By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Do you reckon the PS5 will be boring?

maxleresistant on 15 June 2017
4k1x3r said:
maxleresistant said:

That's why Microsoft's Strategy could work well long term.

The strategy of not having any exclusives? Yea... that'll deffo work out.

 

Both Microsoft and Sony have different stances on this, but Sony games will forever be Sony games, and we know where they can be played.. dundundun EVERYWHERE WITH PS NOW *o/*

the strategy of ending console generations

It's a better strategy to retain customers. 



Around the Network
Darashiva on 15 June 2017

All that matters are the games it'll have. I don't care one bit what the hardware is like as long as it works well and doesn't break easily. I don't need pointless gimmicks on my consoles to enjoy playing video games on them.



My Twitter: @TheDarashiva

Most Recent Articles:

1. 2023 in Review: Winners and Losers

The Best Video Game Music of 2024-thread

S.T.A.G.E. on 15 June 2017

How do specs justify how boring a console will be. Last i checked sonys exclusive and great multiplatform selection is all they had mattered.



DonFerrari on 15 June 2017

I have always liked the aesthetics of my PS systems, so I don't think it'll be boring.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari on 15 June 2017

Nintendo invent every technology, that being made several years before doesn't matters, because Sony is the one that copies others, nuff said.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
VGPolyglot on 15 June 2017

Well, with diminishing returns, I don't think a new generation will ever be as exciting as it used to be. It'll purely be the games that excite me I think, as I don't get impressed really by the graphics of the new generations anymore.



DonFerrari on 15 June 2017
Eagle367 said:
Its really weird seeing Sony fans who constantly talk about TFs and resolution and the like are saying hardware doesnt after games do. Of you feel like that you should be all for the switch since the hardware upgrade is actually doing something to improve your overall gaming experience while all the console upgrade power twins do is make the games more pretty at this point. Its not improving the games or gameplay in any significant manner just making it more pretty.

They are saying that the box being fun is irrelevant, it matter is if the games are fun... and you know that not all will find the Switch an improvement on how they play? Besides, this is so off-topic.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari on 15 June 2017
Mr Puggsly said:
SvennoJ said:

Ah you meant it's underwhelming because of the price.

A year later and $100 more, they're about the same upgrade for value. We'll see whether the X1X is actually going to get a lot more. It will be the best version but I guess we'll need DF again to point out the differences.

I feel like the PS4 is a very well designed piece of hardware and it has just the right amount of power to do 1080p with high quality graphics. Its a nice piece of hardware for $250-$300.

The PS4 Pro played it too safe on price, it doesn't feel very premium. The GPU rarely hits 4K on modern games. The RAM was basically kept the same so we get the same textures with higher resolutions and games with unlocked frame rates are all over the place. I feel the Pro should have been $500 so it could be a better PREMIUM console. Those who feel $500 is too expensive, go buy a regular PS4.

I feel MS made the right decision if even X1X's price is high. Because the X1S is generally half the price and plays the same games fine.

I do agree with you that I would preffer a PS4Pro beffier even if more expensive, because I'll buy one every 3-5 years. But I understand why Sony played safe and even bought it. Improvements that played more on PSVR and are for a niche.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

VAMatt on 15 June 2017

Considering that every video game console that I've ever played has been tons of fun, at least during their respective eras of relevance, I think it is safe to assume that PS5 will be awesome.

Note - I've played every major console since Atari 2600.



VAMatt on 15 June 2017
Mr Puggsly said:
SvennoJ said:

Ah you meant it's underwhelming because of the price.

A year later and $100 more, they're about the same upgrade for value. We'll see whether the X1X is actually going to get a lot more. It will be the best version but I guess we'll need DF again to point out the differences.

I feel like the PS4 is a very well designed piece of hardware and it has just the right amount of power to do 1080p with high quality graphics. Its a nice piece of hardware for $250-$300.

The PS4 Pro played it too safe on price, it doesn't feel very premium. The GPU rarely hits 4K on modern games. The RAM was basically kept the same so we get the same textures with higher resolutions and games with unlocked frame rates are all over the place. I feel the Pro should have been $500 so it could be a better PREMIUM console. Those who feel $500 is too expensive, go buy a regular PS4.

I feel MS made the right decision if even X1X's price is high. Because the X1S is generally half the price and plays the same games fine.

The problem is that if the console doesn't sell well, developers won't bother tweaking their games to take advantage of its extra power.  

I have a PS4 Pro.  I like it.  But, I've not seen a big push from developers to pull every bit of performance out of it.  As an Xbox-first guy, and a life-long gamer, with income sufficient to afford a $500 console, I think I'm exactly the target market for X1X.  I'm pretty sure I'm going to skip it at launch though, as I've learned from the Pro that there's not really much to be gained with the premium version of a console.  Add to that the fact that X will likely be 150% more expensive than the standard XB1 when it launches (or, very shortly thereafter), vs. only a 60% permium for Pro to standard PS4 at its launch, and I see little reason to believe that X1X is going to offer many impressive upgrades in the near term.  

tl;dr - Power ain't worth shit if devs don't make use of it.  And, devs won't make use of power if it won't help them sell games.