PS5 Pro's Rumoured Spectral Super Resolution Tech Could Be Transformative

This console is going to be way too expensive for.. a console, isn’t it?

@itsfoz I'm interested in it but i can't see it being cheaper then 600 and even then i expect around 700 and both of those prices are way out of my price range.

I think I’ll just wait for the ps6. Not especially keen on mid gen refreshes.

100% unnecessary console

Magg from Colt Eastwood's channel is claiming that his source at EA/Respawn told him that they tested PSSR on Jedi Survivor on the Pro devkit and they got a locked 120fps at 4k.

Not sure why an Xbox YouTuber would lie about that but It still sounds a bit too good to be true to me. I guess we'll see though.

I'm definitely buying a Pro anyway.

@hbkay that's your opinion. Lot's of gamers want this, including me. At the end of the day it's like a iphone and iPhone pro. You CAN CHOSE. And for me it's a no brainer. Very excited about this!

@itsfoz Yeah, that seems to be the elephant in the room right now. The prime market for consoles (let's be honest with ourselves here) are people who cannot afford a gaming PC. If it costs all that much more than a regular PS5 then you have to start questioning why you don't just save up a bit more for a proper rig. Especially given how few exclusives the PS5 has right now.

My issue with the Pro is that it WILL decrease the game quality on base models. Devs won’t invest in much optimisation if it runs well on Pro. I want my PS5 base model remain a machine that delivers stable 60 fps with reasonable resolutions.

@get2sammyb Very good point.

I Bet half the tech doesn't get used fully due to the little amount of users that will buy it just like the Series X. Probably more a test bed for the PS6.

I'll definitely get one. The price won't be too bad, especially if you sell your PS5 and knock some money off. Why wouldn't I want the best experience for my PS games.

The PS5 is basically a PS4 Pro Pro so this will be a PS4 Pro Pro Pro?

From South Africa, using a conversion of ZAR 20:1 USD. A PS5 with disk drive and extra controller costs approx USD700. An RTX 4070 12gb model (not the 16gb super) costs more. That is for only the GPU, nothing else.
From my corner of the world even at USD 300 premium over the base model it is still a bargain for what we get. Not taking into account the extreme ease of use, not having to deal with windows, per game driver updates, poor ports etc.

@Max_the_German I don't see that being the case. Especially considering the tiny percentage of people who will own a pro compared to the base model.

@BossBE yuppp.

Also, everything that isn't food, water and oxygen is unnecessary really. Everything else is just niceties you can choose to engage in or not.

@get2sammyb it's unnecessary because even now mid through ps5 gen, there's barely even a few games that utilises ps5's power, and what, now the pro comes and suddenly were gonna be awash with super high grade games ?? No we're not, it is unnecessary and will be over priced just like psvr2,
And also all we will hear for the rest of ps5 gen " enhanced for ps5Pro"
And all your really doing is paying high price beta for ps6

@Max_the_German I wouldn't say that it definitely will, but I understand the concern. My expectation is that it will pretty much be the status quo on the base model with performance and quality modes, while the Pro gets a performance boost in both modes (and potentially an extra 30fps ultra mode or something).

@get2sammyb because Internet, Sammy. Where people call things they personally have no use for trash.

@get2sammyb I would agree 100%. Way I see it, Sony is using this opportunity to test PSSR technology in the wild, get devs to use it in practice. All for eventual mature implementation in PS6.
And there are many enthusiasts that will be onboard with that (assuming decent pricing, probably myself included).

@Uromastryx PSVR 2 isn't overpriced, for the tech you're getting, the price is reasonable. What it would be worth to you personally is another matter of course. It's expensive, yes, but that doesn't make it overpriced.

If it improves PSVR2 games then I'm all for it!

@Max_the_German
No it won't! Did that happen with the PS4? Like at all?

@hbkay
Nobody said it was necessary. That doesn't mean it ain't nice. I loved the PS4pro. Made games look nicer on a 4K screen. Now I got an 85". I'll take all the gpu power I can get.

As someone who bought the PS4 Pro, this time I'll be sticking with the base PS5. I've seen nothing to suggest it'll be anything more than a modest upgrade and I already have a PC that's still far ahead of what the Pro will be.

On base PS5, the only game I feel that needed a bit more power to run is FFVII and everything else looks great

I'm still rocking a 60hz 4k tv (Samsung KS7000). I need to upgrade my TV first before even thinking about getting a PS5 Pro.
However, if the PS VR2 will also benefit significantly from a PS5 Pro, I might get one after all.

I was planning on buying the fiver during the current season, spring. However, I will now save that money and wait for this Pro. I can wait another 8-10 months since I have been holding back on this generation since its inception.

As somebody who is firmly in the target group for such a product, I have to admit I'm also struggling with why a PS5 Pro needs to exist. We've had a few high performing PS5 exclusives and cross gen games, but in no way have any of those felt limited by the current hardware. It still feels to me like the PS5 has a lot of headroom the majority of the time. For example, we're only just starting to see major games capped at 30FPS.

Now, I would probably consider buying a Pro model despite all of that, but I wouldn't expect anything beyond faster load times and perhaps smoother frame rates in some games. At those would likely be noticeable but minimal improvements.

Beyond that, the install base for the Pro will be very small which will not incentivise much Pro specific functionality in games. Just look at what's happening with the PSVR2 software lineup.

@BrettAwesome The advantages of the PS4 Pro were quite minor, the rather basic upscaling technology Checkerboard Rendering plus more GPU cores and higher clocks for both GPU and CPU. Here we talk about an advanced technology similar to DLSS. I would be surprised if it wouldn’t also bring its own frame generation solution, which boosts from 30 fps to a (somewhat artifical looking) 60 fps. And then 30 fps on base model for many games is a given.

Strange that they're doubling down on resolution and performance when it's become evident that these types of games are too expensive to make a profit from. PS5 is fine where it is and they need to focus on making the game fun and at a fair price point.

I'm going to get this Day One.

And then games will all be weightless, toothless, physicsless hosposh that all play the same, but hey 60fps!
Meanwhile Arkham Knight still looks better than any game out there

PS5 Pro was inevitable and clearly not a coincidence to be hearing about it soon after GTA 6 finally revealed itself.

The necessity of it will only be known in time... but like many others have pointed out already, I have no faith at all that there will be more than ONE game that actually makes the PS5 Pro necessary and achieve its ability.

So I guess Sony and Rockstar are asking us... is GTA 6 worth circa £800 to play? I'm thinking no since you'll be able to do it for circa £500 on PS6 within 4 years (you'd think).

And the comments implying this about affordability... sod off! Most of us on here are in our 30s and 40s. It's not simply about the cost like we're all teenagers scraping together pocket money.

If the tech works well and actually delivers solid 60fps with a 4k image not too far off it'll be a game changer... I'll do what I did with the ps4 pro... Sell the old one and upgrade to the new hardware

I’m quite excited to not need to worry about choosing a performance or graphics mode and having both enabled!

The games, the games...

Will it play Alan Wake 2 quality mode at 60fps with no compromises? 🤔

@Frmknst The 8k stuff is just marketing fluff, something we should all ignore. The main draw of the Pro will be playing quality modes at higher performances.

Look at something like FF16, which drops down to 720p in combat in performance mode. It's clear that there are tangible gains to be made here, well before we're even entertaining the idea of 8k.

@BookhouseBoy That was my first thought — how is this going to affect game development cost? After hearing about the skyrocketing cost of development and the unsustainable current trajectory of big budget games, will this type of targeted resolution and performance be utilized to any significant degree? I’m not a programmer or technologically savvy, so maybe DLSS (or in this case PSSR) makes it easier and cheaper to squeeze out performance, but I have a feeling it will just push teams to aim for higher and higher graphical targets which will mean longer and longer development and higher and higher budgets.

I also find it interesting that they appear to be targeting some synergy with GTA6. It could be a system seller for PlayStation if it runs at 60-120 fps and is 30 fps on everything else. (Which makes me wonder, will it even run on Series S? 😅 Could be a Cyberpunk type of issue where it barely functions on lower end consoles)

@LordAinsley yup it’s all vanity. Gaming is a hobby. And like all hobbies it costs extra money. People can choose how they spend their coin once their core needs to live are taken care of.

I think a lot of people are calling this wrong.

The Pro console will be popular, despite what some of you think. It WILL sell out and stock WILL be difficult to find for a year.

This won't be PSVR2.

The "don't need it" brigade will change their tune. Dragon's Dogma will either choke at 24fps in big fights, or FFXVI resolution scaling will have been patched in for launch such that it resembles a Switch game too. Only going to get worse in future as resolutions and framerates plummet.

I don't think a Pro will lead to worse ports on the base model. You will have poorly running games on the base model, but that was destined to happen anyway.

It was technologies like VRR you should have been worried about, as it's clear that a lot of developers are using it to justify 50 to 60fps rather than a locked 60fps in games.

As I correctly predicted, the likes of Digital Foundry regularly soft ball the performance review of games with lines such as "but it runs fine with VRR".

Meanwhile they still at least fairly critique Series S performance in reviews, and the base PS5 versions will be heavily analysed and developers will be aware of that.

Sadly those expecting 4K 60fps will be badly disappointed. You will need the Pro just to maintain a stable and locked 30fps at 1800p.

You have to remember that those new games don't look anything like the games that ran at 60fps at launch. Graphical detail and effects always improve over a generation, and that comes at a cost.

Well done PS, thats the best layman's outline of these 'downres and upscale' options I have read.
The key is that the upscaling is so good that the lower res image, e.g. 1440P can be made to look like a native 4K image, and thus you get 1440P performance but with 4K image like quality.

Sincerely best explanation ever.

So a company that is so close to slipping into the red financially is going to release yet more hardware.

Madness!

They will sell this at over £600 to try and make it viable but with a lack of games to utilise the tech, this is a risky move for PlayStation and it seems they are not learning that we need games more than hardware.

A Pro just isn’t necessary at this time when PS6 will be here by 2027 more than likely.

I don't think people are ready for how much this is going to cost. If you can afford it, good for you but I have a feeling more than a few fans that were originally going to buy a Pro are going to reconsider when they see the price tag attached to it.

Still the tech sounds cool. I'll check it out come PS6...assuming I can afford that when it comes out. 😂

@Th3solution My only guess is that dev teams are struggling to make larger scale games run smoothly using Unreal Engine 5?

You do make a good point about GTA 6 though. It looks too good to be true on modern consoles (even if we've only seen a brief trailer so far). It might be an arms race at this point to see which console will be better to play what will undoubtedly be the biggest (and most profitable) game of the generation.

Think I'll just upgrade my PC instead.

Sounds promising to me but nah. Thanks. I wait for PS6 instead. My fat og ps5 still excellent

So they are focussing on reconstruction - maybe it will be more on a par with DLSS than FSR, but the whole point of 'reconstruction' techniques is to artificially create the 'look' of higher resolution whilst the game is running at 'lower' resolution.

As we know, some games are running as low as 720p to hit 60fps - often using some 'reconstruction' techniques (like FSR, Chequerboard rendering etc) to 'create' a higher resolution image to output. However, the 'output' resolution may well be 2160p but its been reconstructed and upscaled from a much lower resolution.

Granted, having more 'horesepower' under the hood may well mean that you aren't having to 'start' with a 720p image the game is 'actually' presenting - you could start from 1080 or 1440p instead so 'less' reconstruction/upscaling for a 'cleaner' image.

As for Frame Generation (as FSR/DLSS 3.0 offer), a 30fps is still a 30fps - the same input lag, the same response etc as the game is still only updating at 30fps - an 'artificially' created image is being placed between these to create the 'look' of 60fps, not address the 'FEEL' of 60fps.

I don't mind them not wasting resources to push 'Native' 4k when those resources maybe better used to push draw distance, lighting quality etc and then 'upscaled' from 1440p+ but its still not a '4k' game - it just 'looks' 4k because of the quality of the upscale.

It may well be telling you its 4k/60 but in reality could be running at 1080/60. Like I said, we have games saying they are '4k' yet running at 'HD' resolutions and using some form of upscaling technology to take a low res image and make it look much higher res...

Day one for me. Be aware tho, Last of us UBERREMASTERED EDITION incomming.

@Uromastryx It's ok to me.

Based on the first half of this generation when it comes to the PS6 I will just wait for the pro. PS5 games will most likely be coming out well into it's life cycle anyways.

@Pranwell I think that's because it makes people feel like their expensive purchase in the PS5 is devalued by a pro version.

@get2sammyb I hope its still silent that is what i lover about the PS5 the most.

@BAMozzy It wouls be quite wise to first wait untill its released i have heard nithing official yet.

@Flaming_Kaiser Whilst nothing 'official' has been released, that doesn't stop the 'principal'. The whole point is this is Sony's answer to 'upscaling'.

It may well use AI for example to enhance the quality of the 'upscaled' image, remove or eliminate some of the 'artefacts' or issues associated with other upscaling methods but its still taking a 'lower' resolution image and making it look like it was actually rendered at a higher resolution.

DLSS, for example, regarded as the 'best' on the market right now, can take a 1440p, even a 1080p image and make it 'look' like a 4k image. It looks more like a 'native' 4k image, better than 'traditional' upscaling but neither is actually running the game at 'higher' resolution.

A game running at 1080/60 on a 4k screen would look a bit soft due to the TV's own upscaling. DLSS, FSR etc all take that 'SAME' 1080p image and make it look 'closer' to a Native 4k image but its still '1080p' internal res.

More power may help those 720p internal res games have a 'higher' starting point (say 1440p) and with 'better' upscaling options, make that 1440p look even more like Native 4k to deliver 60fps but doesn't mean that its running at 4k.

A game running internally at 30fps, being updated 30x a second, isn't suddenly going to feel like 60fps or like its being updated 60x a second because of some artificially rendered frame is dropped in between to create the 'illusion', the 'smoothness' of a 60fps game.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for utilising resources more efficiently and if they can make 1080p look more like 'Native' 4k with 'fewer/no' artefacts, then of course its better than relying on my TV to 'upscale' to 4k but doesn't change the fact the game itself is only rendering a 1080p image - it just 'looks' better with DLSS than standard upscaling algorithms...

All the people in the comments complaining about the PS5 Pro being unnecessary just have really bad FOMO. It's an enthusiast machine. No one is forcing anyone to buy anything. Jealousy is a bad look, folks.

I think (IF) the leaked Specs and Info are accurate, buying the PS5 PRO seems like a no brainer, especially when the Leak says that the PSSR isn't tied to "Per title training", meaning Sony doesn't have to implement a patch per game to get the benefits out of it, my take from this Info is that it'll automatically apply stability to higher resolutions and higher frame rates through its built in A.I Machine Learning for ALL the titles that exists already, that already pays for the Price of Admission for me, let alone the 45% Speed increase in Graphical capabilities, along with 2x to 3x times the Ray Tracing capabilities, and 4 extra GT/s or 128 Gbs per second of Faster Ram, and a 10% Faster CPU, and only if you wanted to get the Maximum Benifits of the Pro 5 (you would then) require the patches or added coding for Past or Future titles in order to get the FULL Potential that the PRO has to offer!

I'LL be pulling my 2 Terabyte SSD from my PS5 to put in the Pro, and then sell my Base PS5 to mitigate the High price of the Pro and not look back!

Definitely a day one for me 👍 even though I recently got the slim I look forward to the refresh and an excuse to buy another console 👀

We're still a decade minimum away from 8k being a thing.

Give me that 4k @60 and @120

Seems pretty cool and exciting for the future from the little that's known and the even less that I understand. Applying this to future games sounds great, but would it affect games already out? Like would Bloodborne all of a sudden run at 60?

@GKT No, I think each game would be opt-in for any enhancements to frame rate via a game patch. Maybe the tech would allow for a resolution bump? But 60fps is already easily possible for Bloodborne on PS5, but the game code has the frame rate capped.

@wildcat_kickz Lol! My friend, when you find out what it is that I'm meant to be afraid of missing out on, do let me know.

I really don't know that the console market, especially in this economy is ready for the iphone cycle of "it's 4 years, throw your gear in the landfill and go buy the new one for double the price of the old one." Console isn't the PC market. It's not about annual upgrades to the latest and greatest. If people in the console market wanted that they'd play PC. Yeah enthusiasts like it, and just like last time for the first 2 months those enthusiasts, all day 1 PS5 adopters, will sell their PS5's and buy Pros. Sales will "outperform expectations" (as they always seem to do.) And then the sales will drop like a rock once the day 1 PS5 enthusiasts have all upgraded to Day 1 Pros and the hardware market will be flooded with used PS5s that drop sales of regular models and look like the Pro is selling better than it is as a comparison to new base PS5's because base model sales will drop because the market was flooded with used ones. Just like last time.

The net result, margin-wise is a boosted quarter getting a segment of enthusiasts to pay more for their existing PS5, offset by a drop in base model sales, and then ongoing higher costs of supporting two hardware models and the developer support that goes with that.

This is a dead end. If they want to do this they'd be better off declaring PS5 a mistake, ending the gen in 2025 and launching PS6. And lets be real, PS5/XSX was a mistake. There was no need to launch a new gen in 2020. The hardware benefits over the old "Pro" models was marginal at best, and we've lived that ever since. They sold them because "the industry" demanded new hardware to "reinvigorate interest and sales" in their stagnating software/retail sales. And it didn't work. Their sales didn't grow to offset dev costs. PS4 Pro Plus w/ DLSS for probably $700+. Yeah I know a 4090 is like $1800. And rational people don't buy them unless they're mining crypto with it.

This is nothing more than bilking enthusiasts to pay high premiums to beta test underutilized prototypes for the next product. It's a live service hardware model. It worked for Apple once upon a time, but that's not even working for them these days.

@get2sammyb I think that is the issue. Everyone frequenting this website is an “enthusiast”, and make up a very small proportion of the total player base. Reading through the comments, a lot of these people aren’t interested in the prospect of upgrading to a pro. If you’re struggling to convince your core market of the need to upgrade then you’ve clearly missed the mark.

If this model doesn’t sell particularly well are we actually going to get third party devs to properly use its feature set? If they do, does it mean that the base model suffers from poorer optimisation as per Microsoft’s series s? How much are Sony planning on selling this for? PSVR2 and PlayStation portal aren’t exactly screaming value for mass market casual console player.

From a company view, I think it’s a misstep. Sony are dominating the market right now, there’s no need to release a more powerful system which will have extra R&D costs to recoup. This isn’t going to move the needle in terms of install base and the money would be better spent on first party titles, especially given the current release schedule.

This will also erode the impact of a future ps6 as the technical jump will be less from the pro vs the base system. There’ll be a lot of people that decide they’re happy to keep the pro model for a few more years after the ps6 release, maybe even opting to wait for the ‘inevitable’ ps6 pro. This then slows the adoption of the ps6 and restricts development as new titles remain multi platform for longer and are bottlenecked by the current cpu of the pro and base systems.

@LifeGirl If it's not jealousy driving your distaste for a PS5 Pro, than what is it? Surely, you're not here just to rain on someone else's parade. What about a Pro version is so egregious? Phones and computers do it all the time. Hell, Xbox already has one with the Series X. If a small section of your audience wants a premium version of the console to take advantage of more modern tech, in what universe does that affect someone who doesn't want to buy it?

I'm one of those enthusiasts that Sony is targeting (did not regret my PS4 Pro!) with the Pro so it will be a day one. I actually hope it's in the $700+ range as that usually means there will be some powerful tech under the hood 🤞

@Max_the_German
So what? There's no chance in hell devs will leave the base PS5 behind because of a pro model. And no, the PS4pro wasn't a minor upgrade. CPU, GPU and RAM clocks were higher, and the GPU was literally twice as big.

@NeonPizza you’re completely missing the point. The PlayStation 5 pro isn’t some “free” system that Sony have just plucked out of thin air and put on sale. Sony would have spent money on research and development (probably considerable money), and later money on marketing. They don’t have an unlimited budget and this would have and will come at the cost of other budgetary expenses, most likely game development. It is not a “free” system and just a case of extra choice. It comes at a cost which will have an impact on those that will be sticking to the base system and therefore getting zero benefit from a pro. It will also entail extra development time and costs in order to fully utilise the feature set of the pro, not the machine learning upscaling, but the ray tracing features and possible frame rate increases (which can cause issues with in game physics and cutscenes).

People are objectively correct to have concerns and issues with the development and launch of a pro system if they’re not planning on upgrading.

@NeonPizza That’s a poor argument. Say this retails at £700, for £800 ish more I can get a 3080 which will far outlive this model and provide me the ability to mod etc.

@BAMozzy Upscaling looked fantastic on the PS4 Pro so im not that worried if it works and looks the part im happy.

@wildcat_kickz I agree if people want it why not the PS4 Pro also did its job.

@NeonPizza @itsfoz And don't forget the 'compulsory' extra costs involved in console gaming - for a start, you really need a monthly Subscription to PS+/Game Pass, even if just the most basic Sub service adding to overall cost.

Say they do release at £700 and add another £7 a month for the next 3yrs for PS+ essential (I know you maybe able to find it cheaper or buy it annually for £60) but that adds to 'cost' as well as paying £70 for games that are 'cheaper' on PC too.

So whilst a Console maybe 'cheaper' initially on Hardware, the extras add up - but it is a choice. I prefer a 'Console' to game on for ease and it suits how I game better. However, I also dislike being locked into just 1 'ecosystem', forced to buy from just one 'digital' store and forced to Subscribe to a service to access 'content' I bought...

PS5 pro day one, not just for the better performance but for the fact that it was only possible for me to only get the digital version when they were in scalpers hands a couple of years ago, so if the pro has a disc model my nephew can have this original model for free.

I'll only get one if it doesn't get hammered by scalpers. If I can get one easily at launch I'm down for a refresh because I'm a grown adult that knows how to budget to buy the things that I want

I'll be there for 2 of them day one if true! Sounds like a beast!

@Neither_scene I think you're missing some points, yourself. Sony has no interest in losing money. Sure, they've invested R&D, manufacturing, and marketing costs into the PS5 Pro, but they fully expect to make that money back and then some. Quite literally, this revenue can help fund the games development you think has been sacrificed to bring this machine about. In addition, claiming a Pro model makes it harder for developers is old hat. We've heard this already when the PS4 Pro came out. Wasn't true then, isn't true now.

@NEStalgia I wonder how much new hardware is driven by 3rd party requests so like Square Enix wanting PS5 Pro for a stable performance mode for FFXVI/FFVII Rebirth/KH4, Capcom wanting PS5 Pro for stable Dragon's Dogma 2/MH Wilds/whatever the next RE game is, Rockstar wanting PS5 Pro for more visually impressive and/or stable GTA6, etc.

I think back to the Nintendo comment about how they said recently that they don't need more power for 1st party games (current Switch is powerful enough) so by that logic the only reason Switch 2 would exist is for better 3rd party support.

@Flaming_Kaiser I'm not denying it. Whether they used Chequerboard Rendering or some other Temporal upscaling method, it still created the 'look' of a game running at higher 'native' resolution than it actually was.

As I said, things like DLSS are making '1080p' HD images look as good as if the game was actually running at 2160p without the 'typical' artefacts associated with upscaling a 1080p image to fit a 4k window but its still rendering a 1080p image and 'upscaling' it.

I'm not against using things like DLSS or PSSR, but I dislike the dishonesty. Just because your console maybe sends a '3840x2160' image to your display, that doesn't mean the Game itself is running at or rendering a 4k image. Killzone was claimed to be a 1080p game but actually wasn't (in MP). H:ZD isn't running at '4k' either.

Some games are 'outputting' a 3840x2160p image, say they are '4k' but really running at HD and relying on upscaling methods. It would be like your TV taking 'SD' or 'HD' channels and using some AI upscaling to improve the 'look' of those channels compared to their regular upscaling algorithm - and then claiming that channel is now a '4k' channel when the 'Source' is NOT!

Again, I have nothing against them improving Upscaling methods but I do object to them using those to 'mislead' what the SOURCE is. Next they'll be claiming a game is 60fps, yet its only 30fps at source and relying on AI Frame Generation. The game is not updating at 60fps so cannot be a '60fps' game. Its not a '4k' game if the Game itself can't render at 4k. If its 'capped' at 1800p, its an 1800p game regardless of what 'upscaling' method they utilise.

@MomsSpaghetti

Yeah your right, and I don't understand all the Negativity, because if they hadn't added the PSSR "A.I" Machine Learning capability, I probably would have waited to purchase the Pro Model, but when they added PSSR A.I Machine Learning, along with a massive GPU Upgrade along with 2x to 3x the Ray Tracing Capability, that easily puts this Mid Generation upgrade well above what they did with the PS4 Pro vs. Base PS4, so again I don't understand all the hate?

Evidently all the Doom sayers aren't reflecting on comparing the past PS4 Pro upgrade to the Base Model, and then realizing that it DIDN'T hurt the original base model in any way when making games, let alone the fact that with A.I built into this Pro5 model, it makes it even easier on any impact "if any at all" on the Base PS5 Model because the PSSR aspect is Automatically implemented through A.I.

In fact I think it bodes well when pointing towards the Future Power of Sony's Next Gen PS6, especially with Microsoft Already bragging about their Proper Next Gen Console, by stating and telling the World it'll be the Most Powerful Console ever built, yet people on here are worried and acting like Sony is going to sit back on their laurels, and rely on the Power of PS5 Pro and NOT Push Heavily enough to Upgrade the PS6 as much...What?... because of the existence of the PS5 PRO....Again What?...I'm confused...where is this coming from, because ALL the History shows the opposite effect....Lol...I guess you have to let the haters hate...Lol✌

@get2sammyb Maybe because Sony just canned 900 people yet, it's been bleeding money on producing PSVR2 units that aren't selling and R&D/manufacturing on a mid-gen refresh that is going to be hugely expensive and probably will appeal to about the same amount of people interested in PSVR2.

Sony could have spent the money on reviving studios that Sony closed rather than trying to be a gaming PC - especially when the cross-gen period was so long that this generation has yet to start, proper.

If you are looking at poor UE5 performance on PS5 as the metric for the consoles not being strong enough, perhaps you should take the time to understand UE5 and realize it's the engine and not the hardware that is the problem right now.

Sure, it's optional. Those who want this can get one. I just feel like Sony should be focusing its efforts elsewhere.

I will give kudos to Sony though. The Xbox Series X|S have hardware-based Machine Learning already on the system (though it's only been used for AutoHDR at the moment, as far as I know), yet it takes a PS5 Pro for people to even pay attention to the possibilities of AI in games. 🤷‍♂️

And once the PS5 Pro is released, do we need to wait 4 years for games to start to use this new technology? Worth the wait for a PS6 then.

@wildcat_kickz I guess you don’t understand finance and accounting. Yes the money should be made back eventually, but in the short term budgets will have been reduced to reflect these increased costs. Shareholders are accepting of increased r&d costs in the short term provided they have been offset by savings in other areas. Particularly in the current economic climate. The recent job losses at Sony studios, reduced first party output and cancellation of projects are evidence of this.

No, it will not be “free” to properly utilise the capabilities of the new system, unless Sony is planning for developers ignoring the ps5 pro and only considering the gpu rendering budgets of the base system. It will entail extra costs, irrespective of scale, that would not exist were it not for the ps5 pro.

Hopefully you can finally understand this quite obvious conclusion.

@Grumblevolcano It's two-fold. From what I've followed each console cycle, for new generations it's driven mostly by retailers and publishers/devs demanding new hardware based on the belief that the new hardware excites consumer interest in buying games and thus their sales go up. For the retailers this is true regardless. A new generation console will drive traffic in Walmart and they'll sell more Doritos from the endcap. For publishers, it doesn't really appear to be true anymore though. Both PS4/1 was released earlier than it really should have and PS5/X was released earlier, especially after the Pros were still so new, as a result of retailer/publishers demanding it to boost their sales. IMO both launches were to the detriment of MS and Sony who had to struggle with weak hardware for a gen, and who never really recouped the investment they could have on the prior gen - PS3 was just hitting solid sales potential, 360 was still a powerhouse, and again PS4 is STILL doing great, and the 1X was barely tapped at all. Retailers would have a new generation annually like phones if they could and should be ignored. Publishers used to demand new hardware for the sales boost, but these days it's just a new remaster of some other publisher's old games that sells.

But you're right, there's always pushing from publishers/devs for new hardware really to just cheapen their dev costs so they can just brute force more performance for cheaper - shifting cost to consumer. Rater than fix our game, just buy faster hardware and it'll run fine. Like on PC. Of course half the time the games run lousy on PC too. But that's fine. $1800 4090's exist. Just buy one of those and it'll run fine.

I think Nintendo's full of it that Switch is powerful enough for their first party games, plenty of first party, particularly Nintendo-published, have had performance issues, and things like the pop-in on Kirby was hilarious. But, I also don't see Nintendo trying to make these hilariously over-budgeted "AAAA" games. I know I have it on repeat, but Gunpei Yokoi's statements about the tech/graphics arms race becoming unsustainable, back in the 90's, drives Nintendo's business, and when you have Sony coming out with statements that they're close to merely breaking even, it seems more prophetic than ever. Why do we need a PS5 Pro, PS6, PS10, or a 4090 when they only point is for devs to spend even more money making games that won't make a return to match, or for them to just make worse games that burn more power to brute force their way to acceptable performance? At some point gaming has to realize it has to make products that fit the cost structure of its market rather than trying to make endlessly more impressive tech demos because they "can" even if sales can't sustain it.

Between wanting rapid hardware generations, live services with open monetization, subs, blockbuster opening weekend sales, etc, etc, it seems like the games industry overall is in a place where it keeps trying to borrow other industry's markets and business models and hasn't actually identified its own yet.

@Neither_scene Ignoring your blatant condescension, let me break down my perspective as someone who literally works in finance and accounting (I guess I don't understand my profession, though):

Corporations of this size do not operate based on short-term gains. They play the long game. Sony is not operating paycheck to paycheck and is firmly in the black. Therefore, investing into R&D on products (something they are always doing) does not take away from budgets allotted to game devs. These budgets are often determined independently, based on the performance of said teams. 900 canned employees does not manifestly alter Sony's future hardware ambitions.

Regarding dev teams utilizing the capabilities of the PS5 Pro, no, it's not "free," but I also didn't claim it was. But it also does not add a substantial amount of work to the teams when they are optimizing. Games are constantly being tweaked to get the most out of their respective hardware and are typically designed to take advantage of multiple hardware parameters (virtually every PC game ever). If Sony is expecting to bring more of their games to PC anyway, this is something they are already doing. Additionally, the PS5 was designed to be more PC-like in its both its hardware and operating system, making modular changes like frame rate caps and resolution bumps easier to achieve. They already do this to their games! If you have a 120hz TV, a lot of PS5 games will offer additional graphical options that don't even show up in the menus for 60hz TVs.

Hopefully, you can accept this quite obvious rebuttal.

@LifeGirl

The prime market for consoles (let's be honest with ourselves here) are people who cannot afford a gaming PC.

The prime market for Consols ( and let's be honest with ourselves here) is people who don't want to worry about specs, drivers, or compatibility issues. It's not that we can't afford a gaming PC it's that we would rather not fart around all day not playing games. And to assume it's an affordability issue is kinda the reason console users think PC gamers are douch bags. Just sayin'...

Great! Now I have to buy one just as an EFFYU to the naysayers...

Thanks alot, PC Master Race. SMH

For all the people complaining about it not be necessary. Just don't buy it, we don't care, and Sony doesn't care. Save us your lectures. There's obviously profit incentive for them

@MikeOrator
I'm not particularly religious, but I felt compelled to respond to your comment with an "Amen Brother" and a Like❤!👍

@wildcat_kickz I apologise for my condescending comment, it was rude and unnecessary.

I still contend that Sony, being a publicly traded company, would not wish to present its financials with substantial debts despite having pre budgeted for r&d. I remember Sony selling its headquarters in the US in 2013 to enter into a rental agreement with the new owners in order to flatter its accounts appease shareholders and shore up its market value.

Whether pre budgeted or not, r&d would still impact overall spending by a company, especially in the current financial climate. Budgets are also subject to change.

With regards to cost of development for ps5 pro, you are in agreement that it would add to the current zero development costs for the PlayStation 5 pro. You also understand that PlayStation, while using similar architecture to pc, has completely different development tools? Xbox uses direct x on both Xbox and pc, which makes porting games considerably easier. It’s also why naughty dog’s in house pc version of the last of us part one remake performs so terribly on pc and why Sony purchased Nixxes software to specialise in porting games to pc.

A PlayStation 5 pro is great for the people that want it. But it is not just a “free” extra choice for the people that don’t want it. Depending on price it is unlikely to generate any extra revenue of significance.

PS4 pro only accounted for 20% of PlayStation 4 sales and was sold as a 4k device during a time of relative economic prosperity. PS5 is already sold as a 4k device and 8k tvs are practically non existent. Most casual gamers are happy with 30fps and don’t have a clue about 60fps yet alone 120fps. We’re also still in times of economic uncertainty so I don’t think ps5 pro will come close to achieving a 20% split market share with the base console.

@MomsSpaghetti

Lol😂...that's so True...the mental gymnastics that goes on these forums is hilarious, I watch people comparing Apples to Watermelons, and losing sight that the only thing in common is that they're both fruit, so it becomes a race for the Olympic Gold in the Arena of Mental Gymnastics...again your right, it's hilarious😂!

@Neither_scene The economics of the pro consoles is really key. They're not a PC hardware company making most of their revenue on a rapid turnover of high margin components. I realize this project was probably greenlit back years ago based on what they expected they would need right now and it's hard to back down, but the 4Pro didn't really sell all that well. They boasted about it "greatly exceeding sales expectations" but that was during the early adopter window. The pattern was generally that they sold great mostly to existing enthusiast early adopters upgrading, but came at the cost of that yielding a flood of used base consoles onto the market which then stifled sales of the base model (which made the continued Pro sales look comparatively better than they otherwise would have.) The end result was not great market share for it, overall, minimal dev interest for a tiny market segment, and its own success merely cannibalizing sales of some base models, albeit at slightly higher margin. But then add to that the costs of additional development, 3rd party certifications, management, outreach etc, and it's not a particularly profitable product. I'm sure it produced some thin margin overall, but enough to justify all the overhead, organization, and logistics needed to support it, when it was discontinued only after a few years? We don't have the numbers, but only two execs have presided over the launch of a mid-gen bump console, Phil Spencer over the 1X who's said several times he doesn't want to do another mid gen bump which tells us it wasn't very worthwhile, and Jim Ryan who's done this one, who's also spent company revenue as fast as it comes in and is "retiring" after HQ "asked" the division to manage budgets better and took over themselves. I daresay if someone else had been in charge, the Pro would not be a thing.

It seems to appease some amount of enthusiasts from jumping to PC, so I guess it has that going for it, maybe it has some financial benefits in retaining that market even if the product itself is pretty much razor thin net margins.

@Neither_scene I appreciate the apology, thank you. I think we both know our stuff, but are just coming to different conclusions.

I think it's understood that, as a hardware manufacturer, Sony has a pretty robust R&D department, which is built in and pre-budgeted for. No doubt, they are prototyping not only a PS6, but also a handheld, controllers, TVs, media players, cloud server infrastructure etc. Most of these will never come to market, but innovation requires investment and I think that, broadly, Sony shareholders and leadership accept this as a cost of business.

I also just don't think I agree with the zero sum angle. Sure there's always an opportunity cost for everything, but I don't think it's a fair argument to say "if they didn't do the PS5 Pro, then normal PS5 games would be better." We went through that same argument when the PS4 Pro came out and it just didn't manifest in that way.

I'm in complete agreement that the average gamer couldn't care less about 8K and 120fps. I don't even care about 8K and 120fps. Each resolution and fps bump has diminishing returns and I think 4K 60 fps is pretty much the sweet spot. Any additional GPU headroom should be put towards fundamental gameplay advancements, not how sharp a blade of grass looks on my TV. I have a TV that runs 120hz and I honestly can't really tell the difference, though I do appreciate the 40fps option.

Regarding the economy, sure, world economics are in a different place now, but I'm not convinced that this would really impact PS5 Pro sales. People who can afford a PS5 Pro aren't the ones really hurting from the economy at the moment.

To me, this all is a bunch'o nothing. It's like the MacBook and the MacBook Pro. They both broadly do the same things, but one does them better and costs more. If you want the incremental improvements and can afford it, then have at it!

@Uromastryx PS5 has been maxed out ages ago.

@MikeOrator Yeah People were in denial about a ps5 pro for so long. I am happy it's real.

@Neither_scene

I have to chime in here, because I'm personally going to buy the PS5 PRO just like I purchased the PS4 PRO when it came out, and I think ultimately it'll do great even in the current economic climate, do to the fact that when things get rough people tend to continue to spend money (that they probably shouldn't or don't have) on entertainment or gaming to ease and forget their financial pain, and that's in spite of everything else that may be going on with their finances, and without getting into depth on my personal finances (and No I don't have Johnny Got Rox Money), or how bad inflation and the overall economy is, I think its a personal choice and how people go about making that decision is also personal, like in my case, I'LL sell my PS5 to help mitigate some of the price that the PS5 Pro model will cost, I did the same thing with the PS4 to get the PS4 Pro, so if the PS5 PRO is under $700 U.S Dollars TOP's (Prefer $600...lol), it'll be a no brainer for me, but that's me.

But I Personally think Sony knows what their doing by releasing a Mid-Generation Refresh, especially considering that out of 117,600,000 PS4 Consoles Sold to date (according to STATISTA Feb. 2024) that 23,520,000(20%) of them were PS4 PRO's, and without having a Crystal Ball that tells me the Economic Future for the Next 4 Years and how well the PS5 Pro will do, it seems to be a safe bet that's going to be Profitable enough for Sony to do so, and I'm sure that's what their counting on, after all the Previous Track Record speaks for itself, and let's face its not the Vita or PSVR 2, it's attached to their Mainstream Gaming Climate, and their Crystal Ball is probably waaay better than mine is...Lol...Happy Gaming✌!

@wildcat_kickz no problem. Yes, I think we are just coming at this from different angles.

Sony will have run the numbers and are already committed to the production and sale of a pro unit. Nobody can truly predict the outcomes of a market. I’m pretty sure that Microsoft saw this generation unfolding very differently to the current reality when they were signing off on their series line of consoles.

Either way, it will be interesting to see what the pro console can do and how the market reacts to it.

I don't see why this would be so controversial, if you aren't interested then you aren't who they are targeting. When the PS4 pro came out you still got to enjoy the same games, those of us that wanted that extra shine picked up the Pro.

Think I'll just stick with my current PS5 and wait for the PS6. I didn't buy a PS4 Pro and didn't really miss much to be honest.

Ps5 pro is ofcourse inevitable. But I only got my ps5 last month and everything runs and looks amazing on my regular 32" full hd television. Im not into big televisions anyway so no need for me to upgrade just to reach 60fps at 4k.

During the PS4/PS4 Pro, the XB1S/X and now with the XSS/X consoles, whilst people had a 'choice' to buy either a 'base/entry' tier version or a 'Premium' tier offering 'EXACTLY' the SAME Library of games, albeit with higher 'resolution' or Performance, the highest selling option was the Base/cheaper hardware.

Even though the Series X is by far the 'weakest' Console on the market for current gen games, its still outselling the more expensive XSX. It was the same for XB1S that was outselling the 'most powerful' console hardware from last gen the XB1X.

What this tells us is that the 'majority' aren't that bothered about high res or higher frame rates - not enough to justify the extra cost. However, it also proved that there was a 'market' for these at under £500 and maybe did cater to a smaller subset of Console gamers so maybe this will be good for Sony.

I only question whether it will do enough or be too costly to justify. It seems this ONLY offers a 'Graphical' boost aided by this to make it all look 'more' 4k - not necessary do that at a 'locked' 60fps if the game is still only 30fps on PS5! A small 'boost' in CPU but these 720p PS5 games looking 'awful' with FSR, now will run similarly to PS5 (like PS4 Pro) but now 1080p with more headroom to hit 30fps using THIS PSSR block to do a better job of making it 'look' 4k than FSR or other upscaling methods would without this.

Its 'borrowing' heavily from DLSS which can make 1080p 'look' like 4k with little/no upscaling artefacts - like ghosting from temporal upscaling or tell-tale signs of Chequerboard rendering for example - a cleaner, more '4k' image from games running internally at 'lower' Res...

Ok but what games will we play besides ps4 games?

@DennisReynolds I'm on the same boat. I don't even like spending more than $300 for a phone whenever it's time to replace one due to damage, theft or whatever. But then people have no problem spending $500-$1000+ on a phone, so why not spend $500+ on a console I won't replace for 10 years.

At least that's gonna be my logic by the time the PS5 pro comes out. I'd definitely keep that one for 10 years, just as I'm currently holding on to my PS4 since games are still being released for it.

Hell, maybe I'll wait for the PS6 if the PS4 is still kicking by then, lol.

@Fredendil I could afford a £700 console if i saved for 3 or 4 months so i could get one at launch if i started saving now but i will want a PS6 within a year of its launch so i don't know if i want to spend that type of money on a console that won't get half a decade from me. My PS5 is doing fine and i've had zero issues with it so right now o think i'm ok with what i have especially as the Pro won't see many taking advantage of it, it will basically be the One X in that R* will take advantage as will 1st party but that's it.

@pirlega FF7 Rebirth, Suicide Squad, Rise of Ronin, Helldivers 2 and Dragon's Dogma are current gen only and have all released this year. Cross Gen is pretty much over now.

"The most powerful console" is such a stupid statement I would call it something else but I can't.

The CPU will be the same but boosted a little bit, GPU will still be RDNA2 more than likely. All I can see it will have for changes is probably faster internal storage, slightly faster CPU/GPU depends on power draw if they want to keep it cool as quite as well.

I generally think this isn a stupid move when PS6 is what 2 years away possible 3. They really aren't using the PS5 power what with PS4 still having a massive following and not bothering to even buy a PS5. I got my PS5 for Christmas and I'm happy with it especially it plays PS4 games and my brother got my PS4 for free

As someone who knows next to nothing about technology, with this updated model, how many more years do we think it’ll be before the PS6? Obviously no one has the exact numbers but is this a sign that the PS5’s life cycle will be longer or shorter with new tech coming into play?

@DennisReynolds definitely stick with PS5 and wait for PS6. That's what I'd do if I had a base or slim PS5. Hell, I'm still on PS4 and I'm seriously considering skipping this gen and just wait to get PS6 on launch day. We'll see!

@Nakatomi_Uk PS4 is more like 4 years. They aren't releasing next gen in 2026. And you say PS4 having a massive following and people not bothering to buy a PS5, it's selling pretty much exactly what PS4 did in the same time frame, and that's with all the covid issued.

@pirlega I mean plenty. There's literally 4 within the last month or so

Really don't get the comments here. If you have a base PS5 and think its pointless, great! A pro existing literally doesn't affect your experience. It's for an enthusiast gamer and someone who's had their console 4 years and would welcome playing their games better.

I'm on the fence on upgrading as it's really hard to tell what the leaked specs really mean, I don't think we really have the full picture yet.

If the pro lets me play more VR games without reprojection and with a noticeable fidelity bump, I'll be all in. Otherwise, hope the PS6 turns up in my lifetime!

You don't get to 5 generations of best selling consoles without knowing what you're doing, Sony obviously think they can make money out of this. It'll support UE5 games better than base PS5 and maybe give them extra time to get a PS6 out with some awesome tech that may still be a few years away from production.

All this talk about justified or not, enthusiast versus casual and luxury blah blah blah. It's all kind of a mute point when you realize that a lot of the limitations we're experiencing with the PS5 are CPU related. meaning that with such a modest if really not any Improvement on the CPU side that this won't fix problems where they have to downgrade games like Final Fantasy rebirth merely because the game isn't adequately optimized to stream in the assets at a high quality.

So paying a mid Gen refresh premium for a better GPU and ram speed won't equate to gains in the problems that are directly related to cpu bottlenecks because they chose largely leave the cpu perf without meaningful improvement.

Slightly better hardware and more AI upscaling just means more justifications for poorly polished and unoptomized games to be the norm, relying on these inconsistent crutches to compensate.

@DennisReynolds FF7 Rebirth no thanks, they can finish remaking ff7 innone title and then i will buy it , Suicide Squad lol i hope you’re ***** kidding, Rise of Ronin doesnt interest me the least i need tsushima style of gameplay not whatever that ugly crap is, Helldivers 2 not interested, never played live action stuff and Dragon's Dogma never heard of it but doesnt look interesting. You’re lying to yourself if tou think any of these were a killer application.

@Andy22385 it does because developers seem to have stopped making games. If they have to focus on something else they might stop developing for current gen. This culture of leaks and readers constantly trying to hit their dopamine receptors through news about the next gen is destroying many industries and games as well.

@SJBUK if it did big things for vr I'd buy. Otherwise we're better off adding a quest 3 to our kit. Devs have to support it specially. They barely have market on vr2 as it is. A lot of vr devs moved into next games like legendary tales Dev. New release, and the best seller on the platform but they're focusing on their next game so doubtful that gets pro updates etc. they said they're doing bug fixes and localization only, minimal features. We'll see.

The part that makes me say no on principle is this though ". It'll support UE5 games better than base PS5 and maybe give them extra time to get a PS6 out "

No. Just no. Instead of fixing their underperforming hardware or having epic fix their bad engine (Sony is a shareholder in epic for this very reason!!) they shift the cost to you and me to just buy more powerful hardware to brute force it so they can keep selling low quality engines? Just no, is not the pc wild West.

@CWill97 PS4 pro was 4 years until 5. X1x was 3 until Series x. New 3ds was 2.5 years. You never can tell with mid Gen refresh but they're short lived. PS4 pro didn't really have first party special features after the first year or two.

4pro was pushed as being for the new 4ktvs and as a much needed boost for psvr1 at the time. PS5 pro doesn't really have that external market factor pushing it, it's just "prettier gfx" really.

@pirlega thing is you're saying what will we play besides PS4 games. A guy goes on to list a bunch of games and you because say you're not interested in them. 3 of them will be among the best games of this year, one will win GOTY. They literally are killer applications. FF7 and Dragon Dogma 2 are the most anticipated games this year. Just because you aren't interested in them. Doesn't mean they don't exist to play. That's 'what we will play besides PS4 games'. You don't seem much of a gamer.

"The technology then upscales the overall image with no discernible compromises to quality. "

I wish that was true. In reality depending on a game and algorithm the resulting picture often ends up significantly different from the native high resolution image, often producing artefacts. For comparison, checkerboard rendering much more reliably follows the original, while still missing some finer details.

Didn't Sony say something similar about the ps5 leading up to its launch? I seem to remember something about rendering at a lower internal resolution and then upscaling to 4k to run at higher frame rates. I could be wrong but I'm pretty certain they did.

@Andy22385 honestly, it sounds like you are just addicted and will play anything just to get a fix. I only play things to do not count as a waste of time

The PSSR is what I'm most excited about, because at 300 TOPS it's going to be a Powerful Machine Learning solution that will help push lower resolutions to a higher fidelity 4K resolution and since it's starting out at lower a resolution it'll leave more head room for smoother higher frame rates, and as long as the A.I is implemented effectively, you shouldn't be able to tell if the Images started out at 1080P and look like fully Generated 4K images.

The weak point is Sony only giving the CPU a 10% increase, but the Graphics Chip appears to be a Custom solution that may use some aspects of AMD's RDNA 4 mixed in it, so it'll be interesting to see if this Monster Chip has something going for it besides the obvious 33.5 TeraFlop capability ( I'm looking at you Mark Cerny)...because we don't have ALL of the complete Specs.
But the 2x to 3x times Ray Tracing Capability is also exciting, and I'LL be interested in how they'll implement that effectively without it affecting the overall system too heavily, again I'm looking at you Mark Cerny!

But, for me I'm still pumped up about the release of the PS5 PRO!

@pirlega if "play anything" means playing the highest rated games of the year, sure 😂

@KundaliniRising333 Why I've said upscaling is a ok feature but it was released to help people during the lockdowns which couldn't get better GPU due to scalpers and help get more out of their current card

But now it seems to be the normal to test games and show stats with upscaling, we've had Native resolution for years and now it seems GPU manufacturers are holding back. And games Devs seem to also not to be optimising their games well and relying on upscaling to fix such issues and feels like it helps the GPU manufacturers sell hardware.

But that's backfiring in a big way for the PC space

@BAMozzy I understand what you are saying but it still looks fantastic to me so im happy enough with it. And for its performance > graphics and if you can fool my eyes im even more happy.