PS5 Teardown: An inside look at our most transformative console yet

Not sure what you all are talking about but it's clearly not about the PS5 teardown.

Finally got around to watching this... very impressive. The heat sink is a thing of beauty. Enormous attention to detail when it comes to serviceability; one could imagine an experienced tech doing nearly any swap in minutes. PC computing really lacks mini ITX / SFF cases with this kind of "bust it open, do something, then snap it together" design that I'd love to have myself. I was just doing some work on an old Compaq Deskpro 6000 which had echos of this kind of fast serviceability but is somewhat absent from modern cases (probably for structural reasons).
 
Not sure what you all are talking about but it's clearly not about the PS5 teardown.

Finally got around to watching this... very impressive. The heat sink is a thing of beauty. Enormous attention to detail when it comes to serviceability; one could imagine an experienced tech doing nearly any swap in minutes. PC computing really lacks mini ITX / SFF cases with this kind of "bust it open, do something, then snap it together" design that I'd love to have myself. I was just doing some work on an old Compaq Deskpro 6000 which had echos of this kind of fast serviceability but is somewhat absent from modern cases (probably for structural reasons).

Yeah — as elegant as the Xbox Series X design is, the PS5 also seems well-thought out for user access and serviceability.
 
PS5 build extremely satisfying. I tried buying one on day one no luck yet.
 
Excited there are companies making custom panels already. Though what I was is a flat “bottom” panel so my cats don’t bang the console around walking on it...

https://www.platestation5.com/

That tiny circular stand isn’t going to help...
 
So you are calling price-judgement on an absolutely amazing and incredibly popular game, arguably one of the best (if not the absolutely best) exclusives on the PS4... of which you have never played. :meh:
Calling Bloodborne one of the best if not the absolutely best is bias. Bloodborne has sold 2 million by September of 2015 while God of War has sold 10 million copies. Calling it the best PS4 exclusive is your opinion. It's a five year old game and you think it's worth $60? A new PS4 copy is $20 on Amazon so why as a PC gamer do I need to pay the full $60 price, let alone $70? You want the full $60 then you release it at the same time on PC.
The second part of the statement, I disagree with, though - you are failing to understand that inflation is a real thing and absolutely factors into game costs and sales.
It's a real thing that banks and corporations like you to believe. The reality is that the consumer won't pay higher prices forever and will seek alternatives eventually. Look at the used car market where suddenly everyone bought used cars because they can't afford the new car prices. You think it's normal that cars cost $30k+? Look at what happened to cable as they're losing to online streaming services that are cheaper. Some people including myself were paying over $300 at some point to watch TV. Now they pay a subscription fee to their favorite streaming site and a internet connection. Pay attention to Microsoft's Game Pass as this will be what consumers will gravitate towards when games hit $70. It's very likely that other competing services will rise and offer a similar deal. Like Netflix, other studios will separate themselves away and start segmentation the market. The used market existed for this reason, because not everyone wants to pay full price for a game they may not like.
We aren't going to mention when NES, Genesis, and SNES games were $80+ in the 1980s and early 1990s.
$80 in 1989 would be the rough equivalent of $167 in 2020. (the cartridges, memory chips, SRAM, etc. were all big factors in this high cost back then, though)
On average Genesis and SNES games were $50. Some even $40. Very few games were asking for $70 or $80. Final Fantasy 3 or 6 was $80, but Sonic 2 was a $50 game.
genesiscatalog-inflation-adjusted.jpg
From about 2000 to 2005, AAA top-tier PC games were $50.
I remember this actually changing in late 2005 with the DVD version of F.E.A.R. which was $60, and from that point forward, all new AAA PC games (and soon after, console games) were $60 - which coincided with the new trend of PC games being released on DVD instead of multiple CDs.
I'm not saying that games on PC won't eventually hit $70, I'm just saying the transition will take longer than PS5/Xbox. Some games are self aware that they don't deserve the $60 price tag either. Like Holllow Knight was sold for $15 on Steam, for what I believe is an amazing game.
Now, $60 in 2005 would be roughly the equivalent of $80 in 2020.
So, games being moved up to $70 really isn't so bad if you think about it.
We know that's not how products are priced. Do we have more purchase power since 2005? If we don't then what business does inflation have with the price of goods and services? Sony and Microsoft are fully aware of the consequences because they haven't announced the price of consoles until recently. That's not normal. On top of that both Sony and Microsoft have cheaper consoles with Xbox Series S missing some graphics horsepower. That's not normal either. Sony and Microsoft wouldn't be doing this unless they knew consumers would have issues with pricing.

Not to go all "ad hominem", as you said, but you completely fail to understand basic monetary concepts, and even video game sales history as well.
If you don't want to be called out on your bullshit every other post you make, maybe you should actually start learning from your mistakes and quit acting like a scrub in every console thread you choose to participate in.

"PC Gamer" my ass. :meh:
Still ad hominem.
ojDyxir.jpg
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
So, what exactly would you prefer happen with all of this, at least regarding if consoles like the PS5 should or should not exist, what they should be if they could be designed by you, and what games (console or PC or whatever platform) should be priced at and/or marketed as?
Legitimately asking for your opinion on this, especially so since you are a self-proclaimed Linux PC gamer.
 
So, what exactly would you prefer happen with all of this, at least regarding if consoles like the PS5 should or should not exist, what they should be if they could be designed by you, and what games (console or PC or whatever platform) should be priced at and/or marketed as?
Legitimately asking for your opinion on this, especially so since you are a self-proclaimed Linux PC gamer.
Firstly, games should stay $60 at best. The backlash from the $70 price would do more damage to gaming than the profits that Sony or Microsoft would gain. Secondly, Microsoft should trash the Xbox Series S because it will give a bad impression to consumers looking to buy next gen and not get next gen looking games. Thirdly, Sony and Microsoft should allow people who buy physical copies of games to be able to still download them if they own a disc-less version of the console. Fourth, Microsoft at least should give consumers the ability to install a custom version of Windows 10 onto their Xbox Series X, if not should have been running a custom version of Windows 10. Sony should do what they did with the PS3 and give the option to install Linux. Both should have apps installed on a external drive so as not to corrupt the internal game data when it comes to Windows and Linux.

The idea here is that PC gaming is the real threat to console games, not other consoles. So you want to be as friendly to the consumer as possible, because this generation of consoles does have some massive downsides. PC gamers don't pay a monthly fee to play all their online games like consoles. PC gamers don't need to go buy new expensive input devices just because they upgraded. PC gamers have multiple choices where they buy their games, which brings competition. Unless Sony and Microsoft makes the changes I suggest then the PS4 and Xbox One could be the last successful console generation. As it stands right now I could build the equivalent of the PS5 for $800, or buy a prebuilt for $1k. Considering consoles cost $500 then that's not too far off in price. Keep in mind that PC gaming is really fucked right now where AMD's new 8 core 5800X is $450 and the new Nvidia GPU's so far have a minimum price of $500. But anybody with any sense wouldn't be using those parts to build a new PC. In a year or two from now, Intel will join the GPU market and prices will drop, along with cheaper CPU's from either AMD or Intel. So consoles have a limited time to do something to make consumers confident to buy their hardware before PC hardware prices drop.
 
Firstly, games should stay $60 at best. The backlash from the $70 price would do more damage to gaming than the profits that Sony or Microsoft would gain. Secondly, Microsoft should trash the Xbox Series S because it will give a bad impression to consumers looking to buy next gen and not get next gen looking games. Thirdly, Sony and Microsoft should allow people who buy physical copies of games to be able to still download them if they own a disc-less version of the console. Fourth, Microsoft at least should give consumers the ability to install a custom version of Windows 10 onto their Xbox Series X, if not should have been running a custom version of Windows 10. Sony should do what they did with the PS3 and give the option to install Linux. Both should have apps installed on a external drive so as not to corrupt the internal game data when it comes to Windows and Linux.

The idea here is that PC gaming is the real threat to console games, not other consoles. So you want to be as friendly to the consumer as possible, because this generation of consoles does have some massive downsides. PC gamers don't pay a monthly fee to play all their online games like consoles. PC gamers don't need to go buy new expensive input devices just because they upgraded. PC gamers have multiple choices where they buy their games, which brings competition. Unless Sony and Microsoft makes the changes I suggest then the PS4 and Xbox One could be the last successful console generation. As it stands right now I could build the equivalent of the PS5 for $800, or buy a prebuilt for $1k. Considering consoles cost $500 then that's not too far off in price. Keep in mind that PC gaming is really fucked right now where AMD's new 8 core 5800X is $450 and the new Nvidia GPU's so far have a minimum price of $500. But anybody with any sense wouldn't be using those parts to build a new PC. In a year or two from now, Intel will join the GPU market and prices will drop, along with cheaper CPU's from either AMD or Intel. So consoles have a limited time to do something to make consumers confident to buy their hardware before PC hardware prices drop.
You cannot build the equivalent of a PS5 for even $800. Not too far off in price? $300 difference is a lot of money regardless.
 
Firstly, games should stay $60 at best. The backlash from the $70 price would do more damage to gaming than the profits that Sony or Microsoft would gain. Secondly, Microsoft should trash the Xbox Series S because it will give a bad impression to consumers looking to buy next gen and not get next gen looking games. Thirdly, Sony and Microsoft should allow people who buy physical copies of games to be able to still download them if they own a disc-less version of the console. Fourth, Microsoft at least should give consumers the ability to install a custom version of Windows 10 onto their Xbox Series X, if not should have been running a custom version of Windows 10. Sony should do what they did with the PS3 and give the option to install Linux. Both should have apps installed on a external drive so as not to corrupt the internal game data when it comes to Windows and Linux.

The idea here is that PC gaming is the real threat to console games, not other consoles. So you want to be as friendly to the consumer as possible, because this generation of consoles does have some massive downsides. PC gamers don't pay a monthly fee to play all their online games like consoles. PC gamers don't need to go buy new expensive input devices just because they upgraded. PC gamers have multiple choices where they buy their games, which brings competition. Unless Sony and Microsoft makes the changes I suggest then the PS4 and Xbox One could be the last successful console generation. As it stands right now I could build the equivalent of the PS5 for $800, or buy a prebuilt for $1k. Considering consoles cost $500 then that's not too far off in price. Keep in mind that PC gaming is really fucked right now where AMD's new 8 core 5800X is $450 and the new Nvidia GPU's so far have a minimum price of $500. But anybody with any sense wouldn't be using those parts to build a new PC. In a year or two from now, Intel will join the GPU market and prices will drop, along with cheaper CPU's from either AMD or Intel. So consoles have a limited time to do something to make consumers confident to buy their hardware before PC hardware prices drop.
Really wouldn't count on that Windows 10 option. Remember, Sony pulled the Linux option because it was mainly being used for cheating and piracy. Windows 10 would be used for some innocent purposes, to be clear, but there's a good chance others would use it to compromise the Xbox side of the fence.

Also, PC gaming isn't really a threat to consoles at this point. Console gamers have been paying to play most games online (not all -- Fortnite, for example) since the early days of Xbox Live and PlayStation Plus — what makes you think this will suddenly be a dealbreaker? What makes you think the lack of store variety is pushing people to leave when it hasn't for years and years? And I'd really like to hear how PCs catching up on features for money will hurt consoles when it clearly didn't with the PS4/XB1 and previous generations.

And like kac77 pointed out, you can't even build a PS5 equivalent for $800; a 1TB PCIe 4.0 SSD (the closest you can get to the 825GB of the PS5) like WD's SN850 is $230 by itself.

I really don't get why you're obsessed with the notion that PC gaming 'must' win over consoles, that you can't just accept that consoles are here for the foreseeable future and have plenty of value. And there's a certain irony to claiming you support competition while dreaming of a day when consoles are dead and Windows PCs have a monopoly on gaming... thereby killing competition.
 
Firstly, games should stay $60 at best. The backlash from the $70 price would do more damage to gaming than the profits that Sony or Microsoft would gain.

I don't disagree on price, but I feel like you're overestimating the backlash. People said the exact same thing about $60 games and well....

Secondly, Microsoft should trash the Xbox Series S because it will give a bad impression to consumers looking to buy next gen and not get next gen looking games.

What? If MS didn't have the Series S you'd be bitching about how consoles are "too expensive and will never sell" now. Since you can't do that you want to bitch about MS offering an affordable option. Customers in the market for the Series S won't care that the Series X is faster and has higher resolution games with better graphics.

Thirdly, Sony and Microsoft should allow people who buy physical copies of games to be able to still download them if they own a disc-less version of the console.

While this would be nice, there are some issues with it. How do you validate the ownership? Outside of having someone physically mailing the game to Sony/MS I don't see anyway to make it work that doesn't have major issues.

Fourth, Microsoft at least should give consumers the ability to install a custom version of Windows 10 onto their Xbox Series X, if not should have been running a custom version of Windows 10. Sony should do what they did with the PS3 and give the option to install Linux. Both should have apps installed on a external drive so as not to corrupt the internal game data when it comes to Windows and Linux.

Why? I see no reason why they should do this.

The idea here is that PC gaming is the real threat to console games, not other consoles. So you want to be as friendly to the consumer as possible, because this generation of consoles does have some massive downsides. PC gamers don't pay a monthly fee to play all their online games like consoles. PC gamers don't need to go buy new expensive input devices just because they upgraded. PC gamers have multiple choices where they buy their games, which brings competition.

PC is not a threat to consoles. The PC is NOT competition. Neither MS nor Sony see the PC as competition or as a threat. Because it isn't. It's as much competition as the Switch or smart phones.

Unless Sony and Microsoft makes the changes I suggest then the PS4 and Xbox One could be the last successful console generation.

HA! Look at you pretending to be Nostradamus again. People said the same shit about consoles this generation. And now the PS4 is the second best selling console of all time. Then there were years were people were claiming this gen would be the final generation of consoles and that's not true either. Consoles will be around, and successful, for a long time.

As it stands right now I could build the equivalent of the PS5 for $800, or buy a prebuilt for $1k. Considering consoles cost $500 then that's not too far off in price.

You cannot. Even if you could, $300 is a huge difference. You could buy an entire next-gen console for that price difference.

In a year or two from now, Intel will join the GPU market and prices will drop, along with cheaper CPU's from either AMD or Intel. So consoles have a limited time to do something to make consumers confident to buy their hardware before PC hardware prices drop.

Don't hold your breath for Intel's offering. A third player in the market would be nice, but it will take a while for Intel to fully establish itself and work out early issues. And don't count on CPUs getting cheaper either. AMD is clearly showing they're more than willing to increase prices gen-to-gen while they have a lead and I rather doubt Intel is going to try to undercut them too much, if at all.
 
Really wouldn't count on that Windows 10 option. Remember, Sony pulled the Linux option because it was mainly being used for cheating and piracy. Windows 10 would be used for some innocent purposes, to be clear, but there's a good chance others would use it to compromise the Xbox side of the fence.
You could argue that anything done on a console outside of gaming could compromise the system. This is the same argument for iOS and opening up side loading apps. It's a poor argument.
Also, PC gaming isn't really a threat to consoles at this point.
It certainly was for the Xbox One as most unique games were also brought to PC. The Xbox One is a dead console as even Microsoft won't report sales. Nobody truly knows how many Xbox Ones were sold.
Console gamers have been paying to play most games online (not all -- Fortnite, for example) since the early days of Xbox Live and PlayStation Plus — what makes you think this will suddenly be a dealbreaker?
Xbox has been doing it forever and Sony only started charging on the PS4. The Xbox One isn't doing well which may or maybe be because of the monthly fee to play games online. While we're at it, Sony and Microsoft should both remove the monthly fee to play games online. Nintendo as well but... whatever. The point is if PC can do it then why not consoles? Also you'll find a lot of my answers to be, recession. Can't ignore it.
What makes you think the lack of store variety is pushing people to leave when it hasn't for years and years?
If you buy the $400 PS5 or the $300 Xbox Series S then you only have one choice where to buy games. At least before with physical media you can look at different stores, get discounts, or just buy used. Not with these machines. PC doesn't have this problem because we have multiple online stores to buy games from. I believe at some point Sony and Microsoft will have a similar lawsuit against them for being a monopoly, just like what Epic is doing to Apple. There maybe a day where Steam and Epic maybe a place you can buy games on Playstation and Xbox.
And I'd really like to hear how PCs catching up on features for money will hurt consoles when it clearly didn't with the PS4/XB1 and previous generations.
It clearly did with the Xbox One, or do you think that console is doing well? The Xbox One only matters because in America it has a strong presence.

And like kac77 pointed out, you can't even build a PS5 equivalent for $800; a 1TB PCIe 4.0 SSD (the closest you can get to the 825GB of the PS5) like WD's SN850 is $230 by itself.
Firstly, the SSD performance of the PS5 is not something that really matters a lot. The Xbox Series X is clearly more powerful and it doesn't have the SSD performance of the PS5. Sorry, supposedly reported SSD performance of the PS5 since nobody can benchmark it. Secondly, the PS5 is reported by Digital Foundry to be around a RTX 2060 in performance. I can buy a brand new 2700X for $200 and a RTX 2060 for $300. Spend another $300 and you have the equivalent of a PS5.



I really don't get why you're obsessed with the notion that PC gaming 'must' win over consoles, that you can't just accept that consoles are here for the foreseeable future and have plenty of value. And there's a certain irony to claiming you support competition while dreaming of a day when consoles are dead and Windows PCs have a monopoly on gaming... thereby killing competition.
Consoles are inherently anti-consumer. Even still I gave some very reasonable suggestions for console makers to keep their machines going for as long as possible. Remember that Microsoft was going to kill off used games with the Xbox One and they paid for that with poor sales. Sony wasn't the big fuck up this time around. But Sony didn't bother to do backwards compatibility with the PS3 like Microsoft did with the 360, and instead promoted the PSNow service which isn't a great solution. At least with the PS5 you can play PS4 games but not PS3 games. Be a shame if the PS5 could play PS3 games and sell you a $70 Demon Souls remake.

Also if PC gaming was the only platform it would still not be a monopoly. Remember no one organization is in charge of PC gaming. Not Gabe Newell, not Tim Sweeney, and certainly not Microsoft. Microsoft sells Xbox games on PC, Sony sells Playstation games on PC, and there's no conflict of interest here. It doesn't have to run on Windows, it can run on Linux or MacOSX. Assuming the game isn't exclusive, you can buy games from any store.

I'll leave you with this thought. PS3 Demon Souls running on the PS4. Why hasn't Sony done this themselves? Why can't you play PS3 games on the PS5? Enjoy your $70 Demon Souls remake.
 
Firstly, the SSD performance of the PS5 is not something that really matters a lot. The Xbox Series X is clearly more powerful and it doesn't have the SSD performance of the PS5. Sorry, supposedly reported SSD performance of the PS5 since nobody can benchmark it. Secondly, the PS5 is reported by Digital Foundry to be around a RTX 2060 in performance. I can buy a brand new 2700X for $200 and a RTX 2060 for $300. Spend another $300 and you have the equivalent of a PS5.



Something to remember about SSD performance in modern games. ALL games are designed with standard HDDs in mind. This will not be the case for games designed with any of the next gen systems in mind. What effect that will have remains to be seen, but I highly doubt it will be a net zero result.

Digital Foundry didn't report shit. They released a video ESTIMATING the RAY-TRACING ONLY performance of the PS5 based on memory bandwidth. And used the video as a means to explain RT limitations and why certain choices were made for games like Spider-man Remastered and Miles Morales. It's possible that the PS5 is around there in raw performance, but we'll see once DF is able to run tests on hardware.
 
You could argue that anything done on a console outside of gaming could compromise the system. This is the same argument for iOS and opening up side loading apps. It's a poor argument.
Microsoft won't do it for business reasons. If you were running Microsoft, would you want to anger developers and open yourself up to liability, especially for a feature that will require considerable work and may only be used by a fraction of buyers?

It certainly was for the Xbox One as most unique games were also brought to PC. The Xbox One is a dead console as even Microsoft won't report sales. Nobody truly knows how many Xbox Ones were sold.
PC availability doesn't matter that much for the Xbox's fortunes. It also has a lack of compelling exclusives, and Microsoft has long struggled to get traction outside of North America. Also, even if it's a factor for the Xbox, that doesn't make it an issue for the PlayStation or Switch.

Xbox has been doing it forever and Sony only started charging on the PS4. The Xbox One isn't doing well which may or maybe be because of the monthly fee to play games online. While we're at it, Sony and Microsoft should both remove the monthly fee to play games online. Nintendo as well but... whatever. The point is if PC can do it then why not consoles? Also you'll find a lot of my answers to be, recession. Can't ignore it.
And if they've been doing it for several years or more, why would they stop now? Don't say recession — console sales have spiked during the pandemic. Yeah, I'm sure they'll drop online fee requirements when they're making money hand over fist.

If you buy the $400 PS5 or the $300 Xbox Series S then you only have one choice where to buy games. At least before with physical media you can look at different stores, get discounts, or just buy used. Not with these machines. PC doesn't have this problem because we have multiple online stores to buy games from. I believe at some point Sony and Microsoft will have a similar lawsuit against them for being a monopoly, just like what Epic is doing to Apple. There maybe a day where Steam and Epic maybe a place you can buy games on Playstation and Xbox.
That limit for digital-only systems is true, but it still doesn't demonstrate that customers are hurting. I certainly wouldn't mind if there were another way to get games online, though.

Firstly, the SSD performance of the PS5 is not something that really matters a lot. The Xbox Series X is clearly more powerful and it doesn't have the SSD performance of the PS5. Sorry, supposedly reported SSD performance of the PS5 since nobody can benchmark it. Secondly, the PS5 is reported by Digital Foundry to be around a RTX 2060 in performance. I can buy a brand new 2700X for $200 and a RTX 2060 for $300. Spend another $300 and you have the equivalent of a PS5.
It's not "clearly more powerful." There are tradeoffs between CPU and GPU performance, not to mention storage. Are you seriously accusing Sony of lying about SSD performance that its developers depend on? And news flash: a computer is more than just a CPU and a GPU (especially one that should have some features the RTX 2060 won't match). Add the SSD, RAM, case, power supply... yeah, you're going well over $800, let alone the $500 Sony charges for a PS5.

Consoles are inherently anti-consumer. Even still I gave some very reasonable suggestions for console makers to keep their machines going for as long as possible. Remember that Microsoft was going to kill off used games with the Xbox One and they paid for that with poor sales. Sony wasn't the big fuck up this time around. But Sony didn't bother to do backwards compatibility with the PS3 like Microsoft did with the 360, and instead promoted the PSNow service which isn't a great solution. At least with the PS5 you can play PS4 games but not PS3 games. Be a shame if the PS5 could play PS3 games and sell you a $70 Demon Souls remake.

Also if PC gaming was the only platform it would still not be a monopoly. Remember no one organization is in charge of PC gaming. Not Gabe Newell, not Tim Sweeney, and certainly not Microsoft. Microsoft sells Xbox games on PC, Sony sells Playstation games on PC, and there's no conflict of interest here. It doesn't have to run on Windows, it can run on Linux or MacOSX. Assuming the game isn't exclusive, you can buy games from any store.

I'll leave you with this thought. PS3 Demon Souls running on the PS4. Why hasn't Sony done this themselves? Why can't you play PS3 games on the PS5? Enjoy your $70 Demon Souls remake.
Consoles are pro-consumer. They lower the price of gaming and make it accessible to a much wider range of people who don't want to deal with drivers, cheating and other headaches that still define PC gaming (as better as it is these days). You want it to offer more choice? Focus on opening up digital distribution — don't insist that people have to buy PCs just to play games in their living rooms.

Making PCs the only viable choice for gaming would still amount to an effective monopoly. Macs and Linux PCs aren't about to take over, and you know it... and even if there was a healthy mix of operating systems, having to use a conventional computer by necessity, not choice, would suck. It's like arguing that all road vehicles must be four-wheeled, gas-powered cars -- yeah, it'll make many people happy, but it sucks for variety and making progress.

Again, I don't know why you have a hang-up where you can't just let people enjoy consoles or appreciate differences. It's not enough for you to prefer PC gaming — you want to force everyone to conform to your vision. For all your claims about choice, you sure do seem to hate the thought that other people aren't like you.
 
Firstly, the SSD performance of the PS5 is not something that really matters a lot. The Xbox Series X is clearly more powerful and it doesn't have the SSD performance of the PS5. Sorry, supposedly reported SSD performance of the PS5 since nobody can benchmark it. Secondly, the PS5 is reported by Digital Foundry to be around a RTX 2060 in performance. I can buy a brand new 2700X for $200 and a RTX 2060 for $300. Spend another $300 and you have the equivalent of a PS5.
MEDIA]
There are 40CUs in the PS5. That puts it in 2070S territory easily. So no you can't get that level of video card performance with $300. Those go for around $500. The CPU is $200. You haven't even bought the 16GB GDDR memory, case, power supply or SSD.

It's one thing to have a difference of opinion and quite another to say things that just aren't true.
 
Aurelius speaking of pro-consumer - I assume the reference regarding online fees was to to xbox live gold / ps plus subscriptions that Microsoft and Sony offer.

Microsoft gives out free games every month with that for no additional cost (and they're available for as long as you have the account once you "claim" them, not just that month). I think Sony does the same now? Although I remember reading something saying it has since changed to be that for newer titles you can only access them while your subscription is active. I have a ton of games on my Xbox that were "free" and whose purchase price would have totaled well over $60 in a year if I'd bought all of them.

Still, you could pay $60 for a year and not spend anything else on console games if you were okay with playing whatever they put on the free list. I've also gotten significant discounts on both PSN and XBL for purchases where the subscription has gotten an extra discount. So it really has paid for itself. I haven't even had time to play anything regularly for a while but I still check every month to see what's being given away, in case I want to go back and play it somewhere down the road. It's literally free, and I'm already paying the $60, so why wouldn't I take advantage of it?

This all seems familiar. I think I made the same point with him a while back, but, as kac77 and several have said, he's just ignoring simple facts at this point, so I'm not sure why I bothered typing it again. His sense of identity is so caught up in PC being the superior platform at all times he's probably foaming at the mouth every time someone says something reasonable like "hey Ratchet and Clank looks pretty good!"
 
Aurelius speaking of pro-consumer - I assume the reference regarding online fees was to to xbox live gold / ps plus subscriptions that Microsoft and Sony offer.

Microsoft gives out free games every month with that for no additional cost (and they're available for as long as you have the account once you "claim" them, not just that month). I think Sony does the same now? Although I remember reading something saying it has since changed to be that for newer titles you can only access them while your subscription is active. I have a ton of games on my Xbox that were "free" and whose purchase price would have totaled well over $60 in a year if I'd bought all of them.

Still, you could pay $60 for a year and not spend anything else on console games if you were okay with playing whatever they put on the free list. I've also gotten significant discounts on both PSN and XBL for purchases where the subscription has gotten an extra discount. So it really has paid for itself. I haven't even had time to play anything regularly for a while but I still check every month to see what's being given away, in case I want to go back and play it somewhere down the road. It's literally free, and I'm already paying the $60, so why wouldn't I take advantage of it?

This all seems familiar. I think I made the same point with him a while back, but, as kac77 and several have said, he's just ignoring simple facts at this point, so I'm not sure why I bothered typing it again. His sense of identity is so caught up in PC being the superior platform at all times he's probably foaming at the mouth every time someone says something reasonable like "hey Ratchet and Clank looks pretty good!"
PlayStation Plus has offered 'free' games each month for several years or more. And yes, you only get access to the games as long as you're subscribed, but since you need to stay subscribed for most online games... well, you probably won't lose those games any time soon.

If there's any argument to be made, it's that the bonus games tend to be older or lower-profile. Although I'd note that Fall Guys was on Plus the moment it launched, and that's been one of the big hits of the year.
 
I'll leave you with this thought. PS3 Demon Souls running on the PS4. Why hasn't Sony done this themselves? Why can't you play PS3 games on the PS5? Enjoy your $70 Demon Souls remake.

1. transparently emulating the PS3 on the PS4' specs, likely isn't possible.

2. backwards compatibility and remakes are mutually exclusive. Sony didn't exclude PS3 backwards compatibility on PS5----so that it could instead, remake a few games. And a remake, a true remake, one on the level of the Demon's Souls remake----is not made pointless by playing the original Demon's Souls. And the same could be said for any game. Hell, an actual remaster port of Demon's Souls with 4K added, wouldn't discard the remake.

What is interesting, is that backwards compatibility with enhancements (like what Xbox has been doing on the One X and now their next gen systems) should basically cancel any potential remasters for any of those games. That is industry shaping and should gain them some good will from consumers, yes. But, just because I can play Xbox Morrowind in 4K now, doesn't mean I wouldn't hesitate to go out and buy a next gen full remake.

3. Demon's Souls in particular, is in an interesting position right now. As the Dark Souls series is on a bit of an indefinite break. So, its actually taking back the torch, in many ways. I will not be surprised if Sony announces Demon's Souls 2, next summer. The Demon's Souls remake is a perfect way for them to re-establish their own faith into the brand/concept (after Sony admitted to their mistake with Demon's Souls, orginally) and to see if customers will follow (they will).
There are 40CUs in the PS5. That puts it in 2070S territory easily. So no you can't get that level of video card performance with $300. Those go for around $500. The CPU is $200. You haven't even bought the 16GB GDDR memory, case, power supply or SSD.

It's one thing to have a difference of opinion and quite another to say things that just aren't true.
PS5 is 36cus----at 2.23 GHz. Mark Cerny says it can maintain that boost clock near constantly. Paper performance says 10.3 flops. Real world remains to be seen. Certainly, it should clobber a 2060 in raster performance. On paper, it should be a bit better than a 2070 super, as well. We shall see!.
And I would like to think Ray Tracing performance will be closer to 2070 or 2080 than 2060. Again, we shall see.
 
PS5 is 36cus----at 2.23 GHz. Mark Cerny says it can maintain that boost clock near constantly. Paper performance says 10.3 flops

I was wondering if we could infer from today annoucement (6080 being 60 CU with 16 tflops performing 10-15% above a 2080TI and what not) what a 36 CU 10 tflop could do, can we expect around 60% of a 6080 performance (i.e. 70% of a 2080ti) for a PS5 and 75% of a 2080TI for the XBox or it is more complicated than that ?
 
I was wondering if we could infer from today annoucement (6080 being 60 CU with 16 tflops performing 10-15% above a 2080TI and what not) what a 36 CU 10 tflop could do, can we expect around 60% of a 6080 performance (i.e. 70% of a 2080ti) for a PS5 and 75% of a 2080TI for the XBox or it is more complicated than that ?
I would say the PS5 should be roughly half the performance of the 6800xt (it has exactly half the CU's). But possibly a little bit better, because the PS5 maintains the 2.23Ghz boost clock almost constantly (no indication yet if the 6800xt can near constantly maintain peak boost). And because the APU design has likely better exclusive memory access etc, than the new Smart Access Memory feature for Zen 3 with X570 motherboards.
 
The $70 price is not to your benefit as a consumer. Are $70 games going to have DLC's? Are $70 games going to have micro-transactions? If the answer is yes then how are we benefiting from this as a consumer? Also, are game developers and publishers losing money? They're making record breaking profits. So the $70 price is just to gouge the consumer because they can and they will.

I certainly do as I can't remember the last time I bought a game for $60. I have so many other games to play that by the time I remember a certain game that came out, the price has fallen so low that I end up picking up the game for $20. I never played BloodBorne, and when it does come out on PC it'll probably be cheaper than $60. That game has no business being $60, let alone $70.

Also keep in mind that PC gaming has no gold standard when it comes to pricing, so while there certainly will be games on PC for $70 it will be up to the developer to price it that high. Personally I think this $70 price increase in games will have a massive backlash from the community, to the point that some will avoid buying a PS5 and Xbox One X in fear of $70 games. Also the cheaper PS5 and Xbox Series S will have massive problems with the community when they realize they can't buy, trade, or rent used games like they could with the more expensive $500 versions.

While $500 consoles may not seem expensive to some people here, do remember that we're in a recession where the price of food has gone up and people are still dying everyday from COVID19. I know that the PS5 and Xbox Series X has backed up pre-orders but many things in the past have had strong initial sales but very poor sales afterwards. I don't see many people who are excited to go buy a PS5 to play a remake of a 9 year old game that didn't even sell that well to begin with. Demon Souls with 1.7 million copies vs Dark Souls 25 million copies worldwide. Xbox won't fair any better with the Halo Infinite missing launch release and Fable a forgotten series that Microsoft has canceled before.
The Dark Souls Franchise has sold 25 million in lifetime sales.

Dark Souls 1 basically doubled Demon's Souls sales, because it was available on two more platforms and actually had an advertising budget. If Demon's Souls had been made available on 360 and PC and had some advertising, I have no doubt it would have sold an extra million, at least. It is as good or better than Dark Souls.

And yeah, Dark Souls franchise has sold 25 million in lifetime sales. That's a major franchise, which has sent ripples throughout game development, for years.

Yes, people are very excited for the remake of Demon's Souls. The original game, from which Dark Souls a 25million selling franchise, is direct descendant and sequel to in all but root name.

** 27million
https://www.fromsoftware.jp/ww/pressrelease_detail.html?tgt=20200519_darksoulsseries_salesdata
 
Last edited:
I feel like everyone in this thread needs a good hug. Not from me of course, I'll be six feet away observing. With a mask on. :)

Since the topic is about the PS5's wacky design.... hey at least someone did something different. Not another black box in the AV stack. But I mean, someone at the design meeting was like "hold my beer, this is gonna get crazy!"

And yeah I have a decent PC too. But I work on computers all day long, and sometimes the last thing I want to do after work is plop down in front of one. Therefore, I also have a console.
 
I feel like everyone in this thread needs a good hug. Not from me of course, I'll be six feet away observing. With a mask on. :)

Since the topic is about the PS5's wacky design.... hey at least someone did something different. Not another black box in the AV stack. But I mean, someone at the design meeting was like "hold my beer, this is gonna get crazy!"

And yeah I have a decent PC too. But I work on computers all day long, and sometimes the last thing I want to do after work is plop down in front of one. Therefore, I also have a console.
I like that Sony tried to stand out, even if you know the mid-cycle revision will be a much safer design. Not to knock Microsoft's design too much, as I like that it embraced the "box" part of Xbox, but it's clearly more timid.

And I'm glad you get the appeal of consoles. I don't get people who genuinely want to impose a PC monopoly on all gaming, to kill choice and variety. Well, I do in a sense... there are people who are so insecure in their personal preferences that they have to force those preferences on others to feel good about themselves. It's possible to prefer one type of gaming that suits your lifestyle while accepting that it doesn't fit every lifestyle!
 
or it is more complicated than that ?
I expect it to be quite a bit more complicated. A direct comparison between the new Xbox hardware and the PC might be simpler and similar to that, but we know the PS5 has image caching.

AMD has, for a while now, has Radeon Boost that will reduce the resolution of some rendered portions of the screen to improve framerates at a loss of detail for moving parts of the screen, but the PS5 will cache high-resolution data and drop it in on the fly, without needing to render it in the first place. I'm sure there's some kind of post-processing, but there's a big potential difference in rendering sections at low resolutions versus not having to render them at all.

The differences between the PS5 and the Xbox, plus how much they're asking PS5 owners to spend on high-speed storage, is a pretty strong indication that this isn't a gimmick feature. I'm sure Xbox and PC fans will, and have, slapped it as a hacky shortcut, but I'm also sure that if it comes to other platforms in the future, it'll be super-popular.
 
Back
Top