PlayStation 5 is coming. Will it be the last one?

It surprised no one, but Sony’s official announcement of the PlayStation 5 has extended the millennial video game console war for another generation, and it could be the last.

Read Full Story >>
Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
AspiringProGenji13d ago (Edited 13d ago )

The Human Eye can’t see past 30 FPS

Tetsujin13d ago

I could have sworn 60 was the magic number. But yes I agree though buying tech you can't even notice is a waste of money and time.

VenomUK12d ago

"PlayStation 5 is coming. Will it be the last one?" NO!

Now the start of the troll articles by the mainstream media that don't know what they're talking about. People asked the same question about the PS4 /XBO generation and yet they're still here.

Will cloud gaming offer more options to play console games? The answer is yes. But it certainly won't kill off traditional consoles in the space of a generation. VENOM says you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be a PlayStation 6.

UhOh12d ago

I thought it was either 85 or 120.

Thunder_G0d_Bane12d ago

Didn't articles like this come up when before the PS4 arrived? and After the PS4 arrived articles said it's likely to be the last console gen lool

Spoiler alert there will be a PS6, PS7, PS8 and on and on. The console market is thriving and there will always be room in homes for consoles. #dealwithit

CorndogBurglar12d ago

This is all that matters, right here. The console market is making billions of dollars every year for Sony, Nintendo, and Xbox. Why would they stop making consoles as long as they are making that kind of money?

ImGumbyDammit12d ago (Edited 12d ago )

Not to disagree. There will be a PS6. Just like as Spencer noted there will be a next console after Scarlett.

But if these companies could make the same money selling it as a service (PSNow or XCloud) over having to do it with local hardware they would drop the consumer hardware aspect of it. Hardware and support of that end is the most expensive part and, in most cases, with very little return. And as streaming (again years off for this) takes a greater grab of the pie, it means the consumer consoles will become even more expensive to support as that population dwindles. This is not a Microsoft or Sony or even a Nintendo thing. If any of these companies (which they probably all do at the same time because it will be apparent the end is near) saw streaming and other services taking over on the money end with the added bonus of not dealing with the constant need to update the a consumer hardware to keep up, they do it in a second. Far easier to just update the server hardware at any time then to replace a consumer line every 6+ years. Moving on would be a no brainer (from a business perspective). Thankfully, that time is far, far, far off (not just pass the PS6 but the PS7) but, that day will come.

That is the problem with Stadia. Not that streaming isn't the future of gaming (sorry but streamnig will be whether that is Sony, Microsoft, Google or others). No, it is the problem that it is streaming without the local game play to make up for the problems of the service is a losing proposal. Streaming only option is not going to win the day. That is what is wrong with Stadia it is too early for an only streaming option. Just like being a streaming service in 2014 (PSNow) but with a console support was not ready to be accepted by mass consumers five years ago. But, that time where game streaming combined with a strong console is now. Streaming is good option for gaming it is not something that will work as the only option in the coming yearsg. Over time the console aspect will dwindle away (or very least play a minor role in gaming).time for game streaming requires a the local aspectalso was

mixelon12d ago

.. I hope you’re trolling. It’s probably a joke, in which case; haha. 😅

For anyone who believes this myth though: If you can’t see a difference between 30 and 60fps (let alone 100fps) your vision is substandard.

“ The human eye can physiologically detect up to ~1000 frames per second. The average human, tasked with detecting what framerate he/she is looking at, can accurately guess up to around 150 fps. That is, they can see the difference in framerates all the way to 150 fps.”

Some people can tell a difference way above the average too.

rainslacker12d ago

LOL. No. People can't just guess a frame rate. Company I work for has done extensive testing on this kind of stuff.

A person trained to notice the differences in different frame rates could probably do it, but anything past 45 is probably just a best guess based on commonly recognized frame rates. One doesn't have to be a professional graphics person of some sort to be trained, but what people really see is the way the rendering process is affected by different frame rates, not the individual or collective frames themselves.

mixelon11d ago


Can’t vouch for that source, the guessing part is secondary to the point I’m making.. Though I’m sure it was multiple choice.

The difference between 30, 60 and 120fps is plainly obvious. The cut off point when it goes over 60fps differs from person to person. Some people get a perceptible difference between 120 and 240.

If anyone can’t see a difference between 60hz and 120hz they have substandard visual perception. It is absolutely, completely obvious the difference. I’m just talking about simple motion, things moving around. Nothing complex.

You can test this easily with modern devices.

Zayne-Z6612d ago

That is a myth. The human eye is not limited to 30 FPS (or 60FPS, for that matter).

Below are some links which you might find interesting if you want to learn more:

Link 1:
Link 2:

TheRealTedCruz12d ago

Please tell me you're joking. I have a 144hz monitor, and I can tell the difference between 30, 60, 90, and 120, and even 144 purely on a visual level.

HentaiElmo12d ago (Edited 12d ago )

Wait a minute I thought PS3 was Sony last console/S
With a title like that I’m not going to waste my time clicking on it but knowing my self I will eventually just for the 😂 LOL

Here is the meat of their claim lol

Many gaming executives are predicting this to be the last generation of consoles, although it’s not the first time this prediction has been made. Ubisoft chief executive Yves Guillemot told Variety last year that an all-streaming future will make gaming more accessible to players. Executives at large software publishers like Square Enix and Take-Two Interactive Software also expressed doubts about how much excitement another generation of consoles can offer.
They end it with a statement that PS5 will have tech not yet available to pc,weird how that = last gen 😂

GrubsterBeater12d ago

Jet fuel can’t melt steel beams.

AnubisG12d ago

A quick google search will show you that the human eye can see up to 150fps.

Razuel12d ago (Edited 12d ago )

"“The middle part of your vision, the foveal region, which is the most detailed, is actually pretty much garbage when it comes to detecting motion, so if you’re watching things in the middle of the screen moving, it’s not that big a deal what the refresh rate is; you can’t possibly see it with that part of your eye.”" -- You might be correct if focused strictly in the middle of screen. I'd argue for a competitive shooter 60-100fps would be ideal, better response time with other aspects of vision. Not to mention, some games such as borderlands feel horrid at 30. Not sure why, Destiny I am fine.

rainslacker12d ago

The human eye can't, but it can cause inconsistencies in movement when it comes to the rendering process. I do think that those that act like it makes a huge difference in some games though, because the game input loop is still often locked to 30fps.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 11d ago
Apocalypse Shadow13d ago

It will be the *first one* I buy between it and PS9 with it's organic, programmable spores.

Hope I don't have to take a antihistamine so that I won't sneeze out my games.

UltraNova12d ago

Xyzal, 5mg, take twice at launch day, then reduce dosage to one pill per day after that.

PhoenixUp13d ago

I swear these journalists will not preach that consoles will die out with each new generation

rainslacker12d ago

I really wonder what all these journalists would do without their primary customers, which is console gamers. PC gamers do have their sites, and there are mobile sites, and while PC gamers are engaged in such things, mobile gamers are. PC and console gamers tend to be very active, and give a good amount of revenue to these sites, so why do they keep trying to predict the death of the market. Instead, they should be trying to promote the market, and all that is good in gaming. Instead they constantly try to say how fucked up it all is.

UltraNova12d ago (Edited 12d ago )

Lack of vision and credibility. They live in their own clickbait universe, insulated from the real world.

IRetrouk12d ago

Not even close to being the last one lol

blackblades12d ago

Not this shhhh again, wonder how long we gonna keep getting this article's this time.

mixelon12d ago

Haha yeah you can swap a couple of words and rerelease the same article again and again.

Show all comments (63)
The story is too old to be commented.