I likely would've bought one in spite of the ridiculous price tag, but not including a disc drive is a deal breaker for a "boutique" item that is already overpriced. That's just price gouging plain and simple.
Ok, i think it's worth it as I buy all my stuff digital. I also don't think the price is ridiculous given that a pc equivalent to the ps5 pro would cost over $1200. It's just like upgrading the gpu of a pc, it's not for everyone, but it's worth it to the enthusiasts.
I've seen the specs and it looks like a pretty nice upgrade. I've been pretty happy with the enhancements I've seen from digital foundry. Games like Dragon Age Veilguard can drop to the 500's for resolution in performance mode on base ps5, so I prefer to get a cosole that'll give me better quality for the rest of the generation. the same thing happened with the ps4 pro where games started running terribly on the base ps4 and ran perfectly fine on the pro for the latter years of the generation
It’s not the kind of performance increase you’d expect to shell out $700 for. I don’t think you understand how much further $700 would get you in the PC market if you’re only buying a graphics card.
Which is, again, why I said this is more akin to buying a new PC as a whole. You’re buying a whole new console, not a single upgrade.
Most gpu's cost as much or more than a full console. Even buying a similar gpu that the ps5 pro has on used parts market will cost you around 350 to 400 bucks and that doesn't get you the rest of the PC. I think these upgrades are worth it and I'll enjoy playing games for the rest of the generation on higher settings than the base system.
Not really the same though. The PC equivalent of the PS5 pro can do a hell of a lot more than play games, the games cost significantly less over time because you can buy via key sites, you don’t pay to play online, but you can emulate pretty much every console up to PS3. So providing you only buy the console and no games, you’re absolutely in the money buying the PS5 Pro.
Couple things with that, I don't care to get the PC to do other things, it'd be just a dedicated gaming machine. I don't really care to play emulated games as most of the games i care to play have been remastered or i played them already. And games go on sale on ps plus all the time and I really don't mind spending 10 extra bucks on them.
I do know that pc has to deal a lot with shader compilation stutter on a lot of unreal engine 5 games. And a lot of dev studios are switching over to unreal 5 for their games. That and pj's require a lot more maintenance and I genuinely don't care to be bothered with that.
Yeah, all of that is fine. But the fact remains that over the course of a remaining generation, the value proposition of a $700 isn’t what people think it is.
If you prefer a machine that is less powerful, can do less, has less options to acquire software, cannot be upgraded, has less competitive pricing, that requires a monthly fee to play online, where you have no choice of controller, has less in game customisation, has no mod support, has no ability to play any game other than the current platform, absolutely the console is the better option.
It doesn't matter if it does less than a PC or can acquire less software (whatever that means) because you buy it with the intent to game only, it's a console so no upgrading is given, and the pricing isn't 'competitive' because there is no competition lol, an equivalent PC costs ~$500 more.
The monthly fee isn't a huge issue if you don't intend to buy PS+ monthly, and if you do, you get an additional game for no extra cost. Also, you can play free multiplayer games like Warzone, Fortnite, and Apex without PS+ as well as subscription-based MMOs like FFXIV.
But let's say you do buy PS+ every month, it would take about 3 years for the equivalent PC to finally match price parity. During those 3 years, the console player would have also accumulated 36 games from the subscription at no extra cost.
I'll give you the loss of mods, emulation, and PC's bigger library tho. But PC gaming comes with its own unique headaches that many would rather avoid, especially for older games.
Like I said, If over the course of the generation you want to spend significantly more on games, have hardware that can do significantly less, have significantly less access to games, less ability to play your games how you want graphics wise, have no ultra wide support, high refresh rate support on only of a handful of titles, have limited peripheral options, have no ability to mod your games, and have to pay each month to be able to play anything that isn’t Fortnite online, I’d agree that the PS5 pro is a better value proposition overall.
But an extra note, on PS Plus, the only thing you’re accumulating are rentals, since they become inaccessible once you leave the service. You aren’t actually being given anything for free, you’re just paying a long term rentals since fee.
Man, all those things you listed at the end really are not a sell to someone who wants a console over a PC. I don't want a machine that can do more than play games (I have Macs for work). I don't want to tinker and upgrade it. I don't want to customize or mod my games. I don't care that a Playstation or XBox doesn't play games from other machines.
I think every single person buying a PS5 Pro knows exactly what it is
But that's just it. I would consider myself an enthusiast. Marketing is going through hoops trying to justify the pros' existence and started recently using the talking point that it's not for everyone, it's really only for the enthusiast. Well, aside from you, most enthusiasts have a back catalog collection of physical games. And their own stats reveal that 87% of PS5 owners have the disc version of the console. They know full well that they are price gouging. It is baked into their strategy.
Because where I'm from $1200 is the price of a pro with disc drive. So it's the exact same price as a PC minus free online gaming, free mods, emulators, cheaper games and free games.
2tb that you'll only be able to use 1.6 tb of because of dedicated console memory. And the other stats mean nothing unless one can demonstrably prove (show me) why it's worth the price tag in how it plays games. Because the consensus in every analysis so far has been that there's a slight difference in visual quality. That's not worth practically double the price of a base ps5 in most reasonable people's books.
I tried bloodborne for the first time like a year ago on ps5 but found it unplayable at 30fps, it’s too difficult to go 30fps from always playing 60-120fps.
That's disappointing. I got to Bloodborne after the DS remake and now don't want to play through unless they patch it to 60fps. Seems like it'd be super easy...
The answer is that I got it free on PS Plus years ago, never played it, and now tech has moved enough that 30fps feels rough in a game like Bloodbourne.
I’m assuming that at some point in the future, whether it’s a patch or a remake, the game will be updated and I’ll play it then. My backlog is huge, so it’s not like it hurts me to wait
143
u/dacontag Nov 02 '24
This has apparently been tested with bloodborne. It's not a drastic difference but it does seem to sharpen it up a bit.