this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2024
84 points (92.0% liked)
Games
16829 readers
1129 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Look, I was a life long PlayStation kid from ps1 to the end of ps3. There is no reason in 2024 why anyone should be considering a PS or a Xbox or a Nintendo in a world where the steam deck exist. It blows traditional consoles right out of the water into the stratosphere.
The benefit of PS5 Pro is that if you want to play in 4K you would need to spend 3-4x the price of the PS5 Pro to build a capable PC able to match the PS5 Pro in the GPU department.
An additional benefit is that if you have a disc version of the PS5 you can buy second hand games and play really on the cheap. You can easily resell your games afterwards as well.
The Deck is great, but it cannot run any 4K game and it is mostly to allow you to play your games on the go or in bed/sofa.
Forgive me if this comes across bluntly but, having seen roughly no details on price or actual performance of the still unannounced PS5 Pro, are you pulling the 3-4x cost comparison out of the ether?
If the expectation is that it will increase performance by frame generation, and that's accepted (e.g. non native resolution performance), then I'd argue you could get away with a very reasonable build and upscale to 4k for a similar imaginary price point - but without any released details (or third party reviews/benchmarks), that's hard to say seriously.
Well, there is if you want to play exclusives legally.
And support development. Somebody has to pay for these Zelda games if we want more of them.
Fuck no Nintendo's the richest company in Japan and they'll copy paste BotW again and release it as a full priced sequel when it's just BotW 1.6
I don’t really get your point.. do you think Nintendo would make new games if nobody bought them?
Yeah well, everyone else is copy and pasting their terrible games, so I’ll take Nintendo and Sonys output over Ubisoft, Microsoft, TakeTwo, Bethesda, EA, etc any day.
Pokemon is the highest earning franchise of all time. We do pay for it. Now, where are the Pokemon games? I don't see them.
And by Pokemon game I don't mean scarlet/violet/Arceus, those are prototypes that are lower quality than single-dev indie games.
Nintendo has more than enough money for developing games, everything else is greed.
Nintendo doesn’t develop Pokémon. That’s Gamefreak. I agree Pokémon games are shitty games, and I don’t understand why people buy them. But most games made by Nintendo is usually quite good. You might not like the genre or whatever, but Nintendo games are usually pretty bug free with decent performance and pretty good gameplay. Personally I feel like Nintendo does deliver on quality most of the time.
And yes, Nintendo are greedy like all public companies in a capitalist society. They have an obligation to shareholders to earn as much money as possible. And if they don’t make money doing something, they will stop, because they are not making games out the goodness of their little hearts. At least Nintendo doesn’t try to make every game into some micro transaction hell like Ubisoft, EA, Blizzard, Epic Games.
If no one bought PlayStation, Xbox, and Nintendo games they would eventually just make those exclusive titles into PC games. They aren't going to toss those massive profits from IP.
Exclusives don't exist to make money by themselves, they exist to make the platform more attractive. The real goal is the 30% cut they get from game sales on their platform.
So if people didn't buy PlayStation, Xbox, or Nintendo games, Sony and Microsoft probably wouldn't invest nearly as much into their gaming divisions, and Nintendo would probably turn into what Sega is today.
Console exclusive games exist...
Good sir, might I proffer a touch of html for your edification and enhancement? [email protected] Emulation is the sensation sweeping the nation.
You can't emulate a PS5, mate.
Are you referring to one of those new ps4 upscalers they’re looking to sunset in a few years?
The PS4 cannot be emulated either.
The PS4 cannot be emulated ~~either~~ yet.
Until the yet becomes now, it's a little bit useless for the end user. I'll stick with my console.
Alright, enjoy that one game not yet available on PC. You know the one.
I am enjoying Rebirth although the constant mini games are getting a bit tiring.
Final fantasy without a barrage of mini games isn’t final fantasy. It looks good, though the combat is a bit too slow for my taste.
Lmao no my steam deck does not blow my PS5 out of the water. It’s a great system, don’t get me wrong, but it serves an entirely different niche than my PS5. My PS5 outperforms my $2500 gaming PC, and both of them run circles around the steam deck even if you throttle them to 50% power somehow.
$2,500 PC outperformes by a PS5? What?
Did you buy a $2,000 case? Or is it pre-built?
I built it one year before the PS5 released, with a mix of mid range and top end parts. Just the CPU was $500, GPU $800, Case $200, etc etc. I think people underestimate how much you have to spend to even MATCH the PS5. You need to spend about the price of the PS5 on just a GPU, unless you’re buying second hand.
The PS5 has a CPU equivalent of a Ryzen 2600. You didn't have to spend 500 bucks on a CPU to outperform it.
The 3600x was released a year before the PS5, and was $200 on launch. You either got screwed over or don't know what your talking about?
GPU wise it's different, but there were compounding factors that inflated the prices. If you got a GPU from before the pandemic, chances are $800 would get you top of the line, which probably outperform the PS5 even to this day.
Now does a PS5 cost less ? Sure, they sell them at a loss and make money on games and online ~~scam~~ subscription services.
Edit: my bad the PS5 has a 3700x, so the 3600x comparison is still valid. Can't check the release price of the 3700vs3600 but it's not 2x higher anyway.
Hey that’s some pretty good detective work. I do indeed have a 3600x! I think I might be wrong on the price, maybe it was like $350? Idk. I can’t remember. I still love my pc, and as soon as I get home from vacation I’m upgrading the GPU and hopefully I’ll finally be able to pull 4k30 in all games rather than having to lower internal resolution to around 1800p. I’m definitely a weirdo for preferring 4k to high framerate, but I mostly only play slow paced single player games, so I don’t really mind it and I really enjoy the clarity of image that 4k brings.
The 3700x was 320$ and the 3600x 200$.
But I get you, running games at a higher resolution is prettier than upscaling to get better frame rate.
I think a lot of ppl don't know that the PS5 is upscaling most games and is not running a native 4k generally. Then they compare to pc hardware that does native 4k and say it's more expansive 🤷♂️