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.
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.
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.
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.
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?^^
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.
Both mentioned games are notorious for the scale of the issues at launch, and the resulting backlash. NMS for the lack of content and Cyberpunk for the huge amount of bugs.
Personally, I just don’t have time or energy to play big AAA games for the most part. I very much prefer smaller indie games nowadays, and Steam Deck has those in spades. I would wager a lot of older gamers are in the same boat.
that’s always been nintendo’s MO though. with the exception of the N64 and GameCube, their consoles have all been very modest spec-wise. but the games they put out are made specifically for that hardware, so it’s usually fine.
and actually, the switch is underclocked in its stock configuration. if you have adequate cooling for it you can basically double its clock speed with a softmod, which at least for totk removed basically all stuttering for me!
Lol this is an article about how shit optimization has been for the last several AAA game releases. Even quite capable desktops often have performance issues with the mentioned games, because the PC ports weren’t optimized enough and/or tested on a wide enough range of hardware. It’s a real shame, many of them don’t even look significantly better than the last generation or two. It’s just graphical bloat as devs get lazier and lazier the beefier the GPUs get.
I agree, however I think the main cause is studios/publishers just deciding where to allocate the time. Devs are just the ones implementing these shitty decisions.
In 2027 the current iteration won’t be legally able to be sold in the EU, since the EU will require portable devices to have easily replaceable batteries. (Which the Steam does not qualify for due to needing a heat gun). So an upgrade is almost certainly planned by then.
forbes.com
Aktywne