I was not expecting a next gen console to be under 500€, that sounds really good. Last console i owned was a PS2, seriously considering a PS5...

Prices looks really good. You'd have spend lot more on PC to match to performance of the PS5.

Nvme Pci-e 4.0 SSD of 825 GB with bit rates of 5.5 GB / s as standard or 8-9 GB / s in compressed mode

I do not understand. How does it transfer more data in compressed mode? Or is that number what you get after "un-compression"? What kind of performance hit does that un-compression cause? I don't think that there is a free lunch in this compression.

Tat3:

I do not understand. How does it transfer more data in compressed mode? Or is that number what you get after "un-compression"? What kind of performance hit does that un-compression cause? I don't think that there is a free lunch in this compression.

This means that compression/decompression is faster than SSD and they transfer 50% less. But, that's very misleading cause compression ratio depends on content.

If true - that's exactly what I predicted.

After the reveal of Playstation 5 price, anyone still thinks that RTX 3000 will be upwards of $1000 ?

wavetrex:

After the reveal of Playstation 5 price, anyone still thinks that RTX 3000 will be upwards of $1000 ?

Top ends yup 🙂

From this list is unclear if i even get a joypad with the console 🙂 Will be dualshock 4 compatible? i presume no, but why not dream. I recently bough a discounted dualshock 4 white that could totally match

Hilbert Hagedoorn:

/snip - So that's €100 for a BD.

For probably the very first time HH, I must disagree with you. It's not €100 difference for the BDXL, because one has a different design, so, less plastic etc, moldings..blah-de-blah, so, NOT just a drive...IF it was the same physical object, just with a plastic cover for where a drive used to be, perhaps I would side, but not this time. The drive alone (bearing in mind that Sony own the IP for BlueRay) cannot be €100 with mass-manufacturing etc, you are paying for a different design altogether.

Nah, they want the digital only to be better value so that more people buy it. Much more profitable long term - kills the second hand games market outright. It's as simple as that - the price was always going to be significantly better for the digital version.

TheSissyOfFremont:

Nah, they want the digital only to be better value so that more people buy it. Much more profitable long term - kills the second hand games market outright. It's as simple as that - the price was always going to be significantly better for the digital version.

The big question though is if I buy the physical media version of the console and a game do I still need to insert the disc every time I go to play the game?

Loobyluggs:

For probably the very first time HH, I must disagree with you. It's not €100 difference for the BDXL, because one has a different design, so, less plastic etc, moldings..blah-de-blah, so, NOT just a drive...IF it was the same physical object, just with a plastic cover for where a drive used to be, perhaps I would side, but not this time. The drive alone (bearing in mind that Sony own the IP for BlueRay) cannot be €100 with mass-manufacturing etc, you are paying for a different design altogether.

Regardless, 100 EUR for a 4k BluRay player is good value actually.

metagamer:

Regardless, 100 EUR for a 4k BluRay player is good value actually.

Oh, I agree. Fantastic value.

metagamer:

Regardless, 100 EUR for a 4k BluRay player is good value actually.

I have not used optical drive for many years even while I had it. Quite worthless for some. As far as price goes, it is $400 for basic console and $200 for basic accessories. Then maybe headphones for some if that proves to be good quality.

That's way less than I expected, going to await official confirmation before celebrating however. :

Well those prices are much better than i was expecting and i´m starting to feel tempted... But before that i need confirmation that the PS5 is totally compatible with all PS4 games.

I'll be going for disc version this next generation. It's crazy how games are more expensive digitally than physical but I'm doing it rather for the PS4 backlog (which I expect to have PS5 enhancements), about half of my games are physical. When I bought the God of War PS4 Pro they could have given me the digital version of the game but no, now they're rubbing the digital-only trend in my face. However, if the enhancements they bring to the existing PS4 games are poor/not significant/few games only, I'll be all in for the discless next console; they may even play this to their advantage: refuse to enhance most of the PS4 games/force people into buying "enhanced" versions so I stick to my old consoles for old games.

The 100 EUR difference between versions actually makes a lot of sense here - it's clear that they're selling the cheaper version at a loss and the more expensive one with a profitable price. E.g. the 400 version should actually sell at around 450~ish, and the 500 version actually could be some 475~ish, but instead they sell one version at the "much more digestible" 400 EUR tag with a bit of a loss, while also being able to profit a little bit on the 500 EUR version. While losing some money on the digital version of the console, they actually might gain more by shoving digital services to more customers, and their share on digital sales of games.

Tat3:

I do not understand. How does it transfer more data in compressed mode? Or is that number what you get after "un-compression"? What kind of performance hit does that un-compression cause? I don't think that there is a free lunch in this compression.

I've seen saying for years that compression results in faster loading time, so long as the CPU has resources to spare. Every time I mention it, someone is out there to disagree, but the principle is simple: You have a finite amount of bandwidth when reading from a disk. It doesn't matter if the data is compressed or not, the peak read speed will be the same. So, if you shrink 9GB into 5.5GB, you can use on-the-fly decompression and basically read up to 40% more data at a time than you could if you didn't compress. I say "up to" because you're basically trading SSD bandwidth for spare CPU cycles. So if the CPU is bottlenecked, your read performance won't match the compression ratio. Regardless, for games, on-the-fly compression overall results in better performance and saves disk space. I find it stupid to not do it, especially now that many-core CPUs are becoming affordable. Windows' LZX compression is pretty good. It uses multiple cores and the compression ratio is high enough to be worthwhile; the OTF compression Windows offers since the Windows XP days is garbage and will actually hurt performance in some cases. For Linux, Btrfs offers a few different compression options and you can tweak the compression ratio to best fit your needs. I would strongly advise against OTF compression on your entire system disk.

schmidtbag:

Windows' LZX compression is pretty good.

Oh man, I had totally forgotten about that! I do remember the LZX archiver debuting on the Amiga in the 90s though, and its' subsequent acquisition and incorporation into Windows. I just keep forgetting it's still being used. 🙂