So glad to hear about most players enjoying performance mode. Once I played a game with my gf who never plays games. And I remember that I recommended switching from quality to performance mode. After that she was shocked and asked me: "Why is it called quality mode if it looks worse?" That was really mind blowing to me. She does not know anything about fps and resolution, but the 60fps looked much cleaner to her. I think that is saying a lot.
I personally think that if gamers overwhelmingly prefer performance over fidelity, then it tells me that players prefer to play games rather than looking at them (shocking, I know), which should be a message to Sony and other developers to invest in gameplay on games at the expense of graphics if needed. With more investment in gameplay first and graphics second, maybe we can have more games with lower development costs and quicker development times. I don't think I'm being controversial with saying that gamers want games, not movies.
That is why the Switch is absolutely destroying the competition. What is the point of all of that technology in the PS5 if it isn't used to deliver games even half as good as what Nintendo makes?
Sony are filling a gap in the market like how Nvidia are filling a gap with its 4090 flagship graphics or Apple with its Pro series of phones or Google with its pixel fold. The price for flagship electronic devices have gone up everywhere, it’s not just Sony
@@AZBCDEthe problem with comparing the 4090 with the ps5 pro is that the 4090 is a workstation card. I don't see movie editors using a ps5 pro to edit movies or make CGI.
@@themadtagger6450 What a stupid thing to say 💀 I don’t know if you live under a rock but video game consoles are not designed for video editing or for making CGI. I don’t see a data analyst performing data analytics tasks with a 4090 GPU however they are both flagship tech with flagship prices so they can definitely be compared in terms of what people are prepared to spend for the latest and greatest. It’s supply and demand, a concept which you are clearly too uneducated to understand 💀
@@michaelmyersplays4992it will unfortunately, and the only thing we can do is watch gaming become a luxury hobby like if it isn't expensive enough currently
And we are seeing just that. But we need to realize that many crapped on the PS4 Pro when it was first shown and once it got into our hands proved a drastically overblown our original thoughts were.
I'm going to assume that 25% are kids or people who simply don't know they can switch to Performance Mode, because I can't fathom why anyone would choose a high-resolution slide show.
@connormclernon26 it isn't just graphics, though. That's the point. If the issue was entirely related to fidelity, sure. You could just drop the triangle count and tada, solid, locked 60fps. But it actually doesn't have too much to do with the framerate. Rather, the effects, mesh interaction, ai, world, npc, and environment density are all things you sacrifice in order to double the frame output. Sure, it works for some games. For others, you have to compromise your vision.
@daveyt9080 optimization isn't just a magic word. 100,000 triangles (the average character model) is 100,000 triangles. When optimising, the triangle count doesn't magically run better without decimating counts. Rather, to optimize it, we have to start reducing character models and hide it as much as possible which creates its own problems, in bugs that cause a whole load of additional work and time to make work without showing. Optimizing means, reducing poly counts, removing on screen characters, removing mesh interaction and effects. Typically 60fps is a choice for a game you aren't expecting to be that demanding. If it fits the vision, yes. It's aimed for, otherwise no
It's a no-brainer. Going from the PS4 generation to the PS5, we definitely saw a noticeable bump up in fidelity. Stuff like lighting, shadows, and ray tracing. But this is a problem that started with the PS3/360 transition into the PS4/Xbone era. Diminishing returns. PS1 to PS2 we saw huge improvements in how games could look. Hell, PS3/360 was the start of HD gaming. And graphics still saw a remarkable improvement. The games we're seeing today do look better than what came out on PS4. But the difference is minor. If the trade-off for these slightly better visuals is 30fps instead of 60. It isn't worth it. Game developers need to stop trying to push these better visuals at the cost of performance. Because the games are more expensive and take longer to make. They need to focus on pushing better optimizing of the already good visuals games have so they can run better.
@@rezwhapI will never throw away my PS5 box. I want that memorialized forever that they tried to sell us some BS about 8k for a console that cant even natively output it
@@UnrequitedLove23no way they can make a console under 1000$ that’s 1440p@120fps. You guys would really be complaining if they put a more capable I.e. more expensive cpu in a home console.🤦🏾♂️ use your brain dude.
It's a diffent story this time around. The consoles need to have as large a user base as possible for games to sell and make money. If you release a game for just 30m consoles it's a bad idea. If you release a game for potential 130m customer base, you're going to sell a hell lot more games. You can think of PS5 as PS4 Pro Pro and PS5 Pro as PS4 Pro Pro Pro and so on. It's a daisy chain. Only if PS5 user base is established around 80m consoles sold, you're going to see enough exclusives. Then PS6 is definitely going to play PS5 games, and you can think of it a PS5 Pro Pro Pro. PS6 is going to play all PS5 games in native 4k and at 60fps or 120fps. And the cycle goes on.
@@DubsBrownSpider-Man 2 and Ratchet and Clank Rift Apart? Yes the PS5 has been much lighter with exclusives compared to the PS4 at this point. Sony has opted for cross gen with GOW Ragnarok and Horizon FW, which was not the right decision after the “We believe in generations” from Jim Ryan
@@djnfbrhkelkondwvb6853 Demon's Souls remake was an amazing launch title too. People try to discount it because it's a remake, but it was 100% a system seller for a lot of people. Returnal was fire. Breath of the Wild was cross gen and nobody pretended it wasn't a draw. Same for all the other WiiU ports and remakes of older Nintendo games. The fanboy list war stuff where everyone tries to disqualify first party games is silly.
I don't know, I feel like I've gotten my money's worth on my PS5. Sure, games like god of war and Spider-Man 2 eventually go to PC, but I've already got the platinum trophy for both games before that happens and I'm on to the next. Before Astro Bot, I loved Astro's Playroom. FFVII Rebirth is great, I've played through it twice and it doesn't have a PC release yet. Demon's Souls even though a Remake was a lot of fun. Games with PS5 updates are worth it if you like the games, like Ghost of Tsushima and Resident Evil 2. Yeah, idk, it's just up to the user. I'm not saying the Pro will be worth it. But I am saying I think people overlook a lot of what the PS5 has to offer when it comes to exclusives and updates.
Sony and Microsoft sold us these consoles with them saying that 60fps would be the standard, then you got microsoft 1st party games launching at a 30fps limit and devs locking their games at 30fps, like holy shit guys yall made good looking last gen games, keep those graphic and give us 60fps
Not a single game will I pick Graphics mode on Series X or PS5. Maybe I'll turn it on to look at it but I always swap back to performance. Better graphics just isn't worth the loss of the higher framerates to me.
I play on a 55 inch screen and most of the time I can’t even tell the difference. I’m sure it’s there but if my eyes can’t noticeably seen it then why would I choose 30Hz over 60Hz The fluidity of the experience is more important to me
Every game that is currently locked at 30fps on PS5 (due to devs not implementing a 60fps patch, like RDR2, for example) will remain at 30fps on PS5 Pro.
Appreciate the feature but I always put it on performance. Most important it’s good to see Sony acknowledging most players prefer performance. Really do hope they consider frame rate as the priority in future projects. Cause this generation has felt it was about resolution.
Hopefully developers will listen and now ALWAYS offer a 60fps mode instead of gas lighting us into accepting a "cinematic" mode that doesn't even run at 4k. Starrfield was the final straw for me. I got tired of this ended up buying a 4070ti super PC to supplement my Series X since I owned since launch.
I think it speaks volumes that the very vast majority of players actively choose performance over fidelity. And it’s EXTREMELY FRUSTRATING that we have been begging developers for over a decade to stop pushing resolution over performance only to be ignored, yet here we have the objective tangible truth laid out for everyone to absorb. I know people will say “speak for yourself” but over 75% of players have made it clear that performance trumps fidelity. There shouldn’t be a toggle, but a straight 60 FPS target and build your game to look good around that.
You’re absolutely right. Visuals are generally so good in this generation that having a minimum 60fps is worth the compromise in visual fidelity. I would argue that it’s even worth reducing some settings to be able to render at minimum 1080p internally
I started gears of war 3 on 30fps and was rough, when I figured out fps boost was a thing the game looked so much better at 60fps it was like playing a different game it was night and day difference
I feel like gamers preferring SUPER ULTRA GRAPHICS is a psyop enabled by game studios just so that they don't have to optimize their games under the illusion of their games seeming current gen
This generation didn’t need to target 4K@60Hz, that’s something that could’ve waited till the PS6 when I think more people would’ve been more open to Sony trying to merge the two modes but the fact gamers are choosing performance 3/4 times tells me they prioritise the gameplay experience over fidelity. It boils down to the gameplay experience. Games can be patched down the road to take advantage of whatever hardware improvements may come but right now people want good games not hardware.
I'm so sick of this talk that fidelity is the wrong choice. I like fidelity mode and it should be seen as a totally valid option to prefer. I'll always choose it over a blurry 60fps mode because I genuinely think graphics and being able to see them clearly matter. Performance mode is just over represented online because of a vocal minority always complaining about 30fps being unplayable when it is perfectly fine. I say this as a PC gamer who chooses to cap the framerate at 30 on their steam deck if it means having decent graphics and image quality. Same for PC and I have a 3060 (NOT TI)
That's a wild take, but respectable. I keep hearing the opposite. I keep hearing performance is the wrong choice . As far as what you said. its 2024 games are not "blurry" anymore which is why people pick performance mode in the first place. I switched to PC about 4 years ago. I now play games at 240fps will very clear if not crystal graphic fidelity. The issue is the choice between fidelity and performance being an issue was solved decades ago in the gaming sphere . And now with these consoles, a product modeled as the buzzword term "next gen" still trying to catch up on an issue solved 2 decades ago is not very "next gen". In this day and age you should not have to choose and you don't have to choose, no matter what you like when your talkin performance or fidelity. And now with these consoles, they arnt solving any issues, and they want to charge close to and over $1000 in some countries for the same performance they lied about going into the "next generation" consoles 4 years ago.
Hot take: I'd say the a sizable portion of those who are obsessed with or make high fidelity graphics/frames a hard requirement for their enjoyment are coming from a type of Fomo. The industry pushed this and made folks feel it was absolutely necessary for gaming
950 for slightly better looking backgrounds is not worth the extra cost. My Current PS5 will do fine until the PS6 launches. And it better not to be a 1000, or else I'll just skip it for a PC.
Slowly but surely these companies may realize that people enjoy games because they enjoy playing those games rather than gawk at the promotional material.
You might not be aware you can set the default mode for graphics in, Settings - Saved Data and Game/Apps Settings- Game Presets Saves me having to find the in-game graphics options everytime.
The reason players choose performance mode is because the frame rate drops on fidelity make the game unplayable. It’s a scam from the start we were sold fidelity and performance we weren’t told we would have to choose between the two. Sony are scammers
I am one of the 25%. I always choose fidelity, 30fps doesnt bother me too much as long as it has a good motion blur. I would rather have 60 and keep the fidelity so this console is made for someone like me. And the ray tracing, screen space reflection often bug me the way they cut off all the time under character, when you look down. They look really cheap and dated. Same with those blocky shadow of shadow mapping. If the pro can raytrace reflections and shadows at the same time im excited. My most used console is my nintendo switch, so play ps5 for the graphical games. (And fun games of course, but i get multiplatform games on ps5 because i want the better graphics)
It depends on the game. I played Final Fantasy seven rebirth in graphics mode, but I have played many titles in performance mode. If the game looks too crappy in performance mode, I’ll switch it to graphics or if it’s a performance mode that doesn’t lock 60 but the graphics mode does lock 30 I might play in graphics mode. I chose on a game by game basis
Same reason why I chose to play FF16 in Fidelity. Once your sense are used to it, it's not bad. It's better than having a blurry image with inconsistent frame rates. I'll always take Performance first, unless Fidelity Mode is more stable and/or has a 120hz mode to make it run at 40fps. I own a 4k Bravia TV and I'm kind of close to it, so blur is very easy to see. So I have to make that sacrifice or it'll be too distracting.
@@Slaughter_Hill First off, calling 30fps a slideshow is just silly at best. Second, you can't base my whole gaming experience just from this comment. If a game has the choice and the 60fps is too inconsistent for me to enjoy, I'm going to pick 30. It's not deep.
@@Slaughter_Hill And your point is? Regardless, Elden Ring has performance issues. ER PS4 running on PS5 and Bloodborne on PS5 are the only ways to enjoy both games with no frame rate problems at all. And I've been able to switch between the two fine.
I almost always go for performance or 40 / uncapped VRR, but it's usually a pretty noticeable trade off for me and I do get annoyed by the compromises, switching back and forth and seeing what I could be having in the fidelity mode if it just had higher clarity. I'm on the Pro train for sure.
I like RayTracing but more as a novelty than anything. Cube mapping on reflections like Water have shown results that are near identical to ray tracing with far less cost on the power hunger.
In all honesty I choose performance because I can definitely see a difference in frame rate. I can't however tell the difference between graphics in the two modes. So buttery smooth it is.
tbh, I've been running with graphics mode a lot more often than not. Yes, 60fps is really nice, but on a 65 inch 4k tv, I'd rather not have a blurry mess.
This solves my problem of " should i go for ps5 pro or not" and i dont even have any console st the moment! I have LG G2 65" so i guess i should go for pro
Honestly im just happy with 60FPS at 1440P. I don't know a single person that wants or asked for Ray-Tracing. Im convinced its something the industry is pushing because I've never met another gamer that cares about ray tracing.
Never seen any PS5 game looking "blurry" in any mode. Diminishing returns as you increase resolution means 99% of people can't tell the difference between performance and quality modes, so Pro is just pointless
I always choose graphics mode because I love the details and sharpness in games, plus I mostly play RPG’s and games that don’t really requiere the max frame rates like shooters.
I'd like to ask my fellow gamers what do u think needs most attention in games? Are u playing thinking... better graphics ASAP!? more FPS ASAP!? I need ray/path tracing!? I know personally im not I was very happy with graphics to take a back seat once PS4/Xbox One gen landed, what I desperately wanted to see was a big focus on both enemies and NPCs AI! No more hiding in chest high grass no more whistling as 5 guys come to die 1 at a time without asking where the others went, NPCs reacting to things u wear and are doing in the environment, I wanted smarts this gen but instead we got SLIGHTLY better graphics and now we're getting VERY slightly better graphics for 700 US which is 914 US in the UK where I am! I'll pass
Can't change the cpu, it would leave the base ps5 behind generationally, that would essentially make it the ps6. Ps5pro is both a performance and graphics upgrade; if you normally play 60fps, it will be a graphics upgrade for you. If you normally play 4k, it will be a performance upgrade for you.
Most games aren't cpu bound, go check videos of a ryzen 3600 which the closest cpu to the ps5. A lot of this is dev-publisher focusing on 30, and we don't know if they will get a patch or not.
I'm asking people about the PS5 Pro situation and I'm happy with the responses I'm getting. They DON'T want mid-gen refreshes. It takes away from the power and impact of the follow-up generation. So, yeah, there's some that do, but the vast majority of fans of PlayStation never wanted the Pro anyway, the question was: Where is gaming going and the answer was exactly what they didn't want. MORE EXPENSIVE. DEATH OF PHYSICAL MEDIA. Now, that's interesting because I'm looking at graphs and charts of data input from consoles. Instead, I'm talking to actual people. What's funny, is those I'm talking to have a preference to buy digital games, but they're not at all happy about the absence of a disc drive. That's doesn't sit well with them, even though their primary choice of format is digital. Then, you have the collectors. Collectors will either buy the digital first and get the physical copy or they'll get the physical copy and wait for the digital price drop. More times then not it's the digital first and wait for a price drop on the physical because they take that physical copy and store it. To sell it later? Not your collector, your collector likes to see if they'll have bragging rights later that they have a rare print game. For collectors, it's also a security investment. At some point, you're gonna be locked out of your digital games, and theyll be gone. That's already happened. Try to find Turtles in Time Re-Shelled for Afterburner HD, you can't. The P.T. demo. But those who have a digital copy won't be begging for and hoping for a re-release somewhere down the road. That, and it's also the big three trying to lock you out and control you. They don't want you making that big profit, they want the money from that. By eliminating physical media, Nintendo can re-sell you the same digital game over and over with every new console. I can't play my digital Wii Virtual Console games on my Switch, I have to buy them all over again. For the time being, all of the PS1 games I bought on PS3, as they're digitally available on PS4 and PS5 are free, but not all of them are available and for how long? Consumers are smart. While they may not want it then, they're always thinking down the road. Digital consumers still want that disc drive, it gives them peace of mind in an uncertain future where the rug could be pulled out from underneath us once all the barriers have been allowed to be removed and then they absolutely call the shots. By the way, I always prioritize graphics over framerate. Ill take a good looking 30fps game over 60+ anyday. Cinema is 24fps
Normally, I choose performance mode by default, since I prefer my games to run smoothly over looking immaculate. However, if I'm playing a game that's less reliant on immediate response (turn-based RPG, visual novel, or a farming game) and the fidelity mode is a solid 30 fps with no dips, I'll sometimes choose that.
The reality is that a large percentage of console gamers are playing on TV's, for example if you've a 4K 55" TV, but are sitting 6 feet or more away from that screen, you're looking at 1080p anyway. You'll obviously choose the superior performance mode, because you'll notice that difference at any distance from you TV.
that was a thing because people thought 30 meant choppy 30. like 24, then 27, then 20, then 30, then 35. that's when "30fps" looks horrible. but anyone would rather stable 30 to choppy 60.
So many console generations and we're STILL debating about a framerate that meets the display standards of the 90's. 60fps doesn't have to be this mystical number, no videogames should be made targeting 30fps period unless its in reference to a handheld or laptop.
@@TH-camCensors Every single piece of tech out there has drastically risen in price since Covid. People that ordered cars even had to wait for months because something as simple as a bluetooth module was on backorder with manufacturers. If you think a PS5 Pro is expensive, try shopping for an iphone 16 or any PC GPU. $700 isn't ridiculous if the tech that powers it adds up to around 1000 in the PC realm. Expecting this thing to sell for less is childishly naive.
I've been waiting for years for the ps5 pro, as my most recent system is a plain ps4, and I couldn't help but be disappointed with the announcement. While the games *should* look better and run smoother, the improvement seems small compared to the price increase, and i absolutely expected a disc drive. 810 + tax for the system/drive/stand is not only too much, but also too inconvenient. I'll probably wait for some sort of bundle that includes the disc drive, stand, and either a game or 2nd controller for 750ish
Why are people acting like Sony is forcing you to buy the pro, this is for people who want the option to play these games and the highest graphics with 60 frames per second, but they understand that there's a lot of people who don't care for that, which is why the PS5 slim and standard edition still exist... It is not an outrageous concept What did you guys want out of a pro and what did you expect it to cost??
@@Slaughter_Hill, 2 TB NVME PCIe 5.0 SSD, larger and faster iGPU with more CU, overclocked CPU, improved RAM, WiFi 7, BT v5.4, improved PSU (for the extra power), improved cooling solution (for the extra heat), NPU for upscaling (PSSR) and dedicated hardware for RT. That looks as an upgrade to me.
@@hectorj.romanp. none of that shit matters. just bigger numbers and "its faster" "its improved" "wow the PSU IS BIGGER" doesnt mean anything at all. what the fuck does it LOOK LIKE. what does it CHANGE when you LOOK AT THE GAMES. basically nothing.
I'll take 60 fps 100% of the time, all of the time. I think anyone who really cares about maxing out both visuals and frames is not the target console gamer. They're probably tinkering with high end PCs and running benchmarks. Otherwise, consoles should just focus on providing a consistently decent experience at an affordable price. The visual fidelity of console games are at a point now where the typical console gamer won't care if a few sacrifices are made here and there. Heck, they won't even know the graphical sacrifice if you don't mention it to them. But slow, chugging variable frame rates stick out like a sore thumb. Even my grandmother would know something is off when the frame suddenly drops. The whole feeling of the game changes drastically. Frames should be a priority...which is why it's a big shame that Sony skimped on the CPU upgrades.
The only time I choose a "fidelity" mode is because the performance mode was a last minute thought and is a choppy, inconsistent mess of a frame rate. 30fps locked is much better than 30-60fps variable frames with pacing issues. The good news for me is, I tend not to buy many games that are poorly optimized because I think those developers can and should do better. Astro was a breath of fresh air. I totally agree. Every dev should target 60fps, and build the rest of the game design based on that. Call of Duty, for instance, has made amazing engine upgrades since MW reboot in 2019, and it looks damn good and runs damn well. I'd much rather play a 60fps COD game with the current engine they're using, than let's say, a new BF game that pushes ray tracing or something and runs like crap. Heck, I still play Battlefield 1 on my Series X, and that iteration of Frostbite still looks amazing, and has great physics. Astrobot looks better than every single UE5 game I've seen, including Wukong, even on PC, because Wukong does not look clean and perfect in its shadows and draw distances the way that Astrobot does. If an engine is hard to optimize for, or you push your hardware past its limits, don't even bother. ID Software is another amazing studio that makes DOOM somehow look like the best looking FPS game on the market AND running incredibly smoothly. It's all down to art style, material rendering pipeline and CLEAN rendering of lighting and shadows within the entire viewing range and depth of field.
@@x0Fang0x the ps5 pro costs $1400 if you want all the features in australia. you can buy a prebuilt 4070 super pc for that amount or build your own. let that sink in.
as i main nintendo player, i dont mind 30fps that much so i usuallyu play it in fidelity just cause is the reason i got a play, however in some games becomes trivial, a lot of movement on the screen to actually pay attention to all the graphic details, like a bush in the back (lol), and to be honest i kind of miss blurring effects like octopath does, that depth of field effect i love it.
Bro, sacrifices are made doing either modes. Performance mode gives you 60fps, but SACRIFICES graphics. Fidelity gives you graphics, but SACRIFICES 60fps. Because graphics taxes the GPU. 60fps taxes the CPU. PS5 Pro is using the same GPU, because of backwards compatibility from PS5 Pro downwards. CPU on the other hand is double the power. Problem is the $700 price tag shocks people today because of economy. But PS3 launched at $600. So I'm not exactly surprised. PS6 is gonna be $700. Thing is, people are gonna hate Sony no matter what. There are gamers who are asking for $800 consoles. I NOT joking. They basically want the PC.
@@Trinidaddy_Gaming That's what this is. The issue is just the price. PS5 is fine, but there ARE sacrifices. And I agree. I want both if possible. I just think a lot of people don't get it.
Nah, gameplay is where it's at. These fools will never be satisfied with performance in the graphics department. Getting too real in graphics takes the out of it.
Having a base PS5, a 3080 PC … I just find little reason for me personally to upgrade now. I will buy either an exclusive or what I think will be a better experience on my base console for big screen action or exclusive controller functionality (which is actually coming more and more to PC on Dualsense) or I may just get it on the capable PC. Idk I think making my old games better isn’t going to move the needle for me. If Sony is going to sell this they really need to show me what they can do with something new. Perhaps that will be GTA VI for a lot of people. We just don’t know yet. In the present for a lot of people it doesn’t make a lot of sense and even less so for me.
75% is a big number... But what is the sample size.. cuz I am curious too know how many people don't know about this toggle option & where this people taken into account when Sony said 75% off PPL use performance... Honestly when PPL use % they are actually trying to see things in positive light in order to ignore any negativity.. I want to know % of user don't know about toggle % of user that use graphic mode % of user that use performance mode
@@bfhandsomeface409 You are wrong on both accounts. The PS5 Pro reveal trailer shows the exact same CPU. Go watch digital foundry and educate yourself on why most console games are CPU bound.
@@corruptedpoison1 I literally just watched a TH-cam leaker say this. Digital foundry does not have the console yet. The ps5 now is not CPU bound and hits 120 in a lot of games. Look up the CPUs performance, it’s more than capable in most games but probably not 100% imo.
Good stuff Jon(SW). If you are happy with Older Games looking Prettier at 60fps and Newer Games looking Prettier at 30fps, then the Pro should be fine and you have the Money of course too get one but if you are happy with Performance Mode over Graphics, then sticking with the PS5 is the way too go guys. That is the Big Question, how much will the PS6 be, will be a 750+ Bucks System Digitally Only. Console Gaming is getting too close too the PC Side of Gaming and I wonder if more n more people will Jump too PC Next Generation, if the PS6 is Priced too High.
Atari 2600 cost $200.00 in 1977. That's equal to $1000.00 in today's price. The system today are thousands of time more powerful then Atari back then. Why complain.
I wish people weren't so biased. If you don't like the price of the pro, get a series x as the new features can be accessed there when devs decide to use it
@@bearwynn actually 45 is the better framerate because of its divisibility. My tv can display with 30, 60, 90, and 120. To display 45 fps you just divide 90 in half by just displaying each frame twice. Running 40 would be like running 24 fps content which requires something like the 3-2 pulldown method where only every couple frames is doubled giving a slightly janky (yet consistent) jitter. Changing fps doesn't change the Hz of the tv so you need to divide your frames within the Hz and duplicate frames as needed. So running 60fps on a 120 Hz tv just doubles each frame giving a smooth 60fps but doing, say, 55 fps on 120 Hz it will double each frame then it needs to duplicate an additional 5 more frames in there so that's why things look jittery because it's no longer consistent. I hope that helps.
In any case, some studios will still use a certain frame rate regardless of what hardware you throw at them. I think for the Price the Series Xbox and PS5 already offer a great choice. Unless there's going to be a huge difference down the line I don't see the value in the PS5Pro.
its part of his job though. he covers these stores and makes content around games/systems . like iv had two, but after i upgraded to the oled i gave my partner the other, so maybe im in that category. but he makes whole videos around the stuff
i will die on the hill that the most important graphical feature of a game is frame rate. Who cares if theres five more blades of grass being rendered if it makes me sick to look at.
Well there is a system wide setting for your preference. If you set the system to prefer graphics mode then when you boot up a game it will choose that by default if the game chooses to use the users system preferences. Same with inverted camera you can set that in the system
See, here is what I find hilarious, every video, litterly every video, social media post about this is negative. All the replies are agreeing. Then go look at where to buy one. It's literally selling out everywhere. LOL It's like pre-ordering games. Every video, every social media post is saying "No don't do it" every reply is agreeing with them, yet every year pre-order sales go up.
Just price checked a pc build with the same specs of a ps5 pro (3700X cpu, 7800xt gpu, 16gb ddr4), it came to $1151 using budget priced parts. That being said, it needs to include the DualSense Edge controller at least, if not the disc drive also, to justify the price to casuals who don't care for the technical aspects of consoles.
Add to that that it would be a waste if that computer is used only for gaming in the living room (or the basement). By the way, it should be a SFF build, not a regular case.
keep in mind you're saving money on games (frequent sales) and peripherals in the long run (no stick drift on kbm) plus subscription services like parsec, geforce now, and gamepass.
@@joogled1839 Yeah with the cheaper games it is cheaper in the long run to get a PC than the PS5 Pro. As for controlling the games, I prefer controllers. But I got a controller for PC with hall effect for about half the price of a PlayStation/Xbox controller.
Ive seen alot more games have the option up before the gsme starts. And knowing how much streaming games has gained in popularity and Covid was not to long ago we have more people watching their streamers switching to performance mode. And they see its a must option to go and change to in games they have.
Does no one question the fact that most games default to performance mode? I think the statistic showcases far more that your average console player never touches settings and just plays what is in front of them.
Dont forget that performance mode is the default mode for most games. So i dont think its 100% that people just choose performance mode, but that its whats already selected so they go with it. Its a great thing performance is preferred, but we cant act like it was all from people choosing it. Also typically the performance mode isnt that huge a difference for 60fps so thats another reason why people go with it, if it was a contrast like you said with Rebirth, more people would choose fidelity
People saying they always go for higher framerates over graphics are just being ridiculous. It just comes down to what type of game it is. Visuals should be designed around the needs of the gameplay. If high end effects can add cool innovations and interactions than 30fps is probably a better option. If the action is incredibly fast paced such as a Smash Bros. or F-Zero game than an emphasis on 60fps should be the priority.
I even stopped playing The Quarry because it's just a stuttering mess. Simply rotating the camera looks broken to me. I can't tolerate 30fps, with the exception of games, who explicitly go for that retro look, like Syberia 3.
@@taptoplayde "I can't tolerate 30fps". Bwa, ha, ha, ha, ha!!! I guess you have no self awareness as to how completely ridiculous you sound. It all depends on the type of game you're playing. Unless you are playing some insanely fast paced arcade action game like F-Zero or Smash Bros., 60fps is nice but not necessary. Most modern games are so slow paced and yet guys like you find them "unplayable" at anything less than 60fps. If Internet comments like yours weren't anonymous, you wouldn't show your face in public after saying something so ridiculous.
The only time I will believe gamers is when I see them not actually buying the console. Because most gamers just complain but still purchase the item or game, they were complaining.
And here I am, enjoying the Quality mode and even on PC I use so many graphic mods that Witcher 3 is running at 40~50fps. I don't see or feel a real difference in most games between 30 and 60fps.
Since the PS4 Pro time, I always opted for a higher frame rate when presented with the option. God of War comes to mind here. And I'll keep doing that for the foreseeable future, as my vision is compromised, and there is no point for me to opt for something that I literally cannot benefit from due to poor vision...
I play on a PS4. I do prefer the better graphics over the framerate, however i found out over time that with the performance mode, the game crashes far less. This is especially true with Tiny Tina's Wonderlands. This game is unplayable on the graphics mode. The in-game menus would always make the game crash. When, i switched to performance mode for this game, it very rarely crashed and hasn't crashed in the in game menu in this mode yet. So as of now, i always play on performance mode, mostly to reduce the risk of game crashes. The higher framerate did take getting used to and i see why players prefer the faster framerates with games.
In a turn base rpg like persona 5 who cares about the frame rate (as long as it’s locked at either 30 or 60), I’d rather the prettier visuals in my opinion. People (again in my opinion) overrate the difference between 30 and 60, it’s not really noticeable in non action and pvp games. But in a game like Rainbow Six Siege I need to win so I need the extra frames.
There's a settings in the menu that you can prioritize which you prefer, performance or fidelity. If you prefer one or the other that's how your game is going to load up. Easy peasy. I keep my setting on performance.
I never EVER click on performance mode for a game. Unless it’s optimized to be played that way I’m not changing it. I don’t mind playing red dead 1 on performance because there’s nothing to see. But for my final fantasies and resident evils and dead spaces I want the visuals to pop. All I read about is how 60 fps is the only way to go and “no one cares about visuals in their games.” Which is the biggest load of horse shit. Give me good looking games. If it dips below 30 then I’ll complain. I didn’t buy a PlayStation 5 to play games with ps4 graphics and 60 frames per second. I bought the PlayStation 5 because the graphics were better.
And I bought if for 60fps, which is how Sony marketed the console. And all I got was a stuttering or a blurry mess. PS: Every person reacts differently to low frame rates. For me, all I see is missing frames. It looks completely broken to me, especially on a large OLED.
So glad to hear about most players enjoying performance mode.
Once I played a game with my gf who never plays games. And I remember that I recommended switching from quality to performance mode. After that she was shocked and asked me:
"Why is it called quality mode if it looks worse?"
That was really mind blowing to me. She does not know anything about fps and resolution, but the 60fps looked much cleaner to her. I think that is saying a lot.
How do you even know how many fps you’re seeing? How do you even switch modes?
@@thaddeusgreen-kg7ww you know if you're seeing a higher fps because you'll see a smoother image, it's not rocket science
@@thaddeusgreen-kg7ww
. Trust your eyeballs
@@bearwynn it is to me 😂 I know nothing about that shit
@@thaddeusgreen-kg7wwThere are videos that show the difference between 30 and 60 fps on TH-cam. Just type that in and you will see what they mean.
I personally think that if gamers overwhelmingly prefer performance over fidelity, then it tells me that players prefer to play games rather than looking at them (shocking, I know), which should be a message to Sony and other developers to invest in gameplay on games at the expense of graphics if needed. With more investment in gameplay first and graphics second, maybe we can have more games with lower development costs and quicker development times. I don't think I'm being controversial with saying that gamers want games, not movies.
That is why the Switch is absolutely destroying the competition. What is the point of all of that technology in the PS5 if it isn't used to deliver games even half as good as what Nintendo makes?
Sony are filling a gap in the market like how Nvidia are filling a gap with its 4090 flagship graphics or Apple with its Pro series of phones or Google with its pixel fold. The price for flagship electronic devices have gone up everywhere, it’s not just Sony
@@AZBCDEthe problem with comparing the 4090 with the ps5 pro is that the 4090 is a workstation card. I don't see movie editors using a ps5 pro to edit movies or make CGI.
It tells me gamers would just love a fidelity mode running as well as performance modes @ 60fps or more … hence the point of a Pro. 🙄
@@themadtagger6450 What a stupid thing to say 💀 I don’t know if you live under a rock but video game consoles are not designed for video editing or for making CGI. I don’t see a data analyst performing data analytics tasks with a 4090 GPU however they are both flagship tech with flagship prices so they can definitely be compared in terms of what people are prepared to spend for the latest and greatest. It’s supply and demand, a concept which you are clearly too uneducated to understand 💀
The fanboys need to realise that it's o.k to criticize Sony over the handling of the PS5 pro situation.
NO NO NO!!! YOU LEAVE MY MULTI BILLION DOLLAR COMPANY ALONE STOOPID *holds two katanas*
Dentheads will be dentheads--sorry I meant "fanboys" 😂
Yes but it doesn’t matter cuz deep down you know it’s going to sell out when preorders drop.
@@michaelmyersplays4992it will unfortunately, and the only thing we can do is watch gaming become a luxury hobby like if it isn't expensive enough currently
It’s like $100 too expensive, it’s not the end of the world. It was never going to be cheap!
And we are seeing just that. But we need to realize that many crapped on the PS4 Pro when it was first shown and once it got into our hands proved a drastically overblown our original thoughts were.
I'm going to assume that 25% are kids or people who simply don't know they can switch to Performance Mode, because I can't fathom why anyone would choose a high-resolution slide show.
Nah they just want to console war cuz it fuels their sick ego
Players: finally we can get 60 fps and above!
Devs: heh no!
Unfortunately, pretty graphics sell to the gullible
@connormclernon26 this is very true
It’s not even about the graphics, it’s how they optimize the game to where you can play quality and performance.
@connormclernon26 it isn't just graphics, though. That's the point. If the issue was entirely related to fidelity, sure. You could just drop the triangle count and tada, solid, locked 60fps.
But it actually doesn't have too much to do with the framerate. Rather, the effects, mesh interaction, ai, world, npc, and environment density are all things you sacrifice in order to double the frame output. Sure, it works for some games. For others, you have to compromise your vision.
@daveyt9080 optimization isn't just a magic word. 100,000 triangles (the average character model) is 100,000 triangles.
When optimising, the triangle count doesn't magically run better without decimating counts. Rather, to optimize it, we have to start reducing character models and hide it as much as possible which creates its own problems, in bugs that cause a whole load of additional work and time to make work without showing. Optimizing means, reducing poly counts, removing on screen characters, removing mesh interaction and effects.
Typically 60fps is a choice for a game you aren't expecting to be that demanding. If it fits the vision, yes. It's aimed for, otherwise no
We don't care about God tier graphics, we want fun, fast, and smooth games.
Oh shut up
@@Catalano25 speak for yourself! Lol
I also don't care about graphics I just want to see some games that are fun like astro bot which I'm really enjoying
PC over Console.
Man the people trying to deny this straight up just hate games, PS3 was the peak ngl
It's a no-brainer. Going from the PS4 generation to the PS5, we definitely saw a noticeable bump up in fidelity. Stuff like lighting, shadows, and ray tracing. But this is a problem that started with the PS3/360 transition into the PS4/Xbone era. Diminishing returns. PS1 to PS2 we saw huge improvements in how games could look. Hell, PS3/360 was the start of HD gaming. And graphics still saw a remarkable improvement.
The games we're seeing today do look better than what came out on PS4. But the difference is minor. If the trade-off for these slightly better visuals is 30fps instead of 60. It isn't worth it. Game developers need to stop trying to push these better visuals at the cost of performance. Because the games are more expensive and take longer to make. They need to focus on pushing better optimizing of the already good visuals games have so they can run better.
we plateau'd with graphics around 2014-2017. we've only ever really improved with path tracing and really little details.
I love how the regular PS5 box has a 8k logo on it
Not anymore!
@@rezwhapI will never throw away my PS5 box. I want that memorialized forever that they tried to sell us some BS about 8k for a console that cant even natively output it
So if 75% pick frame rate, why did they make a $700 console to only move the GPU? Customers say they want frames, Sony says ok here’s graphics!!!
The presentation literally said the PS5 Pro is capable of running games in 60 fps in Fidelity mode. Maybe 120 fps in performance mode.
@@UnrequitedLove23 They said it can. Not that it will.
No, it’s both a fps and resolution upgrade!
@@UnrequitedLove23 true. I guess what I meant was they upgraded the GPU only, not the CPU. Even the PS4 Pro had an overclocked CPU.
@@UnrequitedLove23no way they can make a console under 1000$ that’s 1440p@120fps. You guys would really be complaining if they put a more capable I.e. more expensive cpu in a home console.🤦🏾♂️ use your brain dude.
It's just nuts to me they even put ps5 pro in production when they don't even have enough games to justify a purchase of the base models.
IKR. Astro Bot is like the first exclusive PS5 must play game after 4 years.
It's a diffent story this time around. The consoles need to have as large a user base as possible for games to sell and make money. If you release a game for just 30m consoles it's a bad idea. If you release a game for potential 130m customer base, you're going to sell a hell lot more games. You can think of PS5 as PS4 Pro Pro and PS5 Pro as PS4 Pro Pro Pro and so on. It's a daisy chain. Only if PS5 user base is established around 80m consoles sold, you're going to see enough exclusives. Then PS6 is definitely going to play PS5 games, and you can think of it a PS5 Pro Pro Pro. PS6 is going to play all PS5 games in native 4k and at 60fps or 120fps. And the cycle goes on.
@@DubsBrownSpider-Man 2 and Ratchet and Clank Rift Apart? Yes the PS5 has been much lighter with exclusives compared to the PS4 at this point. Sony has opted for cross gen with GOW Ragnarok and Horizon FW, which was not the right decision after the “We believe in generations” from Jim Ryan
@@djnfbrhkelkondwvb6853 Demon's Souls remake was an amazing launch title too. People try to discount it because it's a remake, but it was 100% a system seller for a lot of people. Returnal was fire.
Breath of the Wild was cross gen and nobody pretended it wasn't a draw. Same for all the other WiiU ports and remakes of older Nintendo games. The fanboy list war stuff where everyone tries to disqualify first party games is silly.
I don't know, I feel like I've gotten my money's worth on my PS5. Sure, games like god of war and Spider-Man 2 eventually go to PC, but I've already got the platinum trophy for both games before that happens and I'm on to the next. Before Astro Bot, I loved Astro's Playroom. FFVII Rebirth is great, I've played through it twice and it doesn't have a PC release yet. Demon's Souls even though a Remake was a lot of fun. Games with PS5 updates are worth it if you like the games, like Ghost of Tsushima and Resident Evil 2. Yeah, idk, it's just up to the user.
I'm not saying the Pro will be worth it. But I am saying I think people overlook a lot of what the PS5 has to offer when it comes to exclusives and updates.
Sony and Microsoft sold us these consoles with them saying that 60fps would be the standard, then you got microsoft 1st party games launching at a 30fps limit and devs locking their games at 30fps, like holy shit guys yall made good looking last gen games, keep those graphic and give us 60fps
Not a single game will I pick Graphics mode on Series X or PS5. Maybe I'll turn it on to look at it but I always swap back to performance. Better graphics just isn't worth the loss of the higher framerates to me.
This is totally me as well
This
Plus imo graphics looks basically the same as performance. What doesn’t look the same though is the huge increase in frames
@@Slaughter_Hillnot for final fantasy 7 rebirth, peformence mode is lower than 1080p with a vasaline film over it just to get 60fps 🤢🤮
I play on a 55 inch screen and most of the time I can’t even tell the difference. I’m sure it’s there but if my eyes can’t noticeably seen it then why would I choose 30Hz over 60Hz
The fluidity of the experience is more important to me
@@Neo_Rain146 may I suggest you get some good glasses. You are missing so much.
Every game that is currently locked at 30fps on PS5 (due to devs not implementing a 60fps patch, like RDR2, for example) will remain at 30fps on PS5 Pro.
@@MikeHeldTheWorld It’s suppose to be extremely easy to implement in old games, so plenty of developers will is my guess.
Oh ok im still getting it
@@bfhandsomeface409 we'll have to wait and see.
@@carlosoto1115good for you
@@Joetaku666 I agree
30 FPS is also blurry in motion. It's not even better visuals unless you are doing still screenshots and nothing else.
Appreciate the feature but I always put it on performance. Most important it’s good to see Sony acknowledging most players prefer performance.
Really do hope they consider frame rate as the priority in future projects. Cause this generation has felt it was about resolution.
Hopefully developers will listen and now ALWAYS offer a 60fps mode instead of gas lighting us into accepting a "cinematic" mode that doesn't even run at 4k. Starrfield was the final straw for me. I got tired of this ended up buying a 4070ti super PC to supplement my Series X since I owned since launch.
Hope is for su
I think it speaks volumes that the very vast majority of players actively choose performance over fidelity. And it’s EXTREMELY FRUSTRATING that we have been begging developers for over a decade to stop pushing resolution over performance only to be ignored, yet here we have the objective tangible truth laid out for everyone to absorb.
I know people will say “speak for yourself” but over 75% of players have made it clear that performance trumps fidelity. There shouldn’t be a toggle, but a straight 60 FPS target and build your game to look good around that.
You’re absolutely right. Visuals are generally so good in this generation that having a minimum 60fps is worth the compromise in visual fidelity. I would argue that it’s even worth reducing some settings to be able to render at minimum 1080p internally
I started gears of war 3 on 30fps and was rough, when I figured out fps boost was a thing the game looked so much better at 60fps it was like playing a different game it was night and day difference
Gonna just stick with my regular PS5. My jaw dropped to the floor when I saw the price for what did/didn’t come with the console
Oh, stop whining about $700. Everything is more expensive around the globe, thanks to the Potato in the White House.
@@ByteMeCompletely ok
@@ByteMeCompletely which potato?
@@mullinsjm1sleepy Joe. He's sleeping in his room. That one, c'mon now.
@@ByteMeCompletelypro is 5% better than the regular and costs 300$ more
The highest settings at 1080p 60 frames is all I need.
I feel like gamers preferring SUPER ULTRA GRAPHICS is a psyop enabled by game studios just so that they don't have to optimize their games under the illusion of their games seeming current gen
This generation didn’t need to target 4K@60Hz, that’s something that could’ve waited till the PS6 when I think more people would’ve been more open to Sony trying to merge the two modes but the fact gamers are choosing performance 3/4 times tells me they prioritise the gameplay experience over fidelity. It boils down to the gameplay experience. Games can be patched down the road to take advantage of whatever hardware improvements may come but right now people want good games not hardware.
I'm so sick of this talk that fidelity is the wrong choice.
I like fidelity mode and it should be seen as a totally valid option to prefer.
I'll always choose it over a blurry 60fps mode because I genuinely think graphics and being able to see them clearly matter.
Performance mode is just over represented online because of a vocal minority always complaining about 30fps being unplayable when it is perfectly fine.
I say this as a PC gamer who chooses to cap the framerate at 30 on their steam deck if it means having decent graphics and image quality. Same for PC and I have a 3060 (NOT TI)
That's a wild take, but respectable. I keep hearing the opposite. I keep hearing performance is the wrong choice . As far as what you said. its 2024 games are not "blurry" anymore which is why people pick performance mode in the first place. I switched to PC about 4 years ago. I now play games at 240fps will very clear if not crystal graphic fidelity. The issue is the choice between fidelity and performance being an issue was solved decades ago in the gaming sphere . And now with these consoles, a product modeled as the buzzword term "next gen" still trying to catch up on an issue solved 2 decades ago is not very "next gen". In this day and age you should not have to choose and you don't have to choose, no matter what you like when your talkin performance or fidelity. And now with these consoles, they arnt solving any issues, and they want to charge close to and over $1000 in some countries for the same performance they lied about going into the "next generation" consoles 4 years ago.
Hot take: I'd say the a sizable portion of those who are obsessed with or make high fidelity graphics/frames a hard requirement for their enjoyment are coming from a type of Fomo. The industry pushed this and made folks feel it was absolutely necessary for gaming
Performance mode all the way. I’m fortunate to have a VRR display so if I can play with unlock frame rates I’ll choose that.
Performance over everything else. Always.
950 for slightly better looking backgrounds is not worth the extra cost.
My Current PS5 will do fine until the PS6 launches. And it better not to be a 1000, or else I'll just skip it for a PC.
I think PS6 might be $700-$800
Thanks for your comment, but I will buy it and I don't need the disc drive because I buy all my games digital.
@@user-iq334 get comfortable not owning your games.
It will most likely be 1500$
@@user-iq334you must like wasting money
Slowly but surely these companies may realize that people enjoy games because they enjoy playing those games rather than gawk at the promotional material.
You might not be aware you can set the default mode for graphics in,
Settings - Saved Data and Game/Apps Settings- Game Presets
Saves me having to find the in-game graphics options everytime.
Came to say this! I remember exploring all the menus after platinuming Astro Bot on the first day I had the PS5.
The reason players choose performance mode is because the frame rate drops on fidelity make the game unplayable. It’s a scam from the start we were sold fidelity and performance we weren’t told we would have to choose between the two. Sony are scammers
I love the possibilities of new (current) Gen console graphics, but I won’t play at 30fps if 60fps is an option.
I am one of the 25%. I always choose fidelity, 30fps doesnt bother me too much as long as it has a good motion blur. I would rather have 60 and keep the fidelity so this console is made for someone like me. And the ray tracing, screen space reflection often bug me the way they cut off all the time under character, when you look down. They look really cheap and dated. Same with those blocky shadow of shadow mapping. If the pro can raytrace reflections and shadows at the same time im excited. My most used console is my nintendo switch, so play ps5 for the graphical games. (And fun games of course, but i get multiplatform games on ps5 because i want the better graphics)
It depends on the game. I played Final Fantasy seven rebirth in graphics mode, but I have played many titles in performance mode. If the game looks too crappy in performance mode, I’ll switch it to graphics or if it’s a performance mode that doesn’t lock 60 but the graphics mode does lock 30 I might play in graphics mode. I chose on a game by game basis
Same reason why I chose to play FF16 in Fidelity. Once your sense are used to it, it's not bad. It's better than having a blurry image with inconsistent frame rates. I'll always take Performance first, unless Fidelity Mode is more stable and/or has a 120hz mode to make it run at 40fps.
I own a 4k Bravia TV and I'm kind of close to it, so blur is very easy to see. So I have to make that sacrifice or it'll be too distracting.
@@TheGravityShifterplaying a slideshow must be awful 😂
@@Slaughter_Hill First off, calling 30fps a slideshow is just silly at best. Second, you can't base my whole gaming experience just from this comment. If a game has the choice and the 60fps is too inconsistent for me to enjoy, I'm going to pick 30. It's not deep.
@@TheGravityShifter bloodborne plays like a slideshow compared to elden ring
@@Slaughter_Hill And your point is? Regardless, Elden Ring has performance issues. ER PS4 running on PS5 and Bloodborne on PS5 are the only ways to enjoy both games with no frame rate problems at all. And I've been able to switch between the two fine.
40fps really is the sweet spot between responsiveness and resolution. I recommend everyone that has a 120hz display to try it on the supported games.
The 2tb nvme is a good upgrade. I didn't like the idea of 1tb on the original, having to delete and redownload games is horrible for the memory.
I put a 2TB SSD in my ps5. They're cheap.
You can buy extra storage for your PS5. I have 2TB, and it didn't cost me 800.
I got a 2tb for like $70 bucks on Amazon. This Black Friday you might find some for $50. They are cheap now.
2TB is a great upgrade.
It should have been on the regular PS5 from the start.
@@krazyd0nut404 I didn't know it was that cheap now that's cool
I almost always go for performance or 40 / uncapped VRR, but it's usually a pretty noticeable trade off for me and I do get annoyed by the compromises, switching back and forth and seeing what I could be having in the fidelity mode if it just had higher clarity. I'm on the Pro train for sure.
It should drive home the point that most people don't care about ray tracing or photo realism.
Yep. If I cared about graphics I'd be a PC snob. I just want a smooth experience.
Which is why it's not aimed at "most people"
I like RayTracing but more as a novelty than anything. Cube mapping on reflections like Water have shown results that are near identical to ray tracing with far less cost on the power hunger.
@@linkvagar2336 5% isn't a lot. That's maybe 2 to 3 mil units at best.
People still care about graphics
I choose performance mode every time
In all honesty I choose performance because I can definitely see a difference in frame rate. I can't however tell the difference between graphics in the two modes. So buttery smooth it is.
tbh, I've been running with graphics mode a lot more often than not. Yes, 60fps is really nice, but on a 65 inch 4k tv, I'd rather not have a blurry mess.
This solves my problem of " should i go for ps5 pro or not" and i dont even have any console st the moment! I have LG G2 65" so i guess i should go for pro
Honestly im just happy with 60FPS at 1440P. I don't know a single person that wants or asked for Ray-Tracing. Im convinced its something the industry is pushing because I've never met another gamer that cares about ray tracing.
I want my games at 60fps and to look “good” enough. I don’t want to see nor care to see every single pebble on the ground, no one cares. “Rockstar”
Never seen any PS5 game looking "blurry" in any mode. Diminishing returns as you increase resolution means 99% of people can't tell the difference between performance and quality modes, so Pro is just pointless
*final fantasy, suicide squad, black myth wukong enters chat*
So are you indirectly saying any consoles going forward are all useless.
@@SoFRESHandSoMJthat's the only game TBH. And that's a SE issue more than a console issue.
Take it you haven't played any UE5 games then.
Rebirth was blurry af
But I’m still gonna play on 60
I always choose graphics mode because I love the details and sharpness in games, plus I mostly play RPG’s and games that don’t really requiere the max frame rates like shooters.
I’m with you! Also if it’s not a Switch title, I would like to take advantage of my 4K tv. 🤷🏽♂️
I guess there are not that many of us. 😬😬😬
Anyone who happens to be shopping for a new TV, make sure you get yourself a 120Hz VRR display if you plan to game on it!
I'd like to ask my fellow gamers what do u think needs most attention in games? Are u playing thinking... better graphics ASAP!? more FPS ASAP!? I need ray/path tracing!? I know personally im not I was very happy with graphics to take a back seat once PS4/Xbox One gen landed, what I desperately wanted to see was a big focus on both enemies and NPCs AI! No more hiding in chest high grass no more whistling as 5 guys come to die 1 at a time without asking where the others went, NPCs reacting to things u wear and are doing in the environment, I wanted smarts this gen but instead we got SLIGHTLY better graphics and now we're getting VERY slightly better graphics for 700 US which is 914 US in the UK where I am! I'll pass
So why a bigger GPU when gamers want performance which would come from the CPU
Can't change the cpu, it would leave the base ps5 behind generationally, that would essentially make it the ps6.
Ps5pro is both a performance and graphics upgrade; if you normally play 60fps, it will be a graphics upgrade for you. If you normally play 4k, it will be a performance upgrade for you.
Most games aren't cpu bound, go check videos of a ryzen 3600 which the closest cpu to the ps5. A lot of this is dev-publisher focusing on 30, and we don't know if they will get a patch or not.
I'm asking people about the PS5 Pro situation and I'm happy with the responses I'm getting. They DON'T want mid-gen refreshes. It takes away from the power and impact of the follow-up generation. So, yeah, there's some that do, but the vast majority of fans of PlayStation never wanted the Pro anyway, the question was: Where is gaming going and the answer was exactly what they didn't want. MORE EXPENSIVE. DEATH OF PHYSICAL MEDIA.
Now, that's interesting because I'm looking at graphs and charts of data input from consoles. Instead, I'm talking to actual people. What's funny, is those I'm talking to have a preference to buy digital games, but they're not at all happy about the absence of a disc drive. That's doesn't sit well with them, even though their primary choice of format is digital. Then, you have the collectors. Collectors will either buy the digital first and get the physical copy or they'll get the physical copy and wait for the digital price drop. More times then not it's the digital first and wait for a price drop on the physical because they take that physical copy and store it. To sell it later? Not your collector, your collector likes to see if they'll have bragging rights later that they have a rare print game. For collectors, it's also a security investment. At some point, you're gonna be locked out of your digital games, and theyll be gone. That's already happened. Try to find Turtles in Time Re-Shelled for Afterburner HD, you can't. The P.T. demo. But those who have a digital copy won't be begging for and hoping for a re-release somewhere down the road. That, and it's also the big three trying to lock you out and control you. They don't want you making that big profit, they want the money from that. By eliminating physical media, Nintendo can re-sell you the same digital game over and over with every new console. I can't play my digital Wii Virtual Console games on my Switch, I have to buy them all over again. For the time being, all of the PS1 games I bought on PS3, as they're digitally available on PS4 and PS5 are free, but not all of them are available and for how long?
Consumers are smart. While they may not want it then, they're always thinking down the road. Digital consumers still want that disc drive, it gives them peace of mind in an uncertain future where the rug could be pulled out from underneath us once all the barriers have been allowed to be removed and then they absolutely call the shots.
By the way, I always prioritize graphics over framerate. Ill take a good looking 30fps game over 60+ anyday. Cinema is 24fps
Personally I rather have fidelity and 30 FPS over performance bc performance mode is way too blurry for most games which causes me to want to vomit.
Blurry lol me out here playing games at performance ain't seeing anything that looks blurry, u kidding
@@Kor3Gaming_Ghost ok cool that’s you. Not everyone’s eyes are the same. I have astigmatism in my eyes and wear glasses.
Normally, I choose performance mode by default, since I prefer my games to run smoothly over looking immaculate.
However, if I'm playing a game that's less reliant on immediate response (turn-based RPG, visual novel, or a farming game) and the fidelity mode is a solid 30 fps with no dips, I'll sometimes choose that.
I remember everyone saying that average gamers can't tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps. Glad to see this dumb theory debunked
😂
The reality is that a large percentage of console gamers are playing on TV's, for example if you've a 4K 55" TV, but are sitting 6 feet or more away from that screen, you're looking at 1080p anyway. You'll obviously choose the superior performance mode, because you'll notice that difference at any distance from you TV.
that was a thing because people thought 30 meant choppy 30. like 24, then 27, then 20, then 30, then 35. that's when "30fps" looks horrible. but anyone would rather stable 30 to choppy 60.
I can’t tell 🤷🏽♂️
I went from 60hz to 170hz. I can’t tell.
So many console generations and we're STILL debating about a framerate that meets the display standards of the 90's.
60fps doesn't have to be this mystical number, no videogames should be made targeting 30fps period unless its in reference to a handheld or laptop.
There's already a run on the disc drives. I expect the Pro to sell like hot cakes. Which isn't a surprise since It's basically a $1000 PC for $700.
yeah, if you take away everything good about a pc other than "it play game", then it's "as good as a $1000 pc"
@@joogled1839 I'm talking value of parts not functionality which I'm sure 99.9% of people reading that realizes.
So were the XSX and PS5 at launch, this justification is so pathetic imo
@@TH-camCensors Every single piece of tech out there has drastically risen in price since Covid. People that ordered cars even had to wait for months because something as simple as a bluetooth module was on backorder with manufacturers. If you think a PS5 Pro is expensive, try shopping for an iphone 16 or any PC GPU. $700 isn't ridiculous if the tech that powers it adds up to around 1000 in the PC realm. Expecting this thing to sell for less is childishly naive.
I've been waiting for years for the ps5 pro, as my most recent system is a plain ps4, and I couldn't help but be disappointed with the announcement.
While the games *should* look better and run smoother, the improvement seems small compared to the price increase, and i absolutely expected a disc drive.
810 + tax for the system/drive/stand is not only too much, but also too inconvenient. I'll probably wait for some sort of bundle that includes the disc drive, stand, and either a game or 2nd controller for 750ish
Why are people acting like Sony is forcing you to buy the pro, this is for people who want the option to play these games and the highest graphics with 60 frames per second, but they understand that there's a lot of people who don't care for that, which is why the PS5 slim and standard edition still exist... It is not an outrageous concept
What did you guys want out of a pro and what did you expect it to cost??
It’s because it’s $800 for no upgrade
@@Slaughter_Hillwell that's just a lie and you know it😂😂.
@@x0Fang0x Sonys own presentation had the last of us 2 side by side looking exactly the same. What an embarrassing showcase for Sony 😂
@@Slaughter_Hill, 2 TB NVME PCIe 5.0 SSD, larger and faster iGPU with more CU, overclocked CPU, improved RAM, WiFi 7, BT v5.4, improved PSU (for the extra power), improved cooling solution (for the extra heat), NPU for upscaling (PSSR) and dedicated hardware for RT. That looks as an upgrade to me.
@@hectorj.romanp. none of that shit matters. just bigger numbers and "its faster" "its improved" "wow the PSU IS BIGGER" doesnt mean anything at all. what the fuck does it LOOK LIKE. what does it CHANGE when you LOOK AT THE GAMES. basically nothing.
The human eye can detect frame rate at any size or distance from the screen while resolution gets harder to notice the further you sit from a screen.
I'll take 60 fps 100% of the time, all of the time. I think anyone who really cares about maxing out both visuals and frames is not the target console gamer. They're probably tinkering with high end PCs and running benchmarks. Otherwise, consoles should just focus on providing a consistently decent experience at an affordable price. The visual fidelity of console games are at a point now where the typical console gamer won't care if a few sacrifices are made here and there. Heck, they won't even know the graphical sacrifice if you don't mention it to them. But slow, chugging variable frame rates stick out like a sore thumb. Even my grandmother would know something is off when the frame suddenly drops. The whole feeling of the game changes drastically. Frames should be a priority...which is why it's a big shame that Sony skimped on the CPU upgrades.
The only time I choose a "fidelity" mode is because the performance mode was a last minute thought and is a choppy, inconsistent mess of a frame rate. 30fps locked is much better than 30-60fps variable frames with pacing issues. The good news for me is, I tend not to buy many games that are poorly optimized because I think those developers can and should do better. Astro was a breath of fresh air. I totally agree. Every dev should target 60fps, and build the rest of the game design based on that. Call of Duty, for instance, has made amazing engine upgrades since MW reboot in 2019, and it looks damn good and runs damn well. I'd much rather play a 60fps COD game with the current engine they're using, than let's say, a new BF game that pushes ray tracing or something and runs like crap. Heck, I still play Battlefield 1 on my Series X, and that iteration of Frostbite still looks amazing, and has great physics. Astrobot looks better than every single UE5 game I've seen, including Wukong, even on PC, because Wukong does not look clean and perfect in its shadows and draw distances the way that Astrobot does. If an engine is hard to optimize for, or you push your hardware past its limits, don't even bother. ID Software is another amazing studio that makes DOOM somehow look like the best looking FPS game on the market AND running incredibly smoothly. It's all down to art style, material rendering pipeline and CLEAN rendering of lighting and shadows within the entire viewing range and depth of field.
Everyone is a PS5 component expert all of a sudden - Not referring to you spawn wave in general all the complaining and comparisons to PC smh
Well when your talking about a console costing up towards $1000 then yeah, it's going to be compared to PC.
@@patshowiedoit5340but pc is still not gonna beat a console in terms of price to performance so it just doesn't make sense.
@@x0Fang0x the ps5 pro costs $1400 if you want all the features in australia. you can buy a prebuilt 4070 super pc for that amount or build your own. let that sink in.
@@joogled1839 1400? Where that f did you get that number.😂😂 Enlighten me 😂😂
@@joogled1839 1400? Where in the Andromeda did you pull that number?😂😂
I just want 60fps and increased draw distance, it's distracting watching the details in grass spawn 20' in front of me.
At this point the whole SpawnCast is Milking the PS5 Pro videos.....
But your still here ?
@@dereksmyth4868 Haters are the biggest fans.
@@TheGravityShifter yup
Thanks for helping their algorithm.
A shit product comes out and it deserves the lambasting.
as i main nintendo player, i dont mind 30fps that much so i usuallyu play it in fidelity just cause is the reason i got a play, however in some games becomes trivial, a lot of movement on the screen to actually pay attention to all the graphic details, like a bush in the back (lol), and to be honest i kind of miss blurring effects like octopath does, that depth of field effect i love it.
Am I the only one who mostly doesn't give a shit about performance or fidelity modes? I just want fun games with consistent graphics.
Bro, sacrifices are made doing either modes. Performance mode gives you 60fps, but SACRIFICES graphics. Fidelity gives you graphics, but SACRIFICES 60fps. Because graphics taxes the GPU. 60fps taxes the CPU.
PS5 Pro is using the same GPU, because of backwards compatibility from PS5 Pro downwards. CPU on the other hand is double the power.
Problem is the $700 price tag shocks people today because of economy. But PS3 launched at $600. So I'm not exactly surprised.
PS6 is gonna be $700. Thing is, people are gonna hate Sony no matter what. There are gamers who are asking for $800 consoles. I NOT joking. They basically want the PC.
Yeah, games need 60 fps to be fun.
I’d much rather just have one mode that works out of the box
@@Trinidaddy_Gaming That's what this is. The issue is just the price. PS5 is fine, but there ARE sacrifices. And I agree. I want both if possible.
I just think a lot of people don't get it.
Nah, gameplay is where it's at. These fools will never be satisfied with performance in the graphics department. Getting too real in graphics takes the out of it.
Having a base PS5, a 3080 PC … I just find little reason for me personally to upgrade now. I will buy either an exclusive or what I think will be a better experience on my base console for big screen action or exclusive controller functionality (which is actually coming more and more to PC on Dualsense) or I may just get it on the capable PC. Idk I think making my old games better isn’t going to move the needle for me. If Sony is going to sell this they really need to show me what they can do with something new. Perhaps that will be GTA VI for a lot of people. We just don’t know yet. In the present for a lot of people it doesn’t make a lot of sense and even less so for me.
Performance mode. No brainer
75% is a big number... But what is the sample size.. cuz I am curious too know how many people don't know about this toggle option & where this people taken into account when Sony said 75% off PPL use performance... Honestly when PPL use % they are actually trying to see things in positive light in order to ignore any negativity.. I want to know
% of user don't know about toggle
% of user that use graphic mode
% of user that use performance mode
Open world games will still be 30fps on the Pro (GTA6) because they didn't touch the CPU, what a joke.
main issue with consoles is GPU power.
Even if u have perfect optimization for the ps5 pro, you are still limited by the hardware
@@corruptedpoison1 Most PS5 games are GPU bound not CPU bound. The cpu is 10% faster I believe also.
@@bfhandsomeface409 You are wrong on both accounts. The PS5 Pro reveal trailer shows the exact same CPU. Go watch digital foundry and educate yourself on why most console games are CPU bound.
How you know that information do you work for Rock Star?
@@corruptedpoison1 I literally just watched a TH-cam leaker say this. Digital foundry does not have the console yet. The ps5 now is not CPU bound and hits 120 in a lot of games. Look up the CPUs performance, it’s more than capable in most games but probably not 100% imo.
Good stuff Jon(SW).
If you are happy with Older Games looking Prettier at 60fps and Newer Games looking Prettier at 30fps, then the Pro should be fine and you have the Money of course too get one but if you are happy with Performance Mode over Graphics, then sticking with the PS5 is the way too go guys.
That is the Big Question, how much will the PS6 be, will be a 750+ Bucks System Digitally Only.
Console Gaming is getting too close too the PC Side of Gaming and I wonder if more n more people will Jump too PC Next Generation, if the PS6 is Priced too High.
Atari 2600 cost $200.00 in 1977. That's equal to $1000.00 in today's price. The system today are thousands of time more powerful then Atari back then. Why complain.
I wish people weren't so biased. If you don't like the price of the pro, get a series x as the new features can be accessed there when devs decide to use it
Hi Everyone !
Hi 😊
What it do
hi
Stable frame rate is way more important, whether it's 120, 60 or even 30, if it's rock solid I'd always rather have that then a few extra 4k textures
I prefer fidelity my eyes can adjust to 30 fps as long as it's stable
Me too, I'm part of that 25%. Always choose fidelity.
if developers werent so afraid of 45fps, we would have good graphics at high resolutions.
@@joogled1839 you mean 40fps, 45fps is a really janky framerate to lock to
@@bearwynn actually 45 is the better framerate because of its divisibility. My tv can display with 30, 60, 90, and 120. To display 45 fps you just divide 90 in half by just displaying each frame twice. Running 40 would be like running 24 fps content which requires something like the 3-2 pulldown method where only every couple frames is doubled giving a slightly janky (yet consistent) jitter. Changing fps doesn't change the Hz of the tv so you need to divide your frames within the Hz and duplicate frames as needed. So running 60fps on a 120 Hz tv just doubles each frame giving a smooth 60fps but doing, say, 55 fps on 120 Hz it will double each frame then it needs to duplicate an additional 5 more frames in there so that's why things look jittery because it's no longer consistent. I hope that helps.
In any case, some studios will still use a certain frame rate regardless of what hardware you throw at them. I think for the Price the Series Xbox and PS5 already offer a great choice.
Unless there's going to be a huge difference down the line I don't see the value in the PS5Pro.
“Gamers are making the right choice”
Hey Spawn, how many switches do you own?
its part of his job though. he covers these stores and makes content around games/systems . like iv had two, but after i upgraded to the oled i gave my partner the other, so maybe im in that category. but he makes whole videos around the stuff
I remember the start of this gen emphasizing 120Hz. Whatever happened to that…?
i will die on the hill that the most important graphical feature of a game is frame rate. Who cares if theres five more blades of grass being rendered if it makes me sick to look at.
I don’t notice any blur on Astro Bot on a Samsung 55” Q60C Qled tv. The game runs great in looks and performance.
Price + No disc drive = laughing stock.
Well there is a system wide setting for your preference. If you set the system to prefer graphics mode then when you boot up a game it will choose that by default if the game chooses to use the users system preferences. Same with inverted camera you can set that in the system
See, here is what I find hilarious, every video, litterly every video, social media post about this is negative.
All the replies are agreeing.
Then go look at where to buy one. It's literally selling out everywhere. LOL
It's like pre-ordering games. Every video, every social media post is saying "No don't do it" every reply is agreeing with them, yet every year pre-order sales go up.
Vote with your wallet they said. 🤷
Just price checked a pc build with the same specs of a ps5 pro (3700X cpu, 7800xt gpu, 16gb ddr4), it came to $1151 using budget priced parts.
That being said, it needs to include the DualSense Edge controller at least, if not the disc drive also, to justify the price to casuals who don't care for the technical aspects of consoles.
Add to that that it would be a waste if that computer is used only for gaming in the living room (or the basement). By the way, it should be a SFF build, not a regular case.
keep in mind you're saving money on games (frequent sales) and peripherals in the long run (no stick drift on kbm) plus subscription services like parsec, geforce now, and gamepass.
@@joogled1839 Yeah with the cheaper games it is cheaper in the long run to get a PC than the PS5 Pro. As for controlling the games, I prefer controllers. But I got a controller for PC with hall effect for about half the price of a PlayStation/Xbox controller.
Wrong. Not every game needs 60fps and it can make games meant to be more cinematic look cheaper. Competitive multiplayer games sure I get frame rate.
Every game needs 60 fps. Except maybe point and click games
@@Slaughter_Hill ? no? no game at all *needs* 60fps, except for maybe fighting games and such where inputs need to be very precise.
@@joogled1839 you’re right. They all need above 60 fps
Ive seen alot more games have the option up before the gsme starts. And knowing how much streaming games has gained in popularity and Covid was not to long ago we have more people watching their streamers switching to performance mode. And they see its a must option to go and change to in games they have.
Does no one question the fact that most games default to performance mode? I think the statistic showcases far more that your average console player never touches settings and just plays what is in front of them.
All my games start off on quality mode. I change them to performance because 30 fps is garbage
You choose your preferred setting on the ps5 settings and the ps5 will automatically select either performance or quality.
Dont forget that performance mode is the default mode for most games. So i dont think its 100% that people just choose performance mode, but that its whats already selected so they go with it. Its a great thing performance is preferred, but we cant act like it was all from people choosing it. Also typically the performance mode isnt that huge a difference for 60fps so thats another reason why people go with it, if it was a contrast like you said with Rebirth, more people would choose fidelity
People saying they always go for higher framerates over graphics are just being ridiculous. It just comes down to what type of game it is. Visuals should be designed around the needs of the gameplay. If high end effects can add cool innovations and interactions than 30fps is probably a better option. If the action is incredibly fast paced such as a Smash Bros. or F-Zero game than an emphasis on 60fps should be the priority.
I even stopped playing The Quarry because it's just a stuttering mess. Simply rotating the camera looks broken to me. I can't tolerate 30fps, with the exception of games, who explicitly go for that retro look, like Syberia 3.
@@taptoplayde "I can't tolerate 30fps".
Bwa, ha, ha, ha, ha!!! I guess you have no self awareness as to how completely ridiculous you sound. It all depends on the type of game you're playing. Unless you are playing some insanely fast paced arcade action game like F-Zero or Smash Bros., 60fps is nice but not necessary. Most modern games are so slow paced and yet guys like you find them "unplayable" at anything less than 60fps. If Internet comments like yours weren't anonymous, you wouldn't show your face in public after saying something so ridiculous.
I think there should've been 3 choices for resolutions. A 1080p 60fps or better, 1440 at whatever resolutions was realistically possible and 4k 30fps
I just want to point out that performance mode is usually the default settings and most probably dont mess with the settings.
I think it depends on the game but I found FF7 Rebirth to be just too blurry with performance so I played the whole thing in fidelity
The only time I will believe gamers is when I see them not actually buying the console. Because most gamers just complain but still purchase the item or game, they were complaining.
I don't mind the Pro. It is optional, and i think I'm buying it, but i need a solid way to save up money.
If I’m correct you can set the default quality/performance preference in the system.
And here I am, enjoying the Quality mode and even on PC I use so many graphic mods that Witcher 3 is running at 40~50fps. I don't see or feel a real difference in most games between 30 and 60fps.
Since the PS4 Pro time, I always opted for a higher frame rate when presented with the option. God of War comes to mind here. And I'll keep doing that for the foreseeable future, as my vision is compromised, and there is no point for me to opt for something that I literally cannot benefit from due to poor vision...
I play on a PS4. I do prefer the better graphics over the framerate, however i found out over time that with the performance mode, the game crashes far less.
This is especially true with Tiny Tina's Wonderlands. This game is unplayable on the graphics mode. The in-game menus would always make the game crash. When, i switched to performance mode for this game, it very rarely crashed and hasn't crashed in the in game menu in this mode yet.
So as of now, i always play on performance mode, mostly to reduce the risk of game crashes. The higher framerate did take getting used to and i see why players prefer the faster framerates with games.
Honestly when I put it to image quality mode I have a hard time seeing the difference, but 60FPS is very noticeable.
In a turn base rpg like persona 5 who cares about the frame rate (as long as it’s locked at either 30 or 60), I’d rather the prettier visuals in my opinion. People (again in my opinion) overrate the difference between 30 and 60, it’s not really noticeable in non action and pvp games. But in a game like Rainbow Six Siege I need to win so I need the extra frames.
There's a settings in the menu that you can prioritize which you prefer, performance or fidelity. If you prefer one or the other that's how your game is going to load up. Easy peasy. I keep my setting on performance.
I never EVER click on performance mode for a game. Unless it’s optimized to be played that way I’m not changing it. I don’t mind playing red dead 1 on performance because there’s nothing to see. But for my final fantasies and resident evils and dead spaces I want the visuals to pop. All I read about is how 60 fps is the only way to go and “no one cares about visuals in their games.” Which is the biggest load of horse shit. Give me good looking games. If it dips below 30 then I’ll complain. I didn’t buy a PlayStation 5 to play games with ps4 graphics and 60 frames per second. I bought the PlayStation 5 because the graphics were better.
And I bought if for 60fps, which is how Sony marketed the console. And all I got was a stuttering or a blurry mess.
PS: Every person reacts differently to low frame rates. For me, all I see is missing frames. It looks completely broken to me, especially on a large OLED.