Topic: PlayStation 5 --OT--

@WebHead @Frigate I'm not saying I think VR will be integrated into PS5, just that it would massively put me off buying one IF it were to happen. Stranger things have happened.

@Th3solution No need to apologise, you only asked a question which sparked some healthy discussion. No harm done.

@Ryall I probably would replace it. I still have my OG PS4 too so I don't know if I would rush to replace my Pro - it would depend on how much I still playing on it. If I am still playing it a lot when it is irreparably dead, I would probably buy a new replacement, if I am not playing it much, I may look for a 2nd hand one - also depending on the price after the PS5.

Regardless, I would still want and would still purchase a PS4 Pro if my Pro is irreparably dead - just in case I want to play any of my PS4 games. I still have my PS3 and XB360 and my OG Xbox and all the games I have ever purchased for ALL these consoles - everything before this though is either given to my kids or was taken to the local tip when I downsized and lost a lot of storage space in my house so had to get rid of a lot of stuff...

@Octane True. I am pretty ignorant as it relates to technology (and we’ll.. as it relates to most things) but I was trying to wrap my mind around how the PS5 could emulate all previous PlayStation consoles as was stated in the recent Push Square article about the recent patent Sony filed. I’m not sure how all they works. I do remember the ‘fat’ PS3 had native PS2 BC then it was taken out, right? And they made it emulated BC thereafter, or something like that. Am I mis-remembering that? There is a hardware solution to BC and a software (or emulated) solution, if I’m understanding it.

@Th3solution Technically backwards compatibility only refers to what we call ''native BC''. A new device can read and play media from a previous device, and therefore it is backwards compatible. The Xbox One X for example isn't. It can't play anything from the disc. It just offers a digital download instead. On the other hand, the Wii U is technically BC with the GameCube, because it's all the same architecture. It can play GameCube games natively, it only lacks the special parts inside the disc drive to take in and hold the small GameCube discs.

The PS3 was BC with the PS1 and 2 because it effectively had a PS2 built into it; which was part of the reason why it was so expensive to begin with. I don't recall any emulation however, the later models of the PS3 just did away with backwards compatibility altogether.

I think we all assume that the PS5 will be similar to the PS4 in architecture. No reason why it wouldn't, because it also makes developing for it very easy. So BC with the PS4 is very likely. I haven't read into their patent, but they could built in some kind software that emulates a PS1 or PS2 and plays the game from the disc. I haven't heard of something like that before, but it's possible. A blu-ray player can read CDs and DVDs, so it's not too weird to think there's a way to emulate the system itself within the PS5. That would also make the entire library of PS1 or PS2 games playable from the get-go, which would be pretty cool. PS3 is a bit of a weird one. I think the patent included that one as well, but it's so weird that they may skip it as well. No idea to be honest!

@Octane Thank you, sir! I think I follow.
It would be a dream come true to have all the systems in one for convenience reasons. But mainly for the perpetuation of my library. I’d be thrilled with PS3 and PS4 compatibility alone - so basically since the PSN came to be. The infernal cell processor will be the fly in the ointment however.

@JohnnyShoulder Yeah, I’m in a bit of a contemplative mood lately. I like dealing with the why’s and how’s and gauging the temperature of the populace, so to speak. I learn a lot from other users in here. There is a lot of knowledge out there on Push Square.

@BAMozzy
The final versions of consoles are often feel less premium then the launch models.

Where this leaves the pro as the best PS4 when the PS5 comes out I don’t know but given its architecture it will probably remain intrinsically more expensive to produce than the base PS4 I doubt it will become the only PS4.

If people like you continue to value it in and of its self after the PS5 becomes the most powerful PlayStation then both configurations will probably survive in slimmer forms.

Only way I see a pro slim happening is if PS5 launched in second half 2020 at $499.

@Ryall I don't agree that the newer consoles feel 'less' premium. That may well be down to the fact that launch models cost more and therefore must be more 'premium' rather than the fact that the general cost of components become cheaper and, in the case of consoles, reduce in size because the APU can be made smaller. If you look at the Launch PS3, that started off with a 90nm Chip and the Slim was on a 45nm chip - hence smaller. It can be argued that it was also 'less premium' because they also removed the old PS2 chipset and reduced the number of USB ports - but most of that was to compete with MS's much cheaper XB360.

If, however, you look at MS's XB360, the launch models were prone to RROD but they changed the chip and by the time the Slim launched, the console was much less likely to get RROD, also came with HDMI port (unlike the OG which was still using analogue) so it was a more 'premium' model.

The Pro is much more 'premium' than the OG PS4. That has been revised too (I think we are on the 3rd iteration now) whilst it may still look the same on the outside. The newest iteration is the 'best' PS4 you can buy - better than the OG (which I still own). I know the 'base' console can still offer HDR gaming - but it can't offer the 'premium' streaming experience (4k HDR Netflix/Amazon for example), can't offer 'Premium' gaming - UHD HDR and 'smoothest', most consistent frame rates. It has a 'boost' mode to improve a number of games - albeit slight but its still a 'better' frame rate than the base PS4 can offer. So even if you don't have 'Pro enhanced' games, the Pro itself can enhance some games to be 'better' than the OG PS4 model. I surely don't need to explain why 'enhancing' the gaming experience is testament to a 'premium' console.

If you look at the XB1, the OG Xbox was a monster - in terms of size and also had the old 'power brick' on the outside too. The 'revised' XB1, the S, is much more 'Premium' as it offers 4k HDR content - not games I know (although these are 'upscaled' to 4k internally) but Blurays, Netflix/Amazon etc. Its in a much smaller console and yet still has the power brick inside the console. It has 'slightly' improved gaming experience - thanks to a 'small' boost in power so is more 'Premium' than the launch model despite costing less. Obviously the X is the 'Premium' Xbox as it not only runs games at a full 4k HDR with better loading times and certainly better frame rates. It does everything and more than what the OG XB1 did and certainly delivers a 'Premium' gaming experience.

Whether the Pro costs less and the overall design is less shiny too (less of a fingerprint magnet) than the OG PS4, what it offers cannot be 'dismissed' as 'less premium'. Its obvious to me that it offers the 'premium' PS4 gaming experience regardless of what TV you own. If you only own a HD TV, you still benefit from its 'boost' mode AND the enhanced Games - especially as the PS4 games are reducing in visual and often in frame rate performance as we are progressing through this generation. In basically every game now, the Pro beats the PS4 and, with the ability to 'lock' games down to a Full HD, often giving the 'best' frame rates too. It out performs the PS4 in basically every criteria - regardless of what Display you have. I know that a LOT of exclusives are full HD - mainly because the Dev can make adjustments to the game design in order to hit full HD and a 'locked' (or close to it) performance but a LOT of games now are 'sub-1080p' and often rely on dynamically reducing the Picture Quality to try and keep the frame rates more consistent. The Pro is basically the ONLY PS4 that offers full HD in virtually every game and more consistent frame rates too.

I have a 4k HDR TV and I would still rather have UHD games and therefore the only PS4 that offers this is the Pro. From just a gaming perspective, the Pro is certainly the most premium and future proofed PS4 money can buy. Even after the PS5 launches, the Pro still makes sense for Sony to keep producing as the 'only' PS4 on the market. Sony, like all manufacturers are not making many, if any HD TV's. Whether you own a 4k TV or not, by the time you do buy, chances are you won't be buying a HD TV. The Pro will still offer a better PS4 experience. It offers the better experience on HD TV's and 4k TV's because its the 'premium' console. I haven't mentioned VR yet and the Pro offers benefits here too.

Point is, if my Pro does become irreparably dead, then I would want to replace it rather than drop back to the OG PS4 I still own. Its a drop down in visual quality, performance & stability (frame rates) as well as features too - like 4k HDR streaming. Going from playing a Game on a PS5 to OG PS4 will be far more of a drop in quality of that gaming experience and I am more likely to play older PS4 games on my Pro than on a base PS4 because of the more significant drop in quality - that alone should be indicative of which is the 'premium' console.

@BAMozzy If you’re simply looking at the numbers you’re absolutely right performance and power have improved for the pro whilst noise and reliability for the slim and later revisions have been improved.
I’m talking about the feel of the thing as a physical object. I think what I’m saying can most clearly seen on the Vita. On paper the last model is best with long battery life and 1GB of internal storage the original didn’t have. But subjectively looking at the screen be original looks nicer.

What I’m saying only applies to Sony not Microsoft and Nintendo.

@Ryall I can't comment on the Vita myself as I never bought one. I know they did 'perceivably' reduce the screen quality but that in part may well be for battery life improvements and moving from OLED also reduces the risk of Screen Burn-in.

In an interview with Nikkei, Sony's Andrew House said, "The main reason is that the LCD panel can now realize an image as high quality as that of the OLED panel." House also added that the LCD panel makes it easier to slim down the PS Vita. It may also have cost saving too enabling Sony to improve the Vita in several key areas - like Price, battery life, more storage and a 'better bang for your buck' with lower risk of screen burn-in. As I said, its perceivably worse but in general its still a bigger step forward in more key areas.

As a gamer, you want the 'best bang for your buck' on any console. Games too are important but if you can't play them because your battery has run flat or the frame rate makes it difficult to 'enjoy' the game. I know a LOT will say game visuals are not that important but these do create our firs impression. All you have to do is look at the comments in any game. Have a great looking trailer/tease and people are 'excited', they want to play it before they even know what the game-play is, what the story offers etc. If its not so great, people are instantly put-off. If a game doesn't 'look' like the first trailer, they are all shouting about 'downgraded' visuals.

Regardless of what people may say, Graphics are important - maybe not the 'most' important but still important. They do give people their first impression and first impression can have a big impact on sales of a game. Things like Frame rates often impact on people after a game is bought (or reviewed) but by which point, the publisher has often got the money in.

To a gamer, regardless of what they may say, Hardware Specs matter to their gaming experience. Whether that's the way a game performs, way a game looks or even what the devs can achieve to provide a 'better' experience. That maybe bigger, more densely packed open worlds without 'loading' screens (unless you fast travel) with more realistic vegetation, water etc. It maybe more realistic lighting, shadows, particles, etc with a much greater colour palette and contrast (HDR). More accurate skin and facial animations, more realistic hair/fur, more dynamic world with weather that impacts on the environment - like puddles that form when raining and evaporate in the sun. I could go on but the point is, specs matter and whilst its 'unusual' in a lot of console generations to get a more powerful version, it still matters.

In every way, the PS4 Pro is a 'premium' PS4. As I tried to say its not just 'gaming' that benefits from the Premium console. It offers more than a base PS4 - regardless of whether you purchased the Original or Slim model. It allows for you to access 'premium' streaming content from Netflix/Amazon. I believe it generally has faster load times too so whilst some aspects may well be of little use to a HD TV users (things like 4k & HDR content), the primary reason for buying a console does benefit EVERYONE regardless of the display tech.

What Sony may have done in the past, stripping out PS2 chipsets in their slim PS3, changing the screen in the Vita etc - most of which did benefit the gamer in other areas - doesn't mean that is always going to happen. If, for example, your OLED screen Vita breaks down irreparably, do you go looking for another OLED screen Vita or look to buy the one that will look 'almost' as good (although Sony do say the screen is as good), with much better storage, battery life to enable longer gaming sessions before recharging and at a cheaper price point?

When my OG 60GB PS3 ended up with YLOD (I never had RROD incidentally), I replaced that with 320GB Slim for a LOT less money. I may of lost access to a lot of my PS1/2 games (which I gave to my son as I was NEVER playing them) but it was and still is 'working', much better power usage and quieter too. Generally speaking, Electronics advance over time and therefore you can end up with a 'better' console later on in its life due to revisions. Gaming may not always have such a 'radical' improvement as the Pro/X offer over the 'base' hardware - but often get a 'better' bang for your buck as they are often cheaper, more economic to run and potentially revised to eliminate any issues that may have arisen - such as RROD/YLOD. Considering what I paid for my PS3 and how much I paid for my PS3 Slim, the loss of BC and a few USB ports, I gained a much slimmer, more efficient console that was still able to play All my games. When you look at what I paid for my PS3 and Pro, the Pro offers a LOT more benefits over the base PS4 so better bang for my buck.

I know this is the PC breakdown of Metro BUT it really does a great job of showcasing Ray Tracing and what that brings to this game. The reason I am posting it here is to highlight Ray Tracing and why it could transform gaming on the PS5 - if Sony do build Ray Tracing functionality into the PS5.

If I had the choice of Ray Tracing or Backwards Compatibility (if Sony had to focus on bringing one or the other) on the PS5, I would opt for Ray Tracing without any hesitation. Which would you pick?

I doubt we are gonna get Ray Tracing on consoles any time soon. Even pretty beefy PC's apparently struggle to cope with it so I hear. It's kinda like some people thinking PS4 and XBO were gonna be 4K 60FPS machines before we knew about them. For under 400 quid. There was no way that was ever gonna happen.

@JohnnyShoulder like I said people are asking too much. Xbox One X has lead to unrealistic expectations for next gen hardware.

Agree with all of the above comments.

Also, to reply to @BAMozzy I actually might choose Backwards Compatibility over Ray Tracing. Having just one new console to play both PS4 and PS5 on, both new and old, is super appealing to me.

Also, I fully expect to be buying a PS5 Pro for Ray Tracing later on in the gen.

For the moment Ray Tracing (RTX) isn't worth the power. Relatively it takes a crazy amount of memory compared to other things one can do to make a game look better: textures, SSR, PBR, AA, less pop-in or the Illuminati techniques we saw in RDR2.

Ray tracing is exciting, but for the moment I feel it is more of a buzzword, than worth the actual investment vs investment in other techniques. (For instance RTX is pretty much redundant in any game without realistic style graphics)

@Kidfried Check out the smarty pants with all the Ray Tracing knowledge!

@JohnnyShoulder That's assuming the PS5 is £400 or even $400. The X was $500 and Sony will want to 'beat' MS which will be difficult to improve on with a budget of 'just' $400. The rumoured specs will be 'difficult' to hit at $500. Ray Tracing can be done with dedicated Ray Tracing component built into the APU. We are yet to see AMD's version of Ray Tracing so who knows if they have a 'cheaper' method and I expect it to work with traditional rasterisation anyway - not be the 'only' way of illumination and shadow generation.

Back in 2013, we were in a Global Economic crisis where analysts were predicting the death of consoles and releasing a new console would be a mistake because people would not spend money on 'Leisure' activities because of the global economic state of the world. That may well of influenced Sony and MS to be far more conservative on their entry Price point. It's not unreasonable for Sony to target $500 if you factor in inflation and economic growth - especially if they can sell the console on specs and game performance that the 'extra' money can allow them to do. The X for example was $500 and Sony will struggle to offer a 'next gen' leap over the X for $400 just a few years later.

Have you not seen the Ray Tracing Demo's and multitude of CGI animated movies that all use Ray Tracing - inc movies like Toy Story which isn't exactly 'realistic' looking. Admittedly, the movies can take hours to calculate and render just a single frame thanks to millions of rays to provide a realistic illuminated scene with realistic shadows and light bounce - but they don't just benefit 'realistic' visuals and can benefit every game regardless of artstyle as every game has a light source, shadows etc.

Granted its 'expensive' at the moment to incorporate ray tracing in a game where frames are rendered every 33ms (30fps) or 16.6ms (60fps) but it can still be possible and used in conjunction with traditional rasterisation and perhaps some AI to predict the way that many more rays would react in a scene without needing to actually trace the path of lots of rays. Much like we see 'low, medium, high, ultra' settings for a LOT of visual aspects in a game, Consoles may be able to offer Low/Medium levels of Ray Tracing.

As usual, time will tell. It really depends on whether they offer us a choice of settings - a native 4k with traditional lighting or a lower res, AI upscaled or CB rendered option with Ray Tracing. You have the option on PC's and don't actually need a ray tracing enabled graphics card either...

Not realistic visuals either...

Ray Tracing would be cool but I do not need it. I do not mind $500 but would prefer $400. Yeah I Know One X but that is not the same situation. One x is an optional premium edition not the start of a new gen.

Really we should not worry about it. The games will look great regardless. And that is good enough for me.

I would definitely prefer a PS5 that is capable of raytracing to one that had backward compatibility but was not as graphically capable.
Whilst APU have often being surprisingly competent when compare to a PC at the same price point I would expect the main increases to be in CPU performance rather than GPU and RAM. Compare to the Xbox X I would expect the CPU to be a order of magnitude better but the GPU and RAM to only increase by 10’s of %’s