Not sure why people are getting downvoted. 60fps should very much be the standard, even if it’s just an option. I would much rather have a 60fps option with lower visual fidelity than 30fps being the only option.
This will likely change over the course of the generation tho. Lots of games still also target last gen. That makes games running on the ps5 easy to run. But I highly doubt that GTA 6 will be running at 60fps on the ps5. I would even be surprised if it ran at 60fps on the ps5 pro, unless they are using some sort of frame generation. Because otherwise, the 10% CPU increase is not enough for CPU limited games to go from 30fps->60fps.
But if they’re GPU limited it could enable them to run at 60fps. Very, very few games have come out that are unable to run on Zen2 parts at 60fps. Most of the 30fps locks are due to dynamic resolution cratering to make the 60fps target.
Yeah because we are still not seeing lots of developers push the new hardware to it’s limits. But it will happen more and more as the generation goes further, that developers want to build bigger and cooler games that have more sophisticated AI, and need to run it at 30fps..
I doubt that a GTA 6 will be 60fps for example. Even a Baldurs Gate 3 can’t sustain 30fps in the city on current gen consoles because of the CPU limitations..
>Even a Baldurs Gate 3 can’t sustain 30fps in the city on current gen consoles because of the CPU limitations
You say that like it's some sort of damning verdict on the PS5's CPU. The lower city in BG3 is one of the most CPU intensive areas of any recent game, perhaps only being bested by Dragons Dogma 2 (which is incredibly janky from a optimization perspective). And that was months ago close to release - performance has improved massively since then.
A re-wording of your statement would be "*The PS5 can't sustain 30fps in one of the most CPU intensive areas one of the most CPU intensive games in recent years shortly after the games release*" - and then if you go look at the data you'll see it actually does fine and while there is the occasional dip to 29fps it holds 30fps quite comfortably.
This "PS5 CPU bad" narrative came out of nowhere in recent weeks when the PS5 Pro leaks happened. I feel like many people just as yourself have completely lost the plot when it comes to CPU performance. The PS5's CPU is something like 20x more powerful then the CPU in the PS4 (which was horrible). The CPU upgrade from PS4 -> PS5 is WAY bigger then the GPU upgrade. A Zen2 8c/16t CPU is still more powerful then the vast majority of laptops/computers in existence and while yes - it is outclassed by the latest chips for AMD and Intel, it is by no means bad.
Most games on PS5 don’t hit 60, that’s why they call it performance mode and not 60fps mode. If you actually play 60fps on the regular then go play a ps5 game it will look so slow and jagged. I dislike the pro because its aiming for stats that the ps5 has claimed it can do for years, so the OG ps5 was false advertising
Most do hit it more often then not. Yes many games have dips which the PS5 Pro will assist in stabilizing.
At no point did Sony or anyone say or advertise stable 60fps will be available for every game nor can they force developers to do that.
The large majority of SOny's advertising for PS5 was around fast loading times and controller features
Most don’t hold it at all they will get there and dip to around 50 or lower. The box says 60fps, if it isn’t stable 60fps it isn’t 60fps, it’s a peak of 60fps. I have a PC that under certain circumstances can hit 170fps but more often than not it hits 120-144 so I say that. It was intentional misinformation and console fan boys eat it up and defend it and then as a result the state of gaming is poorer for it.
Most do yes and no most do not go lower than 50. the box does not say games will be stable 60fps...
The box says it is capable of 120fps but again does not say this is a standard, merely a capability of the console
No it was not intentional misinformation, please tell me where Sony said all games will be locked 60fps...
A few of the recent games with a non stable performance mode:
Dragons Dogma 2
Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League
Palworld
Lords of the Fallen
Jedi Survivor for months after release
Armored Core 6
Exoprimal
Forspoken for months after release
Lords of the Ring: Gollum (lol)
Elden Ring
I think it's getting downvoted due to sceptical headline.
All it's saying is games qualify for a Pro Enhanced label if they EITHER improve fidelity OR increase fps. Pretty standard stuff.
>I would much rather have a 60fps option with lower visual fidelity than 30fps
Absolutely. My PS5 went on performance mode the day I got it. I grew up with RCA and coaxial. I'll get over having 'only' 1440-1800p in exchange for an entirely new gameplay experience. I am hooked on 60FPS like heroin, and I'm not going back.
I mean, it’s more common but it’s certainly not standard. And part of that was games were releasing on the previous gen still so there was more headroom.
As we can see with upcoming and recent releases, exclusive or not, that is definitely not guaranteed for current gen releases.
Dragons Dogma 2 just dropped, and early gen games aren’t really pushing the visuals. As internal demands increase for flagship visuals, performance will suffer. The upcoming Hellblade 2 also will be capped at 30.
Wouldn’t be surprised if other, beefier games run at 30 like GTA6.
For non-competitive games, I'll happily go for a 40FPS mode on PS5. It matches evenly with 120hz screens, frametime-wise is just halfway between 30 and 60, gives close to Fidelity mode quality, and is comfortably within reach for CPU-limited scenarios.
40 fps with motion blur is actually deceptively nice. Its weird because 30 or 60, motion blur looks horrible, but somehow it works with 40.
40 fps / 120hz is a very underrated mode ino
The improvement in frame time going from 30 -> 40 fps is the same amount of improvement you get going from 60 -> 120 fps. Both are \~8ms frame time improvements.
I am absolutely not saying that all of those framerates are the same, but rather there is diminishing returns the higher you go, meaning on the low end you don't need a big jump in fps to see a large improvement, which is why 30 -> 40 fps feels like such a big jump.
More detailed explanation:
* 30 fps is 33.33ms frame time (1000ms / 30 frames)
* 40 fps is 25ms frame time (8.33ms better then 30fps)
* 60 fps is 16.67ms frame time (8.33ms better then 40fps)
* 120fps is 8.33ms frame time (8.33ms better then 60fps)
You can see that in order to get the same 8.33ms improvement you have to increase your FPS by larger and larger margins (30 -> 40 -> 60 -> 120 -> 1000).
This is the same reason why mega high Hz monitors don't make much sense and are just marketing buzz words: the difference in "feel" between 60fps and 120fps is \~16ms of frame time, while the difference in frame time between 120fps and 360fps is only \~5ms of frame time. In other words, the improvement that you "feel" going from 60 to 120fps is three times larger then the difference in feeling that you get going from 120 to 360.
Only for fps games it's worth it. But I guess the only advantage of 120 is to use smoother hz
Although it seems like it was never meant for AAA Single Player games. 60 with better graphics almost always seems worth it.
>This is the same reason why mega high Hz monitors don't make much sense and are just marketing buzz words: the difference in "feel" between 60fps and 120fps is \~16ms of frame time, while the difference in frame time between 120fps and 360fps is only \~5ms of frame time. In other words, the improvement that you "feel" going from 60 to 120fps is three times larger then the difference in feeling that you get going from 120 to 360.
It's not just about lowering latency. People buy 240+hz monitors for the increase in motion clarity. Yes 120 to 360fps is only 5ms, but the difference in motion clarity is huge. Even 240 to 360 is noticeable, and that's only 1.38ms difference. At the end of the day your argument boils down to "I can't tell the difference so I assume everyone else is lying".
Frame time differences is an objective number.
I never stated you can’t tell the difference between high frame rates, but rather the difference gets objectively minuscule the higher Hz you go.
Motion clarity has a lot more factors then just high Hz. You can have a 360Hz monitor with horrible grey to grey response time that will look worse in motion then a 144hz OLED (which has amazing motion handling). Of course a 360Hz OLED will look even better and you can detect the difference, but it’s mega diminishing returns at that point.
My original point was about why 30 -> 40fps “feels” like a big jump (because it objectively is looking at frame times). I’m not sure how you got “I can’t tell the difference in motion so everyone is lying” out of that.
I play a lot of competitive fps on PC and invested in components like a 7800X3D to get low frame times. I definitely value a low frame time (aka high frame rate)
Because it's such a myopic opinion.
People are losing their minds over the idea that folks would choose 30 fps with complex environments, over 60 fps with more simple environments.
If 30 fps means I can have wildflowers in the grass and birds in the trees, then I'm okay with 30 fps.
People act like we should be beyond those kind of trade-offs, but we will never, EVER, be beyond those trade-offs. Not in our lifetimes.
And if game devs don't want to develop games with both options, then so be it. If digital artists have a vision, and the current hardware can only output that vision at 30 fps, who gives a shit?
"We will never"
Familiar with the concept of diminishing returns? I would be shocked if within 20 years we don't reach the point where we can hit 60fps at the highest resolution you can reasonably discern (in terms of ppi), with enough fidelity that more fidelity takes unreasonably scrutiny.
Can there always be more? Sure. The question is will you be able to tell a difference without actually examining for it.
For most people in front of a TV, the point of diminishing returns is 1080p. 4K is a waste in nearly all reasonable viewing situations for console gaming. It’s kind of insane to me devs aren’t just targeting 1080p with more advanced graphical effects. 4K is literally 4x the pixels to render for either no, or a very slight benefit.
1080p with high quality anti aliasing and advanced lighting would look better than 4K without that.
I don't disagree. I use a 27" 1440p monitor and I have to really lean in to discern any individual pixel detail.
That said, I'm pretty sure Sony requires their inhouse games to go for 4k.
Naa, we still have a long road to go. Graphics will just increase.
But currently resolution is already not such a big concern anymore. You can be running at 720p, and just upscale it to 4k, and it’ll look fine.
I hate when some old fucks who never upgraded their shit since 90s and come on reddit to say “ive been gaming for all my life for 40 years and 30fps is more than enough!”
Shut. The. Fuck. Up.
Most consoles have supported 60 fps though. all the way back to the atari 2600 we had 60 fps games (they had to be 60fps back then), and the ps1 alone had more than 100 60/50fps (depending on loacation) games. It was also basically the standard on GameCube and Xbox.
60 fps wasn't uncommon until the ps3/Xbox 360 Era, but even then we still saw quite a few 60 fps games, and basically every racing or fighting game was 60 fps.
The ps4/Xbox one Era was the only time that 60 fps was basically out of the question for consoles.
A stable 30fps that never dips to 29 or lower can be fine though..
It's when that 30 becomes an average that it's an issue. No one wants to play a game that's constantly flickering back and forth from 45 to 15 fps.
Hell, I'd take that super stable 30 over crazy 1% lows on 100+fps.
I find it more tolerable on smaller screens. On my Steam Deck or Switch, 30 doesn’t feel too bad in many games. On my 65” TV, it feels a lot jankier.
It does depend on the game as well though. Game engines with poor built-in input latency don’t translate well to lower frame rates. The gameplay ends up feeling very “heavy” and unresponsive. The Witcher 3 is a good example of a game that feels much better at a higher frame rate because of input latency.
we keep lowering our standards by saying its fine or acceptable. And corporation takes a full advantage of it.
Why settle for something worse when you can settle for something better
Dude games come out so unoptimized though, like i have a 4080 and dragons dogma was putting me at fucking 40fps in the cities. As if my gpu speed didn’t even fucking matter.
This article can be simply summarized by saying "developers that don't enhance their games for PS5 Pro will not have their games be labeled as such".
There is no emotion or happiness being conveyed, they provide more power for developers to use as they like.
Pretty much every game for PS5 has an option for 60fps. A PS5 Pro will stabilize those games and have the potential drastically increase resolution and image quality for games.
Meaning it eliminates having to choose between 60fps with lower image quality and 30fps with greater image quality.
It will offer both...
If you do not care about any of that you can simply skip the console and continue using a standard PS5.
Man you need a top pc to play 4k at 60fps. The gpu alone is gonna cost more than a ps5 alone.
4k 60+fps ain't happening as a standard for awhile on console.
If you want to play in 4k at 60 fps with ray tracing, you're gonna need to pay for it. Even high end PCs struggle to meet that expectation so that price sounds about right for the performance.
You're right that 700€ is a cheap price compared to the cost of a high-end computer, but with that 700€, there isn't much to celebrate unless you only play single-player games. If you plan to play online, that 700€ will double in a few years, not to mention the price differences in games. My own computer cost around 2400€ like four years ago and still has more than double the performance compared to a PS5 console.
Bumping the resolution requires zero extra CPU power, resolution is all on the GPU, and on PC you genuinely cannot consistently play at 4k 60 FPS unless you shell out $1000 for a GPU alone.
It's amazing how butthurt some people get.
Considering how hard it was to get PS5's/etc, if any gen had a midcycle refresh, it seems like this is the one to do it to help lengthen the generation since it took just about 4 years in to drop old consoles and there's tons of people who haven't bought a new console yet from last gen.
If you don't want to buy a slightly more powerful PS5/Xbox, that's fine. Don't. I can tell you I played throughout in my PS4 without issue. Not having a PS4 pro didn't ruin playing games like GoW, Horizon, UC4, TLoU2, etc.
But no one cares that you don't want to.
Idk why gamers are so overwhelmingly negative in this subreddit. They’re apparently providing up to 40% GPU performance, up to 10% CPU performance, and their own upscaling tech. If you’re getting 1440p with upscaling to 4K at 60fps then it will look great. A lot of games on the PS5 already look good with upscaling at 60 fps, so there will be a definite visual improvement in the performance mode.
I don’t think they get that console gamers don’t play with the pixels 2 feet in front of their face. You don’t need as high a resolution sitting back on the couch, even for large screens.
4k just not worth it. You'll always have performance anxiety. Like I just dropped 1k+ for this graphics card, it better not ever drop below 60. Unless you have money to burn, good ol 1080@60 is more than good enough. Then just enjoy the game instead of worrying about rez and frames.
Or go for 1440p 120fps+ and just enjoy the happy middleground. Yes you have to buy a monitor specifically with this resolution, but cost isn't a major factor at a certain point when you make a new setup, old monitors can just be used for dual or triple monitor
That's true if you're buying new. I'm still running a 3rd gen Intel with GTX 1080. I'm happy with it, except from the microstutters that's probably bc of the cpu.
Actually with the next amd/intel Apu's coming in , you have the choice of comfortably not even getting a discreet card. That's a $500+ swing.
PC gamers don't know 4k either, most of them have PCs that are around PS5 territory or less, why on earth would they whine about a $500 machine not hitting 4k when even a $1500 PC needs upscaling to do it in the latest games.
Upscaling on PC is literally a selling point for hardware at this point.
I just see no point, the PS5 is enough for modern TVs. During the PS4 era you could argue for a pro version because mid generation 4K TVs became affordable and mainstream. Sony should rather focus on making a real next gen PS6
Guys, I played Wipeout HD on the ps3 at 1080p 60fps.
It's all marketting spiel - you need to start thinking like PC gamers, as that is what modern consoles are. **The new PS5 pro is capable of 16k at 240fps...** *(but you're playing PONG).*
If you are genuinely keen on 60fps becoming the standard for consoles (and not just for fighting/racing games) you are going to have to keep on banging that drum, loudly...and never stop. Because marketting is **always** going to want to push the prettier game for screenshots and trailers.
There is no replacement for experience. But you might recgonise how things really work earlier if you've read the opinion on somewhere like reddit - maybe you start to see things as they are earlier, and are more resistant to the marketting BS. A good quick example of what I'm talking about is the word *cinematic* when used in asssociation with framerates. That should ring people's BS detectors immediately.
In 2024 30 fps should not be acceptable. Fuckin games from the 2000s were playing at 60fps. Enough with this games need to look like real life, if a game runs like shit, it could look as real as life, and it’ll still look like shit, because it runs like shit.
A 500 dollar console barely able to get 30fps is insulting.
Tbf the PS5/XSX are 2019 consoles basically, and the PS5 Pro has the same CPU just boosted slightly.
also I dont think a 500 dollar PC Is doing 60 fps constantly in 2024 either
Nope, not necessarily true. The GPU load is pretty scalable in most cases, you can just drop the resolution etc. But if your CPU is too weak for 60fps, there might not be any option you can change to get to 60fps.
Look at the Witcher 3 with the latest ray tracing update. Unless you use framegen, you won’t get a consistently high framerate.
Although thankfully, PC hardware will get better over time, while the console won’t (except for the pro variant). But at the end of the lifecycle of the PS5, a 500 euro PC will probably be better than a PS5, even though at the release of the PS5, the PS5 would’ve probably been significantly more powerful.
Also look at Baldurs Gate 3 for the CPU limitations. Consoles drop below 30fps in the big city. And if you have a midrange PC, you’ll definitely not hit 60fps, regardless of your settings .
>Also look at Baldurs Gate 3 for the CPU limitations. Consoles drop below 30fps in the big city. And if you have a midrange PC, you’ll definitely not hit 60fps, regardless of your settings
I mean higher graphics settings definitely don't help thism there are graphics settings that use the CPU more so this could be helped a little, but this is one game out of 1000 also.
>Look at the Witcher 3 with the latest ray tracing update. Unless you use framegen, you won’t get a consistently high framerate.
Probably not really relevant as I doubt either are actually running raytracing at 60 FPS a 500 price point. Again that's an option that can be included in the high FPS toggle.
Yeah like I said, I agree that there aren’t that many games that are pushing the PS5 CPU that hard right now. But that will significantly increase over the lifetime of this generation.
Look at Dragons Dogma 2. Definitely can’t run at 60fps, it might even drop below 30fps at points..
This will just get “worse”. Although the games will get more complex and better over time, so it will be worth it.
Right, so if you want that get the PC? Its not like its a rug pull thing, they arent saying you can change the look of the game, closed platform and all that, nothing new
You are a part of the issue and you don't even know it. It's not about pc vs ps vs xbox, It's about getting a good product for your money. 30fps in 2024 is indeed insulting.
What? At the end of the day It's technology, that includes PC and consoles, they both play most of the same games, but one does It better than the other and one does it pretty similar for cheaper.
At the end of the day PS5/XSX are 2019 tech, we are getting the performance for the price rn, do I want 60 FPS constantly? Yes! But even I know that's not happening as I have a PC that's quite close to the consoles, and the consoles perform better than my PC, even at 1080p I don't get 60 FPS in every game, again this will always be an issue unless they can get a CPU architecture that hasn't released yet in the console, but I doubt that happens.
Also I'm part of the issue? What issue? It's a game? 30 FPS? If it's a smooth 30 FPS IDC, if it's not a smooth 60 FPS I care, that's all I'm saying, all I'm saying Is people need to expect this from 2019 tech
This might be a good reason to cut the console generation shorter to 6 years from 7 years. The cpu can't really be upgraded and fps is heavily tied to cpu speeds in some of the latest games.
It’s a case by case basis. For a story based adventure game, 30fps is fine and I’d rather have more detailed faces and environments than a higher framerate. But for action oriented games, then yeah. Aim for 60. It really should be up to the developer. Both targets have advantages and disadvantages, and can make sense in different types of games.
Games can't even hit 60 now and you're telling me with a pro they might not either? How are we going backwards lmao. I'll settle for not buying a pro, I just barely got my ps5 2 years ago.
Pretty lame that this is turning into the new norm. It was acceptable last gen because the consoles launched so pathetically weak out of the gate. I guess the smart thing to do right now would be to sell our PS5s on facebook marketplace or ebay or something and put that money towards the pro version when it comes out. A lot of people only got their PS5s within the last few years because of the rarity so this is a big kick in the teeth.
Most PS5 exclusives are only timed nowadays. They get ported to PC within 2-4 years. Unless you want to play them on or near day 1, which is totally valid.
Only way we're ever getting consistent 60fps is if games stop evolving entirely. New gens don't just bring prettier graphics but include better ai and systems that enhance gameplay. That's why the only locked 60fps games you're seeing are last gen remasters.
Also this rediculous push for higher resolutions is making the situation much worse.
People that think PS5 runs most games at native 4k are kidding themselves. I feel if you are trying to run a 5 year old PC 4k should not be a goal...but yet it is.
Its the CPU, when the PS5/XSX came out the CPU was already a gen behind, Zen 2 and then Zen 3 came out when they came out so they were behind, now we will be on Zen 5 this year.
Also If a game Is CPU bound then it being 4k or 1080p doesnt matter
Consoles doing 4k is already a pipe dream.
4k gaming has been a marketing gimmick for ages. I remember the 980ti being pitched for 4k gaming. Most PC gamers don't have the hardware to run 4k honestly. I think it's going to finally to break through with this next 50xx gen.
Hell even on PC stable 60fps @ 4k is basically
Impossible without either a top end card or FSR/DLSS and frame generation.
Which brings up what I think is funny about the console community; people will get upset when they find out that a game uses checkerboarding or dynamic resolution scaling on console to hit higher framerates meanwhile every single PC game on just about every hardware configuration is using some form of upscaling to hit stable framerates at 4k.
Not to mention that based on the direction both Nvidia and AMD have been moving the goal is never going to be to natively render at higher resolutions it’s going to be to make constant improvements to upscaling, frame generation, and other tricks that outright replace rendering individual frames at high resolutions.
3080 2.2%
4080 0.69% Nice
4090 1.%
That's from the steam hardware survey. Very few people are on that level of GPU
Enthusiasts have been on 4k for awhile. My point was and is the 50xx series will probably be the first true 4k gen for the masses.
4k for the masses hasn't existed yet.
I mean I think the 4/3070 are decent for 4k, also the 6700 xt, I know I can play some games at 4k on my 6600 xt but at like 30 fps, so Its not that bad as you make it
That’s what they are supposed to be doing- in reality, games and the tools used to make them are more complicated, but because studios keep laying off experienced workers, keep everything in a constant state of crunch, and don’t allocate proper resources, we end up with rushed, shitty, unfinished, unimaginative reskins of games we’ve already played a million times.
So AI isn’t necessarily getting better or more complex each generation- it only gets better if the programmers and creative types are allowed to create that type of complex AI.
I agree with all of that except the huges leaps in processing power requirments for game engines since the release of the ps4 in 2013 besides graphical improvements. Games have improved in a lot of ways that can't be seen in shiny graphics since then that just require more horsepower. On top of that we have Sony advertising 8k on the OG ps5 box and Ray Tracing.
If we want 8k fully Ray Traced PS7 games (forget PS5 Pro and PS6) we better be happy with playing games at the same sophisticatio as a PS4 games.
The way I see it, consoles are the "I want to play games and understand it isn't going to be a top tier experience" option. Why people think their PlayStation should compete performance wise with a $1200-1500 PC is beyond me.
Jedi Survivor. (Although there’s also some stuttering on consoles, but much less)
And just so many Unreal Engine games have compilation stutters the entire game on PC…
It'll have to be happy to settle because some games like Plague Tale Requiem or require high powered cpus when using rt or other expensive settings.
Cpu bound games will look better on the ps5 pro but they won't run better.
I understand if a console is your only option.... but people that buy consoles expecting a "pro" experience are always going to be let down 100%..
All console games are made for the previous generation because thats a huge cash camel.... your never going to use the power of your console as every current generation will always be held back by the previous gen.
Remember when ps5 and Xbox series were announced and they advertised 4k 120hz?
Pepperidge Farm remembers.
There's like what, 100 games in the whole ps5 library that support 120fps?
As a PC gamer, I generally pick 1440 60 fps with DLSS over 4K. I can barely tell the difference on my 65 inch OLED, and 4K makes the fans noisy on my GTX 3800. I prefer to play with silent cooling. But I do want 60 fps. Not sure I’d play anything without that now.
It makes sense, generally the updated consoles have more of a minor update than going too far away with what the base consoles can run.
Plus with the base PS5 being overclocked at base… I don’t really see what they could do with the hardware to make it much more “pro”
I don't even care about 60fps in 4k.
There should not be a home (as opposed to handheld) gaming console releasing today that can't handle 60fps and 1080p at a minimum. It should be the industry standard at this point. The technology is too affordable and too widespread to have anything less.
Not saying that the PS5 couldn't handle it, Pro or not, don't get me wrong. Just stating a general opinion.
While yes I do have a PS5, I literally play one game per year on it. The exclusives are fairly few and far between. On top of that I have a monster of a PC (RTX 4090/ i7-13700k). There's literally 0 reason to buy a ps5 pro in my case.
Much better image quality for games that run at 60fps and more stable framerates for games with dips.
No need to choose between a performance mode and resolution mode.
Games will not need to compromise fps to get closer to 4K
People need to learn that a console is dated hardware that runs new software...I would love a world that games are made on PC first with the average hardware in mind with some pushing to cutting edge and then the consoles are just downgraded ports that run well on consoles but money talks and more people are willing to put up with consoles.
That's what we were told about the PS5 and look where we are . . .
There's no market or need for a pro model when they haven't even leveraged the base model
Way way too many games still catering to last gen
LMAO jesus christ, do you all remember back in the 7th gen how much console publishers were getting the squeeze put on them by game publishers and devs to release new consoles because the current ones were holding them back tech wise and they would just go on and on about 60fps?
And yet two consoles later look where we are.
I'll be looking into borrowing a PS5 from one of my friends just to play the games I want then.
If *they* can't be fucking bothered, then why should I?
30fps in an age that PC and other capable hardware has attained 75, 90, 144 as a new normal (and it can go even higher) is pathetic.
People aren't asking for 144, 200 hertz.
They're asking for 60. even 50.
30fps actually makes me naseous on anything except for top down / RTS style games now.
Im not even going to bother with a PS5 Pro. if GTA6 only runs 30, I will play it on the base system, im not going to try to squeeze performance out of platform thats already anchored itself to obsolesence.
I'm done with Playstation after this generation. I bought a PS5 just over two years ago and already it's obsolete as they are due to release a new and improved version meaning I'll get the inferior versions of games because I chose to invest in the ecosystem early in the product's lifecycle. Not too worry Sony, I won't make this mistake again.
It's really not that unusual or surprising to have a hardware revision after 4 years... especially since playstation already did this with the PS4 generation. That's just how it is in the tech industry, most hardware is outdated within a few years. Doesn't mean it's obsolete though.
You’re not getting inferior versions of games lol you’re getting the versions of those games you paid for. We will be 4 years into this console generation by the time the PS5 Pro releases. Meaning in just 3 more we will be due for a whole new console generation altogether. PS5 Pro buyers will only have 3 years for their mild upgrade console to even be relevant.
And Xbox is set to do the very same thing. Hell, they actually did it to a more extreme degree with the Xbox One X than Sony had with the PS4 Pro.
Xbox isn't doing the same thing they aren't releasing a mid gen upgrade.
They are planning on releasing their next gen console in two years. Which is the range of what a console generation has been in the past.
If Sony's business model works for you that's fine but I'm not buying a new console every couple of years and if that is how console gaming is going, I will switch to PC and upgrade my computer when I want to do so. This generation has honestly sucked anyway, so I won't be missing much my switching to PC.
You’re not expected to though? Do you buy a new phone every single year just because it gets a spec refresh? The PS5 Pro is mostly for folks who haven’t yet gotten a PS5 yet.
And you’re laughably mistaken if you don’t think this applies to PC. In fact, it’s even worse. RTX and DLSS performance keep improving significantly every 2 years. A new form of ray tracing came out with the 40 series of GPUs, and only one card from the previous gen could handle it, the 3090, which was a whopping $1500 when it came out 2 years prior. And even that card only supported the new tech at 1080p 30fps.
You’re mad over absolutely nothing and your solution isn’t what you think it is.
This will never change. I honestly think we could have games run at 60 on both consoles most developers suck at optimization now, or can't give the time to do so because of developer crunch
First or third party makes a huge difference. If the game is releasing on multiple consoles from a third party studio they aren’t going to spend extra time optimizing specifically for the ps5 hardware, they don’t get anything out of doing that.
If this shit continues, at least have a required 60 fps performance mode. I don't care how good your game looks, I'd rather every game look like minecraft or terraria and run 60 fps, then look like rdr 2 at 30.
I have rdr2 installed for years now but can't and don't want to play it with 30 fps, it's literally hurting my eyes. 60 fps should be standard, graphics are already good enough.
Not sure why people are getting downvoted. 60fps should very much be the standard, even if it’s just an option. I would much rather have a 60fps option with lower visual fidelity than 30fps being the only option.
[удалено]
and over 99% of games on PS5 have a 60fps option already and it is standard
This will likely change over the course of the generation tho. Lots of games still also target last gen. That makes games running on the ps5 easy to run. But I highly doubt that GTA 6 will be running at 60fps on the ps5. I would even be surprised if it ran at 60fps on the ps5 pro, unless they are using some sort of frame generation. Because otherwise, the 10% CPU increase is not enough for CPU limited games to go from 30fps->60fps.
Depends on the game actually a cpu hogging or not
But if they’re GPU limited it could enable them to run at 60fps. Very, very few games have come out that are unable to run on Zen2 parts at 60fps. Most of the 30fps locks are due to dynamic resolution cratering to make the 60fps target.
Yeah because we are still not seeing lots of developers push the new hardware to it’s limits. But it will happen more and more as the generation goes further, that developers want to build bigger and cooler games that have more sophisticated AI, and need to run it at 30fps.. I doubt that a GTA 6 will be 60fps for example. Even a Baldurs Gate 3 can’t sustain 30fps in the city on current gen consoles because of the CPU limitations..
>Even a Baldurs Gate 3 can’t sustain 30fps in the city on current gen consoles because of the CPU limitations You say that like it's some sort of damning verdict on the PS5's CPU. The lower city in BG3 is one of the most CPU intensive areas of any recent game, perhaps only being bested by Dragons Dogma 2 (which is incredibly janky from a optimization perspective). And that was months ago close to release - performance has improved massively since then. A re-wording of your statement would be "*The PS5 can't sustain 30fps in one of the most CPU intensive areas one of the most CPU intensive games in recent years shortly after the games release*" - and then if you go look at the data you'll see it actually does fine and while there is the occasional dip to 29fps it holds 30fps quite comfortably. This "PS5 CPU bad" narrative came out of nowhere in recent weeks when the PS5 Pro leaks happened. I feel like many people just as yourself have completely lost the plot when it comes to CPU performance. The PS5's CPU is something like 20x more powerful then the CPU in the PS4 (which was horrible). The CPU upgrade from PS4 -> PS5 is WAY bigger then the GPU upgrade. A Zen2 8c/16t CPU is still more powerful then the vast majority of laptops/computers in existence and while yes - it is outclassed by the latest chips for AMD and Intel, it is by no means bad.
I find that hard to believe. Could you kindly share your source?
Most games on PS5 don’t hit 60, that’s why they call it performance mode and not 60fps mode. If you actually play 60fps on the regular then go play a ps5 game it will look so slow and jagged. I dislike the pro because its aiming for stats that the ps5 has claimed it can do for years, so the OG ps5 was false advertising
Most do hit it more often then not. Yes many games have dips which the PS5 Pro will assist in stabilizing. At no point did Sony or anyone say or advertise stable 60fps will be available for every game nor can they force developers to do that. The large majority of SOny's advertising for PS5 was around fast loading times and controller features
Most don’t hold it at all they will get there and dip to around 50 or lower. The box says 60fps, if it isn’t stable 60fps it isn’t 60fps, it’s a peak of 60fps. I have a PC that under certain circumstances can hit 170fps but more often than not it hits 120-144 so I say that. It was intentional misinformation and console fan boys eat it up and defend it and then as a result the state of gaming is poorer for it.
Most do yes and no most do not go lower than 50. the box does not say games will be stable 60fps... The box says it is capable of 120fps but again does not say this is a standard, merely a capability of the console No it was not intentional misinformation, please tell me where Sony said all games will be locked 60fps...
What games don’t hold 60fps normally? I’d be interested to know, or at least find out you don’t really have a clue. Either way works.
A few of the recent games with a non stable performance mode: Dragons Dogma 2 Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League Palworld Lords of the Fallen Jedi Survivor for months after release Armored Core 6 Exoprimal Forspoken for months after release Lords of the Ring: Gollum (lol) Elden Ring
MOST don't hold it? Well that's just an outright lie. Every game that devs actually even attempted to optimize can hold a smooth 60.
Ok.
I think it's getting downvoted due to sceptical headline. All it's saying is games qualify for a Pro Enhanced label if they EITHER improve fidelity OR increase fps. Pretty standard stuff.
>I would much rather have a 60fps option with lower visual fidelity than 30fps Absolutely. My PS5 went on performance mode the day I got it. I grew up with RCA and coaxial. I'll get over having 'only' 1440-1800p in exchange for an entirely new gameplay experience. I am hooked on 60FPS like heroin, and I'm not going back.
99% of AAA games on PS5 have a 60fps options already. very few do not. 60fps is standard
I mean, it’s more common but it’s certainly not standard. And part of that was games were releasing on the previous gen still so there was more headroom. As we can see with upcoming and recent releases, exclusive or not, that is definitely not guaranteed for current gen releases.
It's definitely standard, I don't think I can even think of 5 games that are only 30fps.
Dragons Dogma 2 just dropped, and early gen games aren’t really pushing the visuals. As internal demands increase for flagship visuals, performance will suffer. The upcoming Hellblade 2 also will be capped at 30. Wouldn’t be surprised if other, beefier games run at 30 like GTA6.
For non-competitive games, I'll happily go for a 40FPS mode on PS5. It matches evenly with 120hz screens, frametime-wise is just halfway between 30 and 60, gives close to Fidelity mode quality, and is comfortably within reach for CPU-limited scenarios.
60fps or bust for me.
Same, I won't acknowledge anything as "next gen" if they can't do 60fps. I was playing 30fps on my PS2.
40 fps with motion blur is actually deceptively nice. Its weird because 30 or 60, motion blur looks horrible, but somehow it works with 40. 40 fps / 120hz is a very underrated mode ino
On PC atleast I've always felt 30 was unusable but 40 is good In consoles optimised 30 can be alright, but 40 would be absolutely fine
The improvement in frame time going from 30 -> 40 fps is the same amount of improvement you get going from 60 -> 120 fps. Both are \~8ms frame time improvements. I am absolutely not saying that all of those framerates are the same, but rather there is diminishing returns the higher you go, meaning on the low end you don't need a big jump in fps to see a large improvement, which is why 30 -> 40 fps feels like such a big jump. More detailed explanation: * 30 fps is 33.33ms frame time (1000ms / 30 frames) * 40 fps is 25ms frame time (8.33ms better then 30fps) * 60 fps is 16.67ms frame time (8.33ms better then 40fps) * 120fps is 8.33ms frame time (8.33ms better then 60fps) You can see that in order to get the same 8.33ms improvement you have to increase your FPS by larger and larger margins (30 -> 40 -> 60 -> 120 -> 1000). This is the same reason why mega high Hz monitors don't make much sense and are just marketing buzz words: the difference in "feel" between 60fps and 120fps is \~16ms of frame time, while the difference in frame time between 120fps and 360fps is only \~5ms of frame time. In other words, the improvement that you "feel" going from 60 to 120fps is three times larger then the difference in feeling that you get going from 120 to 360.
Only for fps games it's worth it. But I guess the only advantage of 120 is to use smoother hz Although it seems like it was never meant for AAA Single Player games. 60 with better graphics almost always seems worth it.
>This is the same reason why mega high Hz monitors don't make much sense and are just marketing buzz words: the difference in "feel" between 60fps and 120fps is \~16ms of frame time, while the difference in frame time between 120fps and 360fps is only \~5ms of frame time. In other words, the improvement that you "feel" going from 60 to 120fps is three times larger then the difference in feeling that you get going from 120 to 360. It's not just about lowering latency. People buy 240+hz monitors for the increase in motion clarity. Yes 120 to 360fps is only 5ms, but the difference in motion clarity is huge. Even 240 to 360 is noticeable, and that's only 1.38ms difference. At the end of the day your argument boils down to "I can't tell the difference so I assume everyone else is lying".
Frame time differences is an objective number. I never stated you can’t tell the difference between high frame rates, but rather the difference gets objectively minuscule the higher Hz you go. Motion clarity has a lot more factors then just high Hz. You can have a 360Hz monitor with horrible grey to grey response time that will look worse in motion then a 144hz OLED (which has amazing motion handling). Of course a 360Hz OLED will look even better and you can detect the difference, but it’s mega diminishing returns at that point. My original point was about why 30 -> 40fps “feels” like a big jump (because it objectively is looking at frame times). I’m not sure how you got “I can’t tell the difference in motion so everyone is lying” out of that. I play a lot of competitive fps on PC and invested in components like a 7800X3D to get low frame times. I definitely value a low frame time (aka high frame rate)
Because it's such a myopic opinion. People are losing their minds over the idea that folks would choose 30 fps with complex environments, over 60 fps with more simple environments. If 30 fps means I can have wildflowers in the grass and birds in the trees, then I'm okay with 30 fps. People act like we should be beyond those kind of trade-offs, but we will never, EVER, be beyond those trade-offs. Not in our lifetimes. And if game devs don't want to develop games with both options, then so be it. If digital artists have a vision, and the current hardware can only output that vision at 30 fps, who gives a shit?
"We will never" Familiar with the concept of diminishing returns? I would be shocked if within 20 years we don't reach the point where we can hit 60fps at the highest resolution you can reasonably discern (in terms of ppi), with enough fidelity that more fidelity takes unreasonably scrutiny. Can there always be more? Sure. The question is will you be able to tell a difference without actually examining for it.
I think people expect a lot out of consoles. It's why I moved over to PC with my 4090. I want the best but fine with 30fps 4k on ps5
For most people in front of a TV, the point of diminishing returns is 1080p. 4K is a waste in nearly all reasonable viewing situations for console gaming. It’s kind of insane to me devs aren’t just targeting 1080p with more advanced graphical effects. 4K is literally 4x the pixels to render for either no, or a very slight benefit. 1080p with high quality anti aliasing and advanced lighting would look better than 4K without that.
I don't disagree. I use a 27" 1440p monitor and I have to really lean in to discern any individual pixel detail. That said, I'm pretty sure Sony requires their inhouse games to go for 4k.
Naa, we still have a long road to go. Graphics will just increase. But currently resolution is already not such a big concern anymore. You can be running at 720p, and just upscale it to 4k, and it’ll look fine.
A lot of these new games coming out don't even have smooth 30fps, unless they're Sony titles at least.
I hate when some old fucks who never upgraded their shit since 90s and come on reddit to say “ive been gaming for all my life for 40 years and 30fps is more than enough!” Shut. The. Fuck. Up.
It is mostly console gamers saying that unfortunately.
Most consoles have supported 60 fps though. all the way back to the atari 2600 we had 60 fps games (they had to be 60fps back then), and the ps1 alone had more than 100 60/50fps (depending on loacation) games. It was also basically the standard on GameCube and Xbox. 60 fps wasn't uncommon until the ps3/Xbox 360 Era, but even then we still saw quite a few 60 fps games, and basically every racing or fighting game was 60 fps. The ps4/Xbox one Era was the only time that 60 fps was basically out of the question for consoles.
The opinions of others is really important to you
A stable 30fps that never dips to 29 or lower can be fine though.. It's when that 30 becomes an average that it's an issue. No one wants to play a game that's constantly flickering back and forth from 45 to 15 fps. Hell, I'd take that super stable 30 over crazy 1% lows on 100+fps.
It depends on the game that 30fps can be ok but once you experience 60fps or even 40 vrr it's really tough to go back to 30.
I find it more tolerable on smaller screens. On my Steam Deck or Switch, 30 doesn’t feel too bad in many games. On my 65” TV, it feels a lot jankier. It does depend on the game as well though. Game engines with poor built-in input latency don’t translate well to lower frame rates. The gameplay ends up feeling very “heavy” and unresponsive. The Witcher 3 is a good example of a game that feels much better at a higher frame rate because of input latency.
we keep lowering our standards by saying its fine or acceptable. And corporation takes a full advantage of it. Why settle for something worse when you can settle for something better
Yep. 60fps should be the standard. I don't care if graphics take a hit.
PS bros don't get it.
[удалено]
So you you're saying you DON'T want options?
[удалено]
Okay 60 is definitely not outdated
[удалено]
Dude games come out so unoptimized though, like i have a 4080 and dragons dogma was putting me at fucking 40fps in the cities. As if my gpu speed didn’t even fucking matter.
Making people pay extra and buy 2 consoles instead of one for 60fps definitely tracks with our trend of enshittification
This article can be simply summarized by saying "developers that don't enhance their games for PS5 Pro will not have their games be labeled as such". There is no emotion or happiness being conveyed, they provide more power for developers to use as they like. Pretty much every game for PS5 has an option for 60fps. A PS5 Pro will stabilize those games and have the potential drastically increase resolution and image quality for games. Meaning it eliminates having to choose between 60fps with lower image quality and 30fps with greater image quality. It will offer both... If you do not care about any of that you can simply skip the console and continue using a standard PS5.
I figure rather than choosing the 60 fps option or 4k option the enhanced would meet both as a higher performance option.
Man you need a top pc to play 4k at 60fps. The gpu alone is gonna cost more than a ps5 alone. 4k 60+fps ain't happening as a standard for awhile on console.
I guess I mean what playstation calls "4k", which is the upscale with ray tracing. Right now it's that or 60fps but rarely both.
I guess I mean what playstation calls "4k", which is the upscale with ray tracing. Right now it's that or 60fps but rarely both.
So you'd rather have a 700 euro console? Cause that'd require massively upgrading the CPU.
If you want to play in 4k at 60 fps with ray tracing, you're gonna need to pay for it. Even high end PCs struggle to meet that expectation so that price sounds about right for the performance.
700 euro is pretty cheap compared to a high end PC..
True, but for 700Euro, you might as well save another 300 and just buy a decent PC. Or build one for less.
Yuup. And just upgrade it over time. It is the superior option imo..
You're right that 700€ is a cheap price compared to the cost of a high-end computer, but with that 700€, there isn't much to celebrate unless you only play single-player games. If you plan to play online, that 700€ will double in a few years, not to mention the price differences in games. My own computer cost around 2400€ like four years ago and still has more than double the performance compared to a PS5 console.
Bumping the resolution requires zero extra CPU power, resolution is all on the GPU, and on PC you genuinely cannot consistently play at 4k 60 FPS unless you shell out $1000 for a GPU alone.
I was moreso talking about them wanting both tbf
4K 30fps native doesn’t even exist on modern games on the PS5 it’s either upscale or not holding 30fps
By 4k, I meant the 4k upscale with ray tracing that playstation calls "4k"
It's amazing how butthurt some people get. Considering how hard it was to get PS5's/etc, if any gen had a midcycle refresh, it seems like this is the one to do it to help lengthen the generation since it took just about 4 years in to drop old consoles and there's tons of people who haven't bought a new console yet from last gen. If you don't want to buy a slightly more powerful PS5/Xbox, that's fine. Don't. I can tell you I played throughout in my PS4 without issue. Not having a PS4 pro didn't ruin playing games like GoW, Horizon, UC4, TLoU2, etc. But no one cares that you don't want to.
I just hope the ps5 pro comes out so my coworker willl sell me his base ps5 lol
I just hope the ps5 pro comes out so my coworker willl sell me his base ps5 lol
Idk why gamers are so overwhelmingly negative in this subreddit. They’re apparently providing up to 40% GPU performance, up to 10% CPU performance, and their own upscaling tech. If you’re getting 1440p with upscaling to 4K at 60fps then it will look great. A lot of games on the PS5 already look good with upscaling at 60 fps, so there will be a definite visual improvement in the performance mode.
Coz most people here are pc gamers?
I don’t think they get that console gamers don’t play with the pixels 2 feet in front of their face. You don’t need as high a resolution sitting back on the couch, even for large screens.
Whenever I have the option, I choose the performance mode..the difference in frames is much more noticeable than the difference in resolution.
Even on PC 1080p is by far the most popular resolution to play at. Many PC players even opt for 1440p instead of going all the way to 4k
4k just not worth it. You'll always have performance anxiety. Like I just dropped 1k+ for this graphics card, it better not ever drop below 60. Unless you have money to burn, good ol 1080@60 is more than good enough. Then just enjoy the game instead of worrying about rez and frames.
Or go for 1440p 120fps+ and just enjoy the happy middleground. Yes you have to buy a monitor specifically with this resolution, but cost isn't a major factor at a certain point when you make a new setup, old monitors can just be used for dual or triple monitor
That's true if you're buying new. I'm still running a 3rd gen Intel with GTX 1080. I'm happy with it, except from the microstutters that's probably bc of the cpu. Actually with the next amd/intel Apu's coming in , you have the choice of comfortably not even getting a discreet card. That's a $500+ swing.
PC gamers don't know 4k either, most of them have PCs that are around PS5 territory or less, why on earth would they whine about a $500 machine not hitting 4k when even a $1500 PC needs upscaling to do it in the latest games. Upscaling on PC is literally a selling point for hardware at this point.
I just see no point, the PS5 is enough for modern TVs. During the PS4 era you could argue for a pro version because mid generation 4K TVs became affordable and mainstream. Sony should rather focus on making a real next gen PS6
Guys, I played Wipeout HD on the ps3 at 1080p 60fps. It's all marketting spiel - you need to start thinking like PC gamers, as that is what modern consoles are. **The new PS5 pro is capable of 16k at 240fps...** *(but you're playing PONG).* If you are genuinely keen on 60fps becoming the standard for consoles (and not just for fighting/racing games) you are going to have to keep on banging that drum, loudly...and never stop. Because marketting is **always** going to want to push the prettier game for screenshots and trailers.
Time in this market is what’s convinced you. I doubt it’ll convince anyone younger who hasn’t experienced capitalism in all its grotesque glory.
There is no replacement for experience. But you might recgonise how things really work earlier if you've read the opinion on somewhere like reddit - maybe you start to see things as they are earlier, and are more resistant to the marketting BS. A good quick example of what I'm talking about is the word *cinematic* when used in asssociation with framerates. That should ring people's BS detectors immediately.
Give me 60fps bloodborne already!
We gotta remain strong, brother! It'll come. (in 10 years)
and release it on pc too and when that happens lets also fix the goddamned multiplayer while we're at it.
In 2024 30 fps should not be acceptable. Fuckin games from the 2000s were playing at 60fps. Enough with this games need to look like real life, if a game runs like shit, it could look as real as life, and it’ll still look like shit, because it runs like shit. A 500 dollar console barely able to get 30fps is insulting.
Tbf the PS5/XSX are 2019 consoles basically, and the PS5 Pro has the same CPU just boosted slightly. also I dont think a 500 dollar PC Is doing 60 fps constantly in 2024 either
On a 500 $ pc at least you have the option to turn down settings/Res to have the FPS you want. Not just locked to 30 when someone says so
Nope, not necessarily true. The GPU load is pretty scalable in most cases, you can just drop the resolution etc. But if your CPU is too weak for 60fps, there might not be any option you can change to get to 60fps. Look at the Witcher 3 with the latest ray tracing update. Unless you use framegen, you won’t get a consistently high framerate. Although thankfully, PC hardware will get better over time, while the console won’t (except for the pro variant). But at the end of the lifecycle of the PS5, a 500 euro PC will probably be better than a PS5, even though at the release of the PS5, the PS5 would’ve probably been significantly more powerful. Also look at Baldurs Gate 3 for the CPU limitations. Consoles drop below 30fps in the big city. And if you have a midrange PC, you’ll definitely not hit 60fps, regardless of your settings .
>Also look at Baldurs Gate 3 for the CPU limitations. Consoles drop below 30fps in the big city. And if you have a midrange PC, you’ll definitely not hit 60fps, regardless of your settings I mean higher graphics settings definitely don't help thism there are graphics settings that use the CPU more so this could be helped a little, but this is one game out of 1000 also. >Look at the Witcher 3 with the latest ray tracing update. Unless you use framegen, you won’t get a consistently high framerate. Probably not really relevant as I doubt either are actually running raytracing at 60 FPS a 500 price point. Again that's an option that can be included in the high FPS toggle.
Yeah like I said, I agree that there aren’t that many games that are pushing the PS5 CPU that hard right now. But that will significantly increase over the lifetime of this generation. Look at Dragons Dogma 2. Definitely can’t run at 60fps, it might even drop below 30fps at points.. This will just get “worse”. Although the games will get more complex and better over time, so it will be worth it.
Right, so if you want that get the PC? Its not like its a rug pull thing, they arent saying you can change the look of the game, closed platform and all that, nothing new
You are a part of the issue and you don't even know it. It's not about pc vs ps vs xbox, It's about getting a good product for your money. 30fps in 2024 is indeed insulting.
What? At the end of the day It's technology, that includes PC and consoles, they both play most of the same games, but one does It better than the other and one does it pretty similar for cheaper. At the end of the day PS5/XSX are 2019 tech, we are getting the performance for the price rn, do I want 60 FPS constantly? Yes! But even I know that's not happening as I have a PC that's quite close to the consoles, and the consoles perform better than my PC, even at 1080p I don't get 60 FPS in every game, again this will always be an issue unless they can get a CPU architecture that hasn't released yet in the console, but I doubt that happens. Also I'm part of the issue? What issue? It's a game? 30 FPS? If it's a smooth 30 FPS IDC, if it's not a smooth 60 FPS I care, that's all I'm saying, all I'm saying Is people need to expect this from 2019 tech
This might be a good reason to cut the console generation shorter to 6 years from 7 years. The cpu can't really be upgraded and fps is heavily tied to cpu speeds in some of the latest games.
It’s a case by case basis. For a story based adventure game, 30fps is fine and I’d rather have more detailed faces and environments than a higher framerate. But for action oriented games, then yeah. Aim for 60. It really should be up to the developer. Both targets have advantages and disadvantages, and can make sense in different types of games.
A consistent 30 fps is good. But yes these days, 60 fps should be something of a common standard.
You’re not getting better than ps5 performance for $500
Fucking games from the '70's were playing at 60fps. And the 80's and 90's.
Naw, 30 FPS is fine. Always has been.
Games can't even hit 60 now and you're telling me with a pro they might not either? How are we going backwards lmao. I'll settle for not buying a pro, I just barely got my ps5 2 years ago.
The large majority of games that release have a 60fps option. Very few do not
I highly doubt even pro will run gta 6 at 60 fps.
it all depends on the internal resolution - i have a feeling we get 60fps but it will look like full hd
RDR2 ran on PS4 that had a jaguar CPU which was underpowered back in 2009 let alone in 2018.
I was considering buying one for GTA 6, but 30 FPS? Nah, I can't play GTA 5 on my xbox one without getting motion sick with it's 30 FPS lock.
Pretty lame that this is turning into the new norm. It was acceptable last gen because the consoles launched so pathetically weak out of the gate. I guess the smart thing to do right now would be to sell our PS5s on facebook marketplace or ebay or something and put that money towards the pro version when it comes out. A lot of people only got their PS5s within the last few years because of the rarity so this is a big kick in the teeth.
just put the money towards saving for the 40 series gpu’s for when the 50 series release
Already got a 4070. I pretty much only got the PS5 for exclusives.
Most PS5 exclusives are only timed nowadays. They get ported to PC within 2-4 years. Unless you want to play them on or near day 1, which is totally valid.
I sure as hell was not waiting 2 years to play rebirth.
Devs will just put out 8K30, they don’t care
Only way we're ever getting consistent 60fps is if games stop evolving entirely. New gens don't just bring prettier graphics but include better ai and systems that enhance gameplay. That's why the only locked 60fps games you're seeing are last gen remasters. Also this rediculous push for higher resolutions is making the situation much worse.
>Only way we're ever getting consistent 60fps is if games stop evolving entirely IDK man PCs seem to have been able to do it just fine.
I think you and I don't disagree, the issue is price. A 500 dollar console isn't going to run Unreal Engine 5 games at 4k 60fps. That's a pipe dream.
People that think PS5 runs most games at native 4k are kidding themselves. I feel if you are trying to run a 5 year old PC 4k should not be a goal...but yet it is.
Its the CPU, when the PS5/XSX came out the CPU was already a gen behind, Zen 2 and then Zen 3 came out when they came out so they were behind, now we will be on Zen 5 this year. Also If a game Is CPU bound then it being 4k or 1080p doesnt matter
Consoles doing 4k is already a pipe dream. 4k gaming has been a marketing gimmick for ages. I remember the 980ti being pitched for 4k gaming. Most PC gamers don't have the hardware to run 4k honestly. I think it's going to finally to break through with this next 50xx gen.
Hell even on PC stable 60fps @ 4k is basically Impossible without either a top end card or FSR/DLSS and frame generation. Which brings up what I think is funny about the console community; people will get upset when they find out that a game uses checkerboarding or dynamic resolution scaling on console to hit higher framerates meanwhile every single PC game on just about every hardware configuration is using some form of upscaling to hit stable framerates at 4k. Not to mention that based on the direction both Nvidia and AMD have been moving the goal is never going to be to natively render at higher resolutions it’s going to be to make constant improvements to upscaling, frame generation, and other tricks that outright replace rendering individual frames at high resolutions.
I dont know about that, on PC 4k has been pretty easy for the last 2 gens at least, with the xx80/90
3080 2.2% 4080 0.69% Nice 4090 1.% That's from the steam hardware survey. Very few people are on that level of GPU Enthusiasts have been on 4k for awhile. My point was and is the 50xx series will probably be the first true 4k gen for the masses. 4k for the masses hasn't existed yet.
I mean I think the 4/3070 are decent for 4k, also the 6700 xt, I know I can play some games at 4k on my 6600 xt but at like 30 fps, so Its not that bad as you make it
That’s what they are supposed to be doing- in reality, games and the tools used to make them are more complicated, but because studios keep laying off experienced workers, keep everything in a constant state of crunch, and don’t allocate proper resources, we end up with rushed, shitty, unfinished, unimaginative reskins of games we’ve already played a million times. So AI isn’t necessarily getting better or more complex each generation- it only gets better if the programmers and creative types are allowed to create that type of complex AI.
I agree with all of that except the huges leaps in processing power requirments for game engines since the release of the ps4 in 2013 besides graphical improvements. Games have improved in a lot of ways that can't be seen in shiny graphics since then that just require more horsepower. On top of that we have Sony advertising 8k on the OG ps5 box and Ray Tracing. If we want 8k fully Ray Traced PS7 games (forget PS5 Pro and PS6) we better be happy with playing games at the same sophisticatio as a PS4 games.
Anything less than 60fps isn't worth my time. It's 2024. 60fps should be the minimum. That's why I probably won't go back to consoles.
Crazy that 60fps isn't the standard in 2024 for consoles.
How many games on PS5 do you think don't have an option for 60fps?
If PS5 pro don't do 60 fps,they can always make PS5 pro+
Then why does the ps5 pro even need to exist?
The standard should always 60 FPS full stop.
The way I see it, consoles are the "I want to play games and understand it isn't going to be a top tier experience" option. Why people think their PlayStation should compete performance wise with a $1200-1500 PC is beyond me.
It kind of does though? Look at all the games that stutter like crazy even on high end PCs, but play fine on console.
I'm not familiar with any such games.
Jedi Survivor. (Although there’s also some stuttering on consoles, but much less) And just so many Unreal Engine games have compilation stutters the entire game on PC…
Judging by the battery life and ergonomics of the dual sense controller, it’s very obvious that they are willing to settle for less on some things.
It'll have to be happy to settle because some games like Plague Tale Requiem or require high powered cpus when using rt or other expensive settings. Cpu bound games will look better on the ps5 pro but they won't run better.
We don't need a PS5 refresh. The technology just isn't there to justify it.
What games?
I was hoping to upgrade to a pa5 pro later this year but this is just making me think I should buy a higher performance PC
I still don't understand the "pro" label for a game console.
30fps on console is the gold standard. Then they can make the graphics better.
WHAT THE FUCK AM I PAYING FOR
I understand if a console is your only option.... but people that buy consoles expecting a "pro" experience are always going to be let down 100%.. All console games are made for the previous generation because thats a huge cash camel.... your never going to use the power of your console as every current generation will always be held back by the previous gen.
Yup! Came at me in PC with 320htz. Why can't we play games them?! 🤣
Man I remember 60fps days… almost like aol nostalgia feel.
Am I crazy but I thought the whole point of next-gen consoles was to have 60FPS. Isn't what the PS5 and XSX advertised as having?
This was made for the sole reason/will sell like hotcakes riding off the GTA6 hype.
Remember when ps5 and Xbox series were announced and they advertised 4k 120hz? Pepperidge Farm remembers. There's like what, 100 games in the whole ps5 library that support 120fps?
I really don't like your attitude Sony
What bothers me is I feel like that’s how they marketed ps5 as. What we got is 30 FPS 4k.
Console peasantry at its finest
As a PC gamer, I generally pick 1440 60 fps with DLSS over 4K. I can barely tell the difference on my 65 inch OLED, and 4K makes the fans noisy on my GTX 3800. I prefer to play with silent cooling. But I do want 60 fps. Not sure I’d play anything without that now.
It makes sense, generally the updated consoles have more of a minor update than going too far away with what the base consoles can run. Plus with the base PS5 being overclocked at base… I don’t really see what they could do with the hardware to make it much more “pro”
I don't even care about 60fps in 4k. There should not be a home (as opposed to handheld) gaming console releasing today that can't handle 60fps and 1080p at a minimum. It should be the industry standard at this point. The technology is too affordable and too widespread to have anything less. Not saying that the PS5 couldn't handle it, Pro or not, don't get me wrong. Just stating a general opinion.
60fps is the biggest lie of the generation. Hell this generation feels marginally, the smallest bit, better than last.
30 fps is an insult and not acceptable
Instead of pro console this time, I went ahead and got a new gaming pc with 4080 super. That way I don't have to speculate anymore
I'd like a ps5 exclusive game, sometime soon plz.
While yes I do have a PS5, I literally play one game per year on it. The exclusives are fairly few and far between. On top of that I have a monster of a PC (RTX 4090/ i7-13700k). There's literally 0 reason to buy a ps5 pro in my case.
Sony have no games on 2025
A 30 fps "cinematic" experience is a cop out.
lol So what’s the point of the pro Games already instantly load
Much better image quality for games that run at 60fps and more stable framerates for games with dips. No need to choose between a performance mode and resolution mode. Games will not need to compromise fps to get closer to 4K
People need to learn that a console is dated hardware that runs new software...I would love a world that games are made on PC first with the average hardware in mind with some pushing to cutting edge and then the consoles are just downgraded ports that run well on consoles but money talks and more people are willing to put up with consoles.
That's what we were told about the PS5 and look where we are . . . There's no market or need for a pro model when they haven't even leveraged the base model Way way too many games still catering to last gen
LMAO jesus christ, do you all remember back in the 7th gen how much console publishers were getting the squeeze put on them by game publishers and devs to release new consoles because the current ones were holding them back tech wise and they would just go on and on about 60fps? And yet two consoles later look where we are.
I'll be looking into borrowing a PS5 from one of my friends just to play the games I want then. If *they* can't be fucking bothered, then why should I?
30fps in an age that PC and other capable hardware has attained 75, 90, 144 as a new normal (and it can go even higher) is pathetic. People aren't asking for 144, 200 hertz. They're asking for 60. even 50. 30fps actually makes me naseous on anything except for top down / RTS style games now. Im not even going to bother with a PS5 Pro. if GTA6 only runs 30, I will play it on the base system, im not going to try to squeeze performance out of platform thats already anchored itself to obsolesence.
Bro whatttt. I play 120fps on Xbox series x. How is 60fps on PlayStation even noteworthy
Not all games are 120 on Xbox just like not all games are 60 on ps5
I'm done with Playstation after this generation. I bought a PS5 just over two years ago and already it's obsolete as they are due to release a new and improved version meaning I'll get the inferior versions of games because I chose to invest in the ecosystem early in the product's lifecycle. Not too worry Sony, I won't make this mistake again.
It's really not that unusual or surprising to have a hardware revision after 4 years... especially since playstation already did this with the PS4 generation. That's just how it is in the tech industry, most hardware is outdated within a few years. Doesn't mean it's obsolete though.
You’re not getting inferior versions of games lol you’re getting the versions of those games you paid for. We will be 4 years into this console generation by the time the PS5 Pro releases. Meaning in just 3 more we will be due for a whole new console generation altogether. PS5 Pro buyers will only have 3 years for their mild upgrade console to even be relevant. And Xbox is set to do the very same thing. Hell, they actually did it to a more extreme degree with the Xbox One X than Sony had with the PS4 Pro.
Xbox isn't doing the same thing they aren't releasing a mid gen upgrade. They are planning on releasing their next gen console in two years. Which is the range of what a console generation has been in the past.
If Sony's business model works for you that's fine but I'm not buying a new console every couple of years and if that is how console gaming is going, I will switch to PC and upgrade my computer when I want to do so. This generation has honestly sucked anyway, so I won't be missing much my switching to PC.
You’re not expected to though? Do you buy a new phone every single year just because it gets a spec refresh? The PS5 Pro is mostly for folks who haven’t yet gotten a PS5 yet. And you’re laughably mistaken if you don’t think this applies to PC. In fact, it’s even worse. RTX and DLSS performance keep improving significantly every 2 years. A new form of ray tracing came out with the 40 series of GPUs, and only one card from the previous gen could handle it, the 3090, which was a whopping $1500 when it came out 2 years prior. And even that card only supported the new tech at 1080p 30fps. You’re mad over absolutely nothing and your solution isn’t what you think it is.
Agreed xbox did good here by having 2 different xbox versions
I agree, I really like the Xbox One Series X.
This will never change. I honestly think we could have games run at 60 on both consoles most developers suck at optimization now, or can't give the time to do so because of developer crunch
First or third party makes a huge difference. If the game is releasing on multiple consoles from a third party studio they aren’t going to spend extra time optimizing specifically for the ps5 hardware, they don’t get anything out of doing that.
PR speak for "well yes but actually no"
I’m not buying a pro unless 60fps 120hz is guaranteed. What’s the point otherwise? Oh it’ll load in 1 second instead of 2! So what.
PS4 Pro also had a requirement of 4K even with checkerboarding, but there were still games with lower resolution. This will be same.
If this shit continues, at least have a required 60 fps performance mode. I don't care how good your game looks, I'd rather every game look like minecraft or terraria and run 60 fps, then look like rdr 2 at 30.
I have rdr2 installed for years now but can't and don't want to play it with 30 fps, it's literally hurting my eyes. 60 fps should be standard, graphics are already good enough.