Also, as people are mentioning NS1 games that require SD cards, the NS2 doesn't support game installation from the physical cart, right?

Even if GTA VI was there day one, it would not fit or be able to run from a NS2 cart because it's far too small and too slow, so it would need to be a GKC or a download only game, and be installed on the internal store.

GTA VI should be a 200GB game, can you imagine owning a NS2, that has 256GB, and pretty much only be able to fit GTA VI there and having to delete and redownload it multiple times when you want to play any other game and come back to it?

Surely the NS2 version should use less storage, let's cut it a lot and say twice as big as Cyberpunk 2077 is there, so 120GB, a bit more than FF7 Rebirth's 100GB, but that's still half of the total storage.

It really doesn't feel like the NS2 is getting it, specially on launch day, too much work for not that much return compared to PS5 and specially developing a PC version.

Look, I don't even know what framerate I'm running in games, your holy numbers don't mean anything to me. And I don't play FPS games, so it matters even less. Sure, there have been games sometimes that actually felt a little stiff to operate, I guess that meant the framerate was bad. I haven't really experienced that kind of slowness since the PS3, so it's not an issue for me and I bet it's not an issue for most console gamers.

It seems to be true that people perceive this kind of thing differently, some are more sensitive to framerate than others. We might be in the opposite ends of the spectrum. Or I would have to have both versions running in front of me at the same time to see the difference. Every platform is so good nowadays. You watch Digital Foundry comparison videos and it mostly feels like geeks nitpicking over random pixels.

Can we just say that PC gamers are happy, console gamers are happy, everybody is happy and leave it at that? Maybe I missed what the original spat was about here, sorry if that's the case.

The original argument was fps don't matter, which isn't true.  There is a reason Mario Kart World is 60 fps.  There is a reason DK Bananza is 60 fps.  There is a reason BotW and ToTK were upgraded to 60 fps.  

The only point I was trying to cascade is framerate isn't just "oh it looks better," but it legitimately reduces latency.  Controls are faster, more responsive, more accurate.  There is a reason Mario has always been 60 fps.  There is a reason why Metroid has always been 60 fps, there is also good reason why Prime 4 supports 120 fps.    

Past 60 fps, fair enough, different sensitivities for different people.  However, 30 fps to 60 fps is a sizeable jump, especially for first person games, action games, racing games, fighting games.  There is a reason fighting games are always 60 fps, quicker response time.

I did get snarky, out of annoyance, which isn't an excuse.  So yes, fair point, everyone is happy in their own way.  I just wish people would talk about tech accurately.  Nobody seems to discuss controls when it comes to fps.    

edit

YouTube caps at 60 fps, so you will never see the benefits of 120 fps via YouTube.  

I was really trying to move away after this conversation, bc I don't have to prove myself for anyone, specially for a bunch of people that I dont care. But you know what... fuck it 

I really wish I could embed pictures so I can show my goods, but this site is really giving me a hard time

@igormaiafonseca heres my steam account you can add me and see my playtime, I just moved away for a portable approach bc I cant be caring my desktop whatever I go. So, yes in essence I cant have the best version everytime with me, specially right now bc I am on my phone. And guess what? That dont bother me in the slightly, I have other things to do on my life to care about what is better in pixels, frames pacing or the hair texture on my display.

But is funny you talk about playing the BEST version when you just confessed that you own a PS5? Really? Where is your Max settings playtime with your buffed PC? You have no grounds to be lecturing anyone out. You are also the one that play the gimped versions! Know your place lol

It really doesn't surprise me you put yourself in the highest pedestal just to have the opportunity to diss on Nintendo. Classy, you really show no improvement on your behavior 

@Chrkeller
I play locally with friends on Mario Kart. With more than 2 players in split screen, it drops to 30fps and I still have a good time... fuck me, right?

Look man, you are conflating arguments.  Nobody said a 30 fps game can't be fun.  What is being said is higher fps offer tighter controls.  Both things can be true.  30 fps can be fun and higher fps improves controls.  It isn't that hard to follow.  

Edit

And where I agree with Handy, given option A versus option B, if option B has better/tighter controls...  it makes no logic sense to go with option A, unless someone travels a lot or simply is that tied to brand. 

The irony of course being, Nintendo fans are pushing against fps being important, while Nintendo themselves largely target 60 fps when possible.  There is a reason Nintendo pushes 60 fps when possible and is updating games and offering a S2 boost mode for S1 games.  It isn't because fps don't matter.  

This thread has gotten a tad bit hostile… I think we need to chill a little bit, all.

Please read the message I send you yesterday. You're a confusing me with someone else 💀

I see where you and JackHandy are coming from. I think in the end it's simply about what you value more. Personally, if there is a portable/hybrid version of the PS6 (as rumors suggest) I will jump back into Playstation, after having skipped the PS5 so far (I do own a PS4 and a PS3). For me, the convenience of playing on a hybrid definitely outweighs the advantages of better graphics, even though I do like 60fps games a lot. I simply don't want to go back to pure home consoles anymore. With one exception: I also own an Xbox Series S and I quite like that console because it was a good deal when I bought it and there was a handful of games I wanted to play on it. But if I had the choice of buying a, say, 400€ stationary Xbox or a 400€ hybrid Xbox console, I would definitely go for the hybrid - even though that would be a lot less powerful, of course.

My favorite Sony system was the PSP, by the way. Totally adored that handheld.

It is a fair position.  No issues convenience outweighing performance.  But arguing convenience is more important isn't the same as arguing there isn't a difference.  The former is more than fair.  If I traveled a lot, yeah, the S2 would be my go-to.