Comment by Uvix
3 days ago
It sounds like even the PS6 isn’t going to have an expressive improvement, and that the PS5 was the last such console. PS5 Pro was the first console focused on fake frame generation instead of real output resolution/frame rate improvements, and per the article PS6 is continuing that trend.
What really matters is the cost.
In the past a game console might launch at a high price point and then after a few years, the price goes down and they can release a new console at a high at a price close to where the last one started.
Blame crypto, AI, COVID but there has been no price drop for the PS5 and if there was gonna be a PS6 that was really better it would probably have to cost upwards of $1000 and you might as well get a PC. Sure there are people who haven’t tried Steam + an XBOX controller and think PV gaming is all unfun and sweaty but they will come around.
Inflation. PS5 standard at $499 in 2019 is $632 in 2025 money which is the same as the 1995 PS 1 when adjusted for inflation $299 (1995) to $635(2025). https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
Thus the PS6 should be around 699 at launch.
When I bought a PS 1 around 1998-99 I paid $150 and I think that included a game or two. It's the later in the lifecycle price that has really changed (didn't the last iteration of it get down to either $99 or $49?)
1 reply →
The main issue with inflation is that my salary is not inflation adjusted. Thus the relative price increase adjusted by inflation might be zero but the relative price increase adjusted by my salary is not.
14 replies →
But now you’re assuming the PC isn’t also getting more expensive.
If a console designed to break even is $1,000 then surely an equivalent PC hardware designed to be profitable without software sales revenue will be more expensive.
You have to price it equivalent grams of gold to see the real price trend
1 reply →
PCs do get cheaper over time though, except if there is another crypto boom, then we are all doomed.
3 replies →
As long as I need a mouse and keyboard to install updates or to install/start my games from GOG, it's still going to be decidedly unfun, but hopefully Windows' upcoming built-in controller support will make it less unfun.
Today you can just buy an Xbox controller and pair it with your Windows computer and it just works and it’s the same same with the Mac.
You don’t have to install any drivers or anything and with the big screen mode in Steam it’s a lean back experience where you can pick out your games and start one up without using anything other than the controller.
13 replies →
Launch Steam in big screen mode. Done.
1 reply →
How many grams of gold has the PS cost at launch using gold prices on launch day
If I'm doing this right, then:
PS1: 24.32 grams at launch
PS5 (disc): 8.28 grams at launch
(So I guess that if what one uses for currency is a sock drawer full of gold, then consoles have become a lot cheaper in the past decades.)
Im still watching 720p movirs, video games.
Somewhere between 60 hz and 240hz, theres zero fundamental benefits. Same for resolution.
It isnt just that hardware progress is a sigmoid, our experiential value.
The reality is that exponential improvement is not a fundamental force. Its always going to find some limit.
On my projector (120 inch) the difference between 720p and 4k is night and day.
4 replies →
Lower latency between your input and its results appearing on the screen is exactly what a fundamental benefit is.
The resolution part is even sillier - you literally get more information per frame at higher resolutions.
Yes, the law of diminishing returns still applies, but 720p@60hz is way below the optimum. I'd estimate 4k@120hz as the low end of optimal maybe? There's some variance w.r.t the application, a first person game is going to have different requirements from a movie, but either way 720p ain't it.
> Im still watching 720p movirs, video games.
There's a noticeable and obvious improvement from 720 to 1080p to 4k (depending on the screen size). While there are diminishing gains, up to at least 1440p there's still a very noticeable difference.
> Somewhere between 60 hz and 240hz, theres zero fundamental benefits. Same for resolution.
Also not true. While the difference between 40fps and 60fps is more noticeable than say from 60 to 100fps, the difference is still noticeable enough. Add the reduction in latency that's also very noticeable.
8 replies →
Really strange that a huge pile of hacks, maths, and more hacks became the standard of "true" frames.