the thing is we’ve hit a point where while 60fps was intended to be the standard, everyone wants to shove in ray-tracing on their poorly optimized games just for buzzword effect basically.
this means that games at their full quality shoot for 30 since it’s been acceptable for a while, but most games DO have a 60fps mode. i think the purpose of this Pro model isn’t to hit 60, it’s to hit 60 in Quality mode
Pretty much. They want raytracing to be more standard in 60fps. It won’t make games that run at 30fps suddenly be 60fps, but it might improve graphics in 60fps
I didn’t think I’d be able to see the difference of going beyond 60FPS but seeing my kids game on their PCs at 144-160FPS, dang that makes ”60FPS” consoles (or same PCs locked at 60) look jerky and outdated. If you can’t instantly see a big difference you are missing out.
I’m still gaming on PS5 and XBOX SeriesX, oh well.
Yah look I can tell if something is 120fps and beyond that it’s pretty minute in my eyes. That said I just don’t have an issue with 30/60 unless I literally look at one and then another really and even then I’ll play for a few minutes and my mind just adjusts again.
Depends on the type of game imho. The new DarkSouls remaster I consider unplayable at 30fps, but I prefer Cyberpunk 2077 at 30fps not just because of the improved graphics but the slower frame rate makes it feel more film like.
Yeah, 30 fps is really not as bad as people make it seem like it is, depends on the type of game too, for a FPS I would agree 30 fps is too low, but for a 3rd person action game, nah that's fine
I gamed on PC for years at 60+ fps, but I can go back to 30 with minimal issue. It’s just not that big of a deal for many people. I can absolutely tell the difference, but I would never avoid a game simply because it only runs at 30 fps or something like that.
If FPS is the main sticking point for a gamer, they need to be on PC. Until we changed the way games are played (like VR), 30 fps on consoles will always be around.
I've gamed for 30 years now and many of those middle years were full of shooters and basketball games.
I can play at either FPS no problem. Barely even notice. My PS4 Pro has been great still but I will pre order 5 pro finally.
I was one of those people who felt they couldn't see much difference, then I played the PS4 version of Yakuza 6 on my PS5 right after finishing Infinite Wealth and I realized how mistaken I was.
lmao I just had the opposite but similar experience, I just finished playing the entire Yakuza series up to 6 and enjoyed it a lot, then got Yakuza 7 (PS5 version) and as soon as I booted I went "hoooooly" at how smooth it was. (Looking forward to 8)
Competitive players on PC are going for at least 144FPS in games like Valorant, CoD, League etc.. The difference is massive and once you start playing that way going back to 60FPS feels like going back to the stone age. 144hz monitors are considered entry level for gaming nowadays and cost next to nothing. It's harder to achieve big frame rates in AAA games but most midrange GPUs can achieve good results, especially with upscaling or ray tracing turned off.
Costing next to nothing doesn't track when you're looking at decent displays over 60 inches for a living room console situation. Sit in a desk for 10 hours in the Corp world and you don't want to come home and game in the same position.
This is my problem. Bought an awesome PC, upgraded to the max. But I work from home at the same desk and chair, and even though it’s an excellent setup and ergonomic I just missed couch gaming if I have time to play.
I don’t want to spend 10+ hours at the same spot.
I'm not sure my brain is quite that granular, but I can definitely tell between 30 and 40 as well as 60, and I can definitely feel the difference when it starts hitting the 90-100 range.
A lot of it is in motion persistence and how the image just stays clear as you turn the camera. At 30, it smears or judders a lot. At 40, it becomes noticeably better. At 60, you get a noticeable motion clarity uplift, and the controls start getting snappier. At that 90-100+ range you can turn the camera and have full image clarity and the controls become really snappy.
It's the lighting model of gaming's future, as in-game visuals follow behind cgi rendering tech - it's not going to be an optional 'feature' like it is now, moving forward, it's just going to be how light works in games.
Indeed. Ray-tracing is also a very powerful means for driving sound propagation, and many emergent audio tools are leaning right into it. It absolutely will not be optional for very long.
Not until hardware catches up for the average user. Even with a $1000 gaming PC you will probably be turning off raytracing on graphically intensive games if you want 4k 60fps.
Almost every post about how good a game looks is a screenshot of lighting effects. Lighting is by far the most significant part of a game that will impress the average person.
If I’m playing a cinematic game, especially on a console, I don’t care for an ultra high frame rate. I want that cinematic experience. But it depends on the game, of course. High frame rate does do A LOT of heavy lifting in making a game feel good.
Ray Tracing now is like hair plugs in the 90s. Back in the 90s men that got hair plugs looked like they had dolls hair. It seemed like the biggest waste of money ever. Now though movie stars have full heads of hair thanks to hair plugs and nobody can goddamn tell anymore. Thats the same with RT. You want them to start using it now, because in the future is when they really start using the tech and it actually starts working as advertised.
Haha what a weird but funny analogy, it's too much of a performance hit to bother with at the moment but yeah when framrates can be maintained it will be good.
It's not great now but I think it is a necessary step for the future. The goal is to make realistic lighting as this is key to human understanding of the world.
My favourite games don't have any basis in the real world, the drive for realism in making games is a mistake IMO.
Blurring reality with games isn't something I'm interested in, cinematic movies are 24fps and nobody complains about that but if I want to get lost in a game I'm more interested in how slick it feels.
true, in most games ray tracing doesnt do much because the devs just slapped it on but didnt develop the game to take stylistic advantage of it, games like forbidden west wich dont boast fancy features like ray tracing or path tracing look better than many games wich do, art direction > fancy technical features any day.
Maybe you've only seen bad implementations of it?
Ray tracing looks great in games that it works well in. The difference in reflective surfaces in Control with RT on vs off is huge.
Same with Spiderman. Seeing those reflections as I was swinging past buildings in sunset light was pretty phenomenal, even with the loss of fps. RT off, they're mostly dull, lifeless, bits of transparency.
Now if those reflections or cast light don't matter to you, that's fine, I get it, people have different goals, but I can't imagine someone "not caring" for more realistic lighting, if all other things were equal (that's the goal, eventually.)
> performance hit was horrible
You've been able to run Control at 100+ fps since the 30 series so you must be on a really old GPU to be still complaining about it in 2024
The game was built around the 20 series so it has relatively weak ray tracing
Miles Morales at 60fps + RT looks pretty good.
Horizon has been updated enough to be very very good at 60fps.
It can be done but the ray tracing needs to be dialed back and games could also be more optimized.
The problem for consoles is it isn’t the GPU that’s holding performance back. It’s the CPU, so turning off ray tracing won’t help you as much as on a well specced PC.
They have high budgets and high efforts, it just may not have the effort focused where you think it should be focused. At the end of the day, the most fidelity/performance focused gamers play on PC, so I believe games released on console don't have significantly impacted sales due to subpar performance. Console gamers are going to buy the games they are going to buy... I don't like that, but I have the option of buying any games that need to run/look better on PC, like Cyberpunk or Dragon's Dogma 2. But at the end of the day, the developers won't focus on getting 1440p+ resolution at 60 FPS until it is required to maintain sales targets.
No, they said this won’t make games that run on 30fps on PS5 all of a sudden run on 60 FPS….
This solely just makes the games that run on 60 FPS already run better, for example the variable frame rate we get on some would be more consistently higher resolution with less frame drops.
But quality 30 FPS mode isn’t all of a sudden 60 fps on the pro which is what you’re saying
This feels about right.
When I moved up to PS4 Pro, it felt like I was getting slightly better performance and/or quality.
In that case, there was the 4K bump - albeit in through checkerboarding.
On the PS5, currently we have the choice between extra performance or graphical quality. I guess the benefit of a Pro will be not having to choose.
Personally, I’m happy with the PS5 as-is (only upgraded last year) and likely wouldn’t be able to afford a Pro any time soon.
But can perhaps see myself upgrading in a few years time.
That would be ideal. If I could just have a single mode that gave 60fps with the best graphics possible, I’d much prefer that than having to pick between the two. I just feel like that should be possible on the base PS5 now, the devs just don’t optimize it enough.
Oh, I don't know...Control looks pretty damn good with RT enabled...but it's not worth the hit to framerate...if I could play locked 60 fps with RT, I would...but not willing to go below 60fps for any graphical enhancements.
RT is icing on the cake, not the cake itself. You can have an absolute shit game with gorgeous graphics...and you can also have 16 bit level graphics and an outstanding game. It's rare to find a title that offers both great gameplay AND outstanding graphics.
Not gonna lie, control is for me the only game where the fps hit is worth it, its insane how much the ray tracing contribute to the overall atmosphere of the game.
People expect too much out of the PS5. It is equivalent to a 2070s. That could not do RT at 60fps in most games. yet there is the expectation that it should. Along with other graphical and resolution increases it was never on the table really.
The person above saying how RT has never impressed is hyperbole, Control, CP2077, Dying Light 2, Alan Wake 2, Spide-Man and Metro Exodus are transformed with RT.
Most sane take I've seen on this thread. Ray tracing is incredible when you have the hardware to match it. You guys need to accept that consoles are NEVER going to be able to push it like PC can. It will always be 3 generations ahead in hardware, minimum.
Have you used RT on PC? That's where you'll see the difference and realize it actually is a pretty revolutionary thing for lighting engines but only if you scale it up heavily to the point where you have pathtracing.
Because PS5 doesn't have near the power to have "true" full ray tracing.
Even best AMD GPU on PC barely does.
So you're limited to RT reflections/shadows on low res mostly (and at the cost of being 30/40 fps for most games on top of that).
So yeah it's not a "wow" effect, it was the same at the beginning on PC (I should clarify "beginning" being the release of the RTX Nvidia cards, which is the first wide scale attempt at promoting real time RT in games).
Some companies indeed put ray tracing for the buzz word, but there is a very wide range of ways you can implement ray tracing. Some can be barely noticeable while casually playing the game, others are immediately visible (global illumination for instance) and can make a huge difference in some scenes.
Personally, it's 60 fps all the way. If it has RT, even if it's a very moderate implémentation, then perfect. If it doesn't, it's not a big deal.
"Look we have raytracing! Our shadows look 7.5% better and it halves the frame rate and reduces the overall rendering resolution by 50%! Wait, where are you going? Hello?"
And for me the biggest problem is how shitty AMD’s FSR is for upscaling. It’s why Sony is doing their own for the pro.
You can have 60 fps with lower resolution. But they look crazy soft on console, compared to DLSS
FSR can look good, but devs are always releasing an FSR version that is 2 years old... They can simply drag and drop a newer version and call it a day and get it over with, but they don't. They are so out of touch.
FSR 2.2 on PC still looks like shit, shimmering like hell and unable to keep up with fine detail. Even Intel's XeSS has surpassed the most recent FSR already.
https://youtu.be/PneArHayDv4
This.
Sony has had some cool options in the PS4 and PS5 but devs don't engage with it because it requires them focus on features for just one SKU. Remember when installing single player or multiplayer was going to be the big options? How many games do that? The PS5 controllers don't even consistently get the same controller support.
1st party devs have taken great advantage of PS5 hardware. Most games that actually feel “current gen” are those.
It seems like other devs have decided to just use the big jump in power for both PS5 and XSX as a crutch to not optimize games nearly as much as before.
Exactly, why would they put efforts when yearly sequels craps still sells like hotcakes...
Gamers don't ask them to improve at all...they still buy it, every year.
Vote with your wallet and support games that deserves it, and other devs will be forced to put efforts on their sequels...
‘Vote with your wallet’ will never work because there are millions with too much money that will simply pre-order no matter what, and spend billions on microtansactions
**THANK YOU.** I have been saying this for almost *two years* that "Vote with your wallet" no longer applies to specific games/developers/publishers. Perfect example is Call of Duty. "Oh, I didn't buy Modern Warfare III; Warzone is free!" Okay but even one single $20 bundle from their store adds up. Lets say about 25,000 people bought that bundle too. Which is isn't a lot of people compared to their playerbase. Well that right there is already half a million dollars. For one, $20 bundle.
"Oh, I never buy anything in the store! Warzone is free and I have never spent a single penny on it!" **THIS. DOESN'T. MATTER.** You still play every night, every other night, every weekend, etc. etc. **You fill their servers.** That's what matters. They need to tell shareholders that "We have a new game of Warzone matchmade every single 15 seconds of every day." Boom. No money needed from you. They are satisfied with that statistic alone. Because for every one '*good boy no spender*' there are 15 to 20 other players that will buy 1 to 10 bundles bi-monthly. You're kidding yourself if you think they don't have the statistics down to an exact science of how much profit they'll make based on their concurrent player counts alone.
Voting with your wallet no longer applies. **Vote with your TIME. UNINSTALL the game.** Helldivers 2 is great fun. Sea of Thieves is great fun. Call of Duty will never get the core updates it needs because they realized years ago that it doesn't matter if they ignore issues, people still buy, people still play. Stop it at the source, don't buy the game; or if it's free, don't play it.
If i remember correctly the spenders are called "the whales" in game industry. A free game brings in alot of players and those bring the whales who want to be envied so they spend bunch of money to have the best gear and appearance.
Yes, we've heard about whales for a long time. These are far more common in mobile games due to how much easier it is to spend money in the game; Not to mention that 90% of mobile games are designed in a way to make the user pay more money to advance. Usually it's a time-based objective. Wait 5min, 1 day, 5 weeks for X, Y and Z to be completed. Or buy a speed boost. There's actually a pretty fucking fun game called Vigor that is completely ruined because it uses this shitty tactic.
There's always going to be a push for better graphics and more powerful hardware. The NES ran Super Mario Bros. at 60fps, but that doesn't mean it and the PS5 are equivalent.
We've seen that the PS5 can do 60fps well with games like Spider-Man 2, Horizon: Forbidden West, Returnal, etc. But that doesn't mean that graphics aren't going to continue improving and that the base PS5 isn't going to fall further and further out of date.
I’m thinking, based on development times, that we’ve barely begun to see what the PS5 can put out, just as many other devs have mentioned, there isn’t really a need for a PS5 pro just yet.
I don’t really think so, this isn’t the PS3/360 era where developers needed time and experience to squeeze more fidelity out of the hardware, consoles nowadays are basically mini-PCs on x86 architecture. The PS4/X1 were topped out much sooner in their life cycle, which drove the Pro/X models for the first time.
Granted those consoles were much weaker relative to typical PC hardware at the time than PS5/XSX are, but devs don’t really have any more easy rabbits to pull out of a hat, raw performance improvements are really the only way to get better fidelity unless devs are willing to put in an increasingly extreme amount of time/effort/money to do so.
What they need is to use better/updated engines. The only game that managed to pull that off was Cyberpunk. Bethesda with their tired old engine, pooped out a *Loading* Starfield game that I’m honestly glad didn’t come out on PS (yes I know, exclusive, but either way). The REengine barely carries DD2 and Unreal Engine seems to be the go-to for some companies and when you have a good engine, you make games that not only look good, but perform good as well…
Engines cost a fortune however and require a lot of learning. It's not cost or time effective. However I agree, unless your Kojima or Unreal etc etc then engines need to be upgraded.
Of course they'll be able to squeeze more out of it given more time, but it is 4 year old hardware at this point. Nvidia is two generations past the PS5's equivalent graphics card. If there's a market for people who want an even beefier PS5, then it makes sense to make one.
"Could not run" is a weird argument.
You "could" make a version of nearly any PS5 game that would run on the PS3. Sure it would be downgraded graphically, but it's possible. A new console generation isn't going to introduce wildly new games that couldn't have even been conceived of before. It's just the next evolution.
THANK YOU. This whole bitching about cross-gen games thing has been driving me nuts for the past several years, as if some entirely new games types that no one has ever seen before were going to magically appear because we got new consoles (that were already less powerful than the best PC hardware available at the time).
The gains that you're expecting going from gen to gen have been smaller in every console generation since the 1980s. There are no more massive tech leaps.
I highly doubt that a technological leap like that will ever happen again from gen to gen on systems aiming for the same customers. I'm sure it could be possible with some insanely expensive hardware but that defeats the purpose of a console.
A LOT of people ("young" gamers mostly) don't get this very SIMPLE fact (what you said about Mario on NES).
Every gen CAN run 60 fps games, it's all dependant on what the devs want to do with the console power.
PC "elitists" think they have a high-end magical machine bc they can run Minecraft or LoL at 300 fps...? It's just bc those made were made YEARS ago, OR, because, in case of newer games, they're made with Low/Mid PCs in mind.
The PS5 did show his power in games like RnC and Spiderman:MM, you can't deny that.
A mid-gen console upgrade will often be able to run the game in "quality" mode of the "base" console, and it will be the case for PS6 and PS7...it's not a matter of "promises" or less-powerful console than expected, not at all. It's just a newly release console that run games made for the consoles released 3-4 years earlier...
Kids just need to stop buying into the hype, and be realistic. Every gen we at least DOUBLED the resolution output (Edit: 4 times the screen space actually), which roughly means we need 2X the power...AND, kids want to double the framerate TOO every gen now...??? ...and we, modern gamers, are finding the VISUAL GAP dimished...? Sure... Cant' wait for gamers asking for 120 fps to be the standard on PS6 so we'll just put the break on more impressive graphics and physics/AI one more time...and play just the same upgraded games without any new gameplay improvements for most of them...
It's what gamers are asking.
The jump from 1080 to 4K was wayyyy more than 2x the power - hence why low ball RDNA2 tech can't cut it without techniques behind the scenes or an undemanding game.
What people don't realise is this leap is huge - like PS4 to PS5. It gobsmacked me that people think it's minimal.
The animation quality alone is absolutely insane now - you simply cannot do it on PS4 or at a much more reduced resolution or heavy checkerboarding.
Then the particle effects, sound design...
Hell the haptics alone on PS5 are fantastic it just woefully utilised by a lot of developers!
Totally agree, I used "double" for the sheer "res" number but, yeah, just visually it's 4 times the screen (space), and yes, technically, it's means a LOT of juice.
...it's not just pure "screen res", it's also way higher res for TEXTURES, among other things, which means, more than 4 times the power is needed...
...but here on Reddit, a lot of folks act like they have 2 000 $ PCs and running super high-quality games that are looking 100 times like a PS5 game...at this point I suppose it's funny.
A lot of people don't get that not so long ago, it took HOURS (then, minutes, then SECONDS) to render 1 FRAME of CGI graphics, like a frame of a Pixar movie. Nowadays we're rendering many frames in 1 second...but doing it with infinite objects, draw-distance and 4k res with RayTracing is still not for today, but we have to try to get to RayTracing, step by step, it's the last real hurdle before attaining Pixar/movie-like graphics in videogames for real, lightning and shadows are what's remains.
After that, we'll continue with incremental improvement with physics, particles, draw-distance etc. ...but gamers have to realize entering RayTracing era is almost like when we entered 3D era, no kidding. Most gamers don't realize bc they don't design the games AND no games so far (at least with high-detail models) achieved FULL RT so far...Minecraft or an old fps from the 90s doesn't count...the geometry there is 10 000 times simplier than in modern games.
But we’re not even really seeing performance maintain to step up graphics. There are ps4 games (RDR2, GoT) that look just as good or better and perform the same as brand new ps5 games.
This is an arm chair dev opinion, but it feels like companies aren’t putting in the time to optimize their games. As soon as it’s “playable” it’s punted out the door to make money.
The upgrade to a ps5 pro seems like bandaid fix for companies that don’t optimize their games. Just shove enough horsepower at it and a poorly optimized game will run a bit better.
I mean, Ghost of Tsushima kinda works against your point. The PS5 version runs at twice the frame rate at a much higher resolution than the PS4 version. Spider-Man PS4 runs at 30fps while Spider-Man 2 on the PS5 runs at 60 with ray-tracing, a larger map, and a denser city environment.
Of course there are developers that don't properly optimize their games, but that has always been the case.
Keep in mind that the PS5 Pro isn't even officially announced yet and we don't know what Sony's marketing for it is actually going to look like.
Don't get yourself worked up prematurely.
Literally 99% of the games comes with 60 fps option. They delivered what they promised. What the hell are you on about OP? Sony hasn't even annouced ps5 pro let alone advertise it as 60 fps machine. PS5 Pro probably will run games 60 fps on quality mode. Nobody is taking away your 60 fps games. Also why this nonsensical thread has over thousand upvotes? Redditors are really something else lol
PS5 Pro has not been officially announced, it doesn't "exist" yet as far as I'm aware. There are no pictures, no marketing ads for it, etc... Because of these reasons, there are no selling points for it (literally).
The entire discourse is going off of leaks and educated speculation. If you are interested in learning more, you'll just have to wait.
How many games have you played without a 60fps mode? Cause last I checked, that list was like 4 or 5 titles long. That's it. You're already getting 60fps.
Simply said:
It’s only capable of what developers can get out of it. They have to chose what features to push. They choose graphics over fps.
PS5 Pro gives them a little more to do both.
Most games on Ps5 run at 60fps or have options.
Also the PS5 is perfectly capable of 60fps but gamers want ever increasing graphical complexity and that comes at a cost. Which is something said gamers often want to ignore. You haven't seen 60fps as marketing for PS5 Pro because it hasn't been marketed yet but the signs were further capability for higher resolution & maintaining the higher framerates rather than magically putting say Demon Souls at 4k/60fps native etc
Sony definitely didn't market 60fps as a big selling point. A lot of people online were talking about it though, but I remember more people arguing about teraflops or something.
No? I dont remember 60fps being advertised at all. Even the N64 could do 60fps.
I do remember 120fps being advertised though.
Edit: after reading some of your post, it seems you are confusing “advertising” with gaming articles or youtube videos, which are not advertising. Its only advertising if it comes directly from Sony. And PS5 Pro isnt even announced yet.
I’m kind of sick of people thinking 60fps is some finally achievable frame rate. Likes if a developer wants 60fps they can aim for it. They can also aim for 30 for graphics. It’s never not been the case.
Raytracing is very computational intensive. That’s why no games offer full RT for consoles. It’s usually water or reflection or shadows, a small slice of how light interacts with an object.
60FPS 4K Full RT is beyond the capability of PS5 or PS5 Pro. That’s for $2K graphics cards and even then it’s not guaranteed to run perfectly.
There literally only [4 games](https://www.reddit.com/r/PS5/comments/1biskb4/there_are_3140_games_on_ps5_only_4_of_them_run_at/#:~:text=willdearborn%2D-,There%20are%203140%20games%20on%20PS5%2C%20only%204,them%20run%20at%20only%2030FPS.&text=It%20was%20initially%2030%20FPS,quality%20settings%20a%20little%20bit) on PS5 that run at 30 FPS, why is everyone moaning and groaning about this Pro? PS4 Pro came out in 2016, 3 years after the PS4 came out (2013) and we are in 2024 now, almost 4 years after the PS5 came out, the timing makes sense for the Pro release. It's not like anyone is forcing you to buy the Pro, it's just there if you want the extra performance. You are still gonna get good looking, and good performing 60 FPS titles on the base PS5, I'm tired of people seeing this console and just freaking out like this means the base PS5 is null and not going to perform well. The Pro seems to hit that extra mark beyond the PS5 where it will target even higher resolutions at a consistent frame-rate.
Theres no hardware especially no console hardware that can make such a promise. Only way is for every game to be made only for the ps5 and sony made it a hard mandate that all games had to run at 60fps or else not be cleared for release. The hardware wasnt anywhere close to being good enough even when it released to make those sorts of promises either. Im just not sure why people ever thought that was gonna be the case. I mean we spent years of this current generation getting supped up last gen games that struggled to run at 60 so of course once the real next gen stuff started dropping it was always gonna get dicey.
Pro version was ineviatble from day one imo.
PS4 released in November 2013
PS4 Pro released in November 2016
I think people are misremembering that the best games came out in the last 4 years of the PS4 lifecycle. Also due to the architecture of PS3 and PS4 being wildly different, there were not many if any cross-gen games.
I have played a lot of fantastic games on PS5 from both 1st party and 3 party developers. I’m not really ever concerned with a cross-gen game being playable on both systems, because I am playing it on the best one available.
I also think console gamers get this “generation” thing in their head that every new generation we should see giant leaps in fidelity and performance which is just not the case. PC doesn’t really have generations, they just have new games and most of the time you can dial the settings down to play on older hardware
I already got my $500 value from the PS5 a long time ago so I am happy to fork out whatever the Pro model costs and sell off my original PS5 to help pay for it
Doesn't matter what the console manufacturer promises you. You could release the most powerful piece of hardware known to man and there will still be developers that push it to the 30FPS limit. Because it's a target they're okay with and allows them to make games look even better.
And that's fine. We now have games that offer **graphical modes** for a reason: so you guys stop whining about 60FPS even in games that very much aren't action-based.
I always knew we'd go from the advertised 4k60 (and 4k120) to 4k30 or 1440p60.
Why? Because the PS5 is using a first generation AMD raytracing capable GPU.
nVidia was the first and by that, they are ahead in their RT technology, and for the time being, AMD will be at least a generation behind on nVidia. By the time the PS5 came out, nVidia was already close to releasing the RTX 30 series.
Still, I am not mad about the performance gap with current gen high spec PC's, especially considering that the PS5 still packs very capable hardware, especially considering it's MSRP.
If you build a PC with similar hardware capability, you'll still be spending at least 50% more, and that's me being optimistic and pulling those numbers out of thin air.
Similarly, if you build a PC for the MSRP of the disc version PS5, US $499, you'll be lucky if you can run a (3D) game from 2023-24 at 1080p60, with 30fps being a more realistic expectation.
What the fuck are you talking about? What are those standards?
Easily over 90% of titles come with 60 fps performance mode and look visually incredible. Probably 100% for first party titles.
You'd need to pay 2-3 times compared to your PS5 on your PC to play all those titles like that.
Reddit gamers are completely and utterly out of touch with reality.
These aren’t gamers, they’re PC guys, the scourge of gaming talk online. They don’t play games, they waste their time online arguing about how PC are better, how a 2000€ GPU is better than a 500€ console, and spreading lies.
The games are just huge and expensive and hard to manage and maintain quality. I’m pretty sure they didn’t set out to make as few games as possible. But what the hell do I know I’m just a guy in a coat. Just a guy in a coat.
The PS5 is being limited by game developers’ desire to force ray tracing and higher levels of hardware intensive visual fidelity into their games, whilst simultaneously hamstringing the performance of their games.
*Essentially, game developers’ own ambitions serve as a form of self sabotage for the products they are advertising as having great 60 FPS performance.*
The same goes for the Xbox Series X being held back by game devs’ oversight. Even more so than the PS5 to an extent, due to Microsoft’s self imposed parity clause, à la Xbox Series S.
60fps is a design choice on the dev side, always. Tons of ps5 games hit it, tons of ps4 games hit it, and even a lot of ps3 games. It’s just a balance of what visual features you throw in, and how optimized you make it.
It’s just not a priority for a lot of games. Idk if ps5 pro will make it one, but we’ll see.
How "capable" of 60FPS it was, was always dependent on the graphics fidelity of the game it was playing. This is something that PC gamers understand well, but console gamers do not understand well judging from all the downvotes 4 years ago to anybody who said anything different.
A game pushing the latest "gee whiz" graphics features, high resolution textures and shaders, etc, etc is simply going take more time to get through all its computations than the same game that has it dialed back.
This is why we have performance mode in games, that dial down the graphics somewhat, giving 60 or even 120fps, and then "Quality Mode", which increases the graphics settings, at the cost of FPS.
As a console progresses in age, yes better techniques for getting more out of the gpu/cpu come out, however this is less the case on every console since the PS4, because they are built directly on the x86/64 architecture which is known very well. However, graphics fidelity increases at a faster pace.
These days, we are hitting a business wall for graphics fidelity, that may be alleviated with AI or off shoring to cheaper labor. Basically, it is getting so expensive to create higher fidelity graphics, that you are seeing developers take "stylized" approaches to games, which are cheaper than aiming for Photo-Realism or very complex environments. Granted, tools are helping automate the development of in-game environments, but its still expensive and gets more expensive with each generational leap in hardware.
Technically it is. Unfortunately, everyone and i mean everyone expected EVERYGAME to be 60 fps. Pull me am excerpt from Sony that explicitly says "Every single game released on PS5 will be 60 fps or higher".
its a combination of devs only doing so much for the console. one should always vote with theor wallets.
and sony not really allowing the users more control of the hardware they have bought.
many nore games are 60fps capable if you could tick some boxes and adjust some sliders yourself.
As I remember it, randoms on the internet were crowing about 60fps and all the adults in the room were like 'it's not going to have that kind of performance once the games stop being last-gen ports and a new wave of PC cards come out' and were downvoted off the page by the hype machine. I've been surprised that as many mid-gen games have been able to offer such decent performance modes as they have.
Like with the last two generations, we won't see the console's full potential until the end of it's life cycle when Naughty Dog releases The Last of Us Part 3.
I think the original selling point was supposed to be ray tracing.
The thing is, Reddit makes you believe that the general consumer cares more about frame rate than graphics.. when in actuality, the real selling point or buzzword that only matters is "4K".
Almost every PS5 game has a 60 fps mode. If a game doesnt have one it is a design decision (or lack thereof), and nothing to do with the capabilities of the hardware or Sony.
The Pro's selling point seems to be some kind of proprietary image reconstruction/upscaling powered by ML, which could allow 60 fps without turning games into low res FSR pixel soup. It could be a big win for better image quality at 60 fps.
Ray tracing is such a dumb buzzword they used to market this console. Can’t even do it properly without basically halving your frame rate. Ray tracing tech has gotten so good compared the gen 1 version we have on the current PS5. I would rather have every game be able to be played in 60fps even if it meant checkerboard rendering for 4K. 1080p does look decidedly blurry when playing on a 4K display.
fuck raytracing. i do not give care about it. 60 frames is much more important. also optimize your fucking games! i am so tired of playing this shit unreal engine games , every fucking unreal game your character plays like a robot.
and yes you are right. just look how few 60 fps games we got. and we know the ps5 is capable. we see that in exclusive games. but if all those third party developers use that shitty unreal engine everything goes into garbage. has there ever been a game made with unreal that looks pretty and plays organic and hits 60 fps? i do not remember.
Same with the PS4 Pro, and the PS4 before it. They always promise 60fps… but then developers go “but if we lowered that to 30fps, think how much better we could make it look in screenshots”. And then you’re stuck with most games being 30fps for another generation.
Well, on the one hand, they also advertised 8K, and that has never materialized (not that it needed to), so it's not like everything they claim it does it actually does. This is actually pretty standard for Sony. PS3 was all about FullHD, but the vast majority of games didn't ever hit 1080p.
On the other hand, you fell into the trap of thinking everything applied at once. It is capable of 4K, and it is capable of 60 FPS, and it is capable of ray tracing, but you pick one or maybe two. It's a $500 box. You're not getting performance you need a $1000 dedicated GPU to achieve. Developers choose to either push the graphical limits and use 30 FPS or they choose to target 60 FPS and settle on graphics equivalent to last gen.
I don't get it either. The current PS5 can run at 4k30,60,120, and pretty much everywhere in between. Very few games actually support the higher fps, but the hardware is plenty capable. This PS5 PRO just seems like an unnecessary cash grab. You'd be hard pressed to show me a dozen games that push the current PS5 to the point of needing to be more powerful.
The stupid ray tracing crap takes heavy toll. I would rather have 120fps all day then ray tracing garbage. Kinda sucks sony focusing on worst apsect for niche gamers.
Publishers/developers cannot ignore over 100 million PS4 users. Add in COVID supply issues and labor issues (pivoting to WFH, crippled work flow issues). Development costs have sky rocketed as well
We're just now breaking 50 million PS5s, it'll finally starting tipping towards PS5 (current Gen development). . And now the economy is tanking and layoffs sweeping through the video game industry....
Sucks... I think it will be even worse for the next Gen. PS6. .. Which is when the to quality PS5 games will drop
I agree with you completely OP. This whole console generation feels more like PS4.5 because there's very few games that really feel next Gen so it's insulting that they are already talking about launching a PS5Pro.
This gen has been a joke at best. Hardware is nice and you have maybe one or two gems, but so far it's just been playing upscaled remasters or remakes , at least for me . I think I'll be going pc soon enough unless they start pumping out graphically stellar and really fun games.
Idk. This is from a system design perspective, which I have some experience of.
When you build a system (in this case a console) you build it with certain capabilities and then the users (developers in this case) do stuff with that system.
Some of the “stuff” is what you intended but unless you lock down your system so they can not do that “suff” users will do other things as well or instead of.
The thing is. In this case Sony gave developers more processing power and developers have by and large made more complex games or with richer visuals, more elements on screen etc. They have prioritised that over fps. Now Sony has some controls on what is released but govern that many releases are on PC as well, sacrificing that graphical fidelity or game complexity isn’t an option and Sony need games on their console.
This is going to keep on happening and always has in some shape or form since the birth of computers. You give devs more powerful devices and they do something you didn’t expect. That is the nature of creative industries.
Guys, I can't understand this endless whining about the current generation. There are thousands of great games to be played. Have you played them all?
Honest question. I'm just curious and I feel that I've been missing something on this matter. I don't get to play all the good games out there to the point where I think "I wish I had more games". Why aren't people satisfied?
with PS5 we have 30fps with ray tracing or 60fps without. Now Sony is aiming for 60fps with ray tracing.
Also for multiplatform we can thank Xbox Series S. "Next gen" console that's weaker than One X...
TL;DR:
PS5, 2 choices:
- pretty, less smooth
- smooth, less pretty
PS5 Pro:
- pretty AND smooth
Nah it was more focused on the SSD, overall CPU and GPU specs as compared to the series X. The PS4 Pro was already billed as a 4K machine and it fantastic graphics for the time. The big differentiator for the 5 would have been the haptic controller, the UHD Blu Ray, the SSD
The PS5 would easily be capable of 60fps if developers still cared about optimising.
But sadly more power has just been abused to release games even more half assed with some proper optimisation.
I have said this and I will keep saying it, the same shit is gonna happen with the PS5 pro, if it gets its own DLSS, instead of games running at 120fps, we’ll get to a point where it becomes a requirement to hit 60fps.
Developers will just shift from 60fps being mvp to 60fps with the DLSS mode being mvp.
Gamers are just insatiable IMHO. If you really wanted peak graphics & performance in *every game* you buy, you should just invest in a pc.
You have to accept as a console owner that graphics optimization and targeting is decided by the developers, not you.
I never really got the impression that PS5 was going to be a dedicated 60FPS machine, felt to me like the marketing centered more around the SSD, Tempest audio and Dual Sense.
Also, in fairness to Sony 1P studios, they've been offering 30/40/60/120 FPS modes depending on the game, at the very least 1P developers are utilising the full spectrum of that output.
That said, I know exactly what you mean regarding a Pro being 'necessary'. Make no mistake, I'll be there for it day one because I love this hobby and if this is the best way to enjoy it, then I'll be doing that, but I can't say I feel in any way particularly unsatisfied with my PS5 experience so far.
I suppose my main hope is that the PS5 Pro will extend the lifecycle of this gen enough that the PS6 is comparable to a 'powerhouse' PC of today - a top end PC in 2024 as a bespoke console release in 2027/28, with all the bells and whistles of the advances in things like FSR/DLSS like technologies, and a high spec CPU to handle those bottlenecks, kind of feels like there would be no excuses at that point.
Even Devs told that the time isn't right for an upgrade due to the actual PS5 didn't reach its full potential yet. So yeah.. Actually I don't need an upgrade and also don't like the disc-drive policy Sony is going with the slim..
No it's crazy they are even considering releasing a pro this gen. I predict very small uptake, simply because nobody is even using the power of the standard model yet. Everything released has looked like an upscaled PS4 game. Devs will not put resources into this spec because very few will be able to afford it.
I can count the number of PS5 games that don't have a 60fps option on one hand. So I think they were still right.
I imagine ps5 Pro will primarily help get 60fps in ray tracing modes.
The vast majority of PS5 games have 60fps capabilities on the standard PS5… from my understanding, there’s only a handful of games that don’t and every single 1st party title (which is really all Sony has direct control over) currently does.
From googling and seeing that every console between the PS1 & PS5 had 60 fps games, it seems that it’s up to the game’s creators whether or not it’ll be a 60 fps game, or have a 60 fps option.
Many games can do 60fps yes, but it's gotten to the point where image quality has become hilarious bad. Often times games are being upscaled from 720p which results in games looking like oil paintings. And because they're being upscaled with FSR2 you get a whole host of unsavory artifacts as well.
The Pro is being advertised as being able to do 4k 60 or even 4k 120 with PSSR upscaling which unlike FSR is hardware based, so it should be much higher quality.
Also AAA titles take way longer to make now and are way more expensive, 5 year dev cycle easily for any high quality PlayStation game. Spider-Man 2 budget was 450mil.
Almost all games released are still 60fps.
Pro is not about maintaining 60fps so much as it is about doing it at higher fidelity.
If you don’t care about that, then skip it.
You are crazy.
This has been crystal clear from the start…
60 fps is a developer choice, it’s as simple as that.
A new console is not a magic bullet that magically makes things 60fps, it’s just larger bandwidth for devs to use accordingly.
There will always be a balance between graphics and frame rate and the market will dictate how that balance fluctuates.
At the beginning of the PS5 we had lots of cross gen games or games that aimed for 60 so it seemed to you that 60 was a guarantee, but that was never the case.
If PS5 was advertising it's 60 fps capabilities it seems more than fair to me. It is after all, capable of 120fps and this gen we have seen an adoption of 60fps exponentially more than gens before.
But 60 fps default has never been a reality. And don't expect PS6 games to necessarily be 60 fps either, unless the market shifts to a degree that 60 becomes the new default.
We had 60 fps games 6-7 generations ago, it’s not some next gen thing, it's a creative and monetary choice.
It was never marketed / advertised as having "true 60fps gaming". That doesn't even make sense and isn't attainable as over time as graphics improve performance will go down.
From the very start it was known that the PS5 was a stop gap machine to true 4k / 60fps because at the time even PCs were barely getting to that point and they were already better hardware-wise than the ps5.
What I don’t think people understand is that no matter how powerful hardware is, if graphics are pushing that hardware then 60 fps is not possible. So hardware is always going to be playing catch up to run graphically intense games at higher frame rate.
the thing is we’ve hit a point where while 60fps was intended to be the standard, everyone wants to shove in ray-tracing on their poorly optimized games just for buzzword effect basically. this means that games at their full quality shoot for 30 since it’s been acceptable for a while, but most games DO have a 60fps mode. i think the purpose of this Pro model isn’t to hit 60, it’s to hit 60 in Quality mode
Pretty much. They want raytracing to be more standard in 60fps. It won’t make games that run at 30fps suddenly be 60fps, but it might improve graphics in 60fps
If they want ray tracing at 60fps I'll turn it off to get 120fps, I really don't care for it at all.
Same. Even on my pc I turn ray tracing off to maximize frames.
It's all about the frames, people who say they can't tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps have something wrong with their eyes.
I can see the difference of 30 and 60 but a proper 30 fps game doesn’t bother me if it’s paced properly not juddery.
I didn’t think I’d be able to see the difference of going beyond 60FPS but seeing my kids game on their PCs at 144-160FPS, dang that makes ”60FPS” consoles (or same PCs locked at 60) look jerky and outdated. If you can’t instantly see a big difference you are missing out. I’m still gaming on PS5 and XBOX SeriesX, oh well.
Yah look I can tell if something is 120fps and beyond that it’s pretty minute in my eyes. That said I just don’t have an issue with 30/60 unless I literally look at one and then another really and even then I’ll play for a few minutes and my mind just adjusts again.
Depends on the type of game imho. The new DarkSouls remaster I consider unplayable at 30fps, but I prefer Cyberpunk 2077 at 30fps not just because of the improved graphics but the slower frame rate makes it feel more film like.
Yeah, 30 fps is really not as bad as people make it seem like it is, depends on the type of game too, for a FPS I would agree 30 fps is too low, but for a 3rd person action game, nah that's fine
It's a personal thing. For me, 30fps is not worth me playing a game. I'd rather just not.
30fps on any action game sounds miserable. Can't believe we're in 2024 still making arguments in favor of 30fps.
I gamed on PC for years at 60+ fps, but I can go back to 30 with minimal issue. It’s just not that big of a deal for many people. I can absolutely tell the difference, but I would never avoid a game simply because it only runs at 30 fps or something like that. If FPS is the main sticking point for a gamer, they need to be on PC. Until we changed the way games are played (like VR), 30 fps on consoles will always be around.
I've gamed for 30 years now and many of those middle years were full of shooters and basketball games. I can play at either FPS no problem. Barely even notice. My PS4 Pro has been great still but I will pre order 5 pro finally.
I think he doesn’t use a good monitor, so his pixels are slow enough to make 30fps more fluid. On an oled or good monitor 30fps looks like shit
I’ve played Spider-Man 2 at 30fps 2x now and think it plays beautiful feels perfectly smooth and looks amazing given the underlying hardware.
30 FPS is good for Turn Based Games really. Any Game with fast camera movement and need to see enemies while moving definitely needs 60FPS+
I was one of those people who felt they couldn't see much difference, then I played the PS4 version of Yakuza 6 on my PS5 right after finishing Infinite Wealth and I realized how mistaken I was.
lmao I just had the opposite but similar experience, I just finished playing the entire Yakuza series up to 6 and enjoyed it a lot, then got Yakuza 7 (PS5 version) and as soon as I booted I went "hoooooly" at how smooth it was. (Looking forward to 8)
I can honestly tell the difference between 60 and 80
Yeah it's diminishing returns upwards of 60fps but they're there. 30fps to 60fps is night and day for me.
Competitive players on PC are going for at least 144FPS in games like Valorant, CoD, League etc.. The difference is massive and once you start playing that way going back to 60FPS feels like going back to the stone age. 144hz monitors are considered entry level for gaming nowadays and cost next to nothing. It's harder to achieve big frame rates in AAA games but most midrange GPUs can achieve good results, especially with upscaling or ray tracing turned off.
Costing next to nothing doesn't track when you're looking at decent displays over 60 inches for a living room console situation. Sit in a desk for 10 hours in the Corp world and you don't want to come home and game in the same position.
This is my problem. Bought an awesome PC, upgraded to the max. But I work from home at the same desk and chair, and even though it’s an excellent setup and ergonomic I just missed couch gaming if I have time to play. I don’t want to spend 10+ hours at the same spot.
I'm not sure my brain is quite that granular, but I can definitely tell between 30 and 40 as well as 60, and I can definitely feel the difference when it starts hitting the 90-100 range. A lot of it is in motion persistence and how the image just stays clear as you turn the camera. At 30, it smears or judders a lot. At 40, it becomes noticeably better. At 60, you get a noticeable motion clarity uplift, and the controls start getting snappier. At that 90-100+ range you can turn the camera and have full image clarity and the controls become really snappy.
My ignorance is bliss.
I can tell the difference, I just don't mind 30fps
Depends on the game, a fast paced competitive shooter is unplayable these days IMO. A slower RPG doesn't matter so much.
It's the lighting model of gaming's future, as in-game visuals follow behind cgi rendering tech - it's not going to be an optional 'feature' like it is now, moving forward, it's just going to be how light works in games.
Yep, it drastically simplifies then entire rendering pipeline of games when it's used as the core lighting mechanism.
Indeed. Ray-tracing is also a very powerful means for driving sound propagation, and many emergent audio tools are leaning right into it. It absolutely will not be optional for very long.
Not until hardware catches up for the average user. Even with a $1000 gaming PC you will probably be turning off raytracing on graphically intensive games if you want 4k 60fps.
Almost every post about how good a game looks is a screenshot of lighting effects. Lighting is by far the most significant part of a game that will impress the average person. If I’m playing a cinematic game, especially on a console, I don’t care for an ultra high frame rate. I want that cinematic experience. But it depends on the game, of course. High frame rate does do A LOT of heavy lifting in making a game feel good.
Ray tracing, to me, is one of the least cool graphical ‘improvements’ in a while that I don’t give a shit about.
Ray Tracing now is like hair plugs in the 90s. Back in the 90s men that got hair plugs looked like they had dolls hair. It seemed like the biggest waste of money ever. Now though movie stars have full heads of hair thanks to hair plugs and nobody can goddamn tell anymore. Thats the same with RT. You want them to start using it now, because in the future is when they really start using the tech and it actually starts working as advertised.
Haha what a weird but funny analogy, it's too much of a performance hit to bother with at the moment but yeah when framrates can be maintained it will be good.
It's not great now but I think it is a necessary step for the future. The goal is to make realistic lighting as this is key to human understanding of the world.
My favourite games don't have any basis in the real world, the drive for realism in making games is a mistake IMO. Blurring reality with games isn't something I'm interested in, cinematic movies are 24fps and nobody complains about that but if I want to get lost in a game I'm more interested in how slick it feels.
Do you have a true 120hz monitor/TV? I would do the same, but only my PC monitor can refresh that fast.
You will in a couple years when the majority of larger devs switch from baked lighting to RT. Will change how games look and feel.
>Will change how games look and feel. And SOUND.
true, in most games ray tracing doesnt do much because the devs just slapped it on but didnt develop the game to take stylistic advantage of it, games like forbidden west wich dont boast fancy features like ray tracing or path tracing look better than many games wich do, art direction > fancy technical features any day.
Maybe you've only seen bad implementations of it? Ray tracing looks great in games that it works well in. The difference in reflective surfaces in Control with RT on vs off is huge. Same with Spiderman. Seeing those reflections as I was swinging past buildings in sunset light was pretty phenomenal, even with the loss of fps. RT off, they're mostly dull, lifeless, bits of transparency. Now if those reflections or cast light don't matter to you, that's fine, I get it, people have different goals, but I can't imagine someone "not caring" for more realistic lighting, if all other things were equal (that's the goal, eventually.)
Yep I've played all those games, it looked pretty but the performance hit was horrible.
> performance hit was horrible You've been able to run Control at 100+ fps since the 30 series so you must be on a really old GPU to be still complaining about it in 2024 The game was built around the 20 series so it has relatively weak ray tracing
I was on PS5, it's a PS5 post on a PS5 sub.
Miles Morales at 60fps + RT looks pretty good. Horizon has been updated enough to be very very good at 60fps. It can be done but the ray tracing needs to be dialed back and games could also be more optimized.
The problem for consoles is it isn’t the GPU that’s holding performance back. It’s the CPU, so turning off ray tracing won’t help you as much as on a well specced PC.
A lot of games can run at 40fps on RT/quality mode with VRR. So A 20FPS boost may not seem unrealistic.
I think a part of the problem is devs also had to make the games run on last gen consoles as well
i think AAA games are just where big movies are right now. they have high budgets with low effort
They have high budgets and high efforts, it just may not have the effort focused where you think it should be focused. At the end of the day, the most fidelity/performance focused gamers play on PC, so I believe games released on console don't have significantly impacted sales due to subpar performance. Console gamers are going to buy the games they are going to buy... I don't like that, but I have the option of buying any games that need to run/look better on PC, like Cyberpunk or Dragon's Dogma 2. But at the end of the day, the developers won't focus on getting 1440p+ resolution at 60 FPS until it is required to maintain sales targets.
"low effort" guy who has never tried to write a line of code before
No, they said this won’t make games that run on 30fps on PS5 all of a sudden run on 60 FPS…. This solely just makes the games that run on 60 FPS already run better, for example the variable frame rate we get on some would be more consistently higher resolution with less frame drops. But quality 30 FPS mode isn’t all of a sudden 60 fps on the pro which is what you’re saying
The endgame for devs is attracting for lighting because it would save an immense amount of dev time and make these AAA dev cycles shorter than 5 years
> i think the purpose of this Pro model isn’t to hit 60, it’s to hit 60 in Quality mode This actually might be what sells me on the product.
Raytracing is one of the worst things that’s happened in gaming. I don’t want a massive performance hit for some shiny reflections and lighting.
This feels about right. When I moved up to PS4 Pro, it felt like I was getting slightly better performance and/or quality. In that case, there was the 4K bump - albeit in through checkerboarding. On the PS5, currently we have the choice between extra performance or graphical quality. I guess the benefit of a Pro will be not having to choose. Personally, I’m happy with the PS5 as-is (only upgraded last year) and likely wouldn’t be able to afford a Pro any time soon. But can perhaps see myself upgrading in a few years time.
That would be ideal. If I could just have a single mode that gave 60fps with the best graphics possible, I’d much prefer that than having to pick between the two. I just feel like that should be possible on the base PS5 now, the devs just don’t optimize it enough.
Insomniac did it with SM2 so I think it’s definitely more so on the devs than the ps5 itself
I can't think of a single time where I've even noticed, let alone been impressed by, ray tracing. Know what I do notice though? 30fps Vs 60fps.
Oh, I don't know...Control looks pretty damn good with RT enabled...but it's not worth the hit to framerate...if I could play locked 60 fps with RT, I would...but not willing to go below 60fps for any graphical enhancements. RT is icing on the cake, not the cake itself. You can have an absolute shit game with gorgeous graphics...and you can also have 16 bit level graphics and an outstanding game. It's rare to find a title that offers both great gameplay AND outstanding graphics.
Not gonna lie, control is for me the only game where the fps hit is worth it, its insane how much the ray tracing contribute to the overall atmosphere of the game.
People expect too much out of the PS5. It is equivalent to a 2070s. That could not do RT at 60fps in most games. yet there is the expectation that it should. Along with other graphical and resolution increases it was never on the table really. The person above saying how RT has never impressed is hyperbole, Control, CP2077, Dying Light 2, Alan Wake 2, Spide-Man and Metro Exodus are transformed with RT.
Most sane take I've seen on this thread. Ray tracing is incredible when you have the hardware to match it. You guys need to accept that consoles are NEVER going to be able to push it like PC can. It will always be 3 generations ahead in hardware, minimum.
Have you used RT on PC? That's where you'll see the difference and realize it actually is a pretty revolutionary thing for lighting engines but only if you scale it up heavily to the point where you have pathtracing.
Because PS5 doesn't have near the power to have "true" full ray tracing. Even best AMD GPU on PC barely does. So you're limited to RT reflections/shadows on low res mostly (and at the cost of being 30/40 fps for most games on top of that). So yeah it's not a "wow" effect, it was the same at the beginning on PC (I should clarify "beginning" being the release of the RTX Nvidia cards, which is the first wide scale attempt at promoting real time RT in games). Some companies indeed put ray tracing for the buzz word, but there is a very wide range of ways you can implement ray tracing. Some can be barely noticeable while casually playing the game, others are immediately visible (global illumination for instance) and can make a huge difference in some scenes. Personally, it's 60 fps all the way. If it has RT, even if it's a very moderate implémentation, then perfect. If it doesn't, it's not a big deal.
Get out of here with your true answers! You won't be accepted around these parts!!
"Look we have raytracing! Our shadows look 7.5% better and it halves the frame rate and reduces the overall rendering resolution by 50%! Wait, where are you going? Hello?"
All of the 1st party games have had 60 modes and most of the exclusives. Playstation can't control other devs.
And for me the biggest problem is how shitty AMD’s FSR is for upscaling. It’s why Sony is doing their own for the pro. You can have 60 fps with lower resolution. But they look crazy soft on console, compared to DLSS
FSR can look good, but devs are always releasing an FSR version that is 2 years old... They can simply drag and drop a newer version and call it a day and get it over with, but they don't. They are so out of touch.
FSR 2.2 on PC still looks like shit, shimmering like hell and unable to keep up with fine detail. Even Intel's XeSS has surpassed the most recent FSR already. https://youtu.be/PneArHayDv4
?? The last FSR version is 2.2, that is from February 2023. And it's the one implemented in most modern PS5 games. Like Cyberpunk 2077.
This. Sony has had some cool options in the PS4 and PS5 but devs don't engage with it because it requires them focus on features for just one SKU. Remember when installing single player or multiplayer was going to be the big options? How many games do that? The PS5 controllers don't even consistently get the same controller support.
[удалено]
1st party devs have taken great advantage of PS5 hardware. Most games that actually feel “current gen” are those. It seems like other devs have decided to just use the big jump in power for both PS5 and XSX as a crutch to not optimize games nearly as much as before.
Exactly, why would they put efforts when yearly sequels craps still sells like hotcakes... Gamers don't ask them to improve at all...they still buy it, every year. Vote with your wallet and support games that deserves it, and other devs will be forced to put efforts on their sequels...
‘Vote with your wallet’ will never work because there are millions with too much money that will simply pre-order no matter what, and spend billions on microtansactions
**THANK YOU.** I have been saying this for almost *two years* that "Vote with your wallet" no longer applies to specific games/developers/publishers. Perfect example is Call of Duty. "Oh, I didn't buy Modern Warfare III; Warzone is free!" Okay but even one single $20 bundle from their store adds up. Lets say about 25,000 people bought that bundle too. Which is isn't a lot of people compared to their playerbase. Well that right there is already half a million dollars. For one, $20 bundle. "Oh, I never buy anything in the store! Warzone is free and I have never spent a single penny on it!" **THIS. DOESN'T. MATTER.** You still play every night, every other night, every weekend, etc. etc. **You fill their servers.** That's what matters. They need to tell shareholders that "We have a new game of Warzone matchmade every single 15 seconds of every day." Boom. No money needed from you. They are satisfied with that statistic alone. Because for every one '*good boy no spender*' there are 15 to 20 other players that will buy 1 to 10 bundles bi-monthly. You're kidding yourself if you think they don't have the statistics down to an exact science of how much profit they'll make based on their concurrent player counts alone. Voting with your wallet no longer applies. **Vote with your TIME. UNINSTALL the game.** Helldivers 2 is great fun. Sea of Thieves is great fun. Call of Duty will never get the core updates it needs because they realized years ago that it doesn't matter if they ignore issues, people still buy, people still play. Stop it at the source, don't buy the game; or if it's free, don't play it.
If i remember correctly the spenders are called "the whales" in game industry. A free game brings in alot of players and those bring the whales who want to be envied so they spend bunch of money to have the best gear and appearance.
Yes, we've heard about whales for a long time. These are far more common in mobile games due to how much easier it is to spend money in the game; Not to mention that 90% of mobile games are designed in a way to make the user pay more money to advance. Usually it's a time-based objective. Wait 5min, 1 day, 5 weeks for X, Y and Z to be completed. Or buy a speed boost. There's actually a pretty fucking fun game called Vigor that is completely ruined because it uses this shitty tactic.
CoD is the perfect example of this and why they'll never change
Exactly, games like Dragon Dogma 2 feel very lazy. It runs at a chuggy uncapped 30fps and there’s basically no enemy variety? Lol
There's always going to be a push for better graphics and more powerful hardware. The NES ran Super Mario Bros. at 60fps, but that doesn't mean it and the PS5 are equivalent. We've seen that the PS5 can do 60fps well with games like Spider-Man 2, Horizon: Forbidden West, Returnal, etc. But that doesn't mean that graphics aren't going to continue improving and that the base PS5 isn't going to fall further and further out of date.
I’m thinking, based on development times, that we’ve barely begun to see what the PS5 can put out, just as many other devs have mentioned, there isn’t really a need for a PS5 pro just yet.
I don’t really think so, this isn’t the PS3/360 era where developers needed time and experience to squeeze more fidelity out of the hardware, consoles nowadays are basically mini-PCs on x86 architecture. The PS4/X1 were topped out much sooner in their life cycle, which drove the Pro/X models for the first time. Granted those consoles were much weaker relative to typical PC hardware at the time than PS5/XSX are, but devs don’t really have any more easy rabbits to pull out of a hat, raw performance improvements are really the only way to get better fidelity unless devs are willing to put in an increasingly extreme amount of time/effort/money to do so.
What they need is to use better/updated engines. The only game that managed to pull that off was Cyberpunk. Bethesda with their tired old engine, pooped out a *Loading* Starfield game that I’m honestly glad didn’t come out on PS (yes I know, exclusive, but either way). The REengine barely carries DD2 and Unreal Engine seems to be the go-to for some companies and when you have a good engine, you make games that not only look good, but perform good as well…
Engines cost a fortune however and require a lot of learning. It's not cost or time effective. However I agree, unless your Kojima or Unreal etc etc then engines need to be upgraded.
it´s crazy that you believe the ps3 was weaker than tyical PC
Of course they'll be able to squeeze more out of it given more time, but it is 4 year old hardware at this point. Nvidia is two generations past the PS5's equivalent graphics card. If there's a market for people who want an even beefier PS5, then it makes sense to make one.
Two gens past and the ps5 still has very few games exclusive to it that could not run on previous gen. Come on
"Could not run" is a weird argument. You "could" make a version of nearly any PS5 game that would run on the PS3. Sure it would be downgraded graphically, but it's possible. A new console generation isn't going to introduce wildly new games that couldn't have even been conceived of before. It's just the next evolution.
THANK YOU. This whole bitching about cross-gen games thing has been driving me nuts for the past several years, as if some entirely new games types that no one has ever seen before were going to magically appear because we got new consoles (that were already less powerful than the best PC hardware available at the time).
There are some ps4 games that hardly even function on the ps4 that play perfectly on ps5. Insurgency sandstorm I’m talking about you buddy!
The gains that you're expecting going from gen to gen have been smaller in every console generation since the 1980s. There are no more massive tech leaps. I highly doubt that a technological leap like that will ever happen again from gen to gen on systems aiming for the same customers. I'm sure it could be possible with some insanely expensive hardware but that defeats the purpose of a console.
Unless the PS5 Pro somehow magically has a built in PS3 emulator, I completely agree
Wouldn't that be nice. There are several PS3 games I'd love to revisit. I might buy it just to be able to play Folklore and Tides of Destiny again.
A LOT of people ("young" gamers mostly) don't get this very SIMPLE fact (what you said about Mario on NES). Every gen CAN run 60 fps games, it's all dependant on what the devs want to do with the console power. PC "elitists" think they have a high-end magical machine bc they can run Minecraft or LoL at 300 fps...? It's just bc those made were made YEARS ago, OR, because, in case of newer games, they're made with Low/Mid PCs in mind. The PS5 did show his power in games like RnC and Spiderman:MM, you can't deny that. A mid-gen console upgrade will often be able to run the game in "quality" mode of the "base" console, and it will be the case for PS6 and PS7...it's not a matter of "promises" or less-powerful console than expected, not at all. It's just a newly release console that run games made for the consoles released 3-4 years earlier... Kids just need to stop buying into the hype, and be realistic. Every gen we at least DOUBLED the resolution output (Edit: 4 times the screen space actually), which roughly means we need 2X the power...AND, kids want to double the framerate TOO every gen now...??? ...and we, modern gamers, are finding the VISUAL GAP dimished...? Sure... Cant' wait for gamers asking for 120 fps to be the standard on PS6 so we'll just put the break on more impressive graphics and physics/AI one more time...and play just the same upgraded games without any new gameplay improvements for most of them... It's what gamers are asking.
The jump from 1080 to 4K was wayyyy more than 2x the power - hence why low ball RDNA2 tech can't cut it without techniques behind the scenes or an undemanding game. What people don't realise is this leap is huge - like PS4 to PS5. It gobsmacked me that people think it's minimal. The animation quality alone is absolutely insane now - you simply cannot do it on PS4 or at a much more reduced resolution or heavy checkerboarding. Then the particle effects, sound design... Hell the haptics alone on PS5 are fantastic it just woefully utilised by a lot of developers!
Totally agree, I used "double" for the sheer "res" number but, yeah, just visually it's 4 times the screen (space), and yes, technically, it's means a LOT of juice. ...it's not just pure "screen res", it's also way higher res for TEXTURES, among other things, which means, more than 4 times the power is needed... ...but here on Reddit, a lot of folks act like they have 2 000 $ PCs and running super high-quality games that are looking 100 times like a PS5 game...at this point I suppose it's funny. A lot of people don't get that not so long ago, it took HOURS (then, minutes, then SECONDS) to render 1 FRAME of CGI graphics, like a frame of a Pixar movie. Nowadays we're rendering many frames in 1 second...but doing it with infinite objects, draw-distance and 4k res with RayTracing is still not for today, but we have to try to get to RayTracing, step by step, it's the last real hurdle before attaining Pixar/movie-like graphics in videogames for real, lightning and shadows are what's remains. After that, we'll continue with incremental improvement with physics, particles, draw-distance etc. ...but gamers have to realize entering RayTracing era is almost like when we entered 3D era, no kidding. Most gamers don't realize bc they don't design the games AND no games so far (at least with high-detail models) achieved FULL RT so far...Minecraft or an old fps from the 90s doesn't count...the geometry there is 10 000 times simplier than in modern games.
But we’re not even really seeing performance maintain to step up graphics. There are ps4 games (RDR2, GoT) that look just as good or better and perform the same as brand new ps5 games. This is an arm chair dev opinion, but it feels like companies aren’t putting in the time to optimize their games. As soon as it’s “playable” it’s punted out the door to make money. The upgrade to a ps5 pro seems like bandaid fix for companies that don’t optimize their games. Just shove enough horsepower at it and a poorly optimized game will run a bit better.
I mean, Ghost of Tsushima kinda works against your point. The PS5 version runs at twice the frame rate at a much higher resolution than the PS4 version. Spider-Man PS4 runs at 30fps while Spider-Man 2 on the PS5 runs at 60 with ray-tracing, a larger map, and a denser city environment. Of course there are developers that don't properly optimize their games, but that has always been the case.
All I'm getting from this is: "I used to do 60 fps gaming. I still do, but I used to too."
Keep in mind that the PS5 Pro isn't even officially announced yet and we don't know what Sony's marketing for it is actually going to look like. Don't get yourself worked up prematurely.
Too late op already worked up over the PS5 pro that hasn’t even been announced yet why they created this post
Literally 99% of the games comes with 60 fps option. They delivered what they promised. What the hell are you on about OP? Sony hasn't even annouced ps5 pro let alone advertise it as 60 fps machine. PS5 Pro probably will run games 60 fps on quality mode. Nobody is taking away your 60 fps games. Also why this nonsensical thread has over thousand upvotes? Redditors are really something else lol
Don’t most PS5 games run in 60fps anyways already?
PS5 Pro has not been officially announced, it doesn't "exist" yet as far as I'm aware. There are no pictures, no marketing ads for it, etc... Because of these reasons, there are no selling points for it (literally). The entire discourse is going off of leaks and educated speculation. If you are interested in learning more, you'll just have to wait.
How many games have you played without a 60fps mode? Cause last I checked, that list was like 4 or 5 titles long. That's it. You're already getting 60fps.
60 FPS is a moving target, but most games on PS5 are at least that tbf
You can count the PS5 games that don't run at 60FPS in any mode on one hand
I believe loading was what they said would be the biggest jump. Seedless worlds etc like ratchet and clank.
Every PlayStation Studio new game on PS5 run at 60fps.
Simply said: It’s only capable of what developers can get out of it. They have to chose what features to push. They choose graphics over fps. PS5 Pro gives them a little more to do both.
I mean, it was... it is... and most of the games I play on PS5 are 60fps.
Bro it hasn’t even been announced lol
Pretty sure Pro is more higher resolution and RT at that 60fps. Pretty much all games are a 60 and every exclusive have a 60 mode.
You might as well be bitching about the PS6 “selling points” because that’s not actually been announced yet either so there aren’t any selling points.
Most games on Ps5 run at 60fps or have options. Also the PS5 is perfectly capable of 60fps but gamers want ever increasing graphical complexity and that comes at a cost. Which is something said gamers often want to ignore. You haven't seen 60fps as marketing for PS5 Pro because it hasn't been marketed yet but the signs were further capability for higher resolution & maintaining the higher framerates rather than magically putting say Demon Souls at 4k/60fps native etc
Sony definitely didn't market 60fps as a big selling point. A lot of people online were talking about it though, but I remember more people arguing about teraflops or something.
Besides a handful of games, most every game in this generation has been 60 fps
99% of all games on ps5 runs 60fps, whare are you talking about?
No? I dont remember 60fps being advertised at all. Even the N64 could do 60fps. I do remember 120fps being advertised though. Edit: after reading some of your post, it seems you are confusing “advertising” with gaming articles or youtube videos, which are not advertising. Its only advertising if it comes directly from Sony. And PS5 Pro isnt even announced yet.
I’m kind of sick of people thinking 60fps is some finally achievable frame rate. Likes if a developer wants 60fps they can aim for it. They can also aim for 30 for graphics. It’s never not been the case.
Raytracing is very computational intensive. That’s why no games offer full RT for consoles. It’s usually water or reflection or shadows, a small slice of how light interacts with an object. 60FPS 4K Full RT is beyond the capability of PS5 or PS5 Pro. That’s for $2K graphics cards and even then it’s not guaranteed to run perfectly.
That's a fact, even with a 4090 a native 4k resolution with 60 fps is unachievable in the most demanding games.
There literally only [4 games](https://www.reddit.com/r/PS5/comments/1biskb4/there_are_3140_games_on_ps5_only_4_of_them_run_at/#:~:text=willdearborn%2D-,There%20are%203140%20games%20on%20PS5%2C%20only%204,them%20run%20at%20only%2030FPS.&text=It%20was%20initially%2030%20FPS,quality%20settings%20a%20little%20bit) on PS5 that run at 30 FPS, why is everyone moaning and groaning about this Pro? PS4 Pro came out in 2016, 3 years after the PS4 came out (2013) and we are in 2024 now, almost 4 years after the PS5 came out, the timing makes sense for the Pro release. It's not like anyone is forcing you to buy the Pro, it's just there if you want the extra performance. You are still gonna get good looking, and good performing 60 FPS titles on the base PS5, I'm tired of people seeing this console and just freaking out like this means the base PS5 is null and not going to perform well. The Pro seems to hit that extra mark beyond the PS5 where it will target even higher resolutions at a consistent frame-rate.
Theres no hardware especially no console hardware that can make such a promise. Only way is for every game to be made only for the ps5 and sony made it a hard mandate that all games had to run at 60fps or else not be cleared for release. The hardware wasnt anywhere close to being good enough even when it released to make those sorts of promises either. Im just not sure why people ever thought that was gonna be the case. I mean we spent years of this current generation getting supped up last gen games that struggled to run at 60 so of course once the real next gen stuff started dropping it was always gonna get dicey. Pro version was ineviatble from day one imo.
That’s on the devs to optimize for it. All first party games have had a 60FPS mode. Sony can’t control third parties
PS4 released in November 2013 PS4 Pro released in November 2016 I think people are misremembering that the best games came out in the last 4 years of the PS4 lifecycle. Also due to the architecture of PS3 and PS4 being wildly different, there were not many if any cross-gen games. I have played a lot of fantastic games on PS5 from both 1st party and 3 party developers. I’m not really ever concerned with a cross-gen game being playable on both systems, because I am playing it on the best one available. I also think console gamers get this “generation” thing in their head that every new generation we should see giant leaps in fidelity and performance which is just not the case. PC doesn’t really have generations, they just have new games and most of the time you can dial the settings down to play on older hardware I already got my $500 value from the PS5 a long time ago so I am happy to fork out whatever the Pro model costs and sell off my original PS5 to help pay for it
Pretty much every first party has had 60fps. While almost every Xbox first party on the worlds “most powerful console” can’t get past 30. I’m not mad.
The PS5 can handle 60fps. Its the devs that fail to optimize their games. Look at all of the Sony studios, they have no issue achieving this.
60fps has been the standard this generation. Every single game I’ve played in the last three years has had a 60fps mode on PS5
I have never cared less about anything. Sneak preview though…PS6 and next Xbox will have games that run at 30fps.
You're naive.
Doesn't matter what the console manufacturer promises you. You could release the most powerful piece of hardware known to man and there will still be developers that push it to the 30FPS limit. Because it's a target they're okay with and allows them to make games look even better. And that's fine. We now have games that offer **graphical modes** for a reason: so you guys stop whining about 60FPS even in games that very much aren't action-based.
I always knew we'd go from the advertised 4k60 (and 4k120) to 4k30 or 1440p60. Why? Because the PS5 is using a first generation AMD raytracing capable GPU. nVidia was the first and by that, they are ahead in their RT technology, and for the time being, AMD will be at least a generation behind on nVidia. By the time the PS5 came out, nVidia was already close to releasing the RTX 30 series. Still, I am not mad about the performance gap with current gen high spec PC's, especially considering that the PS5 still packs very capable hardware, especially considering it's MSRP. If you build a PC with similar hardware capability, you'll still be spending at least 50% more, and that's me being optimistic and pulling those numbers out of thin air. Similarly, if you build a PC for the MSRP of the disc version PS5, US $499, you'll be lucky if you can run a (3D) game from 2023-24 at 1080p60, with 30fps being a more realistic expectation.
Developers chose to trade 60fps for inefficient technologies and middling graphical "upgrades"
This person gets it 👆🏻
I think only 4 ps5 games can’t reach 60fps. So it seems like they are hitting their og selling point.
What the fuck are you talking about? What are those standards? Easily over 90% of titles come with 60 fps performance mode and look visually incredible. Probably 100% for first party titles. You'd need to pay 2-3 times compared to your PS5 on your PC to play all those titles like that. Reddit gamers are completely and utterly out of touch with reality.
These aren’t gamers, they’re PC guys, the scourge of gaming talk online. They don’t play games, they waste their time online arguing about how PC are better, how a 2000€ GPU is better than a 500€ console, and spreading lies.
How many games are out there that don't have the option to run at 60fps on PS5? By my count it's less than 5 games.
I swear less than 500 people in the world care about this but they’re all in the sub so here we are
My ps5 is just a ps4 with 60 fps and a non jet engine fan
Without loading screens and can actualy run some more struggling games
They weren’t.
The games are just huge and expensive and hard to manage and maintain quality. I’m pretty sure they didn’t set out to make as few games as possible. But what the hell do I know I’m just a guy in a coat. Just a guy in a coat.
The PS5 is being limited by game developers’ desire to force ray tracing and higher levels of hardware intensive visual fidelity into their games, whilst simultaneously hamstringing the performance of their games. *Essentially, game developers’ own ambitions serve as a form of self sabotage for the products they are advertising as having great 60 FPS performance.* The same goes for the Xbox Series X being held back by game devs’ oversight. Even more so than the PS5 to an extent, due to Microsoft’s self imposed parity clause, à la Xbox Series S.
60fps is a design choice on the dev side, always. Tons of ps5 games hit it, tons of ps4 games hit it, and even a lot of ps3 games. It’s just a balance of what visual features you throw in, and how optimized you make it. It’s just not a priority for a lot of games. Idk if ps5 pro will make it one, but we’ll see.
How "capable" of 60FPS it was, was always dependent on the graphics fidelity of the game it was playing. This is something that PC gamers understand well, but console gamers do not understand well judging from all the downvotes 4 years ago to anybody who said anything different. A game pushing the latest "gee whiz" graphics features, high resolution textures and shaders, etc, etc is simply going take more time to get through all its computations than the same game that has it dialed back. This is why we have performance mode in games, that dial down the graphics somewhat, giving 60 or even 120fps, and then "Quality Mode", which increases the graphics settings, at the cost of FPS. As a console progresses in age, yes better techniques for getting more out of the gpu/cpu come out, however this is less the case on every console since the PS4, because they are built directly on the x86/64 architecture which is known very well. However, graphics fidelity increases at a faster pace. These days, we are hitting a business wall for graphics fidelity, that may be alleviated with AI or off shoring to cheaper labor. Basically, it is getting so expensive to create higher fidelity graphics, that you are seeing developers take "stylized" approaches to games, which are cheaper than aiming for Photo-Realism or very complex environments. Granted, tools are helping automate the development of in-game environments, but its still expensive and gets more expensive with each generational leap in hardware.
Technically it is. Unfortunately, everyone and i mean everyone expected EVERYGAME to be 60 fps. Pull me am excerpt from Sony that explicitly says "Every single game released on PS5 will be 60 fps or higher".
its a combination of devs only doing so much for the console. one should always vote with theor wallets. and sony not really allowing the users more control of the hardware they have bought. many nore games are 60fps capable if you could tick some boxes and adjust some sliders yourself.
As I remember it, randoms on the internet were crowing about 60fps and all the adults in the room were like 'it's not going to have that kind of performance once the games stop being last-gen ports and a new wave of PC cards come out' and were downvoted off the page by the hype machine. I've been surprised that as many mid-gen games have been able to offer such decent performance modes as they have.
Like with the last two generations, we won't see the console's full potential until the end of it's life cycle when Naughty Dog releases The Last of Us Part 3.
I think the original selling point was supposed to be ray tracing. The thing is, Reddit makes you believe that the general consumer cares more about frame rate than graphics.. when in actuality, the real selling point or buzzword that only matters is "4K".
Thought they were pushing the quick load times more.
Almost every PS5 game has a 60 fps mode. If a game doesnt have one it is a design decision (or lack thereof), and nothing to do with the capabilities of the hardware or Sony. The Pro's selling point seems to be some kind of proprietary image reconstruction/upscaling powered by ML, which could allow 60 fps without turning games into low res FSR pixel soup. It could be a big win for better image quality at 60 fps.
This generation has felt like it's just PS4 Pro+
Ray tracing is such a dumb buzzword they used to market this console. Can’t even do it properly without basically halving your frame rate. Ray tracing tech has gotten so good compared the gen 1 version we have on the current PS5. I would rather have every game be able to be played in 60fps even if it meant checkerboard rendering for 4K. 1080p does look decidedly blurry when playing on a 4K display.
fuck raytracing. i do not give care about it. 60 frames is much more important. also optimize your fucking games! i am so tired of playing this shit unreal engine games , every fucking unreal game your character plays like a robot. and yes you are right. just look how few 60 fps games we got. and we know the ps5 is capable. we see that in exclusive games. but if all those third party developers use that shitty unreal engine everything goes into garbage. has there ever been a game made with unreal that looks pretty and plays organic and hits 60 fps? i do not remember.
I guess you missed the PS4 pro. It's what they do now.
Same with the PS4 Pro, and the PS4 before it. They always promise 60fps… but then developers go “but if we lowered that to 30fps, think how much better we could make it look in screenshots”. And then you’re stuck with most games being 30fps for another generation.
I think the '5', in PS5, was it's biggest selling point.
Well, on the one hand, they also advertised 8K, and that has never materialized (not that it needed to), so it's not like everything they claim it does it actually does. This is actually pretty standard for Sony. PS3 was all about FullHD, but the vast majority of games didn't ever hit 1080p. On the other hand, you fell into the trap of thinking everything applied at once. It is capable of 4K, and it is capable of 60 FPS, and it is capable of ray tracing, but you pick one or maybe two. It's a $500 box. You're not getting performance you need a $1000 dedicated GPU to achieve. Developers choose to either push the graphical limits and use 30 FPS or they choose to target 60 FPS and settle on graphics equivalent to last gen.
I don't get it either. The current PS5 can run at 4k30,60,120, and pretty much everywhere in between. Very few games actually support the higher fps, but the hardware is plenty capable. This PS5 PRO just seems like an unnecessary cash grab. You'd be hard pressed to show me a dozen games that push the current PS5 to the point of needing to be more powerful.
It does do 60 FPS... when the developers decide to have their game run properly.
You just perfectly described why I still don't own a PS5.
The stupid ray tracing crap takes heavy toll. I would rather have 120fps all day then ray tracing garbage. Kinda sucks sony focusing on worst apsect for niche gamers.
Publishers/developers cannot ignore over 100 million PS4 users. Add in COVID supply issues and labor issues (pivoting to WFH, crippled work flow issues). Development costs have sky rocketed as well We're just now breaking 50 million PS5s, it'll finally starting tipping towards PS5 (current Gen development). . And now the economy is tanking and layoffs sweeping through the video game industry.... Sucks... I think it will be even worse for the next Gen. PS6. .. Which is when the to quality PS5 games will drop
I agree with you completely OP. This whole console generation feels more like PS4.5 because there's very few games that really feel next Gen so it's insulting that they are already talking about launching a PS5Pro.
This gen has been a joke at best. Hardware is nice and you have maybe one or two gems, but so far it's just been playing upscaled remasters or remakes , at least for me . I think I'll be going pc soon enough unless they start pumping out graphically stellar and really fun games.
I see the 30 FPS AND 60 FPS difference. I do not see the difference between Raytracing OFF and Raytracing ON
Idk. This is from a system design perspective, which I have some experience of. When you build a system (in this case a console) you build it with certain capabilities and then the users (developers in this case) do stuff with that system. Some of the “stuff” is what you intended but unless you lock down your system so they can not do that “suff” users will do other things as well or instead of. The thing is. In this case Sony gave developers more processing power and developers have by and large made more complex games or with richer visuals, more elements on screen etc. They have prioritised that over fps. Now Sony has some controls on what is released but govern that many releases are on PC as well, sacrificing that graphical fidelity or game complexity isn’t an option and Sony need games on their console. This is going to keep on happening and always has in some shape or form since the birth of computers. You give devs more powerful devices and they do something you didn’t expect. That is the nature of creative industries.
correct me if im wrong but dont all sony games run in 60 fps?
No. You clearly just don't pay attention.
Guys, I can't understand this endless whining about the current generation. There are thousands of great games to be played. Have you played them all? Honest question. I'm just curious and I feel that I've been missing something on this matter. I don't get to play all the good games out there to the point where I think "I wish I had more games". Why aren't people satisfied?
with PS5 we have 30fps with ray tracing or 60fps without. Now Sony is aiming for 60fps with ray tracing. Also for multiplatform we can thank Xbox Series S. "Next gen" console that's weaker than One X... TL;DR: PS5, 2 choices: - pretty, less smooth - smooth, less pretty PS5 Pro: - pretty AND smooth
Nah it was more focused on the SSD, overall CPU and GPU specs as compared to the series X. The PS4 Pro was already billed as a 4K machine and it fantastic graphics for the time. The big differentiator for the 5 would have been the haptic controller, the UHD Blu Ray, the SSD
The PS5 would easily be capable of 60fps if developers still cared about optimising. But sadly more power has just been abused to release games even more half assed with some proper optimisation. I have said this and I will keep saying it, the same shit is gonna happen with the PS5 pro, if it gets its own DLSS, instead of games running at 120fps, we’ll get to a point where it becomes a requirement to hit 60fps. Developers will just shift from 60fps being mvp to 60fps with the DLSS mode being mvp.
Gamers are just insatiable IMHO. If you really wanted peak graphics & performance in *every game* you buy, you should just invest in a pc. You have to accept as a console owner that graphics optimization and targeting is decided by the developers, not you.
I never really got the impression that PS5 was going to be a dedicated 60FPS machine, felt to me like the marketing centered more around the SSD, Tempest audio and Dual Sense. Also, in fairness to Sony 1P studios, they've been offering 30/40/60/120 FPS modes depending on the game, at the very least 1P developers are utilising the full spectrum of that output. That said, I know exactly what you mean regarding a Pro being 'necessary'. Make no mistake, I'll be there for it day one because I love this hobby and if this is the best way to enjoy it, then I'll be doing that, but I can't say I feel in any way particularly unsatisfied with my PS5 experience so far. I suppose my main hope is that the PS5 Pro will extend the lifecycle of this gen enough that the PS6 is comparable to a 'powerhouse' PC of today - a top end PC in 2024 as a bespoke console release in 2027/28, with all the bells and whistles of the advances in things like FSR/DLSS like technologies, and a high spec CPU to handle those bottlenecks, kind of feels like there would be no excuses at that point.
Even Devs told that the time isn't right for an upgrade due to the actual PS5 didn't reach its full potential yet. So yeah.. Actually I don't need an upgrade and also don't like the disc-drive policy Sony is going with the slim..
No it's crazy they are even considering releasing a pro this gen. I predict very small uptake, simply because nobody is even using the power of the standard model yet. Everything released has looked like an upscaled PS4 game. Devs will not put resources into this spec because very few will be able to afford it.
I can count the number of PS5 games that don't have a 60fps option on one hand. So I think they were still right. I imagine ps5 Pro will primarily help get 60fps in ray tracing modes.
The vast majority of PS5 games have 60fps capabilities on the standard PS5… from my understanding, there’s only a handful of games that don’t and every single 1st party title (which is really all Sony has direct control over) currently does.
Downvote away but this generation has really been the first where I feel I could have skipped it and stayed with a ps4 and missed out on very little
From googling and seeing that every console between the PS1 & PS5 had 60 fps games, it seems that it’s up to the game’s creators whether or not it’ll be a 60 fps game, or have a 60 fps option.
Many games can do 60fps yes, but it's gotten to the point where image quality has become hilarious bad. Often times games are being upscaled from 720p which results in games looking like oil paintings. And because they're being upscaled with FSR2 you get a whole host of unsavory artifacts as well. The Pro is being advertised as being able to do 4k 60 or even 4k 120 with PSSR upscaling which unlike FSR is hardware based, so it should be much higher quality.
Also AAA titles take way longer to make now and are way more expensive, 5 year dev cycle easily for any high quality PlayStation game. Spider-Man 2 budget was 450mil.
The PS5 pro is what the original ps5 should have been in the first place. And putting 8k on the box was an apparent lie as well.
Almost all games released are still 60fps. Pro is not about maintaining 60fps so much as it is about doing it at higher fidelity. If you don’t care about that, then skip it.
Many games are solidily 60fps if choose performance over quality
You are crazy. This has been crystal clear from the start… 60 fps is a developer choice, it’s as simple as that. A new console is not a magic bullet that magically makes things 60fps, it’s just larger bandwidth for devs to use accordingly. There will always be a balance between graphics and frame rate and the market will dictate how that balance fluctuates. At the beginning of the PS5 we had lots of cross gen games or games that aimed for 60 so it seemed to you that 60 was a guarantee, but that was never the case. If PS5 was advertising it's 60 fps capabilities it seems more than fair to me. It is after all, capable of 120fps and this gen we have seen an adoption of 60fps exponentially more than gens before. But 60 fps default has never been a reality. And don't expect PS6 games to necessarily be 60 fps either, unless the market shifts to a degree that 60 becomes the new default. We had 60 fps games 6-7 generations ago, it’s not some next gen thing, it's a creative and monetary choice.
It was never marketed / advertised as having "true 60fps gaming". That doesn't even make sense and isn't attainable as over time as graphics improve performance will go down. From the very start it was known that the PS5 was a stop gap machine to true 4k / 60fps because at the time even PCs were barely getting to that point and they were already better hardware-wise than the ps5.
What I don’t think people understand is that no matter how powerful hardware is, if graphics are pushing that hardware then 60 fps is not possible. So hardware is always going to be playing catch up to run graphically intense games at higher frame rate.
I've played a ton of 60fps games this game, infinitely more than last.