So not as cheap as the (inflation adjusted) PS2 ($550) or PS4 ($540), but cheaper than the $780 of the PS3. PS1 was close at $620.
Also games back in 1995 were around $50, which is $103 today.
At that price there would have to be some pretty compelling arguments to upgrade.
Half a generation for up to 40% more raytracing power isn’t worth it.
A full generation for 2-3 times what a PS5 can do? Maybe.
Even then, there would have to be some damn good exclusives on PS6 to be worth your while. PS4 to PS5 was an easy argument, games ran at 30 pretty much all generation, mostly due to a comically underpowered CPU, and now they run at 60.
I’m struggling to even conceive of a worthwhile game that would bring a PS5 to its knees. I haven’t really seen a good argument for raytracing yet. Sure, nicer reflections, more accurate lighting, but we were pretty good at faking those anyway. Cyberpunk and Metro look really nice with the RT only editions, but they were perfectly playable without it.
We should really draw a big line under RT once it reaches a certain level of power, and go back to affordability. Game devs can’t put food on the table just catering to insanely high end hardware. My PC is still rocking a 1060. On the Steam hardware survey, there’s only one GPU higher than the X060 series inside the top ten. Budget hardware has got to be the focus.
They would have to be pretty incompetent to price the ps6 at $700 since they would be ignoring their own history and the fact that low barrier to entry is what made the ps1/ps2 sell so well in the first place. Sony already cracked the code to success in the 90s. If they fail to remember what they have already learned and the base ps5/ps6 goes up in price they should be fired.
I mean, it depends. PS5 Pro is an enthusiasts console that, compared to regular PS5 and Slim, won’t be selling as much. Playing the devil’s advocate, you could argue that the higher price point is then warranted since they won’t be selling as many units (99% sure they just made it more expensive because they can but whatever).
In the past, their consoles were sold at a loss, at a lower price point, which they could justify by profiting in other areas of their business, such as games and accessories. Sony could, theoretically, do this to PS6 too to ensure that not too many people are priced out of having a console and retain their status of loyal-ish customers.
Wishful thinking on my part for sure but not too unrealistic when you think about it.
I don’t think this is just wishful thinking in my opinion. It’s exactly what I think. PS5 Pro is an optional upgrade for enthusiasts. The brand and companies success does not depend on it. I even think the PS6 will be cheaper than PS5 Pro, because it will look like bargain now. And the success of Playstation as a whole depends on how many baseline units are sold. I don’t think that even Sony can afford 700 Dollars (without disc drive) for the PS6.
But off course it depends on future economics situation in the word (Yen conversion) and if there is good competition from Xbox. At that point Microsoft probably has the next generation Xbox Infinite on the market and then it would be tough for Sony not to fight on the price. Probably a wishful thinking on my part too, but also not too unrealistic! Right?^^
well yeah, but that’s only because the slow death of “generations” will be complete by then. We already have a large swath of casual and/or younger gamers that are still gaming on PS4 because PS5 is too expensive and all the games work fine on PS4. Bump that forward by a generation, and what would you expect to happen? I don’t think it’s all that wild to expect that for the majority of the PS6’s lifespan, 100% of games will also come out on PS5. Hell, I’d bet even low-budget and indies continue to come out on PS4! It’ll be like phones - the PS6 is there for the people that want to pay out the nose for the bleeding edge, and the PS5 and Pro will still be there for everyone else that wants a console gaming experience. And all those kids playing fortnite and minecraft? They’ll still be playing that on their childhood PS4.
Thank fuck tho, it will keep electric waste down, and I feel we are starting to figure out you don’t need to spec your game to the newest graphics card for it to be fun.
I don’t even find the price too bad, i haven’t owned a console in over a decade, so i don’t really know. But paying to use their online service, and the lack of games is really off putting to me. And that aside, as far as i understand it, it was such a pain in the ass to get a ps5, that i don’t really understand why so many people bothered in the first place.
I will admit it’s not only the price that is a deterrent, even if that’s now competing with a perfectly capable gaming PC that can do significantly more, doesn’t have an additional charge to play online, doesn’t have to deal with increasingly standardised subpar controller longevity, commonly have cheaper games, better sales, and will have a longer shelf life.
I already thought the PS5 was a bit pricy at launch, at a time when I was still considering buying one. That time has been and gone, I’ve spent the money on upgrading my already decent computer into an absolute beast because I figured “why not?” and I still have yet to see a reason to buy the PS5.
It’s no secret that consoles are commonly loss leaders for the manufacturers while the exclusives are the money-makers. It’s a way of doing business, that’s fine, but to this day, I can only claim to have seen them release maybe 4 exclusives that I’d deem worth playing. That’s already a bad deal. No-one in their right mind can justify paying full price for a console to play 4 games. On top of that, 1 already got ported to PC, one’s got a release date, one’s already had public response from the developer to be working on the port, and the last has really strong odds of getting ported too. 4 is my number, and I don’t doubt other players would swap my own picks for something more their taste, or maybe even bolster the numbers, but I don’t think anyone could make it as high as 10 without naming a game that was also released for the PS4 and/or got ported.
So unless Sony gets their shit together, the PS5 tells us that the PS6 will be a bad deal.
I think the Playstation 6 will be cheaper than Playstation 5 Professional. Why? Because its the baseline and not Pro. The reason why the Pro model can be this expensive is, because its an optional hardware and doesn’t even need to sell well. Selling the baseline Playstation 6 unit is crucial for Sony and they need to sell a lot. Also this establishes a new height, which means if the next generation console PS6 is cheaper than PS5 Pro, then it looks like a bargain.
Also the current Yen and price conversions are expensive for Sony, so it depends on the future market if stuff gets cheaper as well. And if there is good competition. At the moment, there is no Xbox competition at Pro model line or even much of at baseline versions.
If they do that and Xbox aren’t idiots and take advantage of the high PS6 pricing that could lead to another PS3 early gen fiasco that takes years into the generation to catch up.
Oh good I still haven’t upgraded from the last generation. I may just skip this one at this point, the only games I feel like I’m missing out on are the new Spider-Man and the unreleased GTA VI
That’s not really a good comparison. After 5-10 years you’re going to need a PC upgrade as well if you want to keep up with current game tech and run games at high settings. That can easily cost $700. Remember, consoles are usually mid-range computers.
But you aren’t required to upgrade, it will just not be as fast/HD as it would be on newer hardware. On console it is very likely the old hardware will not be developed for at a certain point, so you will not be able to play it even if technically it would run decent on the hardware
I’ll try to respond below. Lemme know what you think:
Consoles:
Need to upgrade every 5-7 years if you want to play new games on next gen consoles. Can play your old games indefinitely.
PC:
Need to upgrade every 5-7 years if you want to play new games that are more demanding and require next gen parts. Can play your old games indefinitely.
In terms of playing new games on an old PC, try playing cyberpunk on a PC from 2013 (7 years prior to CP77 release in 2020). You’ll get like 2 fps. Not even playable.
So to conclude, sure, you can try to play new games on your old ass PC, but it’ll run like crap and won’t be a good experience.
Edit: just to clarify, my opinion is from the perspective of someone who wants to play new demanding games. If you play super easy to run new indie games, then yea I agree with your point. Added benefit of PC is the ability do that indefinitely.
True, but that’s just more of an added benefit of PC. I have to assume the vast majority of people who build PCs for games have the desire to play new games that come out. There may be a few people who build PCs with only the desire to play old games. But i don’t think that is the majority.
Plus if someone doesn’t want new games then they wouldn’t need or care to upgrade their console from one gen to a next. So i don’t think that’s relevant in this discussion.
Considering Nintendo selling very old games just emulated on their switch for almost full price I’d say people want both new games and their classics. The point is you don’t have to decide which games to get. I play Baldurs Gate 3 but also Age of Wonders 1 or the early Devil May Cry games. I can actually play the whole DMC series on one device while my PS5 is collecting dust as every game costs more there than on PC and I don’t have a big library of games.
Also I’d have to pay way too much money just to be allowed to play online on servers that Sony doesn’t even run. Over the span of 5-10 years I’d have to pay probably around 400-800€ just to play online.
I’m not 100% sure anymore but my pc with an AMD GPU and CPU cost me maybe 1300€ and runs everything i want on highest settings so far. I think the biggest price point on PC is people getting duped by sites like userbenchmark to think they need an Nvidia card that’s ridiculously expensive.
Or a steam deck. The cheapest option for that is like a bit under 400 I think and it doubles as a PC while having a massive library of games plus emulation.
The Steam Deck isn’t really a 1:1 replacement for a home console though, it really depends on your use case. It’s great at what it does, but not everyone is looking for a handheld. And if you’re into more demanding games the Deck also struggles to keep up. I love my Deck but if I had to choose between it and my desktop gaming PC I’d choose the desktop every time. Although it admittedly also was quite a bit more expensive.
True, if you wanna play games with really high requirements you need to cough up mu h more than 700 euros, I’m just saying the Steam Deck is better value than a PlayStation.
Saying the Steam Deck is better value than a PlayStation isn’t really a meaningful statement without further qualification because they are two very different devices. That was kind of the point of my previous comment. If you don’t need any of the handheld features and just want to play on your TV then the PS5 is better value. If you want a handheld a PS5 is obviously completely useless and the Steam Deck is insanely good value.
Also, if you want to play current, demanding games, a €700 PS5 Pro surely is enough. Even a regular PS5 should do for now since the Pro isn’t even out yet. Personally I prefer a more powerful gaming PC, but if you just want to play some of the latest AAA games on your TV you don’t need to spend more than 700€ unless you have other specific requirements.
@FluffyPotato@astrionic Agreed, it doesn’t even compare. Something I always forget since moving over to PC now is that console players have to pay monthly to play online, even when they have an internet connection. The concept is just absurd to me now on the PC side of things.
Even the bigger model of LCD with 512 GB compared to the cheapest 64 GB model is on sale at the moment, for about 350 Euros (still under 400 US Dollars I think). It’s crazy!
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !gaming@beehaw.org
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it’s gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
So not as cheap as the (inflation adjusted) PS2 ($550) or PS4 ($540), but cheaper than the $780 of the PS3. PS1 was close at $620.
Also games back in 1995 were around $50, which is $103 today.
At that price there would have to be some pretty compelling arguments to upgrade.
Half a generation for up to 40% more raytracing power isn’t worth it.
A full generation for 2-3 times what a PS5 can do? Maybe.
Even then, there would have to be some damn good exclusives on PS6 to be worth your while. PS4 to PS5 was an easy argument, games ran at 30 pretty much all generation, mostly due to a comically underpowered CPU, and now they run at 60.
I’m struggling to even conceive of a worthwhile game that would bring a PS5 to its knees. I haven’t really seen a good argument for raytracing yet. Sure, nicer reflections, more accurate lighting, but we were pretty good at faking those anyway. Cyberpunk and Metro look really nice with the RT only editions, but they were perfectly playable without it.
We should really draw a big line under RT once it reaches a certain level of power, and go back to affordability. Game devs can’t put food on the table just catering to insanely high end hardware. My PC is still rocking a 1060. On the Steam hardware survey, there’s only one GPU higher than the X060 series inside the top ten. Budget hardware has got to be the focus.
They probably pigeon holed themselves trying to offer high end visuals like ray tracing and 4k, and can no longer offer that with low end hardware.
They would have to be pretty incompetent to price the ps6 at $700 since they would be ignoring their own history and the fact that low barrier to entry is what made the ps1/ps2 sell so well in the first place. Sony already cracked the code to success in the 90s. If they fail to remember what they have already learned and the base ps5/ps6 goes up in price they should be fired.
I mean, it depends. PS5 Pro is an enthusiasts console that, compared to regular PS5 and Slim, won’t be selling as much. Playing the devil’s advocate, you could argue that the higher price point is then warranted since they won’t be selling as many units (99% sure they just made it more expensive because they can but whatever).
In the past, their consoles were sold at a loss, at a lower price point, which they could justify by profiting in other areas of their business, such as games and accessories. Sony could, theoretically, do this to PS6 too to ensure that not too many people are priced out of having a console and retain their status of loyal-ish customers.
Wishful thinking on my part for sure but not too unrealistic when you think about it.
I don’t think this is just wishful thinking in my opinion. It’s exactly what I think. PS5 Pro is an optional upgrade for enthusiasts. The brand and companies success does not depend on it. I even think the PS6 will be cheaper than PS5 Pro, because it will look like bargain now. And the success of Playstation as a whole depends on how many baseline units are sold. I don’t think that even Sony can afford 700 Dollars (without disc drive) for the PS6.
But off course it depends on future economics situation in the word (Yen conversion) and if there is good competition from Xbox. At that point Microsoft probably has the next generation Xbox Infinite on the market and then it would be tough for Sony not to fight on the price. Probably a wishful thinking on my part too, but also not too unrealistic! Right?^^
well yeah, but that’s only because the slow death of “generations” will be complete by then. We already have a large swath of casual and/or younger gamers that are still gaming on PS4 because PS5 is too expensive and all the games work fine on PS4. Bump that forward by a generation, and what would you expect to happen? I don’t think it’s all that wild to expect that for the majority of the PS6’s lifespan, 100% of games will also come out on PS5. Hell, I’d bet even low-budget and indies continue to come out on PS4! It’ll be like phones - the PS6 is there for the people that want to pay out the nose for the bleeding edge, and the PS5 and Pro will still be there for everyone else that wants a console gaming experience. And all those kids playing fortnite and minecraft? They’ll still be playing that on their childhood PS4.
This is why I have no plans to buy a PS6.
Thank fuck tho, it will keep electric waste down, and I feel we are starting to figure out you don’t need to spec your game to the newest graphics card for it to be fun.
My regards to Sony, the pricing makes it easier to not even consider buying one.
I don’t even find the price too bad, i haven’t owned a console in over a decade, so i don’t really know. But paying to use their online service, and the lack of games is really off putting to me. And that aside, as far as i understand it, it was such a pain in the ass to get a ps5, that i don’t really understand why so many people bothered in the first place.
I will admit it’s not only the price that is a deterrent, even if that’s now competing with a perfectly capable gaming PC that can do significantly more, doesn’t have an additional charge to play online, doesn’t have to deal with increasingly standardised subpar controller longevity, commonly have cheaper games, better sales, and will have a longer shelf life. I already thought the PS5 was a bit pricy at launch, at a time when I was still considering buying one. That time has been and gone, I’ve spent the money on upgrading my already decent computer into an absolute beast because I figured “why not?” and I still have yet to see a reason to buy the PS5. It’s no secret that consoles are commonly loss leaders for the manufacturers while the exclusives are the money-makers. It’s a way of doing business, that’s fine, but to this day, I can only claim to have seen them release maybe 4 exclusives that I’d deem worth playing. That’s already a bad deal. No-one in their right mind can justify paying full price for a console to play 4 games. On top of that, 1 already got ported to PC, one’s got a release date, one’s already had public response from the developer to be working on the port, and the last has really strong odds of getting ported too. 4 is my number, and I don’t doubt other players would swap my own picks for something more their taste, or maybe even bolster the numbers, but I don’t think anyone could make it as high as 10 without naming a game that was also released for the PS4 and/or got ported. So unless Sony gets their shit together, the PS5 tells us that the PS6 will be a bad deal.
I’d be playing Terraria until the prices settle
On an older smartphone
I think the Playstation 6 will be cheaper than Playstation 5 Professional. Why? Because its the baseline and not Pro. The reason why the Pro model can be this expensive is, because its an optional hardware and doesn’t even need to sell well. Selling the baseline Playstation 6 unit is crucial for Sony and they need to sell a lot. Also this establishes a new height, which means if the next generation console PS6 is cheaper than PS5 Pro, then it looks like a bargain.
Also the current Yen and price conversions are expensive for Sony, so it depends on the future market if stuff gets cheaper as well. And if there is good competition. At the moment, there is no Xbox competition at Pro model line or even much of at baseline versions.
If they do that and Xbox aren’t idiots and take advantage of the high PS6 pricing that could lead to another PS3 early gen fiasco that takes years into the generation to catch up.
It’s time for a new console generation already?
No. Slow news cycle
Oh good I still haven’t upgraded from the last generation. I may just skip this one at this point, the only games I feel like I’m missing out on are the new Spider-Man and the unreleased GTA VI
Cool ill stick with a comparably priced pc and do more than i can with a ps5/6
Just get a PC? Parts prices are low right now and they are far more useful than a console that has a “planned expiration” every 5-10 years.
That’s not really a good comparison. After 5-10 years you’re going to need a PC upgrade as well if you want to keep up with current game tech and run games at high settings. That can easily cost $700. Remember, consoles are usually mid-range computers.
But you aren’t required to upgrade, it will just not be as fast/HD as it would be on newer hardware. On console it is very likely the old hardware will not be developed for at a certain point, so you will not be able to play it even if technically it would run decent on the hardware
I’ll try to respond below. Lemme know what you think:
Consoles:
Need to upgrade every 5-7 years if you want to play new games on next gen consoles. Can play your old games indefinitely.
PC:
Need to upgrade every 5-7 years if you want to play new games that are more demanding and require next gen parts. Can play your old games indefinitely.
In terms of playing new games on an old PC, try playing cyberpunk on a PC from 2013 (7 years prior to CP77 release in 2020). You’ll get like 2 fps. Not even playable.
So to conclude, sure, you can try to play new games on your old ass PC, but it’ll run like crap and won’t be a good experience.
Edit: just to clarify, my opinion is from the perspective of someone who wants to play new demanding games. If you play super easy to run new indie games, then yea I agree with your point. Added benefit of PC is the ability do that indefinitely.
But on your new pc you can still play your old games which is not a given on consoles
True, but that’s just more of an added benefit of PC. I have to assume the vast majority of people who build PCs for games have the desire to play new games that come out. There may be a few people who build PCs with only the desire to play old games. But i don’t think that is the majority.
Plus if someone doesn’t want new games then they wouldn’t need or care to upgrade their console from one gen to a next. So i don’t think that’s relevant in this discussion.
Considering Nintendo selling very old games just emulated on their switch for almost full price I’d say people want both new games and their classics. The point is you don’t have to decide which games to get. I play Baldurs Gate 3 but also Age of Wonders 1 or the early Devil May Cry games. I can actually play the whole DMC series on one device while my PS5 is collecting dust as every game costs more there than on PC and I don’t have a big library of games.
Also I’d have to pay way too much money just to be allowed to play online on servers that Sony doesn’t even run. Over the span of 5-10 years I’d have to pay probably around 400-800€ just to play online.
I’m not 100% sure anymore but my pc with an AMD GPU and CPU cost me maybe 1300€ and runs everything i want on highest settings so far. I think the biggest price point on PC is people getting duped by sites like userbenchmark to think they need an Nvidia card that’s ridiculously expensive.
Or a steam deck. The cheapest option for that is like a bit under 400 I think and it doubles as a PC while having a massive library of games plus emulation.
The Steam Deck isn’t really a 1:1 replacement for a home console though, it really depends on your use case. It’s great at what it does, but not everyone is looking for a handheld. And if you’re into more demanding games the Deck also struggles to keep up. I love my Deck but if I had to choose between it and my desktop gaming PC I’d choose the desktop every time. Although it admittedly also was quite a bit more expensive.
True, if you wanna play games with really high requirements you need to cough up mu h more than 700 euros, I’m just saying the Steam Deck is better value than a PlayStation.
Saying the Steam Deck is better value than a PlayStation isn’t really a meaningful statement without further qualification because they are two very different devices. That was kind of the point of my previous comment. If you don’t need any of the handheld features and just want to play on your TV then the PS5 is better value. If you want a handheld a PS5 is obviously completely useless and the Steam Deck is insanely good value.
Also, if you want to play current, demanding games, a €700 PS5 Pro surely is enough. Even a regular PS5 should do for now since the Pro isn’t even out yet. Personally I prefer a more powerful gaming PC, but if you just want to play some of the latest AAA games on your TV you don’t need to spend more than 700€ unless you have other specific requirements.
@FluffyPotato @astrionic Agreed, it doesn’t even compare. Something I always forget since moving over to PC now is that console players have to pay monthly to play online, even when they have an internet connection. The concept is just absurd to me now on the PC side of things.
You can’t just buy a steam deck tho. I couldn’t get one if i wanted.
Even the bigger model of LCD with 512 GB compared to the cheapest 64 GB model is on sale at the moment, for about 350 Euros (still under 400 US Dollars I think). It’s crazy!