Would you buy a more expensive version of PS5/XSX that plays all games at 60-120FPS instead of 30-60?

Would you pay extra for a PS5/XSX model that plays all games at minimum 60FPS instead of 30?

  • Absolutely, 60FPS should be the bare minimum for video games

  • Nah, I'm perfectly fine with 30FPS as long as it's stable

  • Human eye can only see 24FPS


Results are only viewable after voting.

ZywyPL

Banned
As the title says. I just got a thought about Lockhart, except in the opposite direction - instead of cheaper console that's aiming for lower resolution, for people who don't mind lesser performance, what if Sony/MS offered a more expensive option, that aims for higher performance (framerate), for those who do care about it?

With many games, especially 3rd party titles, targeting 30FPS, and it's safe to say waaay more of them are coming, not just at launch but throughout the entire generation, the next 6-7 years, would you mind spending some extra for a console with beefier GPU that would allow to push the games to 60/120FPS? For instance 60FPS Ratchet&Clank, Horizon, or 120FPS CoD/Doom.

Let's say the base consoles will cost 499$, so with a bigger GPU and cooling the "high performance" models would cost 649-699$, would you go for it? Sort of like a Pro version, but available on day one instead of somewhere in the middle of the generation.

Now, I know some will say that consoles are suppose to be as accessible (cheap) as possible, and that's true, I fully agree with that, however I think there is an untapped market to be reached, I mean, we already see people saying "PC it is then", while to get the desired level of performance, those PCs will cost thousands of dollars, literally. Which again, PC market clearly demonstrates that while most average Joes opt for parts that cost 100/150/200 bucks, there is quite a large group of enthusiast that are willing to spend 600-1200$ on a single component. So why not attract those people onto consoles, even if it would've been 800-1000$ for entire package, instead of just a single part? I would have to be a limited supply obviously, like every 1 on 10 shipped consoles, but I think many people would opt for it. I know I would. How about you?
 
I wont spend a dollar more than $600 on a console so no.

hell, id rather not spend any more than $500
 
Last edited:
Possibly.

The problem you would have though is it wouldn't be a case of 100 or 200 more dollars.

It would likely (minimum) double the price.
 
giphy.gif
 
The ps5/xsx themselves are likely capable of doing 1080p/144hz so you wouldn't need to pay more for a beefier console right now. Down the road, I'm sure we'll see ps5 and xsx editions that can do 4k/144hz but that's years away. Games will probably offer some kind of 4k/30 or 1080/60-144 option and it will be dependent on the games and not the console. I have a good computer but there are games I play that simply don't support FPS higher than 60. Btw, there's a massive difference between 60 and 120+hz
 
Nope.

Games should run at the same framerate no matter the harddware refresh.

30fps games on PS5 should be 30fps games on PS5 Pro.
60fps games on PS5 should be 60fps games on PS5 Pro.
120fps games on PS5 should be 120fps games on PS5 Pro.
 
Last edited:
I'd buy the best version available day 1. Why wouldn't I?

Talking but specs though. I'm going digital with PS5 as I have no need for the disc-drive.
 
Last edited:
I agree 60fps should be the bare minimum but I wouldn't pay more for a console.

Rather put that money to a PC which will handle 144-240fps.
 
No. I have a 165hz monitor for responsive PC gaming. The consoles stay under the TV which is only going to output at 60hz anyways. Consoles are for couches.
 
Nope.

Games should run at the same framerate no matter the harddware refresh.

30fps games on PS5 should be 30fps games on PS5 Pro.
60fps games on PS5 should be 60fps games on PS5 Pro.
120fps games on PS5 should be 120fps games on PS5 Pro.

This doesn't make sense, why wouldn't a pro version with better hardware get more FPS.
 
I would rather downgrade to 1080p/60fps then 4k/30fps. Hopefully devs make this an option next gen.

To keep on topic, I would pay more for a console to perform at 60fps.
 
I kind of do that already and more through PC. But it would be nice to play the Playstation exclusives or the rare console only games at a good framerate too, and I'd pay more to get that.
 
Last edited:
This doesn't make sense, why wouldn't a pro version with better hardware get more FPS.
Because it is fair to everybody.

You don't want players playing at 120fps vs 30fps.
That is the whole concept of console... even ecosystem.

If you want more fps and graphic/performance options then you are looking for a PC not concole.
 
Because it is fair to everybody.

You don't want players playing at 120fps vs 30fps.
That is the whole concept of console... even ecosystem.

If you want more fps and graphic/performance options then you are looking for a PC not concole.

I get what your saying, you want an even playing field.

I'd rather it improve performance even if that means people with the base model only get 30fps; but good thing it isn't up to me, so you don't have to worry.
 
I get what your saying, you want an even playing field.

I'd rather it improve performance even if that means people with the base model only get 30fps; but good thing it isn't up to me, so you don't have to worry.
So you want to play on PC... not consoles.

And yes you can put your PC with a great looking case (even similar to consoles) in your living room and use a controller to just get home, turn on and play games like console.... plus all the advanced options that allow you to play the game like you want.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely. Would be worth every penny, too.

Building a PC won't magically make all Sony/Nintendo exclusives run at a proper 60.
 
Last edited:
Possibly.

The problem you would have though is it wouldn't be a case of 100 or 200 more dollars.

It would likely (minimum) double the price.

How so? Assuming everything other than the GPU would be nearly identical? A whole 340-360mm APU in consoles costs about 110-120$, doubling the GPU size would bump the APU size to around 450-550mm, and I cannot see that alone making the entire console cost 1000$ instead of 500 as you say. Sure, there would have to be used more capable PSU + slightly wider vapor chamber/longer heatpipes + more fins along with it, but that's pretty much it.

I mean, let's take PS4 and Pro for example - if you bought a 400$ PS4 in 2016/2017, and upgraded to 400$ Pro later on, that's 800 for one generation of consoles, BUT - with Pro you paid second time for the exact same controller, second time for the same HDD, for the same BR drive, for the same CPU, for the same 8GB RAM, and so on, the real cost difference between Pro and a launch PS4 is really marginal. And now imagine you could get an 800$ PS4 back in 2016, how much more power under the hood it could have. That would be way to expensive obviously compared to base 400$ model, but 550-600 vs 400? Sounds fair/reasonable if you ask me, for a hardware thet's not underpowered from the get-go and will serve well for years.
 
You get one console per generation, how bout go to PC gaming to solve all your power, upgrade features, Console gamers are jealous of PC gamers because of that aspect.
 
No sure if serious about all those PC comments... Have any of you guys ever experienced operating Windows on a 55-65" display? With mouse and keyboard on you living room desk? That's one hell of a experience for sure.

It's not.
 
I would, even though this would go beyond even what a standard "Pro" revision would seem to offer.

But, I always opt for the more powerful options, when available. Could the console force a game like Valhalla to run at 60fps if Ubi never patches it specifically tho?
 
Last edited:
We talking an extra $100 or $150 for a pro model capped at about $650 i'd consider it since I'm already shelling out for the base console and it will last me the generation. Depends on total cost though, I'm fine with 30fps.
 
Nah, you're chasing the good games in the PC arena my friend.

Not really - most of these good games find their way to the PC nest anyway. Not being able to play games at 60 FPS on a console you paid good money for? That is unacceptable. It's basically the same as a badly optimized game for PC that won't reach stable 60fps even though gamers know the rig they have is good enough. Games get a lot of criticism for that in the PC world, but for consoles, it's just casually accepted.
 
Just get a PC.
The problem with that statement is that I'm mostly interested in the first party AAA games.... that rarely come to PC and when they do it's years later. I just want to play TLOU2, HFW, Spider-Man Miles, etc at 60fps. How do you suppose I just get a PC. I mean I already have a top end PC, still can't play them at 60.
 
If such consoles were made it would take devs about 3 seconds to find how to get to 30 FPS with frame-pacing issues

Ever since the PS2 era it's almost never about lack of power, but the devs pushing shinier graphics over performance
 
I would personally pay up to the price of highest end current video card like a RTX 2080Ti or an iPhone if I was GUARANTEED 60fps. I think 8-1200 EUR is reasonable.
 
If such consoles were made it would take devs about 3 seconds to find how to get to 30 FPS with frame-pacing issues

Ever since the PS2 era it's almost never about lack of power, but the devs pushing shinier graphics over performance
In theory, but it could an absolute 60fps mandate by Sony/MS when releasing a game on that console.
 
The best thing about PC is that you can tune the settings to your preferred frame rate vs fidelity. EVERY console game should have these two options available.
 
For a $150-$200 up price I'd consider it.

Realistically though I don't think you could make consoles right now which run next gen AAA tier games at high resolutions and 60-120fps for less than $1000. And if I'm already spending $1000+ I'd rather go with a PC
 
Last edited:
If it was at launch, and it was the same console, just powerful enough to run all games at 60fps (meaning 2X the power)... I would probably buy it.

But I would rather they make it the base console, and sill let devs do 30fps games with further complexity.
Devs could make all games 60fps since the 32 bit generation if they wanted, but they would have to pay a price on quality. Now it is the same fps VS quality (and of course, optimisation).
 
So what you mean is 'do you want to buy a PC'?

Man, this whole 60fps or bust crowd are so tiresome. If developers thought it was important, they'd make their games with that in mind. The hardware has nothing to do with it.

The fact 30fps is fine for the vast majority of people and a stable 30fps is often better than 60fps with rubbish frame pacing. Nothing is ever as simple as people like to make it out to be.
 
I think if you really care about this kind of high performance stuff, you're better off taking things into your own hands on PC than putting yourself at the mercy of the console manufacturers and the developer of each game.
 
In theory, but it could an absolute 60fps mandate by Sony/MS when releasing a game on that console.
And how would they enforce it on games released before such console? Many devs still tie elements like physics to FPS and changing all of that because Sony or MS suddenly released a console where they are forced to release the game at a certain FPS is probably way beyond what many studios are willing to do

The only way I can think devs sticking to a 60 FPS target as minimum is if suddenly a new gen has such a massive gap that devs initially after upgrading graphics find themselves with a ton of unused power so the easy way to use that extra performance is to increase the FPS target (and hope they haven't tied anything to FPS, because I could see many things going wrong if they just unlock the framerate even if this could be eventually patched)
 
Last edited:
I'll buy the best possible model of the console that has the GAMES I want to play. So, yeah, but the proposition doesn't really make sense.

Framerate and Resolution are two things dictated by software, not hardware. There will never be a console that will guarantee that every game runs at 60 or 120 FPS or 4K/8K UNLESS the platform owner mandates all software hits those minimums.
 
Last edited:
And how would they enforce it on games released before such console? Many devs still tie elements like physics to FPS and changing all of that because Sony or MS suddenly released a console where they are forced to release the game at a certain FPS is probably way beyond what many studios are willing to do

The only way I can think devs sticking to a 60 FPS target as minimum is if suddenly a new gen has such a massive gap that devs initially after upgrading graphics find themselves with a ton of unused power so the easy way to use that extra performance is to increase the FPS target (and hope they haven't tied anything to FPS, because I could see many things going wrong if they just unlock the framerate even if this could be eventually patched)
It would of course require Sony to inform them of it way ahead of time and it would mostly only apply to new games. But as we see with so many older games, they can often be modded to run at 60fps without to much effort and we can expect most back compat games to have either increased resolution and or frame rate boost. Finally, tying physics to frame rate is a bad and old approach.
 
The problem with that statement is that I'm mostly interested in the first party AAA games.... that rarely come to PC and when they do it's years later. I just want to play TLOU2, HFW, Spider-Man Miles, etc at 60fps. How do you suppose I just get a PC. I mean I already have a top end PC, still can't play them at 60.
Realistically speaking how much traction would a "PS5 - 60fps Edition" get. We have ~15 years of evidence that proves that this stuff doesn't really drive sales. Even to this day ~80% of PS4 sales are the base version.

What you should be pushing for is for Sony to release more games on PC, eventually getting to where MS is, honestly. Might be a pipe dream but nobody thought MS would be launching Halo day one on PC in the 360 days.
 
Top Bottom