The Playstation 5 thread

[i_rock098]

If I have to choose between HZD as it is, with 30 fps, and the same with noticably scaled down visuals at 60 fps, the choice is always the former.

Try playing a game on high fps with a high refresh monitor/tv. You would honestly not say that ever again. The difference is night and day especially for an action game which requires aiming while dodging enimies. The quality of the grass, shadows etc is not going to make a difference to your experience after 5-6 hours of gameplay in a 30+ hours game. High fps will.

And don't take my word for this, test it out yourself.

Sent from my ASUS_I001DE using Tapatalk

[i_rock098]

If I have to choose between HZD as it is, with 30 fps, and the same with noticably scaled down visuals at 60 fps, the choice is always the former.

Try playing a game on high fps with a high refresh monitor/tv. You would honestly not say that ever again. The difference is night and day especially for an action game which requires aiming while dodging enimies. The quality of the grass, shadows etc is not going to make a difference to your experience after 5-6 hours of gameplay in a 30+ hours game. High fps will.

And don't take my word for this, test it out yourself.

Sent from my ASUS_I001DE using Tapatalk

[quixote_1989]

6 minutes ago, i_rock098 said:

 

 

Try playing a game on high fps with a high refresh monitor/tv. You would honestly not say that ever again. The difference is night and day especially for an action game which requires aiming while dodging enimies. The quality of the grass, shadows etc is not going to make a difference to your experience after 5-6 hours of gameplay in a 30+ hours game. High fps will.

And don't take my word for this, test it out yourself.

Sent from my ASUS_I001DE using Tapatalk
 

 

 

I have tried switching between Visual/Performance mode on games that support it (e.g. ROTR).

 

The difference in visual quality was significant enough for me to stick to Visual mode.

 

 

 

If I could get similar (or even close) visual quality at 60 fps, that would've of course been ideal. But since we don't get that, my choice is with the "visual".

Edited June 15, 2020 by quixote_1989

[PhantomShade]

$700

 

Gaming PC hardware, gaming pc price?

[STICK3Rboy]

32 minutes ago, quixote_1989 said:

 

I have tried switching between Visual/Performance mode on games that support it (e.g. ROTR).

 

The difference in visual quality was significant enough for me to stick to Visual mode.

 

If I could get similar (or even close) visual quality at 60 fps, that would've of course been ideal. But since we don't get that, my choice is with the "visual".

 

ROTR is actually not a good example for the 30vs60 framerate debate. Its performance mode has variable framerate hovering somewhere in the mid 40's which, as you would imagine, has quite a bit of stuttering on top of the decreased image quality.

So no wonder most people opt for the visual/high-res mode with a mostly locked 30fps.

 

Edited June 15, 2020 by STICK3Rboy

[quixote_1989]

2 minutes ago, STICK3Rboy said:

 

ROTR is actually not a good example for the 30vs60 framerate debate. It's performance mode has variable framerate hovering somewhere in the mid 40's which, as you would imagine, has quite a bit of stuttering on top of the decreased image quality.

So no wonder most people opt for the visual/high-res mode with a mostly locked 30fps.

 

 

Well, despite the poor implementation, I did notice the performance improvement.

But, even if it were stable 60 fps, pretty sure I would've stuck to visual mode.

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely do see the value in higher frame rate. But I am willing to forego it if the visuals are better enough to justify it.

[KnackChap]

Neither of the consoles are going to be 699 or even 599. Use common sense guys. 

[STICK3Rboy]

4 minutes ago, quixote_1989 said:

Well, despite the poor implementation, I did notice the performance improvement.

But, even if it were stable 60 fps, pretty sure I would've stuck to visual mode.

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely do see the value in higher frame rate. But I am willing to forego it if the visuals are better enough to justify it.

 

Yup. Different strokes for different folks 

I was just pointing out that what you saw on ROTR wasn't 60fps.

[playstationdude]

599 is very much possible. The way Sony is avoiding price point, Its not that far fetched . They have been repeatedly saying it is a premium console.

[Pacifier]

5 minutes ago, KnackChap said:

Neither of the consoles are going to be 699 or even 599. Use common sense guys. 

While I agree not 599, but based on the talks so far, it seems to be 449$/$549 respectively for digital and disc console. 

[Guest]

It's going to be $399. One final megaton. 

[North]

3 minutes ago, playstationdude said:

599 is very much possible. The way Sony is avoiding price point, Its not that far fetched . They have been repeatedly saying it is a premium console.

 

Yeah. That whole "prioritizing value, not skimping on price" speech is essentially saying thats its gonna be expensive, but at the same time trying to convince us that its still gonna be worth it.

[Nathan.Drake]

Worst Case Scenario

PS5 Digital Edition 1TB - $499

PS5 Digital Edition 2TB - $599

PS5 Standard Edition 1TB - $599

PS5 Standard Edition 2TB - $699

Also i have a feeling irrespective of hiding or awaiting other to announce the price. Microsoft will still be $50-$100 costlier thn PS5. 

 

Best case scenario 

PS5 Digital Edition 1TB - $399

PS5 Digital Edition 2TB - $499

PS5 Standard Edition 1TB - $499

PS5 Standard Edition 2TB - $599

Edited June 15, 2020 by Nathan.Drake

[KnackChap]

People used to say the same about PS4 or even vita and were shocked later on. Not only are sony in a much better financial position than those days, they also have multiple ways of recouping money even if the console is subsidized.

 

Still going with anywhere from 399 to 499 max with a 50$ difference between the variants. 

[CarbonCore]

I remember when everyone thought PS4 was going to be $599 because of 8GB GDDR5 memory. 

[quixote_1989]

16 minutes ago, Joe Cool said:

It's going to be $399. One final megaton. 

 

**preparing to be disappointed**

[quixote_1989]

32 minutes ago, KnackChap said:

Neither of the consoles are going to be 699 or even 599. Use common sense guys. 

 

16 minutes ago, KnackChap said:

People used to say the same about PS4 or even vita and were shocked later on. Not only are sony in a much better financial position than those days, they also have multiple ways of recouping money even if the console is subsidized.

 

Still going with anywhere from 399 to 499 max with a 50$ difference between the variants. 

 

7 minutes ago, CarbonCore said:

I remember when everyone thought PS4 was going to be $599 because of 8GB GDDR5 memory. 

 

6 minutes ago, AnK said:

Who the f**k came up with $ 699 assumption

 

unless there is a 2tb model at launch 

that’s not happening 

 

 

Quoting for posterity, in case Sony does f**k up. 

[roun90]

Just now, CarbonCore said:

I remember when everyone thought PS4 was going to be $599 because of 8GB GDDR5 memory. 

 

Just now, AnK said:

Who the f**k came up with $ 699 assumption

 

unless there is a 2tb model at launch 

that’s not happening 

 

 

 

 

It's very much possible all right. PS4 prices - they announced in front of everyone confidently in the E3 where the console was revealed itself. It's the way they are conducting themselves.

 

When asked about PS5 Price - "Oh don't worry guys!! You will definitely find the console definitely worth it. Look we have a new Horizon, TLOU will work on PS5 at launch, upgraded even. Don't sweat about the small details like the price. The console is definitely worth it. We Promise" That is not an ansswer. That is someone trying to skirt the issue and still trying to ensure that no one runs away when the price is finally revealed. Kind of like when a kid tries to talk to his parents on the day the exam report card comes out and he knows he has not done well on exams. Giving out expectations beforehand so the blow is softened later on when people actually see the results.

Edited June 15, 2020 by roun90

[hope]

399 digi console,449 disc version.

 

If its above 499, then it wont be like ps4 sales. 

 

Sony would be foolish to go beyond that.

 

It will fly off the shelves this Holiday if they get the price right. 

 

[CarbonCore]

13 minutes ago, roun90 said:

 

 

It's very much possible all right. PS4 prices - they announced in front of everyone confidently in the E3 where the console was revealed itself. It's the way they are conducting themselves.

 

When asked about PS5 Price - "Oh don't worry guys!! You will definitely find the console definitely worth it. Look we have a new Horizon, TLOU will work on PS5 at launch, upgraded even. Don't sweat about the small details like the price. The console is definitely worth it. We Promise" That is not an ansswer. That is someone trying to skirt the issue and still trying to ensure that no one runs away when the price is finally revealed. Kind of like when a kid tries to talk to his parents on the day the exam report card comes out and he knows he has not done well on exams. Giving out expectations beforehand so the blow is softened later on when people actually see the results.

 

If you look at it, besides SSD there's nothing fancy in it. The APU which is the most expensive item in the BOM, is 30% smaller than SX and about same size as PS4 Pro. SSD itself is smaller than SX. The LED is 50rs like someone said here before  They definitely have a price right now, they're just playing chicken with MS before announcing it. Worst case scenario I'm putting $499 on DE and $599 on disk version. If MS announces their machine at $499 then expect PS5 disk version at $499 and DE at $399 or $450.