nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

PlayStation 5 - Now with FAQ in OP.

shuffles03

Mark Cerny has been showing off the dev kit:

https://www.wired.com/story/exclusive-sony-next-gen-console

PS5 FAQ:
https://blog.playstation.com/2020/11/09/ps5-the-ultimate-faq/#sf239758641

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

shaveAbullock

Mr Crispy wrote: »

Watch the Digital Foundry analysis. 4K 120 FPS isn't going to happen for the vast majority of titles. Even 60 FPS will need eye candy to be reduced.

I think 60 fps may be possible at close to 4k using dynamic resolution, once ray tracing is not used.

RGARDINR

So realistically when will Sony and Microsoft release the price for the new ps5 and Xbox consoles?

shaveAbullock

RGARDINR wrote: »

So realistically when will Sony and Microsoft release the price for the new ps5 and Xbox consoles?

Good question, it's clear they want to leave it as late as possible.
The last two console generations were won by the console with the lower release price. It doesn't tell the whole story but it was a big factor.
I think both side are terrified they will get it wrong, it's all a matter of who will make the first move.

challengemaster

shaveAbullock wrote: »

We have no idea what frame rate the ps5 can get on visually impressive game at 4k. it wouldn't be anywhere near 120 fps. Sony will be aiming for 60 fps with dynamic 4k resolution.

The 4k 120hz is the specification of the hdmi port.

But they're also pushing this as an 8K ready system, as are microsoft for theirs.I also don't believe they'd consider anything below 24-30fps as playable for 8K, so it must be capable for that. That's way more than a RX 5700 xt can handle.

RGARDINR

Yeah true. Even if one side does 50 cheaper they can say hey look at us were cheaper then them. Be a pretty packet either way but be nice to know how much to get together by time they are released.

shaveAbullock

challengemaster wrote: »

But they're also pushing this as an 8K ready system, as are microsoft for theirs.I also don't believe they'd consider anything below 24-30fps as playable for 8K, so it must be capable for that. That's way more than a RX 5700 xt can handle.

Again that's just the capability of the HDMI 2.1 port.
They could use up scaling for 8k TVs for now and perhaps expand on that when the inevitable refresh console comes out in a few years time.

challengemaster

RGARDINR wrote: »

So realistically when will Sony and Microsoft release the price for the new ps5 and Xbox consoles?

Historically the prices would have been released around now at E3, but since there is none this year... it's anyone's guess.

Microsoft seem to have set up a monthly stream event for the rest of the year to draw out the launch / hype. Who knows when they'll give the price. Sony are probably holding back for that very reason.

[Deleted User]

quokula wrote: »

Yeah but you can’t just take a round number from previous console releases and ignore inflation that has happened since then.

This is where mobile phones are a good marker - the flagship iPhone at the time the PS4 launched was $650 while the flagship iPhone today starts at $1100 - Apple have mitigated that somewhat by expanding their range with lower spec models using the previous year’s hardware but even those cost more than the top of the range did 6 years ago.

Obviously the lower the price the better, but I’m keeping an open mind. €600 would probably be no more significant an expense to me today than €400 was 7 years ago.

If you want to account for inflation, go for it. The point i'm making is that if you want to understand console prices and consumer behaviour, there is already so much data out there that directly pertains to console prices.

There's no need to be talking about the price of phones or anything else. Imagine if I said a new $1500 phone won't sell well because "most people only pay $500 for a console" ? You'd say that didn't make any sense. One thing has got nothing to do with the other.

MrStuffins

Deleted User wrote: »

If you want to account for inflation, go for it. The point i'm making is that if you want to understand console prices and consumer behaviour, there is already so much data out there that directly pertains to console prices.

There's no need to be talking about the price of phones or anything else. Imagine if I said a new $1500 phone won't sell well because "most people only pay $500 for a console" ? You'd say that didn't make any sense. One thing has got nothing to do with the other.

You're missing the point. The point is a console is consumer electronics. The market who bought the Playstation 4 is not the same market who will be buying the PS5.

It's not as simple to just look at console prices. There are many different factors to consider.

Markitron

This is my prediction

PS5 - €499
PS5 Digital - €449
XSX - €449

Creamy Goodness

Markitron wrote: »

This is my prediction

PS5 - €499
PS5 Digital - €449
XSX - €449

This is what I had in my mind too.

EoinMcLovin

Creamy Goodness wrote: »

This is what I had in my mind too.

Aren't Xbox supposedly going to have a digital console too, the rumored Lockhart?

TitianGerm

Markitron wrote: »

This is my prediction

PS5 - €499
PS5 Digital - €449
XSX - €449

It'll be €50 more for each of them is my guess.

Maybe Microsoft will get to €449 and get customers on board with Game Pass which will be an additional revenue stream to offset the slightly lower cost.

Creamy Goodness

EoinMcLovin wrote: »

Aren't Xbox supposedly going to have a digital console too, the rumored Lockhart?

Not sure I'm more on the Playstation side of things.

I'm sure they will though, but when is the question. Digital only consoles make sense for places that have great connections like S. Korea, Japan etc. which is why I think Sony are doing it from launch.

TitianGerm

Creamy Goodness wrote: »

Not sure I'm more on the Playstation side of things.

I'm sure they will though, but when is the question. Digital only consoles make sense for places that have great connections like S. Korea, Japan etc. which is why I think Sony are doing it from launch.

Microsoft were meant to have a digital only option but it's not meant to be available at launch but was rumoured to release at a later date similar to the all digital version of the One S.

Homelander

challengemaster wrote: »

Nope, not even close. It's well surpassed the top of the line $1200 GPUs on the market. There's not a consumer grade GPU available that would manage 4K @120fps. You're actually talking about running dual 2080Ti's to get stable FPS that high - that's about $2500 worth of GPU power alone. You'd nearly need to double that value to run the other components to not bottleneck those GPUs.

This is wildly inaccurate.

On this basis you could claim the Xbox One X is a 4K 60FPS console when most of the time it's a 1080P 30FPS console.

You actually think games will be running 8K 120FPS?

They're basically a Ryzen 3600 with a souped up 5700XT or similar level. Impressive for $500? Sure.

But it has to last the best part of 7 years.

The Xbox one S is a "4K ready" console too. Means nothing for actual games.

For the new consoles it's a raw HDMI spec, nothing more.

jonerkinsella

Xbox Lockhart, €300.
PS5D, €400,
PS5F, €500,
XboxX, €450, or €500 ???

Sony will want to make it very attractive to purchase the D (digital) over the F (fat) model to lock you in to digital purchases moving forward. They might even beat the F by as much as €150 to entice you into the D.

We will not get prices for a while yet. Sony and MS are playing a game of chicken with each other for the upcoming price war. A lot of very well orchestrated leaks will start appearing in the next few weeks to try and get the other side to make a price announcement and commit.

Exciting times ahead lads.

jonerkinsella

Homelander wrote: »

This is wildly inaccurate.

On this basis you could claim the Xbox One X is a 4K 60FPS console when most of the time it's a 1080P 30FPS console.

You actually think games will be running 8K 120FPS?

They're basically a Ryzen 3600 with a souped up 5700XT or similar level. Impressive for $500? Sure.

But it has to last the best part of 7 years.

The Xbox one S is a "4K ready" console too. Means nothing for actual games.

For the new consoles it's a raw HDMI spec, nothing more.

3700x and an RDNA 2 5700XT, which is reported to be as much as 50% IPC gain W for W over RDNA 1.

But no way will the PS5 of the Xbox X be doing 120fps in AAA games.

Homelander

Sorry, I did mean to say 3700. The point remains though. It's great value at the price point but it has to last 7+ years. Claims it's better than dual 2080ti's or that it will do 8K 120FPS in games are just complete deluded nonsense.

FutureGuy

Don't know about you rich cats but there is no way I can afford to play every game I want without trading back in for cash. I think 95% of my purchases have been at the cheapest brick and mortar store (almost always Argos) followed by a trade in at the best case price (almost always CeX).

The idea of buying a digital-only version of the PS5 is absolutely bonkers to be to be honest, especially since the digital versions are usually more expensive than the physical releases.

[Deleted User]

Very good video up from Digital Foundry at the moment on the resolution of each of the games and the performance they are running.

Ratchet and Clank as an example....True 4K running at 30fps.

Markitron

Deleted User wrote: »

Very good video up from Digital Foundry at the moment on the resolution of each of the games and the performance they are running.

Ratchet and Clank as an example....True 4K running at 30fps.

With ray tracing as well. Those instant loading times were the most impressive thing about it.

EoinMcLovin wrote: »

Aren't Xbox supposedly going to have a digital console too, the rumored Lockhart?

Yes but the key difference is that the lockhart was supposed to be a streaming box, the digital PS5 is the same as the normal one just without a disc drive. I think we will see the lockhart eventually but Stadia has proven that the tech just isn't there at this moment in time

RGARDINR

FutureGuy wrote: »

Don't know about you rich cats but there is no way I can afford to play every game I want without trading back in for cash. I think 95% of my purchases have been at the cheapest brick and mortar store (almost always Argos) followed by a trade in at the best case price (almost always CeX).

The idea of buying a digital-only version of the PS5 is absolutely bonkers to be to be honest, especially since the digital versions are usually more expensive than the physical releases.

I never get why digital does be more expensive. Should be 15/20 cheaper then a physical copy as if all digital then they don't need to make physical copies etc. Plus if you trade back a new game you might get 50% back in cex or GameStop. I just think it's mad when digital copies are same price or more expensive then physical copies. Not all the time but does be a lot.

Stone Deaf 4evr

FutureGuy wrote: »

Don't know about you rich cats but there is no way I can afford to play every game I want without trading back in for cash. I think 95% of my purchases have been at the cheapest brick and mortar store (almost always Argos) followed by a trade in at the best case price (almost always CeX).

The idea of buying a digital-only version of the PS5 is absolutely bonkers to be to be honest, especially since the digital versions are usually more expensive than the physical releases.

I reckon I could quite comfortably do it tbh. I'm pretty much doing that on Xbox already. In general, the big games I play tend to have a long lifespan (the likes of the division, destiny, COD) etc, so no problem in digital only there, And gamepass gives me access to a huge amount of titles that area all downloaded anyway. coupled with the gamesharing, digital purchases are half price, so its extremely rare that I'll buy physical copies of anything.

Markitron

RGARDINR wrote: »

I never get why digital does be more expensive

AFAIK historically they had to keep the same price as physical to keep the likes of Gamestop happy, as they needed them to sell the consoles for them.

Personally I mix and match physical and digital. Don't mind going digital for a game I know I am gonna like, but I often trade physical games into CEX when I want some new piece of electronics.

TitianGerm

FutureGuy wrote: »

Don't know about you rich cats but there is no way I can afford to play every game I want without trading back in for cash. I think 95% of my purchases have been at the cheapest brick and mortar store (almost always Argos) followed by a trade in at the best case price (almost always CeX).

The idea of buying a digital-only version of the PS5 is absolutely bonkers to be to be honest, especially since the digital versions are usually more expensive than the physical releases.

You play games that you buy :eek:

Mitch Connor

THe pricing of XboX Lockheart, and its position, is going to be weird.

The PS5 Digitial is the same as the PS5 (from what we have heard so far). Same specs, same SSD, one less disc drive. Sony also have a generational divide between their consoles and a commitment to that (to some level, if not all games).

Xbox on the other hand... Lockheart is rumoured to be a lower spec model, as well as being all digital. Xbox are commited to all first party titles, over the first two years I think, being on SX and One/One X. So at some level, Xbox One and One X and the all digital edition are already the cheaper versions of the Series X. So where does Lockheat come in to it from a pricing and positioning standpoint when it is competing with One X etc as an alternative to the Series X. The rumour of it being lower spec than the Series X is key in this regard too - it will not offer the same next gen experience as the Series X (while the PS5 digital will.)

If the price of a PS5 digital is the same or near Xbox Series X Digital, based on rumours there isn't any competition between them, its PS5 all the way.

Retr0gamer

Digital Foundry in their analysis of the raw data they were given after the event said that the vast majority of PS5 games were targeting 30 FPS. Really disappointing but inevitable. Happens every generation, promised 60 FPS games but the reality is that the graphical gains going to 30 FPS are too much and the frame rate gets dropped.

So looks like PC for 60 FPS games. However talking to my more tech savvy friend about this and he thinks that it will be a while before the PC catches up to the SSD speeds of the new consoles. The same super fast SSDs in the new consoles can be put into a PC sure but the PS5 has cores dedicated to processing SSD information and architecture built around it. PC will has to go through OS protocols which slow things down and could mean the consoles for once have a significant advantage over PC.

The PC could be the bottleneck with data streaming on third party games, first party games could be tailored to the PS5 hardware set up.

[Deleted User]

MrStuffins wrote: »

You're missing the point. The point is a console is consumer electronics. The market who bought the Playstation 4 is not the same market who will be buying the PS5.

I'm not missing the point, I am disagreeing with it.

Markitron

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Digital Foundry in their analysis of the raw data they were given after the event said that the vast majority of PS5 games were targeting 30 FPS. Really disappointing but inevitable. Happens every generation, promised 60 FPS games but the reality is that the graphical gains going to 30 FPS are too much and the frame rate gets dropped.

Do they really promise this? They use the same buzzwords every time but I can't remember a console launched off the back of a 60 fps standard claim. Anyway, at least the option of a framerate mode is becoming more and more common, we know at least Demon's Soul's will have a framerate mode. This wasn't a thing at the start of the PS4 gen.