Sony releases first new details of the next PS PS5

[Smallville102001]

Quote: Originally Posted by Heat_Fan

The problem is that games on both the standard PS4 and standard Xbox One already look good enough. If you look at The Show on the Ps3 and compare it to the PS4 version, the visual upgrade wasn't that huge. I mean the PS4 looked better but not by a whole lot. The standout graphics on the current cycle of consoles is when you get to 4K but playing games on 1080P looks pretty darn good already and that's factoring in games like Bloodborne, Horizon Dawn, Gran Turismo Sport or Forza on the Xbox. I'm going to hold off until the Pro versions are released.

That is true about the show but I think the show went from being by far the best looking sports game last gen to like the worst. NBA 2k, nba live look way better than mlb the show and the jump it had from ps3-ps4 was a lot better to and I would also say madden looks a little bit better than the show. If you go from ps4 to ps5 and not pro to ps5 I think you will be way more impressed in the jump because going from never playing in 4k and HDR to playing in it I think will blow you away. Plus I think far more games will be in 4k on ps5 instead of like 1440 or checkerboarding 4k or what not. Also I am wondering if we will even get a pro this time because I think a big part of why we got the pro was because of 4k and I dont think 8k will be big enough in the next like 3 years for them to come out with a pro and if not 8k I am not sure if there is really a reason to come out with a pro.

Quote: Originally Posted by peter42O

I'm 50/50 on buying PlayStation 5 at launch. It will simply come down to the launch titles. I was thinking that Ratchet and Clank 2 was going to be a launch title but it seems like it could be the unannounced PS4 exclusive that's been rumored for a long while. I prefer Ratchet and Clank 2 to be next gen especially since that would nudge me towards buying PlayStation 5 day one.

Yes it does depend on launch titles and also price but it being BC with at least 4 makes it more likely for me. It also needs to be able to play 4k bluray movies. I have heard about the rumor of 1 more ratchet game on ps4 and I am all for it but kind of agree about it being like a ps5 game instead. But yeah I love ratchet and clank, it is my second favorite video game franchise and I just love insomniac games. Love spiderman to and also started playing the Spyro remaster collection a few weeks back and beat the first game so far and enjoyed it. I had never played the Spyro games before didn't have a ps1. I enjoyed Spyro 1 on the remaster though not has much has spiderman or some of the ratchet games but still very enjoyable game. If we get like at least one of the following games, ratchet and clank, Horizon 2, spiderman 2 at launch I will buy ps5 day 1. I could see one last Ratchet for ps4 and than in 2021 spiderman 2. So I dont think Spiderman 2 will be at launch but like around the first full year of ps5. Horizon 2 I think could very well be a launch game has early next year makes 3 years sense the first one and I think that is a enough time. I have been hearing rumors about Horizon 2 being 2021 but we will see.

[lowpaiddonkey10]

Quote: Originally Posted by Smallville102001

Ever one likes to talk about ps3 price and yeah it was 500 and 600 but back than that was a much bigger issue because the economy was like the worst it had been in a long time and the price was not the only issue. The fact that multiplayer games had big performance issues for the first like 2 years and the fact the system came out a year after xbox also heart a lot. Waiting is fine but I think it will be 500 and needs to be 500 so they can make it a little bit more future prof and I dont known why people are so obsessed with 400 price. Systems can stay 400 for ever. With like inflation are you really expecting that consoles will cost like 400 in like 2050?

Cost of tech goes down not up. Just look at how much less a good television costs today as opposed to 10 years ago.They make money on the software not the hardware. When video games were on expensive cartridges you could expect to pay $50 for a title. I can remember the discussion that games would be cheaper once they hit CD. Didn't happen. Now available digitally they should be even less but they aren't. The production costs may be higher but I don't cry for the hardware manufacturers in this space. They more than make it up on software.


I imagine one day there will be one console.

[lowpaiddonkey10]

This BC idea only adds to the cost of the hardware. If you want to play games from a previous gen just keep the older console. You get next to nothing on a trade anyway. Not enough room in the entertainment center?

[RockinDaMike]

Quote: Originally Posted by lowpaiddonkey10

This BC idea only adds to the cost of the hardware. If you want to play games from a previous gen just keep the older console. You get next to nothing on a trade anyway. Not enough room in the entertainment center?

That's silly, don't you want to play GoW, Spider Man and many other games on a better machine that gives you more FPS and graphic boost? The answer is hell yeah.

Also yes i don't have space when all the HDMI slots are taken up with an Xbox, PS, Chromecast and PC. One thing I want to avoid is using an HDMI switch and having to have more controllers everywhere.

[Heat_Fan]

Quote: Originally Posted by Smallville102001

Ever one likes to talk about ps3 price and yeah it was 500 and 600 but back than that was a much bigger issue because the economy was like the worst it had been in a long time and the price was not the only issue. The fact that multiplayer games had big performance issues for the first like 2 years and the fact the system came out a year after xbox also heart a lot. Waiting is fine but I think it will be 500 and needs to be 500 so they can make it a little bit more future prof and I dont known why people are so obsessed with 400 price. Systems can stay 400 for ever. With like inflation are you really expecting that consoles will cost like 400 in like 2050?

The economy had little/nothing to do with the PS3 stumbling out of the gate. The economy nearly collapsed mid/late in 2008 and the PS3 was released in late 2006.

Sony's problem was that they got arrogant coming off the success of the Playstation and Playstation 2. The price was a little concerning at $599 but Sony thought "hey if we sell it, we know you'll buy it".

And Sony was way off base. Why? Because developers were having a tough time with the Cell Processor. The only game worthy of really mentioning at launch that was ready was Ridge Racer and that was already on the Xbox 360 sold as Ridge Racer 6. Ken Kutaguri was quoted as saying that he compared the Playstation 3 to a fine steak dinner and the Playstation 3 would sell itself even if you didn't buy a game.

Sony also sent out mixed signals because they couldn't properly label the PS3 whether it was a videogame console or a computer or a dedicated Bluray player or a Linux computer if you didn't want to play games or watch movies. It became a jack of all trades box. Then Sony's controller didn't have rumble because they didn't want to pay Immersion's royalty fees so Sony tried to sell us on the fact that rumble was outdated tech and that's why they didn't use it.

Meanwhile Microsoft had a dedicated game console that had a micro-transaction store where you could buy DLC or games. It also was the first to offer "achievements", something Sony later copied.

The Xbox 360 controller was better all the way around as it was wireless, it had rumble and was ergonomically superior to the Playstation controller. Multiplatform games on the Xbox 360 looked and performed better as it was the lead platform. It also had Gears of War and several other exclusives that made it a system seller.

So no, I disagree that the economy and price hurt the PS3 out of the gate. There were a host of problems Sony inflicted on itself before the PS3 was ever sold.

[Caulfield]

thaw me from under this avalanche when its in stores

-the timechild-

[ricky24]

Quote: Originally Posted by lowpaiddonkey10

This BC idea only adds to the cost of the hardware. If you want to play games from a previous gen just keep the older console. You get next to nothing on a trade anyway. Not enough room in the entertainment center?

No thanks. The least amount of boxes I need hooked up the better as far as I’m concerned. Not to mention we are getting better versions of the older games because of BC like someone already mentioned above.

[mestevo]

Quote: Originally Posted by lowpaiddonkey10

This BC idea only adds to the cost of the hardware. If you want to play games from a previous gen just keep the older console. You get next to nothing on a trade anyway. Not enough room in the entertainment center?

Stop making excuses for a company to provide you less value.

It doesn't add cost to the hardware if smart decisions are made about the architecture - that was where things went waaay south with the PS3 and that is still paying negative dividends today. It's why we're still talking about adding backward compatibility 13 years later instead of it being 'core to the Playstation brand' like they used to say, before removing it from the PS3 'because gamers have enough games to play' (rough executive quotes at the time)