Topic: How Much Would You Pay for the PS5?

$500 top, and hopefully bundled with a game i want. Purchased 6-12 months after release or later after release as i wait for games and any problems to be worked out.

@themcnoisy, ssd also does not worry me as the prices will drop Then too price per unit drops a bit, i imagine, if also a client requests 10-20 million units, initially.

@themcnoisy Games will require a SSD to run, it’s a matter of gameplay and world loading, loading times aside. They can’t release a PS5 without a SSD.

@Jaz007 That's what I was saying. The PS5 I believe will house a 2tb hdd with a 0.5tb ssd alongside.

Depending on the climate it will either be £399 or £449. Im happy to pay £449 but £399 is more likely imo.

When sequentially access memory is very fast it can be used in ways that randomly access memory is currently used. People are calling the PS5’s SSD a game change because it allows developers to do things that would not be otherwise possible. Some PS5 exclusive games will be designed to take advantage of these benefits will not work on the hard drive.

If there are blocks of uncompressed data designed to be read directly from the SSD in some of the games then this is going to increase the file sizes hence the priority is a large SSD rather than additional storage that can’t be used for the most advanced games. @themcnoisy

Same here, though my 55 inch 1080p cost me around $400 after some gift cards.

I don't plan on buying a 4K display until I get a PS5, so ~2024?

If I buy one sooner it's because I saw a sale I couldn't resist.

I don't know the costs of things in the US and how that relates to the costs of living etc. I do know though, that when you see 'US' prices for things as we often do, IF you do the price conversion from $'s to £'s, it seems that costs are cheaper in the US. I know that the prices don't always include the 'total' cost as the UK prices are including tax and not sure how tax is handled from state to state.

As for '4k' TV's and the 'cost', back in 2014, I had to replace my 'bedroom' TV and I bought a 48" HD Samsung, just middle of the road model, not the most expensive. That cost me £500! Today, I can find a 4k HDR TV, albeit not a UHD Premium Quality such as the OLEDs or the QLEDs, but still a 4k HDR TV with excellent gaming performance inc VRR support, 55" screen for less money - Samsung 55" NU7020 is £479. My current Main TV is a 55" Samsung 4k HDR TV but doesn't have VRR - although does have the Quantum Dot layer and is a UHD Premium (better for HDR) but that cost more 3x the amount of the NU.

Point is, a 55" 4k TV with HDR and much better gaming performance can be bought for less money than a 48" HD TV cost just 5yrs ago! In fact my Bedroom TV isn't quite 5yrs old yet. As for 4k, I can see the difference on my 55" TV from 2.5m away and certainly notice the difference more so in gaming because gaming uses a LOT more sharp lines as they are 'drawn' that way. Anything 1800p and up is a bit more tricky to see, but 1440p and under is detectable with the upscale 'blur' that softens the image. I can tell in TV too but that's the difference between HD and 4k - a bigger drop than 4k to 1440p. In natural history programmes, the details of things like fur and whiskers stand out because you can see the 'hairs'. Maybe you see the hairs in the 'up close' HD shots but as soon as the animal drops away from the camera, all those hairs and whiskers blur because the hair is too fine for individual pixels to define.

I am not going to lie and some may not see the benefit in the extra resolution. It doesn't matter if that 'light blue' denim jacket you see in HD is actually made of dark blue and white threads when viewed at 4k. Its still recognisable as a 'denim' jacket. You also know that the green flat area in front of a house is a lawn whether it has more texture because of 4k - your brain has already interpreted that as a Lawn - much like it did in SD too. Whether you can see exactly what a sign in a shop window in the background actually says because 4k enables more definition of those small letters actually matter is down to the individual as most won't even notice there was a shop because they were focussed on the foreground.

HDR though is more of a game-changer. Its impact can be much more noticeable regardless of screen size and distance from it, regardless of how attentive a viewer you are. It may depend on the quality of HDR your TV has as well as the content and its HDR quality - certainly in some games (RDR2 for example is not a 'good' implementation but GTSport is one of the best). SDR looks flat by comparison because it lacks the massive contrast difference and SDR uses 'tricks' to make things appear 'brighter' - such as using 'white'. A classic example of this is Light Sabres in Star Wars where the 'core' is white with a colour fade around it which we interpret to be 'bright' but in HDR, that core could be incredibly bright Red (or Blue for example) and look more natural. Neon signs in movies too use the 'white' to simulate it being 'bright' but in reality, Neon signs have a very bright core in a colour. The use of white in this way is like saying the 'colour' is too bright for the camera to pick up, that its blowing out the films exposure but in HDR, that 'colour' is retained which makes Neon signs look much more natural and more colourful too.

Anyway, I started this post more about the different costs. Just because someone here owns a 4K HDR TV, doesn't mean that the 'cost' of living is so much different from the US. Not everyone over here is buying the top of the line OLEDs at 65" or bigger, not buying the top of the line QLED either. Not everyone who bought an OLED or QLED also paid the 'launch' price either. As a comparison, my 'first' HD TV bought around the time Sky launch HD, cost me as much money as my current 4k HDR TV did 7 or 8yrs later. However, my HD TV didn't have 'smart' functionality, only had HDMI 1.3 ports, was only 46" (compared to my 55" 4k TV), didn't have Freeview - just analogue TV which has now been discontinued in the UK, was actually bigger and heavier than my larger 55" TV because it was much thicker with a much larger bevel around the screen.

Point is, prices change and what you could of bought 5yrs ago for £500 is completely antiquated, smaller and less featured than what £500 will buy you today. For £1k (around $1300 in US money), you can buy a 55" 4k HDR TV, a 4k HDR console (Pro or X) and still have money left for games, additional controllers, subscriptions etc if you wanted. £1k though won't buy you a 55" OLED or top of the line QLED (currently the Q9FN) - probably won't buy these when the 2019 range hit the market (if they haven't already) but you don't necessarily have to buy the 'best' HDR performance - the area that seems to be biggest factor in the cost. A Samsung NU series can have all the same features as a Q9FN but a different panel (no Quantum Dot layer) with a different backlight arrangement but still be as bright as some OLEDs for under £500.

There must be 'equivalent' TV's for equivalent prices in the US - I know a lot of the models we get are released in the US as I see RTING's (a US based site) reviewing these TV's too. I find it funny that people with iPhones or Samsung equivalent, iPad Pro's etc complain that a TV with all the smart apps, high res screen and HDR etc somehow isn't worth spending more than a couple of hundred bucks (whether bucks is $'s or £'s), not worth more than the console they intend to plug into it to bring those games alive. I don't know how many hours you spend using a TV, but add up the 'avg' hours per day x by day's in a year x by 5/6yrs and work out the cost per hour of use that you are expecting. A £500 TV is £100 per year, which equates to around 27p per day which, if you use it for an average of 5hrs a day (maybe you use less during the week and much more on weekends) still only works out at less than 5.5p per hour of use over a 5year period...

Most year 1 adopters will be PS4 owners trading in their PS4s anyway. Im sure sony would love $399 but it just may not be realistic.

Long story short if you wanna be first in line for the new best toy be prepared to pay.

@WebHead As is always the case...

Like I said in the post above, my first flat screen HD TV (46" with no smart apps etc) cost as much as my 55" 4k HDR Smart TV and now you can buy a 55" 4k HDR TV for the same price as my 48" bedroom HD TV.

3yrs after the launch of the PS4, Sony released the PS4 Pro for the same money it would of cost to be one of the first PS4 owners. The Xbox X, more than 4x the power of the base Xbox, and with a 4k HDR Bluray, cost just £20 more than the Launch Xbox bundle (although that did have Kinect).

Its also the case with Software. If you want to be one of the first to play a game, be prepared to pay the highest prices - even though you could wait a month or two and have a much more complete and functional game after all the updates and patches to fix have been applied.

Certainly as far as technology is concerned, if you are prepared to wait, the prices can be much lower. Whether you miss out on certain experiences - especially in online games whilst there is a community playing them - or not is down to the individual and their preferences. I have benefited from 5yrs of 4k TV, albeit very limited in the first few years but that may not be important to another.

The 'exception' to dropping prices over time is the vintage market. Some games/consoles etc - especially if boxed with all paper-work, can be a lot more expensive and increasing in price as the years go buy. As a guitarist for example, I see 'vintage' instruments being worth tens of thousands, even 6-figures (more if they were owned by a famous artist like Hendrix, Gilmore, Clapton - Peter Greens Les Paul (known as Greeny and used by Gary Moore too) was 'valued' at $2m and now owned by Kirk Hammet of Metallica. A guitar that was passed around a few different artists and sold for a few hundred as just a 'used' guitar.

Generally though, if you want to be 'first' for anything, whether its Consoles, games, TV's, Cars, Guitars etc, you 'generally' have to pay more. As far I can tell, the exception is 'housing' as they continue to rise in value whether you are first or 'used'.

You lot and your big TV's. I don't have space for anything bigger than a 32".

@BAMozzy Part of my issue might be that I have impared eyesight so honestly I don't notice much of any difference between 1080p and 4K.

@TowaHerschel7 - "You guys in Europe must be filthy rich or have tiny 4KTV's. No offense, but spending a 5x more than a 1080p TV isn't that appealing given how small of a difference the increased resolution gives. My 50" HDTV was a hair under $300 while its 4K counterpart was $1599.99."

Maybe that does have an impact for you and your own personal view of 4k but that doesn't mean that we in Europe are 'rich' as you put it and that 4x increased resolution can have more than just a 'small' difference. I don't know exactly what model TV you bought that the 4k equivalent has a significant increase in price either but I do know that you can purchase a 55" 4k HDR TV in the US for around double the price of your HD TV. Not only will it offer 4x the resolution but also add HDR as well as superb 4k HDR gaming experience too - I am mentioning the gaming as that is the main focus of a site like this. If that size isn't enough for you to see the benefits of 4k relatively clearly with impaired eyesight, there are 65 and 75" models that can be bought for under $1500 - cheaper than $1600 for the 4k 'equivalent' (not that I know what model you bought in the first place). I can't actually think of any TV that is a '4k' equivalent myself because for the past few years, TV manufacturers haven't made both HD and 4k - certainly not the 'same' TV with either a HD or 4K panel installed that I can think of, but then you may have different TV's in the US to what we have here. Most 4k TV's have faster processors, better electronics and higher rated HDMI ports etc to process 4k images and upscale lower resolution images to fit the panel so its unlikely that the '4k' TV is likely too be more like the Pro is to PS4 or the X is to the base XB1 despite looking 'similar' on the exterior, what's under the hood is better and adds to the costs too...

You can get a 43 or 49" 4k tv for like $250-300 in the US these days.

Something to remember as well that PS4 was originally gonna be $500 with the camera included but they took out the camera and went for $400 at the last minute at E3 2013 to undercut MS.

@WebHead
Maybe they r going to sell a base PS5 version with no controller to make it cheaper?

Im half joking here haha

@Kidfried You have no space for this then?

https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/sony-2019-tv-lineu...

EDIT: Or the funds as I've just seen the price! Blimey.

@JohnnyShoulder If I had that kinda money on me, I wouldn't have lived in an apartment this small :')

I actually dont care how much it will be Im going to be getting it

Wall mounted you only have room for 32 inch...how small is your bedroom?!

£350, and I'll trade in my Pro.

$399. Or I will wait.