ps5 will be 400 quid or under. Read my post again and I said that is what some people thought this generation of consoles would sell for AND be able to do 4k and 60fps when they were first released.

And personally I still do not think we will get Ray Tracing next gen. I could be wrong and I base this on rather limited knowledge, but I think people need to get their expectations in check.

@JohnnyShoulder I wasn't 'just' answering you but also making a comment about anyone assuming the PS5 would be $400 AND offering the type of specs that would be a 'generational' leap above anything we have around now. The X is a relevant point because Sony won't want to release something that isn't an X beater - even if it puts most of the money into the CPU and compromises on GPU and RAM - again not specifically responding to you but anyone who also thinks the X and its 'price' is irrelevant to Sony's next console.

The mid-gen consoles are 'relevant' to the future of the next gen machines. Of course the base consoles are as well but if Sony were to offer a $400 that matches the X but with a better CPU, I think that hands MS the opportunity to deliver a much more powerful and more capable console for $500 that not only has a better CPU (or at least similar one to pS5) and more Powerful GPU than the X and certainly the PS5. I know Sony fanboys will buy the PS5 regardless but those sat on the fence may well jump to Xbox. Its not 'just' the exclusives that people decide which console to buy but which console will play the games the best. Most people buy more multi-platform games than Exclusives and they will want to know which console plays CoD, Fifa, Battlefield etc the best - not the 'fanboys' that buy Sony or MS regardless but the rest of the gamers. MS also has a lot of Studio's now too and whilst we don't know what they are working on, the promise that exclusives will come, along with the extra power may make a big difference in their decision.

You can't underestimate the fact that Sony had the most powerful machine at the start of this Generation. It wasn't all down to E3 and the mistake MS made because at launch, the 'only' mistake MS had was bundling in Kinect - something that was removed after 6/7 months. That also gave MS the cheapest console yet Sony's PS4 continued to outsell - a lot of that was down to the console being the most powerful and clearly showing it in the performance of games when compared. It wasn't down to 'exclusives' either as MS had more AAA games in the first year or two and even when they added BC, 4k HDR bluray player etc the gap still increased because PS4 is more powerful and why would people buy an Xbox when games are 720-900p when they can buy a PS4 and get 900-1080p and often with better performance for a bit more money.

A Zen R7 1700 8core CPU costs around $300 - $330. I know that purchasing a single CPU for a PC is going to cost an individual a lot more than it will cost Sony/MS to buy an APU with the Zen built in and purchasing in bulk but I just wanted to indicate the type of price a Zen at the lower end of the range will cost to a individual. Add in a GPU, RAM, Bluray drive (probably 4k HDR as that also has more storage capacity for games too), HDD, PSU, cooling, ports (HDMI, USB, LAN etc) Controller, cables and packaging and hitting $400, I think it will be difficult to offer a next gen upgrade. The X is relevant because if it can't beat the X, a mid gen refresh, by a considerable margin, how much of a next gen is it? How will it hold up in 2 or 3yrs let alone 5 or 6yrs?

Anyway, time will tell of course. I still think $400 is unlikely - not if Sony want to offer a generational leap over their own hardware, let alone the X. You want to beat you closest rival after all. $400 would be fine for me as I tend to buy both anyway but I would prefer the PS5 to be competitive with whatever MS releases so I don't end up with 1 console being just an exclusive box whilst the other is used for everything else - pretty much what my Pro is now.

PS5 is a console thats coning out over 2 years after the One X. Of course it is going to be better. Plus while One X did launch at $500 its not uncommon to see it at $400-450.

Power.Is.Not.Everything.

Tbh that the ps4 was more powerful was pretty low in my list when I was deciding on which console to go for, it was like an added bonus along with all the other things that went against the XBO. Now this isn't me saying it power is not important, as different things are important to different people. It's just not be all and end all of everything for me. If that was the case the Switch wouldn't be selling as well as it is, and be on course to outsell the XBO.

I'm not loyal to any one brand either and would happily jump ship to MS next gen if Sony muck things along the same lines as MS did for this gen. I'm pretty confident they won't though, I just hope history doesn't repeat itself again.

@JohnnyShoulder pretty much. I'm not loyal to any brand I will go to whichever best serves me. In fact as far as I know ps4 is the only console gen wehre the strongest console at launch sold the most.

But yeah if you are consumer friendly, affordable and have the must have games the sales will come.

@Kidfried of course everyone like has a preferred platform. I wont lie in that I have favored PS so far but not like I agreed to a blood oath or anything to them. If Scarlett Arcade or Pro demonstrate themselves as being better worth my time I will switch to those.(Xbox is heavily rumored to be released in 2 skus of different power levels.)

What is it with these buzzwords 'loyal', 'fanboy', 'piece of plastic' people throw around? These are derogatory in the way they are often used. There s nothing close to 'loyalty' when someone is happy with a brand from their personal experience. Why do people feel the need to express some virtue signalling on everything now? It's more about customer satisfaction with whatever product they feel comfortable with from their personal experience. I go with PlayStation and don't feel the need to justify it., PS5 it is for next gen, no question about it

@BAMozzy A lot of causal people don’t know the difference, and a lot of the hardcore people were ticked off by MS’s convoluted used game and always online system they were pushing for, as well as the insurance pricing comparison. I think was a factor, but it was a lower on the list. By the time the bad PR wore off Sont was doubtmuch better exclusive wise and Sony also has much heightened rated exclusives even close to the start of the generation. There are many more important reasons than power that Sony outsold MS.

@Jaz007 exaclty. Power helped but its not why PS4 won. MS screwed up hard. Plus PS1 and PS2 had stronger rivals and they godstomped their competition. Its all about the games.

Besides I do not really care for dumb console war stuff anymore. The business side of things is none of my business.