'It Felt Like Putting New Glasses On,' Claims First PS5 Pro Hands On

This is starting to feel like a scam.

@Old-Red Also that blurred image is BS, games on my PS4 Slim have a higher resolution than that lol. 🤣

Feels like Execs at Sony probably need new glasses after that price tag decision.

Push Square making fake click bait level images to make the PS5 Pro seem justified for it’s price is something hilarious indeed.

I mean they used like, one of the least liked performance modes on PS5. Of course it’s gonna look better. The fact that only one media outlet got this makes this feel like a marketing stunt more than anything.

“Many of the upgrades were on the subtle side. Sometimes I had to stop and check side by side to appreciate the difference.”

I think the above quote says it all.

@WiiWareWave right? Like, what the actual ****?! Hahaha

Maybe they should get their PS5 checked if it’s looking like that, mine looks much closer to the clear image … as I’m sure everyone else would agree.

£800 to see a few more pixels 🤔

All those games that could've been on PS4 that looked better on the PS5 will look a bit better on the PS5 Pro - but still worse than if you'd bought a PC within the last 5 years or so. Or in other words, this would've been easier to swallow if this gen hasn't basically been PS4 games on higher settings.

Lmfao trying to push the narrative that the base ps5 that has barely had anything to push it yet is *****....no shame

@KillerBoy it's 800 euros for the fidelity mode at 60fps even if I doubt the ps5 pro is capable of (I mean the same settings as fidelity mode) since it would require double the performance and it would cost way more than 800 euros to do

Should've gone to Specsavers

That's how I feel every time I go from switch games to ps5 games 😂

But I'm more curious how dragons dogma 2 runs on it. That game sounded like much more of a mess than rebirth. And rebirth was far far from a mess

So Sony last of us 2 remastered PS5 performance mode is at 1440p 60fps.
Can you just exactly tell me what it will be running at resolution wise at 60fps in PS5 Pro?
You want to spend £700 so tell me what I’m actually getting.
Because I will bet anyone that it won’t be native 4K no tricks at 60fps and no cut backs from quality mode.

@WiiWareWave Have you played through Rebirth in Performance Mode? The IQ and resolution are definitely hot garbage.

@OldGamer999 Considering that they have dedicated hardware for fancy AI upscaling...

@MrPeanutbutterz
Yes, fancy upscaling, not native 4K at 60fps.
What’s the point really.

So is it the originally PS5 1440p at 60fps, plus some fancy up scaling 🤣.
Very smoke and mirrors, especially at that price.

I'm sure it looks better...but I was perfectly happy with Rebirth's performance mode though. Never did see the problems people had with it. Maybe my eyes are just getting too old.

I played Rebirth on a 75" TV. It never looked that pixelated.

Why the ***** are we blurring that *****? Everyone that owns a PS5 that the right one is what it looks like now.

I want more than that for £699.99 plus the cost of a disk drive

I'd prefer to hear from Digital Foundry

@OldGamer999 Exactly lol....said this yesterday on here ...and I basically got told by a guy it would be night and day difference lmao..

The delusion is unreal

@StylesT
It’s going to be fancy up scaling for the time being.
Maybe when Sony finally release a new big AAA with the Pro in mind we might get native 4K 60fps, but might come with cut backs.

For £700 I want true native 4K 60fps with all the bells and whistles of the quality mode as well.

Clearly the image on the left is running on the Switch 😅.

I have been playing Rebirth on Quality Mode and it looks fine to me - even at 30fps.

Though...is it just me or does the lighting and skin rendering of Rebirth look worse than Remake?

Forget the whole resolution issue, I feel like Remake just looked better overall. Only thing I can think of is that there really wasn't a lot of direct sunlight in Remake and the game just had a different look with all the artificial lights rather than Rebirth actually being considered a "downgrade". I do prefer the look of Remake, though for some reason.

@UltimateOtaku91 Final Fantasy VII Remake for Switch confirmed! 😂

It isn't that extreme of a difference...

All Pro products are a scam.

Hope PushSquare will be critical about this release and not just offer publicity to Sony.

@OthmaneAD so 800 euros to see a few more pixels run at a smoother frame rate? Even better than 😂

So do we think Sony will start downgrading the old versions to make the Pro versions look better? I wouldn’t put it past them at this point.

@TheTraditional I think it’s like a 2% boost in graphics and performance

@UltimateOtaku91 I think it wouldn't even look that bad in the Switch, perhaps that's an image of an unreleased PS3 build? 😅

This is what I'm saying! Don't go off of youtube see it yourself in person the difference will be massive. This will look great on my huge 4k TV day one baby! Makes me laugh seeing people saying they aren't buying this because it will sell out fast. Will be selling on ebay for 1k plus easy

I have the platinum for VII Rebirth. Ain't no way the base PS5 looked that blurry!

It will change things sure but is a 1400p to 1800p or whatever it ends up being increase (just a guess) that much worth it? For some people may be but I couldn't care less. What slight better upgrade of someone's glasses lens, sure fair comparison but better no. To me art style matters more.

Ah clickbait Push Square. Photoshop/GIMP blur tool & hue/saturation/contrast change, once you use those tools (remember bits & pieces so yes throwing words around badly here) you got us good. I use a smaller TV, I know the difference in 4K on larger ones, same way I use my 480p consoles versus the 480p OS quality setting on a PS4 or Switch. I'm not stupid. We all know what it looks like. Not blurry like that it isn't a Youtube video. XD Sure they don't scale the same as my PS2 with a AV to HDMI and the screen space like when you use a PSP to a TV and it's that 270p space so you use the 'zoom' feature on your HD TV (than a CRT) is lower on my 1080p 3D TV. Or the 16:9 then fill screen or 4:3 even.

You use a smaller TV and guess what it looks better than on your larger TV, wow magical how that works. XD

Like nah duh it looks different on larger TVs it has to work with the pixels more to match it's difference of size and how the 4K is so the pixels fill in gaps differently then it will on a smaller TV.

Any idiot that pays attention to larger/smaller TVs scaling it can tell that then just putting a blur tool so deliberately on an image a journalist will put. As if many readers/comments here don't know how Photoshop/GIMP works because we do. XD

1080p Ridge Racer 6 or 7/Lair weren't the best of 576i or whatever to 1080p for early PS3. They had to do what they had to do back then (like GT4 had 1080i, it did the 576i or whatever to make it happen) sure besides the 1080p of PS4 in difference to scale it but art style and texture work still mattered regardless.

I don't care for 8 or 16bit or 32bit, I know what they mean of the CPUs let alone the sprite work or buses, but who cares. Companies can keep trying though.

Depends how much you want to see and with glasses sure more but with a console, nah. I'm doing fine with a smaller TV and older consoles thanks. Happy to not upgrade and it still look fine in 1080p then upgrade because WOW more space for a TV and more scaling, yeah nah 1080p is fine thanks. XD

The checkboarding and techniques only do so much really. I couldn't care less. 2TB is fine, no disk drive as an option removed so digital sales continue is unfortunate. Bragging about techniques.

Does an image on Twitter/video on Youtube downgrade it absolutely. I know the differences in person, but I still don't care every time I see in it action in person when we do get the games. XD No matter the TV watching the footage on and no matter the compression the platforms have of streaming/image uploads.

Xbox doesn't care, they may offer one later or go 2TB same specs rest of the gen, may go for streaming and drop their console audience or they may go eh large enough console audience still and offer them for that smaller audience than their streaming one. It depends what they are willing to go with.

I'm still playing PS4/Xbox One/Switch and older and fine with 1080p and a smaller TV, even a 10+ year old 50 inch 3D TV for my PS3/360 games. 32 inch for a PC. Or casting a phone screen to it with a delay. I think I'm good with how i use screens for various things then 'latest and greatest and social bragging factors'. I'm comfortable right now.

@get2sammyb Still doesn’t make this any less clickbaity of a thumbnail does it?

Also some of the wording in the disc drive article was downright ridiculous, making the add on sound like a quirky little bonus and not an awful sign for the future ahead of us with digital.

Damage control

@MrMeeeseeeks I highly doubt that, I don't think they'd do something THAT dumb. I mean, they're already getting so much backlash for this, so I don't think they'll risk it.

They didn't do anything like that for the PS4 pro either, so I think we're good.

I have a feeling they'll either change the price, or include the disc drive.

It’s just the price. Way too much right now! If you’re a normal person and fiscally responsible this is not for us.

Ugh why is Sony turning into Apple so much

That image looks intentionally blurred, there is no way thats how a screenshot looked on base ps5

@OldGamer999

That's all I needed to read. This quote says a lot.

Well, for me the highlight of that piece was the fact that they are using AMD tech that isn't available on the market yet.

@get2sammyb and then at the same time you publish a shill-piece saying how it's almost like seeing for the first time... and the point I believe was - the image used looks like it was modified to make it look much more meaningful. A lot of people skim these pieces, and the less astute might actually come out of this believing these images were real.

@OldGamer999 It's called intelligence use of hardware. Raw resolution ain't quite the be all and end all like it used to be.

@RubyCarbuncle Have you seen it first hand yourself? Must be cool to work for CNET.

Ray traced Marble Madness when?

In the uk the ps5 pro will be launching at roughly 1.8 times the price of the ps5 slim digital edition. So for 1.8 times the cost you’re only getting roughly 1.45 times the render speed according to Mark Cerny. Somehow making £700 seem even more expensive.

The pro will also require developers to put extra work in to properly harness and maximise that extra power and feature set. PS4 pro saw minimal extra provision outside of first party and didn’t really set the world on fire in terms of sales vs base model. The price point of the PS5 pro suggests it won’t come anywhere near PS4 pro sales, especially in the current economic climate.

Yes games will perform better on the pro than the base console, but in the vast majority of titles you won’t be getting an 80% performance lift, especially given the cpu is largely identical between models.

I know that blurry Tifa image is edited to pictured CNET "it felt like putting a new glasses on!" statement.

But all these "ohhh the graphics looks sharper and the puddles can reflect every hair in your nostril with 120 fps + 8K" stuff feels really unnecessary.

Like what's Ray Tracing can do for gameplay? Cause so far i don't see any devs used it beside for cosmetic purpose and satisfy people who have big boners when they see their characters got reflected in the mirror. And i believe ray tracing used a lot of resources too. So no wonder we still see AAA games has performances issues.

Or what's 120 fps + 4K/8K can do for fighting games when i played SF 6 and Tekken 8 just fine with 60 fps + 1080p.

And it's cool to see faster loading time got implemented into gameplay like Insomniac did with R&C Rift Apart changing dimension. But outside that, i don't see any devs that do something revolutionary with loading time for their games.

So this is my biggest problem not just with Sony but with big companies and gaming industry nowadays who keeps chasing the graphics should be "bigger, higher, sharper, more detailed" while didn't do much to evolved gameplay. All the focus on graphics only makes devs cost higher and higher to the point it's not sustainable anymore.

I lost 80lbs on the all sausage diet and you can too, call today!

Dude, it's a GPU upgrade. Have you never seen a GPU upgrade before? This is how it works.

This guy would wet himself if he saw a 4080 let alone 4090.

@PuppetMaster Real-time RT has more than just a cosmetic benefit. Much like how enhancements in 3D rendering have allowed developers to do things that would have taken forever using traditional 2D hand-drawn methods, Real-time RT can allow developers to light scenes much faster than continuing to have to hand-craft lighting to look convincing.

The fact that a lot of RT doesn't look much different than the rasterized version is a huge credit to the artists creating those scenes. But the amount of labor that it took to light those scenes to look even close to RT can be simply reduced if real-time RT becomes a standard (which requires R&D and actual investment in the technology).

@GamingFan4Lyf Ok so RT is doing nothing for gameplay and still pretty much limited for cosmestic purpose. Oh and it eat a lot of resources too.

@PuppetMaster the pet showcase of rt has been cyberpunk. With full rt and nearly max settings it can bring a mighty 4090 down to 45fps. With dlss enabled. Rt is still nowhere near prime time and I'm guessing the amd based 5 pro rt will suck still. 2-3x the rt of the PS5 is still bad.

@OldGamer999 is a bit less powerful than a 4070 og. That card is squarely a 1440p card. It'll run stuff at 4k of course but it's considered a 2k card. And this is still weaker. Only the $1k and $1.6k 4080 and 4090 are truly 4k cards though. 4k is a scam outside the extreme and has been from the start. All the consoles saying 4k really mean upscaling. Guaranteed ps6 isn't a real 4k tier card either.

@PuppetMaster So did 3D at one point. But thanks to R&D and investment, it's trivial to render.

By your logic, almost everything that makes up game visuals is cosmetic. Who needs lights and shadows? Who needs textures? Heck, who needs character models for that matter?

Yes, real-time RT hasn't been used for any gameplay purposes as far as I know. But it is important for companies to invest in so it is no longer resource heavy.

If people had the same attitude about 3D rendering as people have for real-time RT, we wouldn't have progressed past SNES days.

The bottom line is that the more complex environments get, the harder and harder it gets for developers to convincingly light those scenes. Real-time RT being the standard means that lighting those complex scenes convincingly is a heck of a lot easier.

Creating a fake image to try and justify this console? That’s a new low, and intentionally misleading.

@GamingFan4Lyf "Who needs lights and shadows? Who needs textures? Heck, who needs character models for that matter?"

You're missing my point and I clearly didn't say any of that. Don't put words in my mouth.

"If people had the same attitude about 3D rendering as people have for real-time RT, we wouldn't have progressed past SNES days."

Are you fking joking here that you're comparing Ray Tracing with the jump from 2D to 3D which is revolutionary because not just affecting graphics but also gameplay?

"Yes, real-time RT hasn't been used for any gameplay purposes as far as I know. But it is important for companies to invest in so it is no longer resource heavy"

Here's the thing. The jump from 2D to 3D is big, hence why it's justified for companies to put their money on 3D because 3D open up a lot of new gameplay that 2D can't do.

But with Ray Tracing, it's nowhere as big as the jump from 2D to 3D. You even admit it yourself that it doesn't have no used for gameplay.

Wait a sec... where did that FF image came from?
It is not in any place in the article mentioned as the source of the news. And it says in the news that cnet (the source) is the only on to have tested the ps5pro.

This is not only a very clickbaity thumbnail but also incredibly misleading

@PuppetMaster Did it though?

I mean Doom wasn't 3D but had 3d movement. There were plenty of 2D dungeon crawlers. Elder Scrolls was 2D for a while.

Star Fox ran at 15fps. There were 2D versions of the same kind of on-rails shooter like Space Harrier that ran much faster.

Out of the World. It was 3D on a 2D plane. There were plenty of games like Prince of Persia that weren't 3D. The 2D versions ran better.

Flashback - again, 2D. Blackthorne had similar gameplay and wasn't 3D rendered - and ran faster.

It wasn't until 3D had matured due to significant R&D and investment when things like Super Mario 64 actually changed the way we play games in 3D.

Real-time RT COULD have gameplay purposes if it was invested in. Like, I know Digital Foundry created a camera obscura in Minecraft RTX thanks to real-world behaviors of path-tracing. Colored lights can be blended together to make other colors.

I could see puzzle games using RT lighting for something.

If there was better hardware to run it fast enough for competitive multi-player, I could see using mirrors, world reflections, and even player shadows as a means to locating enemies on a battlefield.

I could see reflecting light from the sun as a means to signaling players - or heck even the reflection of light off a sniper scope to locating enemies snipers - and also changing the strategy for said snipers.

Or heck, actual flashlights in games having real use as most games where flashlights are “required” always seem to have enough light where it’s not needed rather than being pitch black due to absence of light.

Quake 2 RTX actually does this and it completely changes how one progresses through stages.

There is a lot that CAN be done with it...but with really only Nvidia and Intel taking it seriously (AMD just reacts), it's taking a lot longer for the technology to mature.

Just because it hasn't been used for gameplay, doesn't mean it has no gameplay implications.

So, as people thought when talk about the PS5 Pro started, they will use the hardware as an excuse when in reality they just simply suck at optimizing their games. There's no reason why somebody has to spend $700 (plus more if you have the disc version) to get a version of Final Fantasy VII Rebirth that we should've gotten when it came out.

As for people questioning the image, it's been a while since I played it, but it did look horrible in Performance mode. Really blurry in comparison to the Graphics mode. It is possible that is altered somewhat, but it did look horrible in comparison imo.

I can't wait to play Shovel Knight on this and experience the true power of a pro console.

But seriously, like, 99.9% of games aren't even using the full power of the PS5, let alone the PS4 Pro. This console upgrade is a joke.

Rule 34 lets you enjoy Tifa to the fullest, lol
Just saying😅😅

Well for less than the price of a PS5 Pro, you can go out and buy a pair of glasses CNET. Heck, pick up two pairs.

@Matroska where pc somehow always means performance like a 2k EUR pc but for the price of the cheapest pc one can find.

Even today You do not get a new PC for the price of ps5 which matches the performance of a PS5. Also, such a pc won't come with a disk drive and neither a controller.

But of course a console is just a console, and a PC can actually be used for useful things.

@RubyCarbuncle If there was no game that pushes the hardware (ps5) why would I buy a PC? Because on a PC I get a few more pixels and ray tracing ?

It really is Squares fault that XVI and Rebirth have visual, and performance issues on base PS5. The internals are really similar to a 2080 TI, and that's a perfectly capable card for sub 4k resolution with high frame rates. Square is just bad with HD consoles. Not to mention XVI was on the Crystal Tools engine.

The thumbnail game on Push Square is always so good

This image is obviously exaggerated but are people forgetting how rebirth looked exactly on performance mode? There was instances of very low poly models and everything for the most part was quite blurry compared to quality. I'd be willing the bet the vast majority who said it looked awesome were playing on quality mode. The difference is we're now getting the quality mode visuals with the performance mode frame rate. Whether that is worth it is another matter

The point that seems almost forgotten is that on base PS5 we are already seeing quite a few 3rd party games with very poor framerates, or poor visual quality - yes this is often due to developers ambitions being beyond their capability level (and im not thinking about poor launch optimisation), but UE5 games seem to be a particular problem due to how power hungry the engine is.

I suspect we are only going to see things get much worse from here on out.

That image at the top of the article is very misleading and simply not a true representation of the game.

@RubyCarbuncle I am not quite sure where You buy PCs, but If I try to match a PS5pro I end up with a much higher bill. But I agree a PC can actually be useful and one has more control over how much one wants to spend on what. But it is also less plug&play and depending on the hardware Your experience may vary,

According to Digital Foundry, a lot of games that have frame rate issues due to CPU bottlenecks, and the Pro won’t really do much to improve those.

The problem is game makers not making games for the current gen hardware. 60fps should be the base minimum, then with graphics that can be sharp at 60 fps with no need to drop to 30fps for a sharp image.
PS3 games play best on PS4, PS4 games are best on PS5, so I will wait to play PS5 games the best on a PS6, while I hold back on PS6 games until the PS7 releases.

People taking that image seriously is all the comedy I needed today. Lighten up people, this is a hobby.

@DonJorginho A big draw of this console is that the graphics could look identical to fidelity mode, but they're bumped to 60fps.