Support NeoGAF

[CLW]

It serves as my main console and my son has the launch ps5 but I notice very little visual/performance benefit otherwise justifying the purchase

 

[Humdinger]

I'd give it a C. I spent the money because I had it, but I don't really think it was worth it. I don't see enough difference to make a difference, personally. In retrospect, I should've just waited for PS6.

 

[REDRZA MWS]

I bought one at launch, IMO the improvements are there but they're subtle. We are DEEP into diminishing returns territory. It's not anyone's fault, it's the nature of technology across time.

100%

Seems now that AMD is making SoC's for both MS and Sony those things we used to complain about in the console space like "proprietary hardware" were GOOD things, for us gamers, meaning devs needed to learn and harness the hardware and there,, at least to me, seemed to be a time when games weren't so "samey". And now all even these first party games are releasing on PC and Sony just announced they are bringing their games to PC too.

I've stepped back from gaming the way I used to for a long while now. None of the games starting last gen into this gen are that impressive to me or even anything I know I'd be immersed in.

 

[Ozriel]

I can't believe so many are giving the PS5 PRO such low grades while saying it's not as good as the PS4 Pro was. Like do people really have selective memory or something? The PS4 Pro was nothing more than a high res PS4 in like 4/5 titles ever released for it. Like literally, all it amounted to was a 1440p PS4. Not a 4K PS4...but a 1440p PS4. Its 2.3x more powerful GPU was used for nothing more than pushing additional pixels and few games even had any higher graphical settings over the base PS4 version. More importantly though....the majority of PS4 games did absolutely nothing to improve framerate of PS4 games since most games remained locked to 30fps due to the anemic Jaguar CPU and lack of VRR support. Despite the 30% bump in CPU clocks, it only amounted to slightly more stable framerates and in the select few games that did push 60fps, it did hit it more often than the base (e.g. the RE2 and RE3 remakes). Checkerboard rendering was only used in a handful of titles (mostly first party) and PSSR already in year 1 has several times more support than we ever saw with checkerboard rendering on the PS4 PRO. Yet, folks are talking about how limited the support for PSSR is while in the same breath saying how awesome the PS4 PRO was...like really?

People talk about how the PS4 PRO was a bigger jump since it made the move to 4K...except it kind of didn't. We now the vast majority of games didn't run anyway near true 4K resolution and the various upscaling techniques used, including checkerboarding, typically had lackluster results (some Sony 1st party titles like God of War and Horizon are the exception). At least we should be able to agree that the PS4 PRO's upscaling to 4K was generally inferior to any of the upscaling solutions on PS5/PS5 PRO (FSR, TAA, TSR, PSSR etc) right? Don't get me wrong, games did look sharper on a 4K screen on PS4 PRO. However, FPS was largely unchanged, graphical settings were largely unchanged or had minor improvements, there was virtually no support for the flagship feature of checkerboard rendering, and of course the hardware itself was a bulky jet engine in your living room. Mind you, I brought the PS4 PRO twice (at launch and then the see through special edition) simply because I wanted the best way to play my PS4 games. But I'm not delusional to not see it for what it was (and what it wasn't). I would hardly call it a "leap" over the base PS4 and ultimately, the improvement of just pushing 2x the pixels was largely uninteresting IMO.

With the PS5 PRO, PSSR alone is designed to deliver pretty much everything that the PS4 PRO did...a perceptual resolution bump to provide greater IQ and clarity on 4K screens. In the good cases, it does exactly that and in the best cases, the improvement is beyond anything I've seen on PS4 PRO despite the output resolution technically being the same 4K as the base PS5. Beyond that, the RT improvements already push it well past what the PS4 PRO ever delivered in terms of a side by side A/B improvement over the base systems. Some minor graphical settings bump in a few PS4 PRO games cannot compare to the often transformative difference RT can bring to PS5 PRO which we've seen in games such as Alan Wake 2, Dead Rising Remastered, Gt7, First Descendent, AC Shadows, F1 24/25, and Monster Hunter Wilds to name a few. And with PSSR in play, the ~40% GPU perf bump can actually be used for more meaningful things than just pushing a few more pixels. Things like additional RT effects and higher frame rates are more common. And yes, we've seen plenty of games with meaningful bumps to FPS due in part to the advent of 120hz and VRR TVs. Devs can now unlock the framerate which will allow PS5 PRO to push beyond the 30/40/60 FPS cap in many titles. We've never seen anything on the PS4 PRO like what titles such as RE8 Village, RE4 Remake, Battlefield 6, COD:BO 6, Elden Ring, Stellar Blade, TLOU PT1/P2, R&C RA, Control, and Ninja Gaiden 4 (to name a few) are doing on the PS5 PRO. In these cases, 30/40/60 FPS caps on the base PS5 are turned into 80-100FPS play experiences on the PS5 PRO often with max quality and higher resolutions to boot.

It's crazy how some folks can be so selective with their memory of PS4 PRO and yet so dismissive of that advantages of the PS5 PRO. Every major first party release on PS4 PRO remained at 30fps and sub 4K rendering (TLOU PT2, Spiderman, Days Gone, Horizon ZD, Driveclub, Ghosts of Tsushima, Uncharted 4, and more), yet folks want to harp on a handful of PS5 PRO titles that had slightly lower FPS than the base (most of which were later fixed in patches)? Man the double standard is real at times...

your entire wall of text rendered useless by the fact that the PS4 Pro launched at $399 with a disc drive. Exact same price as the base machine launch price. $100 upgrade over the price of the base console at launch.

For the sheer value for money, the PS4 Pro was very solid. It doesn't make sense to hold things like framerates over it when RDNA wasn't ready at the time.

It provided a very visible boost in visuals, at a modest price increase. That's why opinions remain very positive.

 

[Gravemind]

Complete waste of money if you already had the base ps5.

 

[Tqaulity]

You do realize the PS4 Pro cost the same as the base PS4 at release right? And the base PS4 got a price drop.

So PS5 comes out, digital version costs the same as a PS4 at release while the disc version costs $100 more. A reasonable (I would say even great) price for the jump in power. PS5 Pro comes out and costs $300(!!) more than the digital base PS5.

That is a price increase that should merit a SIGNIFICANT upgrade to the base PS5, which it has failed at. The promise of their upscaling solution with PSSR has been poorly implemented with many games, with no way to disable the feature if you are unhappy with the results. A $300 price increase should give you more agency at the very LEAST to configure graphical options to cater to the user experience. A $300 price increase is what you would come to expect for something that would deliver a next gen experience.

Oh and big surprise, 3rd parties dont give a SHIT about the PS5 pro. What incentive do they have to work to the strengths of the console with a measly install base? Are Sony paying them to make Pro upgrades? No, they are not. And no, they cant force any of them to do it because 3rd parties are Sony's bread a butter. Without them, there is no PlayStation.

We got fools here thinking the PS6 will be anything less than $800. Not with the PS5 Pro existing at its current price.

I completely agree that the PS4 PRO was a much better value prop than the PS5 PRO is today and I agree the PS6 will be more expensive than the PS5 was at launch (although I would argue the PS5 PRO isn't a bad value in a world where the base PS5 is $550, a 80 series Nvidia GPU costs $999, a Xbox ROG Ally X costs $999, and a 2TB Xbox Series X is $799!!). But the point I was responding to was that many people on this thread simply said that the PS4 PRO was "awesome" or a better performance upgrade than the PS5 PRO not really talking about the costs as a factor. I can't see how someone can honestly think that.

There are other circumstances at play that is really not the fault of the console itself (i.e. macroeconomics increasing cost and lackluster third party efforts) but let's isolate the comparison to the Sony first party studios for a more apples to apples comparison. Sony's first party are generally going to be the best examples of what the hardware can do right? Well the PS4 PRO had some bangers as I mentioned: TLOU PT2, Spiderman, Days Gone, Horizon ZD, Driveclub, Ghosts of Tsushima, Uncharted 4, and more. Every one of those games saw a straightforward pixel count bump to 1080p to 1440p on PS4 PRO with only checkerboard rendering used on some of them. In fact, we saw several first party studios flat out reject checkerboard rendering as an option in their titles and instead come up with their own upscaling solution due to the lack of quality of checkerboarding (i.e. Insomniac, Naughty Dog, Polyphony). All of them still ran at a capped 30fps on the PS4 PRO and added virtually nothing in the way of enhanced visuals outside of pixel count.

Now compare that from what we've seen from first party on PS5 PRO. We're not talking about the quality of the games themselves or how the Sony firsts party output is less this gen (that's not the system's fault), but what are the premier studios doing with the hardware. We're seeing PSSR used much more judiciously and represent some of the best implementations of the tech (Demon's Souls, all 4 Insomniac games, GT7, Days Gone Remastered, AstroBot, TLOU Pt1/2, Stellar Blade, God of War Ragnarok etc). We're seeing increased Ray Tracing beyond what was on the base PS5 at higher frame rates (fidelity Pro modes in all 4 Insomniac games, 60fps RT in Ghost of Yotei, in game RT in GT7). We're seeing the increased GPU power being utilized to push FPS significantly higher with unlocked VRR modes (all Insomniac games, all Naughty Dog games, God of War Ragnarok, Stellar Blade, Horizon ZD and FW). And even for games that don't utilize RT or PSSR, we're still seeing some of the largest perf gains beyond the paper specs (Returnal 70% resolution bump, Helldivers II 2x resolution bump in perf mode).

Bottom line is if you don't like the PS5 PRO, fine. If you don't think it's a great value, fine. But to say that the PS4 PRO was "better" wrt to performance or doing more to increase the experience over the base console is just...crazy talk!

 

[RobRSG]

I completely agree that the PS4 PRO was a much better value prop than the PS5 PRO is today and I agree the PS6 will be more expensive than the PS5 was at launch (although I would argue the PS5 PRO isn't a bad value in a world where the base PS5 is $550, a 80 series Nvidia GPU costs $999, a Xbox ROG Ally X costs $999, and a 2TB Xbox Series X is $799!!). But the point I was responding to was that many people on this thread simply said that the PS4 PRO was "awesome" or a better performance upgrade than the PS5 PRO not really talking about the costs as a factor. I can't see how someone can honestly think that.

There are other circumstances at play that is really not the fault of the console itself (i.e. macroeconomics increasing cost and lackluster third party efforts) but let's isolate the comparison to the Sony first party studios for a more apples to apples comparison. Sony's first party are generally going to be the best examples of what the hardware can do right? Well the PS4 PRO had some bangers as I mentioned: TLOU PT2, Spiderman, Days Gone, Horizon ZD, Driveclub, Ghosts of Tsushima, Uncharted 4, and more. Every one of those games saw a straightforward pixel count bump to 1080p to 1440p on PS4 PRO with only checkerboard rendering used on some of them. In fact, we saw several first party studios flat out reject checkerboard rendering as an option in their titles and instead come up with their own upscaling solution due to the lack of quality of checkerboarding (i.e. Insomniac, Naughty Dog, Polyphony). All of them still ran at a capped 30fps on the PS4 PRO and added virtually nothing in the way of enhanced visuals outside of pixel count.

Now compare that from what we've seen from first party on PS5 PRO. We're not talking about the quality of the games themselves or how the Sony firsts party output is less this gen (that's not the system's fault), but what are the premier studios doing with the hardware. We're seeing PSSR used much more judiciously and represent some of the best implementations of the tech (Demon's Souls, all 4 Insomniac games, GT7, Days Gone Remastered, AstroBot, TLOU Pt1/2, Stellar Blade, God of War Ragnarok etc). We're seeing increased Ray Tracing beyond what was on the base PS5 at higher frame rates (fidelity Pro modes in all 4 Insomniac games, 60fps RT in Ghost of Yotei, in game RT in GT7). We're seeing the increased GPU power being utilized to push FPS significantly higher with unlocked VRR modes (all Insomniac games, all Naughty Dog games, God of War Ragnarok, Stellar Blade, Horizon ZD and FW). And even for games that don't utilize RT or PSSR, we're still seeing some of the largest perf gains beyond the paper specs (Returnal 70% resolution bump, Helldivers II 2x resolution bump in perf mode).

Bottom line is if you don't like the PS5 PRO, fine. If you don't think it's a great value, fine. But to say that the PS4 PRO was "better" wrt to performance or doing more to increase the experience over the base console is just...crazy talk!

That jab on the series X pricing is not really a thing, everyone crazy enough to buy one did it within two years from the release date (myself included), where the console still showed some promise. MS is not delusional enough to expect the hardware to sell at that price, they just want a way out and that's a good chance to blame the "market".

The two Pro consoles are subpar in their own merits, failing to meet expectations set by Sony themselves. And I'd argue the 5 Pro is even less enticing given the output and quality of said upgrades.

 

[Hip Hop]

I only bought it cause I didn't have a PS5, and it was on sale at Dell for $450 a few months ago. Not bad I guess, I like the extra performance it offers here and there.

 

[StueyDuck]

For me its an F and im not and owner.

Much like the switch 2 these companies want heaps loads more cash for these products and have yet to prove why they are worth it.

Maybe if it hits a decent sale price ill get one purely for GTA6 but as of right now my PS5 is perfectly fine

 

[kiphalfton]

Worse than the PS4 Pro, which is saying something.

 

[Skifi28]

I've been pretty happy with it. Many games with no official pro support benefit with far more stable framerates and most upgrades have been from great to decent. The actual misses were very few and most of them have been patched.

 

[UltimaKilo]

So far it's a C- or D+. That could change if Sony decides to support the machine next year.

I think the PS5 Pro still has plenty of headroom for developers to tap into and makes me question if we really need a PS6 before 2028.

 

[TerribleAtThisGame]

For me, a waste of money really. I'm not a graphics freak to begin with but then some games ended up somehow being worse on top of it. The rest is...whatever to my eyes?

I don't know. I had a weird moment where for once I told myself fyck it just buy the new shiny. I can see many of the features being cool to most but to me it's a big whatever.

 

[Fafalada]

In fact, we saw several first party studios flat out reject checkerboard rendering as an option in their titles and instead come up with their own upscaling solution due to the lack of quality of checkerboarding

I'd argue it wasn't a quality issue in of itself. The cost of running CB was - sizeable enough to make it challenging to hit actual 4k on many games - especially 1st party software. That's why you saw a fair bit of 1800cb releases from first parties, and that's a point where comparisons to 1440p are no longer so favorable (and it's not a guarantee performance is better either).
The other part is the cost of implementation - both optimizations needed to even hit 1800cb (or higher) and integration of CB into pipeline by itself were non-trivial. So when you're up against the wall of having 5-10 days to make the Pro version (if that) it gets really hard to do much more than turn some setting knobs instead, and hope that's enough. Even as a first party release.
It's actually quite interesting - retrospectively, that especially the early 1st party PS4 Pro versions were among the weakest ones on the console indeed, quite a difference from PS5 Pro.

I agree with you though that between the two Pros - actual improvements in 4 were pretty scattershot (and 3rd parties often just ran 1080p with PS4 settings at higher framerate and called it a day). The main blemish for 5 has been the iffy PSSR on a few titles - ie. people seeing the upgrade as a negative.
There were very rare times this happened to 4 (performance degradations that genuinely made it worse) but you could usually drop to PS4 mode by forcing 1080p at least. Ironically - the 1X versions that tanked performance never had that workaround, and those did happen too.
Still - on aggregate its really hard to say PS4 Pro was a better upgrade - it just cost less.

The two Pro consoles are subpar in their own merits, failing to meet expectations set by Sony themselves.

What expectations are you referring to? Because I'm pretty sure Sony never communicated the sales expectations - though we can clearly see 4 was aimed at much higher sales (whether 20% met their target or not - we just don't know), and outcome for 5 is still not determined.
For performance - both (so far anyway) met Mark's vague assertions (which were never so strict as to be difficult to hit). Users may disagree - but user expectations aren't Sony's - clearly.

And I'd argue the 5 Pro is even less enticing given the output and quality of said upgrades.

That's in contradiction to Tqaulity's post though. It's completely fine to say we expected more from 5 - but 4 producing better results is a flimsy argument when a large contingent of titles literally was just the PS4 game with slightly better framerate (no - not even the 1440p or detail increase), and that got increasingly common in later years.

 

[K' Dash]

I play it even less than the OG.

We're going to get the PS6 announcement and this generation never started.

 

[Imp the Dimp]

I'm an owner and I like it. My B rating is probably a bit generous for the 6 months I've had it, but I have no regrets. I love mid generation upgrades.