Topic: The 'PS5 Pro is technically for me' Thread

I'd quite like there to be a thread where we can actually discuss the ins and outs of it in a kind of neutral way, a personal way, or even in a technical way. And by this I mean away from all the price talk as there's plenty of other places we can kick up a fuss about that. And also away from statements about whether or not it is "needed" whatever that means. So instead of stating things like "it is so needed" or "it is so not needed" which doesn't really get anyone anywhere 😛 I'd like to hear more about whether it is for you, and if so why? (if that makes sense)

Of course, if it isn't for you, that is fair enough, and if you do want to join in keep it about why it technically isn't for you, rather than any pricing, value, need talk. I.e "I'm not really that bothered about frame rate/fidelity in games, I just like the games" which is an admirable reason, as great games are great games regardless of generation. And I do kind of wish I still fell in to that category myself.

So there we go. Is the PS5 Pro for you, and if so, what is it about this current generation, or the PS5 Pro itself, that makes it 'for you'?

For me, personally, resolutions (or perhaps image quality) and frame rates in games are actively annoying me this generation. It is something that sometimes distracts me, and I find myself thinking about it from time to time too, and i'm feeling a little disapointed with the generation as a whole because of it.

I genuinely can't remember the last big game I played in 60fps, I know Valhalla I did, maybe Mirage too, other than something like Astro Bot where 60 is a given and they technically nailed it so it is pretty much flawless and you don't even think about that stuff.

But...

DD2 30
FF16 30
BG3 30 (I think)
SW Oulaws 30/40
Hogwarts 30/40
Jedi Survivor 30
Elden Ring 30

And none of them are graphically perfect at that, and all have made noticable cutbacks to even get the 30fps to work well on this generations hardware, it seems.

Also, people have bigger tvs now, I know I have a bigger tv now than I did when I played on a ps4/pro, and games this generation, apart from maybe Sony first party, have started to look worse than PS4 games did on smaller tvs. This is what it feels like, to me, anyway.

This is probably a niche view, and that is fine, it is a niche product, and it should be a niche product. The same as incremental PC upgrades are niche. But this is why the PS5 Pro is probably for me 😪😪😅

I’m undecided. I like what I’m seeing with the specs. I’m not a big frame rate snob but I really like ray tracing.

The cost is pretty high and I don’t need two PS5’s as I only have one TV that really would take advantage of the capabilities of even the base console. Perhaps the market for trading in my PS5 toward a Pro would bring the cost down reasonably, but I don’t know.

Edit: By the way, I saw the comment elsewhere and remembered it was true — a lot of people were paying $700 (and more) to scalpers 3 years ago for the base PS5. Of course Sony is going to see that and get in on the action.

@Th3solution let me decide for you then. It is for you 😛

I actually don't think the presentation was any good though. PS5 games made by Sony generally look great, and having someone say "this is a big difference here" where you can't see it just leads to people thinking there's no real difference.

I think third party games will benefit hugely though, especially with PSSR, boost mode etc, which is the thing that excites me most. And it isn't going to be something that takes much effort for devs either, which is really important. If Mark Cerny has basically said "Hey devs, want to make your games look better, well this will pretty much do all the work for you" it's going to be implemented as devs want their games to look as good as possible.

You've played Hogwarts Legacy, right? I played that with the Ray Tracing and I think in the 40fps mode, maybe even 30, i'd have to go and check what modes it had. But, although the Ray Tracing is nice, it is lacking compared to what it could be, move a certain way the rays vanish, look closely and they are low resolution. And obviously the 60fps mode always cuts down graphics. But in every mode, don't you get the feeling that it is lacking something, same as Elden Ring, it's a beautiful game in its way, and I adored it, but it was a bit of a mess on consoles and always lacked something however you set it up. I'm not very technical, but I feel like image quality is suffering for whatever reason this Gen in nearly every third party game I've played. Moving the camera too fast even with a stable frame rate and all kinds of stuff goes wrong with the graphics processing.

This is what I'm most hoping will change, and it isn't something they can really show in their showcase either. You can't say "ah, look at this third party game and how it looks worse here: you can only really do that with your own games 😅

I suppose independent, hands on testing will be the best way to get an idea of how good PSSR is. And people in the know are hoping it can get mich closer to DLSS on PC's which has been transformative for games.

Overall, I think the whole thing is funny, because they used the "75% of people use performance mode" nugget, so nowwe're doing this. But 100% of devs want their games to look better, so will probably end up using the new power to bring over higher graphics settings, whilst also offering a 4k60 mode to pretend that's what they care about 😅

Frame rate wise the most important thing on consoles is for it to be absolutely stable, I think. And when people say buttery smooth 60fps it does my head in, because most console 60fps is trash far from smooth. Sure there's less input lag, so its good for quick reqctions and all that, but in most games it is an awful experience and you get downgraded graphics on top of that. Sports games and stuff like astro bot have excellent 60fps, probably some shooters too, AC games have manageable 60fps, but nearly everything else it is stinky garbage 😅

So, It's going to be marketed as one thing, and will probably deliver that, certainly for first party games, but perhaps deliver another thing entirely for everything else, hopefully, anyway 😁

@Ravix The sad thing is that most people see that a more powerful hardware is the ONLY answer for better performance, while the problem is the uncontrollably high number of incompetent companies.

Games need optimization, not to power through a badly written game with better GPU. And the fault is NOT 100% in the devs ofc. The higher ups are not giving them reasonable deadlines or proper trainings.

well, what about you? is it for you ? i didn't see you mention your take unless i missed it, but to answer your question though - in a hypothetical situation, if i was really obsessed with power and latest specs & couldnt have a PC or wasn't familiar to PC, then yes. yes, it would be for me.

i think the pro is for people that cant be bothered at all with a computer for whatever reason, but want the best specs they can get for console.

Not for me as I am content with my PS5. I was never keen on the PS4 Pro, so it would have to be something mind blowing at a lower price point for me to be even interested.

@Zuljaras it is kind of sad, and this is the first generation I have felt disappointed with overall quality. I think, in a way, when they designed the X and 5, they severely misjudged the help nearly every developer would need making things work right. I don't think the S helped, but I do think PSSR will help set things right, as it unlocks hidden performance and allows higher quality as a result. I think we are way past the things you mention being possible, unless every dev takes 10+ years like Rockstar, sadly.

@nomither6 I followed with he first comment, kind of explaining. Sadly, I do think it is for me. I'm not really enthused that it is, but, it is 😅 it mainly boils down to being disapointed with image quality this generation. To me, it feels way below what it should at this point, and hopefully the machine learning super sampling will help bring levels to something more what we all expected from this generation. It feels like a third party update, rather than a first party update, although Sony locking down 4k 60 will please a lot of people for their own releases, for me, it is about overall improving graphics options and performance will be a nice bonus.

And unfortunately I'm not familiar with PC gaming and have a lot invested into my PS library, I want to be able to just build a PC, but it doesn't really suit my set up right now, so brute forcing the best possible woth a console is going to have to do, I think 😅

I am overall a bit more positive about it than I'm seeming, but if I miss out on a pre order I'm not going to be completely devastated. But I'm quite excited to see if Cerny can match or get anywhere close to DLSS woth PSSR

@Ravix that makes sense, but i do want to make a suggestion that you should look into PC in the future. it seems like it would really be a good fit for you , plus you can always keep your consoles around. It’s why i see the ps5 pro as being a scam, but to those who don’t have a PC it makes (almost) perfect sense. You can’t go wrong with a PS5 Pro if you’re looking for the best experience with your current setup.

but for me, as someone who already has a PS5 & PC, it would be dumb for me to do it 😂

My perspective as a physical collector is, that I would be far more keen to buy one if it were £700 with 1tb and a disk drive (rather than 2tb with no drive)… the fact that I’d have to buy the additional disk drive for £100 is probably the deal breaker tbh. The missus came into my gaming room after the show (she could hear the announcement from her office) and asked if I wanted one for Christmas and my response was probably not.

If GTA VI were to release to universal appeal, running at ray-traced 4k at 60 frames in the Pro, I might well change my mind.

I was tempted to at least pre-order one just incase, but I've now decided I don't need one. It would be nice to not have to decide between graphics and performance, but I'm currently using a 32" 1080p TV, so I'd have to also buy a new 4K TV to feel like I'm getting my monies worth out of the console.

I'm saving money atm, so I might end up treating myself to a PS5 Pro and a 4K TV when Grand Theft Auto VI is released. I'm sure they'll be a bundle for the PS5 Pro and the game.

I am getting one.
I can afford it, have a big OLED TV and the differences in the presentation were noticeable to me.
I don't think anyone needs one and tbf if they never made it I would not be complaining about how games run on the base model, but an upgrade is an upgrade and I like when nice things are even nicer.

As a PlayStation fan, I want this to be for me of course

Like many others, I was originally sceptical of the PS4 Pro and ended up enjoying it (aside from the aeroplane takeoff noises when doing anything..)

This feels like a new level of scepticism though as there's a new concern added with the high price as well as even lesser returns from the upgraded quality

Generally games have been fine for me this generation. I'd rather there wasn't the option between fidelity and performance, but at least most games do offer that so the compromise is usually there

My bigger concern is the continued lack of support for some of the best PS4 games like Bloodborne and RDR2. Maybe this machine will fix that but it seems unlikely and just leaves a bad taste to me

No mention in the presentation about PSVR or the Portal is poor as well imo, as it leaves me unsure of future support for this

Do I really want to invest so heavily in a new machine that we don't really know how well it will be supported and how good the upgrades will be? Probably not

Sorry to bring it back to price again but I think this reveal really hits home that console gaming is no longer as accessible as it used to be

If I hadn't bought my PS5 Slim 2 months ago... I very well might've waited and gone for the Pro (Especially as I never experienced a PS4 pro) but I'm good with my purchase.

Could've done with a better presentation/showcase though showing off the additions in more detail, especially PSSR. I actually really enjoyed the road to PS5 presentation Cerny did so I would've given him the floor for a good 20 minutes or so and get proper nerdy!

Good idea on the thread, I suppose there has been a bit too much focus on the price and not the machine. Even before the presentation I wasn't going to get one as I'm not too fussed about 60fps and don't have a 4K TV. I was planning on waiting for a PS6 instead. I didn't get the PS4 Pro and didn't feel like I missed out on much. I had talked about sticking to PC gaming going forward but you make a good point about being invested in your PlayStation library so may need to rethink that.

@Zuljaras I'd tend to agree with you, I seem to remember devs in the old days squeezing more and more out of machines as the generation continued. Doesn't seem to be as common lately.

@xeofate Yep, the current mentality is to release unpolished, unoptimized mess and patch it later after release.

The worst part is that people are more hyped for the patches than for the release of the game

With such practices how are we supposed to get quality games from most companies?

So a couple of things:
1. Sony messed up the presentation. They started well but it should've been longer and we should've found out more about PSSR which could be a game changer if it gets to XESS or even better near-ish to DLSS. 9 minutes bad choice. I know why they didn't show third party games but some of the best looking and most polished games this gen are Sonys so the differences look silly.the Square Enix screenshot on Twitter is a lot more promising.

2. More detail needed about Pro boost to 8500 PS4 games. Could be big.

3. A lack of games to look forward to make the price a tough pill to swallow but I can see why they want to get the bad taste out immediately before showing good stuff.

4. It is for enthusiasts and a lot of the people complaining were never going to buy it. Online snark is not a good indication of reality. This'll be 7-13% of total ps5 sales and that's fine.

5. 1Tb but with disc drive would've been the smarter move but either way people would've complained. And they probably did their research about how many people have gone digital.

6. Should've had DF do previews instead of CNET. They're a trusted voice and them being on the fence is not a good look

Conclusion: it is not for me personally as I don't get too affected by framerates but PSSR could be a big upgrade on the inevitable PS6.

@Ravix Oh yes, Hogwart’s Legacy was my GOTY last year, and yet I’m embarrassed that I can’t remember what settings I played the game on. 😅 But I’m fairly certain I played it on the fidelity mode with ray tracing fully enabled at 30 fps. I didn’t get my 120Hz OLED with VRR until after Hogwarts.
But I don’t recall ever feeling disappointed by the game’s visuals. A lot of that boils down to excellent art design, which can cover up a lot of technical shortcomings. But I seem to remember some nice reflection and glistening effects in the halls of Hogwarts itself.

Shortly after HL I played Jedi Survivor, which is a third party game much more maligned for its performance. Yet, as I’ve said before, I can count on one hand the number of times I had enough of a performance hiccup to pull me out of the experience. I played at 30 fps and thought the game looked and ran smoothly. This was after they patched the game once or twice, mind you.

As for 60 fps gaming on console being trash, I just don’t know that I have the ability to discern that. I’m just now getting my eyes accustomed to noticing the difference between 30 and 60, and so when I play in 60 fps, it does feel smooth to me. Like you say, some games it sticks out more than others, but the few times I’ve opted for performance mode, I don’t feel many frame drops, in general.

I recently finished Immortals of Aveum and played it at uncapped 120 Hz with their frame generation tech enabled and in VRR mode and it felt… good. I’d watch my TV’s counter sometimes and see that I’d be getting 100 fps and sometimes 70 fps and I wasn’t confident I could tell. The game did have hitches when moving from one area to the next when the FR would clearly go down for a second but otherwise it’s difficult for my eyes to perceive.

As a contrast, with my recent playthrough of Life is Strange: True Colors (not an action heavy or motion focused game, clearly) I switched back and forth between fidelity and performance and there was enough of a slightly more ‘plastic’ look to the characters when in performance mode so it was just a no-brainer to play it at highest resolution.

And just to show I’m not a complete 4K RT graphics whore, my Dark Souls 2 journey is obviously graphically rough with it being a PS3 game that’s upgraded, and the 60 fps is nice… I guess. I can’t remember noticing any drops, although occasionally the very first second or two when it boots up there’s a few small hitches while it loads the game. But the water effects, lighting, shadows, and general fidelity is pretty lousy compared to PS5 native games.

So I guess what I’m saying is I can roll with whatever the game has and typically am flexible enough to tolerate either low frame rate or low resolution. I can enjoy both experiences.

As for the PS5 Pro, I won’t be pre-ordering, but I’ll keep my eyes peeled for maybe trade-in upgrade options, and see if I can flip my current console for the Pro down the line.

For a non-jokey, non-cynical, fully sincere reply, I am the farthest one on this thread from being the targeted audience. And I’m pretty confident this isn’t hyperbole.

@breakneck @HallowMoonshadow

100% agree about the presentation. It had the feel of an exec seeing the 75% of people use performance mode and saying "do that, just focus on that for a bit"

I'd bet a PS5 Pro that Cerny would have wanted to talk more about the effects of PSSR which is something that is bound to be way more all-encompasing than was shown. It's nice to see the PS studios games finally hit the targets they were probably aiming for on PS5 though.

But I kind of just wanted him to spoon feed me all the inside info on how they have achieved it and what it relates to in terms of a DLSS/XESS, some examples of say "this game ran at a perfect Xfps on PS5, but now it can achieve a stable Y fps, which means the game can now run at Y, or add a bunch of bells and whistles and still run at the previous Xfps"

I want those bells and whistles 😅

And also it'd be cool to see how it might make it easier for devs to put out the game they envisioned without as many cutbacks to get it kind of working okay, as seems to be the state of things at the moment on consoles.

I also think Digital Foundry should be the ones to handle it, like you said, as they know how to show what it actually means in practice, and they know what to look for in terms of areas of improvement. Hopefully they can at least snag a Mark Cerny interview, if that is something they would be interested in doing.