Seems like a PS5 with DLSS/FSR and a more powerful GPU to bridge the gap between the FPS DLSS/FSR would give on the standard PS5 and actually hitting 60 FPS on the Pro. $700 seems like a lot to spend to get that boost.
Playstation 5 Pro - $699
6,470 Views |
81 Replies |
Last: 16 days ago by Saxsoon
Can you set that thing on its side?
$700 for something that's still only going to hit 60 fps in most games is ridiculous. It's 2024, and the pro next gen consoles still can't commit to 120 fps on more than a few games.
Yes.
At least it's an option, the best Microsoft can do is sell the Series X in a new color.HossAg said:
$700 for something that's still only going to hit 60 fps in most games is ridiculous. It's 2024, and the pro next gen consoles still can't commit to 120 fps on more than a few games.
Apparently its compatible with the stand along drive being sold for the PS5 slim. So add another $80 if you want that.Quote:
and NO optical disc drive
That's a lot for a mid cycle upgrade.
Leaning towards a no for me.
I'm probably pulling trigger on this. My Xbox One is long in the tooth so this would be a good upgrade for me, personally.
I can't play some newer games at this point.
I can't play some newer games at this point.
$700 and no disc drive is a hard no for me.
And honestly this makes me think a PS6 won't be in my future either if this price is any indication of what that one will cost.
And honestly this makes me think a PS6 won't be in my future either if this price is any indication of what that one will cost.
I guess it goes without saying that if the consoles coming out don't have optical drives then physical media for console versions of games will go away.
I see the Pro versions of all products (Sony, Apple,etc) as the "luxury" brand versions similar to Toyota/Lexus or Honda/Acura.
I'll stick with my loaded Camry! This round!
I'll stick with my loaded Camry! This round!
They just increased the price of the dualsense controller, and are releasing this at $700 with minimal upgrades, no disk drive and have to buy the stand separate. This is why Xbox needs to get its **** and provide some competition
The PS5 pro is an enthusiast's machine, just like the PS4 pro was. This is for the same people that just have to have the latest iPhone pro every year.
Ideally these companies will go to a model where they release the standard model, 4-5 years later release a Pro model, 4-5 years after that release the updated standard model that is roughly the same as the pro model.
In conjunction with the release of the new standard model release a handheld that is equivalent to the former standard model.
2020: PS5
2024: PS5 Pro
2028: PS6 (rebranded pro with price drop)
2028: Handheld PS5
2032: PS6 Pro
2032: Handheld price cut
Standard: Target 4k60, no graphics mode
Pro: 4k60 with graphical bump or 4k120 with same graphics
Handheld: Target 1080p60, no graphics mode
Every 4 years you're giving each subset of consumer (Pro and budget conscious) a viable product to purchase and you're providing studios with a predictable schedule of what targets they're aiming for.
In conjunction with the release of the new standard model release a handheld that is equivalent to the former standard model.
2020: PS5
2024: PS5 Pro
2028: PS6 (rebranded pro with price drop)
2028: Handheld PS5
2032: PS6 Pro
2032: Handheld price cut
Standard: Target 4k60, no graphics mode
Pro: 4k60 with graphical bump or 4k120 with same graphics
Handheld: Target 1080p60, no graphics mode
Every 4 years you're giving each subset of consumer (Pro and budget conscious) a viable product to purchase and you're providing studios with a predictable schedule of what targets they're aiming for.
The enthusiast's machine is still a PC. I think this price is bonkers but if you are wanting the best console you can get, here it is.
If Sony hadn't lost $200MM on Concord they could have sold the PS5 Pro at a significant discount.
Enthusiasts don't play on consoleAvsB said:
The PS5 pro is an enthusiast's machine, just like the PS4 pro was. This is for the same people that just have to have the latest iPhone pro every year.
PS4 Pro was $400 which was only $100 more than the slim model. A ton more palatable plus you didn't lose disc drive functionality.AvsB said:
The PS5 pro is an enthusiast's machine, just like the PS4 pro was. This is for the same people that just have to have the latest iPhone pro every year.
Honestly I have a hard time believing most games, outside of Sony first party games, will take advantage of this to make the cost difference worth it for most.
$700 for a digital console and $800 to get console + disc drive add-on is a hell of a cost considering most people are probably looking to squeeze money where they can.
It will sell but I'm not sure it will sell like the PS4 Pro, which is what they seem to publicly believe at the moment.
I sorely miss how affordable gaming was during PS2 gen and how big the available list of gaming titles felt compared to now.
PC = hobbyist
PS5 Pro (and other "pro" stuff") = enthusiasts
PS5 Pro (and other "pro" stuff") = enthusiasts
$700 for an incremental upgrade, oof
Here are inflation adjusted prices for mainline PlayStation consoles since launch:
— Geoff Keighley (@geoffkeighley) September 10, 2024
PS1: $611 (1995)
PS2: $546 (2000)
PS3: $778 (2006)
PS4: $538 (2013)
PS4 Pro: $522 (2016)
PS5: $606 (2020)
PS5 Pro: $699 (2024)
Good context. Still nowhere near the sticker shock the PS3 was when that was announced.
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.
For me the issue is we don't need "pro" consoles this generation. When the Series X/PS5 launched the games were awesome. They ran at 60 and looked great!
The problem is the devs are right back to targeting 30 so that they can pump up the game with graphical effects that most people don't even notice.
Raytraced games look great on top end PCs, but consoles just aren't there yet. The current consoles are more than capable of delivering really good looking games at 60.
The problem is the devs are right back to targeting 30 so that they can pump up the game with graphical effects that most people don't even notice.
Raytraced games look great on top end PCs, but consoles just aren't there yet. The current consoles are more than capable of delivering really good looking games at 60.
I sure hope so. Otherwise, it's a paperweight without the "costs extra" vertical stand.Quote:
Can you set that thing on its side?
This whole reveal was such a laughable disappointment. I haven't had a PlayStation since PS3 and was excited to get a PS5 Pro so I could finally play the exclusives I wanted as well as getting a 4K BluRay player. Consoles going the way of microtransactions feels like a big slap in the face. Joke's on us, I guess.
Yep, devs continue to get lazier with optimization and we end up with basically the same graphics and performance at higher resolution than we had on previous gen consoles.jr15aggie said:
For me the issue is we don't need "pro" consoles this generation. When the Series X/PS5 launched the games were awesome. They ran at 60 and looked great!
The problem is the devs are right back to targeting 30 so that they can pump up the game with graphical effects that most people don't even notice.
Raytraced games look great on top end PCs, but consoles just aren't there yet. The current consoles are more than capable of delivering really good looking games at 60.
Aside from a small handful of exclusives, there isn't any reason not to game on PC.
-More expensive
-More maintenance
-More bad ports/poor performance relative to expense of the hardware
-Generally done at a desk rather than on an 85" TV, most people aren't going to invest the amount of money on a separate dedicated gaming PC to put in a living room.
-More maintenance
-More bad ports/poor performance relative to expense of the hardware
-Generally done at a desk rather than on an 85" TV, most people aren't going to invest the amount of money on a separate dedicated gaming PC to put in a living room.
More expensive, sure, but the others are weird points. I've done zero maintenance on my gaming PC, the performance of games on my PC is always significantly better than what the best console can provide, and there's no reason why someone choosing between the two has to be like "well if I get a PC, I have to use it at a desk instead of the TV I was going to use it at".hph6203 said:
-More expensive
-More maintenance
-More bad ports/poor performance relative to expense of the hardware
-Generally done at a desk rather than on an 85" TV, most people aren't going to invest the amount of money on a separate dedicated gaming PC to put in a living room.
Not to mention the option to use KB&M on any game with better support, the ability to overclock controllers, etc.
I agree on the desk comment. I sit at a desk all day for work. Don't have a strong desire to sit at a desk in my free time.
HossAg said:More expensive, sure, but the others are weird points. I've done zero maintenance on my gaming PC, the performance of games on my PC is always significantly better than what the best console can provide, and there's no reason why someone choosing between the two has to be like "well if I get a PC, I have to use it at a desk instead of the TV I was going to use it at".hph6203 said:
-More expensive
-More maintenance
-More bad ports/poor performance relative to expense of the hardware
-Generally done at a desk rather than on an 85" TV, most people aren't going to invest the amount of money on a separate dedicated gaming PC to put in a living room.
Not to mention the option to use KB&M on any game with better support, the ability to overclock controllers, etc.
I'll add another reason to hph's list that may be an outlier but it's important to me. I keep both a high end PC and a console and I'm due for upgrades to both so I'm about to have to dish out major bucks for both upgrades.
I love my top down isometric CRPG's and those are practically unplayable for me on a big screen tv because of the granularity of the UI on those kinds of games. There are too many little things that I simply can't see on my TV that works much better on a PC. Related is that I prefer these types of games with KB&M and pretty much only these types of games.
All other games I prefer on my console/TV using a controller. Playing FPS with a KB&M is a deal killer for me. Can't and won't do it.
jr15aggie said:
For me the issue is we don't need "pro" consoles this generation. When the Series X/PS5 launched the games were awesome. They ran at 60 and looked great!
The problem is the devs are right back to targeting 30 so that they can pump up the game with graphical effects that most people don't even notice.
Raytraced games look great on top end PCs, but consoles just aren't there yet. The current consoles are more than capable of delivering really good looking games at 60.
Only a very rare number of games offer only a 30 fps mode.
The overwhelming majority offer 60 fps. The Pro will offer Fidelity+ visuals @ 60 fps. And also the Ray Tracing is up to 300% faster, so it will be a significant upgrade there.
Whether we "need" a Pro is up to the eye of the beholder. We also don't "need" high end PC parts, but they are available for those that do.
The difference on a 4K TV is tangible, so I will be getting the PS5 Pro day 1 to upgrade from my base PS5. Yes you can get "better" on PC, but you're going to be paying substantially more, and for me I prefer the console experience. The PS5 Pro should be pretty competitive with high end PC hardware right now.
How many people do you know that would build a PC and stick it in a media cabinet? Even if they did the experience is not comparable to a console, because you have to source parts, build it in a case that is aesthetically pleasing enough to stick in your living room, then cobble together a set of software that vaguely matches the gaming experience of a console, and it will absolutely not match the content consumption experience. Keyboard and mouse on a couch is an ergonomic nightmare and it's definitely not much of an ad for a TV based experience and the vast, vast majority of people on PC are using a PlayStation or Xbox controller or a PlayStation or Xbox clone.
I have a dedicated PC hooked up to my TV running Bazzite. It's getting closer to a console. It is not the same. I don't know anyone else that would do that and everyone I know plays more games than I do, I just like to tinker with things. I don't know anyone that would have any interest in overclocking.
The vast majority of people that are buying games are buying COD, playing Fortnite, messing around on Minecraft. They're not buying consoles because they have exclusives, they're buying them because they're cheap and simple and more functional in comparison to a PC when the environment is the living room.
I have a dedicated PC hooked up to my TV running Bazzite. It's getting closer to a console. It is not the same. I don't know anyone else that would do that and everyone I know plays more games than I do, I just like to tinker with things. I don't know anyone that would have any interest in overclocking.
The vast majority of people that are buying games are buying COD, playing Fortnite, messing around on Minecraft. They're not buying consoles because they have exclusives, they're buying them because they're cheap and simple and more functional in comparison to a PC when the environment is the living room.
Quote:
Only a very rare number of games offer only a 30 fps mode.
The overwhelming majority offer 60 fps.
Yeah, but we are seeing a lot of really iffy "performance" modes lately. Jedi Survivor, although it was a great game" had a ton of slow down and hiccups in performance mode.
I guess for me, 30 fps and 720p resolutions are things that should have died with the XB1/PS4 generation. 1080p/60 FPS should be the new floor when developing games.
I'd be much more accepting and possibly willing to buy a Pro machine (I bought the One X last gen) if all games were built for that 1080/60 minimum and the Pro machines now pushed these games to higher resolutions with added graphical flare.
Featured Stories
See All
2025 Montgomery Lake Creek QB Eli Morcos commits to Texas A&M
by Ryan Brauninger
26:44
41m ago
1.5k
9:20
1h ago
1.3k
In-Home Visit: Eli Morcos becomes second QB to join A&M's 2025 class
by TexAgs Recruiting
2025 Mesquite (TX) Horn OL Lamont Rogers commits to Texas A&M
by Jason Howell
8:41
4h ago
3.2k
In-Home Visit: Lamont Rogers flips his commitment to Mike Elko & Co.
by TexAgs Recruiting
RetvrnAg
2025 Montgomery Lake Creek QB Eli Morcos commits to Texas A&M
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
169
aggierogue
Last Chance U coach Jason Brown slams Elko decison making
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
154
TDAggie
2025 Montgomery Lake Creek QB Eli Morcos commits to Texas A&M
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
103
RONA Ag
2025 Mesquite (TX) Horn OL Lamont Rogers commits to Texas A&M
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
103
cazador
Don't let commits distract youOur NIL support needs Revamping
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
76
Damascene
Last Chance U coach Jason Brown slams Elko decison making
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
70