DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Literally PC gaming in a nutshell with each new graphics card revision as well.
Sooner
Member
The what now?
bundylove
Banned
Elephant thank you
HeisenbergFX4
Member
I want all my games running better and I often play games that are years old
So $700 for much of my PS library to run better and some games getting pro enhanced updates?
Easy buy for me
bundylove
Banned
Now this is a good argument for the pro
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
The exact same reasons PC gamers upgrade their hardware as well.
Interesting divide over the same core reasons by some.
FrankWza
Member
It's even more of a no brainer if you're only in the Playstation ecosystem. PSVR2 enhanced and possibly something for the portal down the road and second-half Sony. I think it will do better than PS4 Pro even with the higher price.
bundylove
Banned
PSvr2 enhanced would be a game changer.
Nothing beats red matter 2's graphics at 120 4k. I was blowen away .
If i can have that image clarity and fluidity in other games , that alone is worth the money.
My backlog is huge but i want to start madison vr . That with enhanced graphics and motion ....i might literraly shit my pants in the room. Man i gotta hide those gummies
Johnny Concrete
Member
I'm really curious how the Pro will sell.
I mean, from what I gather not even half of the PS5 owners here are getting the upgrade and we're on a 'gaming enthusiasts forum'.
I can't imagine this thing moving big numbers out there.
But I might be wrong..
I mean, from what I gather not even half of the PS5 owners here are getting the upgrade and we're on a 'gaming enthusiasts forum'.
I can't imagine this thing moving big numbers out there.
But I might be wrong..
James Sawyer Ford
Banned
It won't move big numbers and not expected to.
If PS5 ends up selling 120M, and it's already sold 60M, then you can expect maybe a 15% attach rate of NEW PS% sales.
.15 * 60M future PS5 sales = 9M total sold. Not a lot. But if they are making $100 margin on each sale, that's still $1B in profit....and it serves a dual purpose of improving the library and technology for PS6. So it's basically a win-win.
Last edited:
Putonahappyface
Gold Member
Interfectum
Member
Sabejita
Member
I'm not sure you can compare upgrading a PC and going from PS5 to pro.
I upgrade my PC when I can't run new games, not to run older games better (because I already upgraded to run those games in good condition).
When I upgrade my PC, older games don't get new features (different from old games getting enhancements on PS5 pro ).
Last edited:
Topher
Identifies as young
Plenty of gamers upgrade their PC hardware long before the hardware is no longer able to run the games. Personally I went from a 2080 Super to a 4080. The 2080 Super will run any games out there, but I invested in the 4080 for nearly the exact reasons folks are investing in PS5 Pro. Better performance overall particularly due to the bump in upscaling tech via machine learning which, in turn, made ray tracing a viable options for many games. And I paid $300 more for the 4080 than I am for PS5 Pro.
Seems completely comparable to me, honestly. Not saying your approach to upgrades is wrong by any means. Just folks have different ways of looking at it.
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Incorrect. There is nothing "objective" about PS5 Pro from a "consumer value" perspective. That's a personal opinion.Heisenberg007 is right. Everyone decides that for themselves.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Technically, you can play most of the new games on an aging PC as well - just at awful resolution and frame rates. Very few games would just outright refuse to launch.
So you upgrade PCs so you can play those games with better performance. PS5 Pro is no different in that regard.
Sabejita
Member
Yeah I meant an upgrade comparable with PS5 to pro, not 980ti to 4090. xD
Felessan
Member
You can't change physics even if you think that how it work is unfair and not fine
Inflation starts at the bottom. Top just has tools to control and regulate it.
Go complain to TSMC that makes wafer more costly with each node and God himself that he didn't tweak physics laws enough to allow Moore Law to continue work even at near atom length
Last edited:
Radical_3d
Member
Ohhhh… for your work ethic and hunger to work your ass out of misery I thought you were eastern, but that elefant is pretty southern Europe.
For everyone else: you have to understand the context where Bundy comes. He's gone from an immobilist continent to workaholic land, which is hell on earth but at least you can get something out of it
Because everything got more expensive the last few years. That's the point I was making.
Is that a generational leap you're showing? again what's the difference in clarity? If you were to upscale using AI tech that's available today you can achieve a similar boost in image quality. You get Raytraced shadows too, raytraced reflections and increased framerate. The value proposition hasn't changed a bit.Red Dead Redemption 2 - 864p unstable 30fps vs 2160p very stable 30fps and better shadows and textures.
meaning at points you get a 625% resolution boost (1327104 vs 8294400 pixels) and an up to 15~20% framerate boost, with better shadows and textures.
and the game didn't have a dynamic resolution mind you. these are the solid numbers
Why do you keep looking at the launch price of the base xbox one? You could say that the base xbox one was overpriced considering it was such a weak machine and the PS4 was the same price (or even $100 cheaper at actual real launch) what makes that shitty xbox one situation good?
The value of money and items changes with time. When the One X launched the base xbox one was $250 cheaper so the value of the difference in the above picture was $250 not what something had cost 4 years prior. Even if you are talking in terms of existing base xbox one owners, their trade in price plummeted worse making it an even more expensive upgrade.
In the here and now we have had massive inflation so even the base consoles increased in price this time round but the difference is the same or even lower, $200 for the graphical upgrades.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Yeah, the mental gymnastics around this to try and make this seem different are well, a painfully transparent exercise in intellectual dishonesty.
Nope. Never has and never will and that's a lie they sell you.
Last edited:
Felessan
Member
It's basic economics.
Top gives means to bottom, like free money checks, but it's demand from bottom that pushing prices up.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Demand can be manipulated through artificial supply constraints which has been happening on record for the past few years. Overprinting of currency and controlling interest rates helped it soar to record highs as well.
Regular economical demand does not make it jump upwards of 30-40% across all industries the past 4 years. The past 4 years were not "bottom demand," at all. Especially globally.
Last edited:
Felessan
Member
Which exactly artificial supply constraint are you mentioning?
As for printing money - printing money itself does not increase inflation. It only "mean" top has for bottom. And as bottom has no conciense and act simplistically - it will spent and not put away extra money given, increase demand and subsequentally prices.
Have bottom not spent "printed money" but save them - prices would stay unchanged.
Top rule and regulate and is responsible for inflation. Because bottom has no knowledge, discipline and view of global picture. But it's a bottom who in their ignorance actually realize inflation into reality.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Without getting too political, since the media loves to memory hole things. There were supply ships sitting miles outside ports for months and months where the government(s) refused to let them enter with supplies. This happened all around the world in many western nations, all at the same time. Wild, eh?
Over printing money does increase inflation as the dollar value plummets since you can't back the fiat. This is basic economics.
Felessan
Member
You are mixing things because you don't understand step-by-step process
Printing money by itself do nothing. Like government can print 1 trillion of money, give them to banks and then increase bank reserve ratio by 1 trillion - effect on economy will be zero even though 1 trillion was printed
Spending printed money on actual goods bring inflation because mass of money divided by quantity of goods ratio increase - quantity of dollar per 1 item of goods increase, value of dollar plummet
But this only happens when money actually spent. If extra money hoarded or locked out in some way - the amount of money spent per 1 item of goods remain the same and so the value of dollar
And spending money on actual goods is a bottom prerogative
GHG
Gold Member
You're missing an important factor here - inflation is caused when an increase in money supply that is not paired with an equal or greater amount of economic output.
So what happened during covid? They increased the amount of money in circulation while the amount of goods and services being produced was decreasing. From an inflationary standpoint that is suicidal.
The only point at which it would have been apt for them to increase the supply of money was in tandem with the world coming out of lock down, in order to kick-start the economy back in to gear. But increasing the monetary supply while the world cannot produce a proportional increase in goods? Well, we've all seen the result.
It's not just about the spending side of things, it's the economic output that needs to be factored in more than anything else. The failure of businesses and supply chains to keep up with demand is what causes prices to rise, not just the increase of monetary supply or the spending of said money.
Last edited:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
How can a person believe this? What do you consider the bottom?
Perfectly said!
Last edited:
Felessan
Member
You are sprouting things that are irrelevant to discussion.
And as shown above money supply in general means nothing if it can't reach spending phase. Gov can give every person younger than 30 100k for their pension plan - it's a huge amount of money printed that will not affect prices for the next 30+ years, because you can't actually retrive this money and spend them.
It actually just about spending money. Economic output blablabla is second-order factor that can be just tossed out as irrelevant.
Especially when we talk about inflation, where "economic output" is just a small factor in general equation "fair price" = "money available for spending" / "goods available" (and yes, economic output just increase "goods available" part, but it is not so important in general discussion about inflation)
Bottom is a common people that actually buy things.
It's important to understand who drive the actual demand part and it is not the top (goverment bodies). Top can stimulate, control etc, but demand itself is a bottom thing.
Why it's important? because demand can be reasonable, that is somewhat predictable and controllable and it's responsibility of the top to manage it, and unreasonable, driven by psychological factors ("consumer rush" etc). For example PS5 slim disk drive has almost 100% inflation now and it is unreasonable, hard to predict and control, because it driven purely by psychological factors - fear of shortages, fomo, trying to get ahead etc. It's not really normal. It create unreasonably high spike in demand that not covered by increased supply and prices skyrocket.
Last edited:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
But none of the bolded matters if the supply outstrips the demand for the PS5 slim disk drive. Hence it's not the bottom that controls inflation.
GHG
Gold Member
You're lacking basic understanding of economic fundamentals. The ability for people to spend new money that has been printed is only one side of the equation. There economic output an environment into which that money is being injected needs to be taken in to account. To quote the IMF:
Inflation: Prices on the Rise
Inflation measures how much more expensive a set of goods and services has become over a certain period, usually a year
www.imf.org
Here's another point of reference, US M2 monetary supply against US GDP:
As you can see, they were increasing monetary supply long before covid, but it was fine since it was pretty much in lock-step with an increase in economic output. The it all went wrong the moment economic output could no longer keep pace.
Felessan
Member
Bottom never control inflation - they lack knowledge, discipline and actual control means. Bottom is a crowd, with crowd mentality - it can't control. Bottom *drives* inflation, as it's a bottom who do the actual action, either in controlled environment "money supply blablabla" or just by their own impulse "consumer rush etc"
You just don't know how this fundamentials works and post some general blablabla for laymen copied from internet. You try to simplify things to a school-grade economics - and it's wrong.
Super-basic economy stuff (and it works for most part) says - if supply (which is generally constant and adjusted to demand in market economy) does not meet demand (which is actual money spent on good, driven by money allocated for spending AND consumer behavior) - price will go up.
You are trying to post things thats are more high-level and highlighten general trends that might, or might not in some cases (see ps5 drive inflation that has zero connection to "money supply") be involved in inflation. And you should understand what really terms mentioned means in particular context, like M2 is a money "available for spending" (and given low financial discipline by bottom - they will be spent for the most part). But it's still "a tool provided by top that bottom used in their ignorance".
(total money supply is M3 and not M2, M2 is "active" or "consumers" money, and M3 growth is like 15% over 21-23 period)
General money supply by itself means nothing if this money supply is sterilized in some way - anyone who know practical economics even a bit know that. Japan printed money for years, and had deflation for years at the same time - because they just flush out all printed money outside via carry trade and inside impact was zero.
Last edited:
GHG
Gold Member
I'll be blunt, blaming consumers for inflation is crazy.
I'm referencing external sources because it sure beats making things the fuck up. What you're claiming goes against every single economic model and theory that exists. If you truly believe you're on to something then write up a thesis and get it peer reviewed.
Behaviours like people purchasing PS5 disc drives not for utility but in the hope that the price will go up is the exact sort of behaviour that happens when inflation has become entrenched in an economy. If people didn't have excess money to take such gambles and it was perceived that there was an appropriate level of supply on to the market (economic output) then the disc drives wouldn't be selling out in the way that they are. You need both factors in order for prices to be successfully driven up.
Well good thing I'm not looking at money supply by itself then.
You're grossly misunderstanding why Japan were printing money and supporting carry trades - it was to prevent the yen from catering further by creating artificial demand for it, not driven by their economy alone. That money was never intended for domestic use and was never going to make it in to the local economy, they knew that if it did then it would spell disaster from an economic standpoint. It's a completely worthless reference point in the context of this discussion.
Last edited:
FrankWza
Member
Last edited:
Felessan
Member
You just feel offended for some reason for nothing and this cloud your judgement.
I am not blaming consumers, I am properly naming it. The control function is on the goverment and widespread persistent inflation is their responsibility. But agent of inflation is masses, so its them who actually go shopping, and its them who are responsible volatility and temporal spikes in inflation.
Consumers rush is not a rational thing and can't be rationally controlled by market means - this is simply a crowd mentality that provide *temporary* excessive spike in demand due to misinformation, rumors, fear, greed etc. It's often not even needed to be responded by demand side, as when emotional response dies out so is excessive demand and product see sharp deflation to pre-price hike levels.
And you should really understand M2/M3 relations before talking about "excessive money".
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
This thread turned into an economics class 
Cerny made consoles are....
LFGM
FrankWza
Member
So happy for Pete. He's a good kid and he needed that big time. He seemed to be himself again post game for the first time in a while.
A lot of the commentary on him this past month has looked like a NeoGaf BioWare discussion. He didn't deserve the abuse and I'm glad he got to have such a big moment.
FrankWza
Member
He's a little silly and goofy but in a good way. He's not a scowl guy. He just looked miserable and then post game he broke out the playoff pumpkin. That's Pete. That's who he's always been
Sid Of Bee
Member
That YouTube video doesn't really show the clarity difference. The game definitely took time to start running well. And looked like shit regardless. But as someone who put hundreds of hours into that game, yes the X version was way more playable and responsive and clear. I had the original VHS Xbox one so maybe that's part of it. But the reality is I could even show you the video clips saved to my Xbox account and man the difference is crazy. But all in all it still looked like shit yes. But I went from being very frustrated playing it to actually really enjoying it when switching the systems simply due to the responsiveness of the controls, the clarity of the visuals and I think it got better over time too as the loading got better and the One X version really started to sharpen up. It got better after this video was released.