Sony Rumor PS5 cost nearing $450

[heydude93]

9 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

That’s not how it works. The pro model was a mid gen refresh in response to underpowered launch hardware to match current gen capabilities.

They couldn’t launch a pro at launch because in 3 years they would need another pro model.

 

You're not wrong.  But also the specs of the PS5 already sound completely bonkers.  Graphics for PS5 games might look like pre-rendered CGI out of the box this gen.  Visual detail to the naked eye is going to start plateauing soon, and we'll probably see a shift towards more abstract and expressive art styles anyway, which aren't as expensive on processing speed. I'm sure we'll get an upgrade later, slim models, and all that, but since a boost in framerate is the main selling point of the Pro models why can't a PS5 model with extra vRAM and harddrive space be released this year?

[number305]

4 minutes ago, heydude93 said:

 

You're not wrong.  But also the specs of the PS5 already sound completely bonkers.  Graphics for PS5 games might look like pre-rendered CGI out of the box this gen.  Visual detail to the naked eye is going to start plateauing soon, and we'll probably see a shift towards more abstract and expressive art styles anyway, which aren't as expensive on processing speed. I'm sure we'll get an upgrade later, slim models, and all that, but since a boost in framerate is the main selling point of the Pro models why can't a PS5 model with extra vRAM and harddrive space be released this year?

That is one way to look at it...

 

Another true way to look at it is: this is the smallest step forward ever for a new console release.  You will see less of a difference from a PS4 game to a PS5 game than ever before in any console iteration.  This coupled with the fact the the first year or two will be releases of the same games for both systems there seems to be very little reason to be an early adopter.

[Mr.Vic20]

5 minutes ago, heydude93 said:

 

You're not wrong.  But also the specs of the PS5 already sound completely bonkers.  Graphics for PS5 games might look like pre-rendered CGI out of the box this gen.  Visual detail to the naked eye is going to start plateauing soon, and we'll probably see a shift towards more abstract and expressive art styles anyway, which aren't as expensive on processing speed. I'm sure we'll get an upgrade later, slim models, and all that, but since a boost in framerate is the main selling point of the Pro models why can't a PS5 model with extra vRAM and harddrive space be released this year?

While a version of PS5 with more VRAM and a larger SSD could certainly be launched in the same year, it would not be the same thing as what the pro brought to the table. Added VRAM will not bump up the amount of cores in the GPU and so will do little more than add cost and make life easier for developers who are a little less tight with their coding practices. In short, more VRAM does not make your rendering better, though an insufficient amount of any kind of  RAM in a system can drag down performance. All of that said, a larger hard drive, while nice, does not change the "power" of the console either. So to the consumer, you would have a more expensive system that wouldn't really offer more.  Whereas, 24-36 months from the time of PS5's launch, you should be able to upgrade the GPU by 50%-75% and not increase the Console price compared to the launch PS5, much like the PS4/PS$ PRO situation. 

[heydude93]

15 minutes ago, number305 said:

That is one way to look at it...

 

Another true way to look at it is: this is the smallest step forward ever for a new console release.  You will see less of a difference from a PS4 game to a PS5 game than ever before in any console iteration.  This coupled with the fact the the first year or two will be releases of the same games for both systems there seems to be very little reason to be an early adopter.

 

Because this gen we already have games like The Last of Us 2, GOW and The Order, which already look so lifelike and detailed.  Screenshots from Kingdom Hearts 3 are almost indistinguishable from Toy Story graphics.  But lighting, shadows, and LOD can still be taken quite a bit further.  When footage of next gen games are shown I think people in general will be taken aback by how much of an improvement it will be. But after that, I think the steps forward really will be much less noticeable than it was with previous gens.

 

10 minutes ago, Mr.Vic20 said:

While a version of PS5 with more VRAM and a larger SSD could certainly be launched in the same year, it would not be the same thing as what the pro brought to the table. Added VRAM will not bump up the amount of cores in the GPU and so will do little more than add cost and make life easier for developers who are a little less tight with their coding practices. In short, more VRAM does not make your rendering better, though an insufficient amount of any kind of  RAM in a system can drag down performance. All of that said, a larger hard drive, while nice, does not change the "power" of the console either. So to the consumer, you would have a more expensive system that wouldn't really offer more.  Whereas, 24-36 months from the time of PS5's launch, you should be able to upgrade the GPU by 50%-75% and not increase the Console price compared to the launch PS5, much like the PS4/PS$ PRO situation. 

An increase in harddrive space doesn't effect rendering power, but it was definitely a selling point for the Pro.  And yes, it's just a fact that tech will be better a few years from now and we'll get a better Pro model if we wait, no argument there. But my guess is as increases in graphical detail starts to plateau the main selling point for one will be improved framerate for games on 4K displays and not much more than that.

[legend]

27 minutes ago, heydude93 said:

 

You're not wrong.  But also the specs of the PS5 already sound completely bonkers.  Graphics for PS5 games might look like pre-rendered CGI out of the box this gen.  Visual detail to the naked eye is going to start plateauing soon, and we'll probably see a shift towards more abstract and expressive art styles anyway, which aren't as expensive on processing speed. I'm sure we'll get an upgrade later, slim models, and all that, but since a boost in framerate is the main selling point of the Pro models why can't a PS5 model with extra vRAM and harddrive space be released this year?

 

Not sure I would say it will plateau so much as the growth rate will slow, because the gap between real-time graphics and reality is massive, especially if you count simulation detail (e.g., physics, scale, and how much of the world can be dynamically affected) as part of it.

[Mr.Vic20]

While visual IQ, for John/Jane/Gender not specified Q. Public might be maxing out, what can be done with processing power is not. Yes, the "look" of games is quite good, but everything under that "skin" still sucks, a lot. This next generation of consoles will certainly plateau at 4K, but the generation after that (hardware or not) will be design to take advantage of much more complex physics  based simulations. This will be due to finally having highly cost effective CPUs with a ton of cores. The byproduct of that change will necessitate continued upgrades/alternations to future GPUs to support a lot more complex expressions of those complex physical models. In short, yes games are pretty, but we have a looooong way to go with what we can do in a simulation. Once the general public sees what can be achieved with hyper realistic PBR and world deformation routines, they will be plenty excited. IT only requires the right games to highlight it. 

 

OH, and AI, AI will have a HUGE impact on gaming! @legend arrival in this thread reminded me of that! 

[legend]

1 minute ago, Mr.Vic20 said:

While visual IQ, for John/Jane/Gender not specified Q. Public might be maxing out, what can be done with processing power is not. Yes, the "look" of games is quite good, but everything under that "skin" still sucks, a lot. This next generation of consoles will certainly plateau at 4K, but the generation after that (hardware or not) will be design to take advantage of much more complex physics  based simulations. This will be due to finally having highly cost effective CPUs with a ton of cores. The byproduct of that change will necessitate continued upgrades/alternations to future GPUs to support a lot more complex expressions of those complex physical models. In short, yes games are pretty, but we have a looooong way to go with what we can do in a simulation. Once the general public sees what can be achieved with hyper realistic PBR and world deformation routines, they will be plenty excited. IT only requires the right games to highlight it. 

 

You and I are on the same wavelength.

[legend]

1 minute ago, Mr.Vic20 said:

OH, and AI, AI will have a HUGE impact on gaming! @legend arrival in this thread reminded me of that! 

 

Yeah, I left that out, but it is potentially quite significant in terms of our interactions, and in terms of other more graphics-like things like animation (i.e., AI controlled actuation of the character models).

[heydude93]

40 minutes ago, legend said:

 

Not sure I would say it will plateau so much as the growth rate will slow, because the gap between real-time graphics and reality is massive, especially if you count simulation detail (e.g., physics, scale, and how much of the world can be dynamically affected) as part of it.

 

Is that gap massive right now? Absolutely.  But I think, depending on a given studio's approach to hyperreal artstyles and how successful they are at it, that gap will be much smaller next gen that we anticipate, even if it isn't apparent until late in the console's lifecycle.  And as Vic pointed out, the main thing we can look forward to is improved physics, destructable environments and also more expansive environments.  Imagine a Titanfall game but with Immersive sim-level interactivity with destructible environments like in the Battlefield series. Starfield could be an open solar system game with multiple planet-sized planets, but all handcrafted by the art team and level designers instead of generated procedurally.  Lots to look forward to.

 

40 minutes ago, Mr.Vic20 said:

While visual IQ, for John/Jane/Gender not specified Q. Public might be maxing out, what can be done with processing power is not. Yes, the "look" of games is quite good, but everything under that "skin" still sucks, a lot. This next generation of consoles will certainly plateau at 4K, but the generation after that (hardware or not) will be design to take advantage of much more complex physics  based simulations. This will be due to finally having highly cost effective CPUs with a ton of cores. The byproduct of that change will necessitate continued upgrades/alternations to future GPUs to support a lot more complex expressions of those complex physical models. In short, yes games are pretty, but we have a looooong way to go with what we can do in a simulation. Once the general public sees what can be achieved with hyper realistic PBR and world deformation routines, they will be plenty excited. IT only requires the right games to highlight it. 

 

OH, and AI, AI will have a HUGE impact on gaming! @legend arrival in this thread reminded me of that! 

 

I don't know much about the technical side of things, but we seem to agree for the most part. To the layman I'm not sure if a lot of what your describing will be as noticeable going from next gen to the following one as it is via current to next gen, but I could be wrong. But things will definitely continue to get more immersive and interactive. We'll probably get a megaboost in advanced physics and destructible environments this gen, and it will appear in a lot more games than before when applicable.  Also, if Death Stranding is a glimpse of where performance capture is right now, a next-gen upgrade should be mindblowing and will probably feel more lifelike than many are expecting. But all of this will of course be doable on base PS5 and the main benefit of a pro upgrade is hardware that's more stable along with smoother framerate in 4K mode.

 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

I plan on getting series X. Not that I expect to pay so much, but I’m prepared to drop up to $600, especially if there is some kind of “premium” version unless the only difference is a larger SSD. 

[legend]

27 minutes ago, heydude93 said:

 

Is that gap massive right now? Absolutely.  But I think, depending on a given studio's approach to hyperreal artstyles and how successful they are at it, that gap will be much smaller next gen that we anticipate, even if it isn't apparent until late in the console's lifecycle.  And as Vic pointed out, the main thing we can look forward to is improved physics, destructable environments and also more expansive environments.  Imagine a Titanfall game but with Immersive sim-level interactivity with destructible environments like in the Battlefield series. Starfield could be an open solar system game with multiple planet-sized planets, but all handcrafted by the art team and level designers instead of generated procedurally.  Lots to look forward to.

 

I absolutely agree that simulation holds a lot back and is a massive area for improvement, but yes, I still think plain old pretty graphics for a controlled space has a long way to go even with next-gen hardware. Even with all the tech in CGI movies, faces are still easy to spot as fake, for example, and games cannot come close to the amount of compute CGI movies use. The difference between reality and games, visually speaking, will remain easy to spot for a long time. The sucky part is that it gets harder to improve on that gap even though it is still significant, so I do agree that our progress on pure IQ will be slow.

 

[Bacon]

I'll def get the PS5, but I don't think it will be something I get right away. I really can't imagine it will have stellar launch titles. Maybe GOW5, but really that won't be enough of a reason to get a PS5. I'll be bummed that I will most likely be spoiled but I am not willing to pay $530 for to play it. But I don't even think that will be a launch title. 

[heydude93]

1 hour ago, legend said:

 

I absolutely agree that simulation holds a lot back and is a massive area for improvement, but yes, I still think plain old pretty graphics for a controlled space has a long way to go even with next-gen hardware. Even with all the tech in CGI movies, faces are still easy to spot as fake, for example, and games cannot come close to the amount of compute CGI movies use. The difference between reality and games, visually speaking, will remain easy to spot for a long time. The sucky part is that it gets harder to improve on that gap even though it is still significant, so I do agree that our progress on pure IQ will be slow.

 

 

Ok, so you seem to be talking about legit photorealism, as in completely indistinguishable from real life, the uncanny valley and so on.  A CGI body double for Hugh Jackman for a few shots in Logan is one thing, but iyo will that degree of lifelike ever be possible in video games?  It's tough for me to imagine how it can be achieved across the board in an interactive 3d space where audiences can scrutinize over every detail at every angle.  Maybe as mocap and scanning tech improves it can get very close, but not sure.  This is one reason why I think game visuals will ultimately trend towards expressive and abstract art styles, even if there will always be some value in hyperreal visuals as well.  

[Xbob42]

Oh, we'll absolutely get there eventually assuming there's no massive bottleneck that permanently stops us from advancing hardware tech. But we're currently nowhere near that level of graphical sophistication.

[legend]

Just now, heydude93 said:

 

Ok, so you seem to be talking about legit photorealism, as in completely indistinguishable from real life, the uncanny valley and so on.  Using a CGI body double for Hugh Jackman for a few shots in Logan is one thing, but iyo will that degree of lifelike ever be possible in video games?  It's tough for me to imagine how it can be achieved across the board in an interactive 3d space where audiences can scrutinize over every detail at every angle.  Maybe as mocap and scanning tech improves it can get very close, but not sure.  This is one reason why I think game visuals will ultimately trend towards expressive and abstract art styles, even if there will always be some value in hyperreal visuals as well.  

 

It's really tough to estimate. If I had to guess, I'd say movie CGI would be there in 20 years, so for games maybe 50? But it's a shot in the dark because we can't easily quantify what is wrong, just that what we have is wrong  

[number305]

36 minutes ago, legend said:

 

It's really tough to estimate. If I had to guess, I'd say movie CGI would be there in 20 years, so for games maybe 50? But it's a shot in the dark because we can't easily quantify what is wrong, just that what we have is wrong  

This is laugh out loud funny.  50 years ago was 1970.  People were writing computer programs by physically punching holes in cards.  No one knows what computers will be like in 10 years.  50 years is not worth guessing about.

[AbsolutSurgen]

There is still a LOT of opportunity for games to improve going forward.  Physics, variety of environments, lighting, animation, etc. of games is currently way behind CGI in movies, let along real life.

 

I suspect BUDGETs to develop the software, as much as hardware capability, will be a limiting factor going forward.

[Guest]

Games haven’t even caught up to Toy Story 3 in terms of visuals, they are leaps and bounds behind Toy Story 4. Plenty of room for gaming to improve in visual fidelity!

[legend]

3 hours ago, number305 said:

This is laugh out loud funny.  50 years ago was 1970.  People were writing computer programs by physically punching holes in cards.  No one knows what computers will be like in 10 years.  50 years is not worth guessing about.

 

People make reasonable predictions about computing 10 years out regularly. The issue here we can't easily measure what will subjectively pass the mark of "indistinguishable."

 

I'm also well aware that 50 years ago was 1970. But realtime game graphics always lag far behind what movie CGI can do due to vastly more limited compute and much more demanding rendering times. Yet we *still* haven't reached the point where movie CGI is indistinguishable in key areas like faces. That means whatever time it's going to take movies to cross it, you'll be waiting a lot longer for games to cross it.

[heydude93]

I still don't think most of the gaming audience is prepared for how stunning next gen graphics will look.  Maybe not at launch, but definitely within four years.  Replaying PS4 games right now, even the spectacular ones like Horizon and Death Stranding, will likely feel similar to how revisiting PS3 remasters feels right now. Just wait for the upcoming PS5 and Xbox footage, which should be dropping within three or four months

 

[Keyser_Soze]

4 hours ago, sblfilms said:

Games haven’t even caught up to Toy Story 3 in terms of visuals, they are leaps and bounds behind Toy Story 4. Plenty of room for gaming to improve in visual fidelity!

 

Except that PS2 already achieved Toy Story like graphics

[SoberChef]

In all reality, unless I am CONSIDERABLY WOWED by what's on display from either company, I don't see myself investing in another console for at least 1 - 2 years.

[Remarkableriots]

PS 9 will have lifelike graphics when we inject it into our veins! Worst case scenario PS 9 Pro OC overdosing...

[number305]

13 hours ago, heydude93 said:

I still don't think most of the gaming audience is prepared for how stunning next gen graphics will look.  Maybe not at launch, but definitely within four years.  Replaying PS4 games right now, even the spectacular ones like Horizon and Death Stranding, will likely feel similar to how revisiting PS3 remasters feels right now. Just wait for the upcoming PS5 and Xbox footage, which should be dropping within three or four months

 

I'm sure the footage we will see in 3 or 4 months will be amazing.  E3 footage always is.

 

As I have said before this is the smallest step up percentage wise in power that we have ever had in console generations.  All the games at release will be playable on the previous gen.  I would hold your expectations in check.

 

Of course I am a day one buyer.  Most of us on here probably are.  But you have to be realistic in what you are getting.  This isn't going to be life changing.

[HardAct]

I'd easily pay for a high end console from both companies. Problem is they aren't going to be that remarkable if they launch at 400 bucks! That's crazy talk. Make them amazing, packed with what makes games great hardware wise and I'm in at anywhere between 5-600 each! I have $1200 put aside for this years consoles and hope they dont go cheap high end to save costs. Build It badass and price it fairly, then I'm a customer day one!

[legend]

1 hour ago, number305 said:

I'm sure the footage we will see in 3 or 4 months will be amazing.  E3 footage always is.

 

As I have said before this is the smallest step up percentage wise in power that we have ever had in console generations.  All the games at release will be playable on the previous gen.  I would hold your expectations in check.

 

Of course I am a day one buyer.  Most of us on here probably are.  But you have to be realistic in what you are getting.  This isn't going to be life changing.

 

I dunno. NVMe standard could be pretty significant even though a harddrive seems boring. Not just in graphics but the whole experience.

[crispy4000]

I expect that both Microsoft and Sony will try to wow us, and in some ways succeed, but DF breakdowns will paint a less rosy picture than initial impressions.

Raytracing is straight up going to be a performance hog.  I could see a 1080p or reconstructed 1440p "quality mode" being a normative thing with it enabled.  By the time most devs discover how to scale the effect(s) properly to the hardware limitations, there will be new mid-cycle machines that push boundries further and take focus away from base-console optimization.  And there's still an open question of where AMD's GPUs will land relative to the RTX series' handling of RT.  If they miss the mark, it could feel like (even more of) a half-step into the future.

The SSD and CPU might be the bigger push.  We'll see tons of fly-by scenes and the like to show off what next gen 'means.'  But it's still going to be largely limited by what is and isn't cross gen.  Again, by the time we see those features used more to their potential in open world titles and the like, we'll be close or at mid-cycle.

So out of the gate, I mainly expect Current Gen Plus looking games with a large divide between "performance" and "quality" approaches.  That gap could feel further apart than what we see on the X and Pro currently.  I don't think we'll ever truly hit a happy medium with these machines.  I'd love to be wrong.

 

Bullshots and downgrades too.  We'll still see that.  It'll be harder to distinguish between what is reasonable and what isn't at the start of the gen.  Devs know they can trick us with 'in-engine' target renders.  RT to the max.

[TwinIon]

13 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

I expect that both Microsoft and Sony will try to wow us, and in some ways succeed, but DF breakdowns will paint a less rosy picture than initial impressions.

Raytracing is straight up going to be a performance hog.  I could see a 1080p or reconstructed 1440p "quality mode" being a normative thing with it enabled.  By the time most devs discover how to scale the effect(s) properly to the hardware limitations, there will be new mid-cycle machines that push boundries further and take focus away from base-console optimization.  And there's still an open question of where AMD's GPUs will land relative to the RTX series' handling of RT.  If they miss the mark, it could feel like (even more of) a half-step into the future.

The SSD might be the bigger push.  We'll see tons of fly-by scenes and the like to show it off what next gen 'means.'  But it's still going to be largely limited by what is and isn't cross gen.  Again, by the time we see those SSD's used more to their potential in open world titles and the like, we'll be close or at mid-cycle.

So out of the gate, I mainly expect Current Gen Plus looking games with a large divide between "performance" and "quality" approaches.  That gap could feel further apart than what we see on the X and Pro already.  I don't think we'll ever truly hit a happy medium with these machines.  I'd love to be wrong.

I agree.

 

I feel like ray tracing in the PS5/Series X is not dissimilar to where 4K is with current consoles. Yeah, we get "4K" but there are always caveauts and gaps and it doesn't make a huge difference most of the time. There's not quite enough power for everyone to easily flip the switch and just get the most out of it. We'll see individual devs and games really hit the sweet spot and make something look amazing, but most of the time we'll be in this weird middle ground where we get elements of ray tracing, but not the full effect.

 

I also don't think that the SSD will be a game changer, it'll be a quality of life improvement. Games will be built for cross platform compatibility and or multi-generation compatibility, either of which means dealing with spinning disks. 

 

Same thing with the CPU improvements. We'll get some cool effects here and there, but it's not as if we're suddenly going to get some crazy simulation stuff going on. Enemy AI isn't going to take an enormous leap, physics will still get short shrift.

 

I think the nature of these things is that we get smaller performance increases over time, and not always in the direction people expect.

[crispy4000]

1 hour ago, TwinIon said:

 

I feel like ray tracing in the PS5/Series X is not dissimilar to where 4K is with current consoles. Yeah, we get "4K" but there are always caveauts and gaps and it doesn't make a huge difference most of the time. There's not quite enough power for everyone to easily flip the switch and just get the most out of it. We'll see individual devs and games really hit the sweet spot and make something look amazing, but most of the time we'll be in this weird middle ground where we get elements of ray tracing, but not the full effect.

IMO, they might be lucky to even get there with it.  At least faux-k was convincing.  RT-related frame rate and resolution cutting will be plainly obvious.

 

It’s not as outlandish as the native 8k talk though, lol.  Very selective use cases there.

[number305]

1 hour ago, crispy4000 said:

IMO, they might be lucky to even get there with it.  At least faux-k was convincing.  RT-related frame rate and resolution cutting will be plainly obvious.

 

It’s not as outlandish as the native 8k talk though, lol.  Very selective use cases there.

Very selective use cases = the menu's will be in 8k.    

[legend]

9 hours ago, TwinIon said:

I also don't think that the SSD will be a game changer, it'll be a quality of life improvement. Games will be built for cross platform compatibility and or multi-generation compatibility, either of which means dealing with spinning disks. 

 

Not the majority, and maybe not true of MS who will want to also support PC with varying specs, but Sony does make exclusive games.