why are you comparing performance mode versus the PS5 pro? shouldn't you use quality? and in that case what is the difference?

AgDev01 said:

---

When you include the price of the stand and disc drive you easily surpass the PS3 in price. With the PS3 you could at least make the case of the value of the BluRay drive.

---

And at launch the PS3 was backwards compatible.

AgDev01 said:

---

why are you comparing performance mode versus the PS5 pro? shouldn't you use quality? and in that case what is the difference?

---

The presentation did both comparisons. The performance mode 60fps on PS5 vs. PS5 Pro @ 60 - shows how large the fidelity difference is.

But even the Fidelity 30 fps mode on PS5 looks less detailed than the 60 fps mode on PS5 pro.

So you're basically getting a doubling of performance and better detail (at least in this case). That seems like a worthwhile upgrade to me.

Yep. That looks like $700 worth of fidelity to me.

agdoc2001 said:

---

Yep. That looks like $700 worth of fidelity to me.

---

An equivalent PC will cost over double that. And it's the fidelity PLUS double the frame rate

Whether that's worth it to you is your choice, the basic ps5 for $500 is still a great system but some will trade in and pay a few hundred bucks for a Pro to last them the rest of the generation

AggiEE said:

---

agdoc2001 said:

---

Yep. That looks like $700 worth of fidelity to me.

---

An equivalent PC will cost over double that. And it's the fidelity PLUS double the frame rate

Whether that's worth it to you is your choice, the basic ps5 for $500 is still a great system but some will trade in and pay a few hundred bucks for a Pro to last them the rest of the generation

---

Agree. The Pro is worth the $699 Sony is asking. I also understand the sticker shock but EVERYTHING is more expensive on 2024. This Pro's are not meant for everyone and they never were. It is for the people that have to have the Ultra Apple Watch over the series 9. The standard PS5 is perfect for 90% of people out there.

4k at 30fps vs 4k at 60fps is HUGE. Whether it's worth $700 for someone is all subjective. For some, $700 is hardly a purchase you even thunk about.

Also, I'm sure the PS5 will retain a decent trade I'm value, so more like $500-600.

AvsB said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

agdoc2001 said:

---

Yep. That looks like $700 worth of fidelity to me.

---

An equivalent PC will cost over double that. And it's the fidelity PLUS double the frame rate

Whether that's worth it to you is your choice, the basic ps5 for $500 is still a great system but some will trade in and pay a few hundred bucks for a Pro to last them the rest of the generation

---

Agree. The Pro is worth the $699 Sony is asking. I also understand the sticker shock but EVERYTHING is more expensive on 2024. This Pro's are not meant for everyone and they never were. It is for the people that have to have the Ultra Apple Watch over the series 9. The standard PS5 is perfect for 90% of people out there.

---

If what I saw before was correct then the PS4 pro was cheaper than PS4 was at release when adjusting for inflation. It was way closer to a mainstream option than this one is. Problem right now is that costs have skyrocketed across the board but incomes haven't even come close to keeping up on average...and I absolutely believe Sony gets greedy at times.

Fenrir said:

---

AvsB said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

agdoc2001 said:

---

Yep. That looks like $700 worth of fidelity to me.

---

An equivalent PC will cost over double that. And it's the fidelity PLUS double the frame rate

Whether that's worth it to you is your choice, the basic ps5 for $500 is still a great system but some will trade in and pay a few hundred bucks for a Pro to last them the rest of the generation

---

Agree. The Pro is worth the $699 Sony is asking. I also understand the sticker shock but EVERYTHING is more expensive on 2024. This Pro's are not meant for everyone and they never were. It is for the people that have to have the Ultra Apple Watch over the series 9. The standard PS5 is perfect for 90% of people out there.

---

If what I saw before was correct then the PS4 pro was cheaper than PS4 was at release when adjusting for inflation. It was way closer to a mainstream option than this one is. Problem right now is that costs have skyrocketed across the board but incomes haven't even come close to keeping up on average...and I absolutely believe Sony gets greedy at times.

---

While true, I think the environment today is just different. Unfortunately you will notice that PS5 is now 4 years into the generation without a price reduction, and actually received multiple mini-price hikes. PS4 was reduced to $299 ($250 with some holiday deals if I recall too) now when the PS4 Pro launched at $399.

The enterprise spending by Big Tech on AI chips with TSMC has really caused a demand surge, and you're seeing that companies across the board are having to compete for wafers, which has dramatically driven prices upward.

Until the AI boom goes into a bust, we're basically stuck with this situation. I think Sony are unwilling to eat the cost and lose money on the PS5 Pro, but I also don't think they're making an absurd margin or anything like that. They know it's a niche product, so they will have to have some kind of margin. I think they did what they could given the circumstances. Fans won't like that sticker shock, but a lot is out of Sony's hands unless you want them to actively lose money on a niche product which isn't realistic.

Lathspell said:

---

4k at 30fps vs 4k at 60fps is HUGE. Whether it's worth $700 for someone is all subjective. For some, $700 is hardly a purchase you even thunk about.

Also, I'm sure the PS5 will retain a decent trade I'm value, so more like $500-600.

---

You can get almost $400 for a PS5 when trading into GameStop.

So the cost may be less than that, all told.

Amortize that $300-400 out of pocket cost across the next 4 years or more, and that's about $100 per year. Not bad if this is your primary hobby and PS5 is your primary system. That's why I'm going ahead and buying it. There's a lot more expensive hobbies out there.

AggiEE said:

---

Unfortunately you will notice that PS5 is now 4 years into the generation without a price reduction, and actually received multiple mini-price hikes. PS4 was reduced to $299 ($250 with some holiday deals if I recall too) now when the PS4 Pro launched at $399.

---

The problem imo, is that we are 4 years into the cycle and they were using games that are on the PS4 to hype this product. I was very surprised that they didn't have anything lined up to announce with this console. Maybe it is worth it for GTA6 but outside of that there just doesnt seem to be a killer new game to help drive sales.

AgDev01 said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Unfortunately you will notice that PS5 is now 4 years into the generation without a price reduction, and actually received multiple mini-price hikes. PS4 was reduced to $299 ($250 with some holiday deals if I recall too) now when the PS4 Pro launched at $399.

---

The problem imo, is that we are 4 years into the cycle and they were using games that are on the PS4 to hype this product. I was very surprised that they didn't have anything lined up to announce with this console. Maybe it is worth it for GTA6 but outside of that there just doesnt seem to be a killer new game to help drive sales.

---

Yeah I don't think they showed the system off in the best way possible. You can clearly see the improvements in those games, but they've already released so like you said it's not as exciting.

I will say that there should be some big titles coming out in 2025 like Death Stranding 2 and GTA6 (which as you mentioned will be massive). I definitely think GTA6 is going to drive some sales for the Pro, but even moreso for the PS5 itself. PS5 Pro is only expected to sell at around 10% compared to the basic PS5.

Sony definitely should have revealed some more first party exclusives, like Ghost of Tsushima 2 or Wolverine or something. Right now they don't have much of anything announced.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2024/09/16/playstation-6-priced-at-700-like-ps5-pro-its-looking-likely/

This expands on my concerns regarding the future PS6 I mentioned in my first post. Feels like console gaming is about to get way more expensive than I'm willing to go with. At that price and with Sony games moving to PC, even if delayed, I might as well go to PC based.

PC gaming at the same level will still be out of most people's budget, especially for kids. Not to mention, playing anything on PC means spending a ton of time fiddling around with graphics settings to get the best performance.

On top of that, if you want to enjoy sitting back on a couch and playing, you have to connect the PC to your TV and use a controller. That sounds fine, but using an external monitor for your PC leads to all manner of refresh rate issues, causing screen tearing and shadow/texture flickering in the game that you have to fiddle around to fix.

A PC that would play a game at the same image quality of the PS5 Pro is going to cost you over $2,000. Granted, if you are going with a tower instead of a laptop, you only have the one big upfront cost, followed by smaller upgrades moving forward.

For a lot of people, that's just not worth it or even in the cards.

Fenrir said:

---

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2024/09/16/playstation-6-priced-at-700-like-ps5-pro-its-looking-likely/

This expands on my concerns regarding the future PS6 I mentioned in my first post. Feels like console gaming is about to get way more expensive than I'm willing to go with. At that price and with Sony games moving to PC, even if delayed, I might as well go to PC based.

---

The "PCMasterRace" always flaps their gums about the "PC equivalent" being the same.

Please show us the equivalent (no used parts) PC for $700... I'll help, you can't.

You can get a 1080P PC and then use the AMD/Nvidia super scaling to 4x the pixels but that is as close as you can get.

It would take a $2k pc to run consistently 4k 60fps.

SF2004 said:

---

You can get a 1080P PC and then use the AMD/Nvidia super scaling to 4x the pixels but that is as close as you can get.

It would take a $2k pc to run consistently 4k 60fps.

---

How you you think they are planning on getting 60fps on the Pro? it is going to be a combination of dynamic resolution and frame generation.

SF2004 said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2024/09/16/playstation-6-priced-at-700-like-ps5-pro-its-looking-likely/

This expands on my concerns regarding the future PS6 I mentioned in my first post. Feels like console gaming is about to get way more expensive than I'm willing to go with. At that price and with Sony games moving to PC, even if delayed, I might as well go to PC based.

---

The "PCMasterRace" always flaps their gums about the "PC equivalent" being the same.

Please show us the equivalent (no used parts) PC for $700... I'll help, you can't.

You can get a 1080P PC and then use the AMD/Nvidia super scaling to 4x the pixels but that is as close as you can get.

It would take a $2k pc to run consistently 4k 60fps.

---

I'm certainly not convinced they are going to be running 4k at 60 fps on PS5 Pro or PS6.

I also never said anything about equivalent, but there is going to be a point (and that point is going to be way different for different people) where moving to PC begins to look more attractive. $700+ for a disc-less console that typically has higher software costs and a somewhat smaller selection of available games is getting awfully close for me.

The hidden cost of a PS+ subscription is definitely another factor to consider. Over 3 years or so it would be another $250 or so?

You can build a pretty decent PC for $1k these days, especially if you are just including the cost of the box.

For reference here is a PCpartpicker list i just created for 1092, not even looking for deals, that will blow the PS out of the water. https://pcpartpicker.com/list/DzPYVW

If you live near a Microcenter you could get a 7600 bundle with 16gb of RAM and put the overall price right at 1k.

Fenrir said:

---

SF2004 said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2024/09/16/playstation-6-priced-at-700-like-ps5-pro-its-looking-likely/

This expands on my concerns regarding the future PS6 I mentioned in my first post. Feels like console gaming is about to get way more expensive than I'm willing to go with. At that price and with Sony games moving to PC, even if delayed, I might as well go to PC based.

---

The "PCMasterRace" always flaps their gums about the "PC equivalent" being the same.

Please show us the equivalent (no used parts) PC for $700... I'll help, you can't.

You can get a 1080P PC and then use the AMD/Nvidia super scaling to 4x the pixels but that is as close as you can get.

It would take a $2k pc to run consistently 4k 60fps.

---

I'm certainly not convinced they are going to be running 4k at 60 fps on PS5 Pro or PS6.

I also never said anything about equivalent, but there is going to be a point (and that point is going to be way different for different people) where moving to PC begins to look more attractive. $700+ for a disc-less console that typically has higher software costs and a somewhat smaller selection of available games is getting awfully close for me.

---

How much of an issue is this still? I don't understand why an adult with a job would care about this unless you are a nerd who likes to collect. Nothing wrong with that at all; guess I just keep underestimating the desire for physical game media. Can understand it if you are lower income and don't have a broadband connection...I guess.

I haven't bought physical game media in a decade or more.

My 2014 PS4 basic is still chugging along with a ton of hours on it.

YouBet said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

SF2004 said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2024/09/16/playstation-6-priced-at-700-like-ps5-pro-its-looking-likely/

This expands on my concerns regarding the future PS6 I mentioned in my first post. Feels like console gaming is about to get way more expensive than I'm willing to go with. At that price and with Sony games moving to PC, even if delayed, I might as well go to PC based.

---

The "PCMasterRace" always flaps their gums about the "PC equivalent" being the same.

Please show us the equivalent (no used parts) PC for $700... I'll help, you can't.

You can get a 1080P PC and then use the AMD/Nvidia super scaling to 4x the pixels but that is as close as you can get.

It would take a $2k pc to run consistently 4k 60fps.

---

I'm certainly not convinced they are going to be running 4k at 60 fps on PS5 Pro or PS6.

I also never said anything about equivalent, but there is going to be a point (and that point is going to be way different for different people) where moving to PC begins to look more attractive. $700+ for a disc-less console that typically has higher software costs and a somewhat smaller selection of available games is getting awfully close for me.

---

How much of an issue is this still? I don't understand why an adult with a job would care about this unless you are a nerd who likes to collect. Nothing wrong with that at all; guess I just keep underestimating the desire for physical game media. Can understand it if you are lower income and don't have a broadband connection...I guess.

I haven't bought physical game media in a decade or more.

---

Same reason this guy said about books on this thread
https://texags.com/forums/30/topics/3477655/replies/68183952

Fenrir said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

SF2004 said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2024/09/16/playstation-6-priced-at-700-like-ps5-pro-its-looking-likely/

This expands on my concerns regarding the future PS6 I mentioned in my first post. Feels like console gaming is about to get way more expensive than I'm willing to go with. At that price and with Sony games moving to PC, even if delayed, I might as well go to PC based.

---

The "PCMasterRace" always flaps their gums about the "PC equivalent" being the same.

Please show us the equivalent (no used parts) PC for $700... I'll help, you can't.

You can get a 1080P PC and then use the AMD/Nvidia super scaling to 4x the pixels but that is as close as you can get.

It would take a $2k pc to run consistently 4k 60fps.

---

I'm certainly not convinced they are going to be running 4k at 60 fps on PS5 Pro or PS6.

I also never said anything about equivalent, but there is going to be a point (and that point is going to be way different for different people) where moving to PC begins to look more attractive. $700+ for a disc-less console that typically has higher software costs and a somewhat smaller selection of available games is getting awfully close for me.

---

How much of an issue is this still? I don't understand why an adult with a job would care about this unless you are a nerd who likes to collect. Nothing wrong with that at all; guess I just keep underestimating the desire for physical game media. Can understand it if you are lower income and don't have a broadband connection...I guess.

I haven't bought physical game media in a decade or more.

---

Same reason this guy said about books on this thread
https://texags.com/forums/30/topics/3477655/replies/68183952

---

I almost brought this up, but I don't consider these quite the same thing. I get the point though.

I don't see much difference. Games have disappeared from digital storefronts before for various reasons (many had nothing to do with the actual game but with music licensing) and now they have the ability to remove delisted games from your console's hard drive should it be connected to the Internet. Reality is that digital ownership is just an oxymoron.

Fenrir said:

---

I don't see much difference. Games have disappeared from digital storefronts before for various reasons (many had nothing to do with the actual game but with music licensing) and now they have the ability to remove delisted games from your console's hard drive should it be connected to the Internet. Reality is that digital ownership is just an oxymoron.

---

Well there's no physical games on PC, so I'm not sure why that would be a selling point to moving over.

The truth is that consoles vs. PCs isn't much different than it's always been. Back in the PS4 days, you could buy a PS4 console for $399 or a PC with roughly the same specs for around 2x the cost.

What's changed is that the cost has universally gone up. Margins on PC components are even higher than they've ever been. So a PS5 Pro equivalent PC will cost around $1500.

I don't really see PC and consoles overlapping though. The PC is simply not an ideal product if you play on your couch. The OS and issues with tinkering are just not what console players want. The PC is for those that like to tinker more, it's a lot more active rather than plug-n-play. Nothing wrong with that of course, but I can't imagine a person used to playing on a console somehow liking the PC experience in comparison.

AggiEE said:

---

The truth is that consoles vs. PCs isn't much different than it's always been. Back in the PS4 days, you could buy a PS4 console for $399 or a PC with roughly the same specs for around 2x the cost.

What's changed is that the cost has universally gone up. Margins on PC components are even higher than they've ever been. So a PS5 Pro equivalent PC will cost around $1500.

---

This is just wrong. I posted a PC above that will blow the doors off any console for $1k and doesn't require a subscription to pay online.

Still not feeling the PC vs console debate. To me they are too different to be direct comparisons. It's like a car comparison. One with automatic (not even paddle shifters) and one with true manual transmission. Yes, same cars but the manual transmission gives you a totally different driving experience than that automatic. Good (track, open road) bad (traffic.) Automatic transmission gives you 90% of the performance for 99% of the drivers out there.

Console is like the automatic transmission. It's for gamers that just want to go and game.

AggiEE said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

I don't see much difference. Games have disappeared from digital storefronts before for various reasons (many had nothing to do with the actual game but with music licensing) and now they have the ability to remove delisted games from your console's hard drive should it be connected to the Internet. Reality is that digital ownership is just an oxymoron.

---

Well there's no physical games on PC, so I'm not sure why that would be a selling point to moving over.

The truth is that consoles vs. PCs isn't much different than it's always been. Back in the PS4 days, you could buy a PS4 console for $399 or a PC with roughly the same specs for around 2x the cost.

What's changed is that the cost has universally gone up. Margins on PC components are even higher than they've ever been. So a PS5 Pro equivalent PC will cost around $1500.

I don't really see PC and consoles overlapping though. The PC is simply not an ideal product if you play on your couch. The OS and issues with tinkering are just not what console players want. The PC is for those that like to tinker more, it's a lot more active rather than plug-n-play. Nothing wrong with that of course, but I can't imagine a person used to playing on a console somehow liking the PC experience in comparison.

---

Regarding the bolded: lack of physical games isn't a selling point for PC, it's that console may very well be losing what is a major selling point for me personally. I replay games quite often.

As to your overall post, at some point as costs go up for console relative to PC(which they definitely are if only because the manufacturers have been less willing to sell consoles at a loss as well as monetizing things that are free on PC) and other selling points begin to vanish I'm definitely going to weigh my options as far as which system I'll utilize. Larger available library and better game pricing options are selling points for me.

Fenrir said:

---

I don't see much difference. Games have disappeared from digital storefronts before for various reasons (many had nothing to do with the actual game but with music licensing) and now they have the ability to remove delisted games from your console's hard drive should it be connected to the Internet. Reality is that digital ownership is just an oxymoron.

---

I'm not going to argue with you because I get your point and the slippery slope here.

For me, personally, I play games once and almost never look at them again which is why owning physical gaming media is simply not something I value. Hell, I don't even finish 3/4 of the games I start.

It's probably the one thing I don't mind leasing...in that most of the games I play these days I play through GamePass.

Man, I'm constantly replaying my old games. Probably the primary reason I'm still on Xbox is because they have been so good about keeping their library of games playable across each generation. I've got a huge library of digital games.

I got a steam deck a few months ago and I'm spending most of my time replaying all of my favorites via emulation (From the NES to the PS2 era). I love re-playing games.

No real point to my post, I just wanted to share!

I'd bet the likelihood of a game being de-listed/unplayable on a digital platform is not markedly different than the rate of failure of the physical media. The actual value of physical media is not so much the retention of the game, but the opportunity to get rid of it.

For the people that argue they're buying physical for preservation purposes I'd say it's almost definitely that they're actually just collectors and preservation is the just the backed into logical justification rather than the reality. I'd bet there is a massive overlap between people that buy physical media and people that buy Amiibos, Funcopop dolls and other tchotchkes.

AgDev01 said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

The truth is that consoles vs. PCs isn't much different than it's always been. Back in the PS4 days, you could buy a PS4 console for $399 or a PC with roughly the same specs for around 2x the cost.

What's changed is that the cost has universally gone up. Margins on PC components are even higher than they've ever been. So a PS5 Pro equivalent PC will cost around $1500.

---

This is just wrong. I posted a PC above that will blow the doors off any console for $1k and doesn't require a subscription to pay online.

---

Nope, sorry, your GPU is not as good as it lacks AI/ML hardware for PSSR or DLSS equivalents, it lacks the 2-300% boost to ray tracing, it's only using a 1TB SSD, and it does not include the cost of a controller

Adjust those pieces and you have a cost around $1400 as I mentioned (2x PS5 Pro). And it won't "blow away" PS5 pro at that or whatever such hyperbole

hph6203 said:

---

I'd bet the likelihood of a game being de-listed/unplayable on a digital platform is not markedly different than the rate of failure of the physical media. The actual value of physical media is not so much the retention of the game, but the opportunity to get rid of it.

For the people that argue they're buying physical for preservation purposes I'd say it's almost definitely that they're actually just collectors and preservation is the just the backed into logical justification rather than the reality. I'd bet there is a massive overlap between people that buy physical media and people that buy Amiibos, Funcopop dolls and other tchotchkes.

---

Saw a study that 87% of games released prior to 2010 are no longer available commercially. I doubt disc failure rates are anywhere near that bad even in less than perfect storage conditions. Library of Congress estimated CDs should last over 100 years at about a 70% rate.

As for your last paragraph I'm sure there are quite a few collectors however there is a reason why home brewing consoles and creation of software to dump games is still being created for every new console and it isn't because of collecting.

A statistic derived from an era of games where the only option was physical media. A random sampling of games made between 1960 and 2010.

The first major digital storefront wasn't introduced on PC until 2005 (Steam), for Xbox in 2005 (360), Playstation in 2006 (PS3), and Nintendo in 2006 (Wii). At best you have a 4-5 year window where publishers created both digital and physical availability of their game. Any game not made available digitally initially requires someone to put the effort into creating an installable package, create a store page, and upload the game and even at $15/hr for many of the games in the population would be deemed "not economically viable.' i.e. so little demand for them that they would lose money by paying someone $60 to do the conversions.

It is a derivative of collector mentality to think that it's some tragedy that something like 2xtreme (random game I pulled out of the ether, actually available on the PS store) might not be available on a platform 30 years after it's release. The reality is that the number of games that are widely available to people has increased as a result of the digitization of games, not decreased. There is a 0% chance that 2xtreme would be available anywhere other than some random garage sale.

I would agree that the digital medium is making it easier, not harder, to find and own older games.

This is especially true with movies.

I think my only concern is the platform. If "Xbox" goes away I could lose a massive chunk of digital games. And as for my movie collection, if Vudu (Fandango) / Movies Anywhere go bankrupt I'll lose most of my modern collection.

You act like legitimate games have never been delisted. The list of games delisted from steam has many extremely popular titles.

Luckily one of the times it happened for a game I had I was able to sell my copy for about $150 and that was several years ago. Seen it supposedly go for almost $300 for a physical copy now.

List of single player games I have previously played and would only be able to play currently because I bought it on a disc:
BF Bad Co 2
Crisis 3
Ghostbusters
Prey (original version from like 06)

None of those are exactly obscure titles. Luckily only 2 of them are even titles I care to play again. I'm more than happy to part with games I'm not interested in playing again. The concept of a permanent digital footprint is just not reasonable.